From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #120 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 Sunday, March 21 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 120 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- belief njc ["Lucy Hone" ] Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: NJC.. PC.. Iraq [colin ] Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc ["ron" ] Re: Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC ["ron" ] Re: Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC [colin ] Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc ["Kakki" ] Neil Young's Greendale Movie NJC [fauchja@comcast.net] Re: What is reality? NJC PC [Lori Fye ] Neil Young's Greendale Movie NJC [fauchja@comcast.net] Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc (now 'how Bush won in 2000') [Lori Fye ] Re: What is reality? NJC PC [vince ] njc how Bush (did not) win in 2000 [vince ] Re: What is reality? NJC [Randy Remote ] Re: Clearing up the gwb god thing once & for all! NJC [Randy Remote ] RE: Clearing up the gwb god thing once & for all! NJC ["Kate Bennett" Subject: belief njc Colin, that was a beautiful post.. as always you raise thought provoking points. thank you Lucy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:15:49 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC >>Of couse..many minsters from various demonitations find it scriputual as well. And ..as you know..I did ..too.<< 'demonitations' This has to be my nomination for Freudian typing error of the year. What a pity Bree didn't write 'religious demonitations' instead. nike in bars a loner NP Tori Amos - StrangeLittleGirls ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:41:16 +0100 From: "Gillian Apter" Subject: NJC.. PC.. Iraq Colin wrote... "However, the Iraqi people are now free of this man who terrorised them. He murdered many of his own, tortured, maimed, and otherwise abused his people.... " I agree with all that you say, Colin, but let's never forget that Hussein committed the bulk of his atrocities on his own people when he was being plied with weapons and money and aid from the West during the 80's. ... with the West's full knowledge of what was going on. Take care Gill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:53:58 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC.. PC.. Iraq Gillian Apter wrote: > Colin wrote... > > "However, the Iraqi people are now free of this man who terrorised > them. He murdered many of his own, tortured, maimed, and otherwise > abused his people.... " > > I agree with all that you say, Colin, but let's never forget that > Hussein committed the bulk of his atrocities on his own people when he > was being plied with weapons and money and aid from the West during > the 80's. ... with the West's full knowledge of what was going on. > > Take care > > Gill yes which is why i feel so undecided about this. Bush/Blair did not go to war from a place of good intentions. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:28:27 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc hi >>>>bree wrote >>>>>overall I feel the film will enrich people's lives. mmm - i had decided not to bother with the movie based on vinces recomendation. however, i do have a huge amount of respect for bree's opinions & insights. i think ill put it on my to-see list & discover in a years time ive been too late & missed it anyway. :-) i have the following issues with the movie: mel gibson as a religious man (when did that happen?????) all the hype = money making racket based on an emotional experience - kinda like watching one of those excitable preachers / motivational speakers where everybody goes away feeling good or bad, makes all kinds of personal promises & commitments & forgets about it. being a follower of christ is more than that - it is as real & as effective as walking into a brick wall. confusing the part with the whole. those people there present at the time were emotionally stirred up to kill him. the roman guy stood back amused & wondered how far they would go if he gave them enough rope. my personal (and not based on anything solid) opinion is that he thought it was a big joke. (i guess weve all met people like that from time to ime.............) if you cant beat them - join them - thats what happened to the church. people with a lust for power & zero understanding of the nature of christ got into the church in order to progress politically (mm - i wonder - dubya????) most people have never experienced the presence and beauty of god. their reference point is the people who claim to be christians acting on behalf of god. that really is not much to go on, since its normally the crappy christians who make the most noise. this seems to be an extremely strong presence on this list. holiness & sin. people seem to be convinced that god takes some kind of perverse pleasure out of instructing people to be holy, & have the sins removed by jesus' sacrifice. anyone who has ever felt the presence of god in any realistic way will realise its for our own good. its a scary, scary feeling coming into gods presence, & one becomes all too painfully conscious of ones own sins & inadequacies. you know all hose people shaking & falling over in churches?? well, i guess arouind 80% of that is just a sham, but it has also been my experience, & the experience of some really trusted friends, that that is normally the cleansing power of god coming into contact with the flesh. crushing the serpent - well im with vince on this one - it seems totally inappropriate. even when the gospels speak about jesus coming into contact with satan directly, all he did was say "get thee behind me" he knew satan was nothing to get too fussed about (i guess) to conclude - god is good - religion & christians generally not ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:37:14 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC hi >>>>>mike in bars a loner wrote >>>>> 'demonitations' This has to be my nomination for Freudian typing error of the year. What a pity Bree didn't write 'religious demonitations' instead. well, aint that the truth. im not too sure whether any folks have read the story about the madman of the gadarenes. where the madman/men come to jesus & talk to him, then he casts them out into the pigs who run into the river & drown. i always took this to refer to the restoration of the church - they ran to jesus, but were still saying they had nothing to do with him they said their name was legion for they were many. well, the church has a whole heap of names, and are certainly divided. one story says there were 2 madmen, the other says there was one. kinda like the whole catholic / protestant church thing. some people see them as two different churches, some see them as one. afterwards, when the man/men were sane & sitting with jesus - people came, were scared, & told them to go away. meeting a true christian can be an extremely emotional & disturbing experience, and sometimes downright scary - when you look into their eyes, see the peace & joy & love, & become all to aware of what they have......... ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:42:56 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc ron wrote: > > most people have never experienced the presence and beauty of god. > I doubt that. I think perhaps it could be more apt to say they don't relaise they are in the presence of God all the time. > their >reference point is the people who claim to be christians acting on behalf of >god. > mmm.....there are more than xtians who claim to act on behalf of God..... > holiness & sin. people seem to be convinced that god takes some kind of >perverse pleasure out of instructing people to be holy, & have the sins >removed by jesus' sacrifice. > Or maybe they find the idea repulsive. Like what sor tof ego would demand such a sacrifice? A human one...... > anyone who has ever felt the presence of god in >any realistic way will realise its for our own good. > so if they don't have the same experience as you, it wasn't real? heard that so many times and it still holds no truth.... - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:45:06 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Scriptures and The Passion, NJC ron wrote: > meeting a true christian can be >an extremely emotional & disturbing experience, and sometimes downright >scary - when you look into their eyes, see the peace & joy & love, & become >all to aware of what they have......... > many report that feeling when meeting the Dalai Lama or, as I ahve, just an ordianry man and woman with no religous calims..... - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:32:59 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Clearing up the gwb god thing once & for all! NJC "God chose me to write this book. Just the fact that you are reading this is proof not just of God's existence, but also of His/Her/Its beneficence. That's right. I am not certain of God's precise gender. But I am certain that He/She/It chose me to write this book. This isn't hubris. I'm not saying this in an egotistical way. God didn't choose me because I'm the greatest writer who ever lived. That was William Shakespeare, whose work I have a passing familiarity with. No. I just happened to be the right vessel at the right time. If something in this book makes you laugh, it was God's joke. If something makes you think, it's because God had a good point to make. The reason I know God chose me is because God spoke to me personally. God began our conversation by clearing something up. Some of George W. Bush's friends say that Bush believes God called him to be president during these times of trial. But God told me that He/She/It had actually chosen Al Gore by making sure that Gore won the popular vote and, God thought, the electoral college. "THAT WORKED FOR EVERYONE ELSE," God said." http://www.ohthethingsiknow.com/excerpt.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:51:29 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: What is reality? NJC Lori - you asked me in another post for an example of how differently people interpret events and this is one: > In George Bush's reality, Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). No one here ever responds to a question I have posed a number of times. Why did the U.N. (Hans Blix's reports from the 1990s), Bill Clinton and intelligence agencies foreign and domestic, tell us for 13 years that Iraq possessed WMDs if he didn't? Why did the U.N. make numerous resolutions to this effect all those years? > In the U.N. weapons inspectors' reality, there were no WMDs to be found in > Iraq. Why did they suddenly change their story when it looked like the cowboy from Texas was actually going to act on all their resolutions? And interesting that we now learn more everyday about certain countries who had back deals with Saddam and the $12 billion skimmed off the top in the U.N. oil for food program. Yet we feel bad that those certain countries opposed our actions and we have a presidential candidate who thinks a better policy is to go back to letting the U.N. decide how to run the world. After they've obviously been deceptive and duplicitous to us all along. Doesn't seem like a realistic solution to terrorism to go back to the same sh** that got us into many of the messes to begin with. > But the U.S. went to war against Iraq anyway. Now lots of people are dead > because of Bush's "reality," which was really his subjectivity. And then instead of asking any of those questions, we can all conveniently fast forward to blaming it all on Bush (and/or Blair). And that is reality? What about those 13 years of history in between? Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:30:35 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc Lucy - thanks for your reply. > On a gut feel basis..... Bush is someone who makes my skin crawl, everything > about him makes me feel uncomfortable. Viscerally, he's not my personal type if I was considering for a boyfriend or a friend >I get the same feeling about our Prime Minister... I do have a very warm spot for old Tony, though ;-) > Anyway I did not mean to put your back up or make you feel you had to defend > the fact that you like and revere him as your president.. That is very > patriotic of you and you are to be admired for that. I don't revere him. I don't revere any politician and don't think it's sound to do so. I'm not looking for a charismatic slick-talking rock star to take on the position of president. defending him is not the same as blind love. My work in law is in defending people so I have a natural inclination towards it in some situations. Just because I help defend people or businesses facing certain allegations doesn't me I have a personal love or allegiance to them in other aspects. As for patriotism, the word has become so reviled, it should probably be retired at this point. > HAve they really won the elections.. I seem to > remember something dodgy about Bush's votes and the way he came to power.. And the line among some will always be that he "stole" the election and "the votes weren't counted." If you watched or read about all the coverage of that election, you observed the votes were counted and recounted a number of times. Fact. I've lost track of which recount was in place when the Court finally ruled to stop it. That recount was based on wanting to count impressions in a punch card (dimples) rather than a clear punch-out. The counties in Florida had different standards as to the interpretation of counting chads - they could either be punched out, hanging or dimpled. The Court ruled that the differing standards were not constitutional. There was also an issue of the counters missing their deadline to count and certify the votes. After that election, several major news and other organizations went to Florida and counted (AGAIN) all the votes. By every method of counting and interpreting the votes imaginable, Bush still won. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:13:40 +0000 From: fauchja@comcast.net Subject: Neil Young's Greendale Movie NJC - -- GUITAR GUY EXTRAORDINAIRE > hi > > > >>>>bree wrote > >>>>>overall I feel the film will enrich people's lives. > > mmm - i had decided not to bother with the movie based on vinces > recomendation. > > however, i do have a huge amount of respect for bree's opinions & insights. > > i think ill put it on my to-see list & discover in a years time ive been too > late & missed it anyway. :-) > > i have the following issues with the movie: > > mel gibson as a religious man (when did that happen?????) > > all the hype = money making racket based on an emotional experience - > kinda like watching one of those excitable preachers / motivational speakers > where everybody goes away feeling good or bad, makes all kinds of personal > promises & commitments & forgets about it. being a follower of christ is > more than that - it is as real & as effective as walking into a brick wall. > > confusing the part with the whole. those people there present at the > time were emotionally stirred up to kill him. the roman guy stood back > amused & wondered how far they would go if he gave them enough rope. my > personal (and not based on anything solid) opinion is that he thought it was > a big joke. (i guess weve all met people like that from time to > ime.............) > > if you cant beat them - join them - thats what happened to the church. > people with a lust for power & zero understanding of the nature of christ > got into the church in order to progress politically (mm - i wonder - > dubya????) > > most people have never experienced the presence and beauty of god. their > reference point is the people who claim to be christians acting on behalf of > god. that really is not much to go on, since its normally the crappy > christians who make the most noise. this seems to be an extremely strong > presence on this list. > > holiness & sin. people seem to be convinced that god takes some kind of > perverse pleasure out of instructing people to be holy, & have the sins > removed by jesus' sacrifice. anyone who has ever felt the presence of god in > any realistic way will realise its for our own good. its a scary, scary > feeling coming into gods presence, & one becomes all too painfully conscious > of ones own sins & inadequacies. you know all hose people shaking & falling > over in churches?? well, i guess arouind 80% of that is just a sham, but it > has also been my experience, & the experience of some really trusted > friends, that that is normally the cleansing power of god coming into > contact with the flesh. > > crushing the serpent - well im with vince on this one - it seems totally > inappropriate. even when the gospels speak about jesus coming into contact > with satan directly, all he did was say "get thee behind me" he knew satan > was nothing to get too fussed about (i guess) > > > > to conclude - god is good - religion & christians generally not > > > ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:16:17 -0500 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: What is reality? NJC PC Kakki wrote: > No one here ever responds to a question I have posed a number of times. Why > did the U.N. (Hans Blix's reports from the 1990s), Bill Clinton and > intelligence agencies foreign and domestic, tell us for 13 years that Iraq > possessed WMDs if he didn't? Why did the U.N. make numerous resolutions to > this effect all those years? Perhaps Iraq DID have WMDs at some point in time (it wouldn't surprise me; the U.S. probably sold Iraq the supplies to make them). Perhaps Iraq had WMDs for the entire 13 years. However, at the time it was decided that the U.S. HAD to go to war against Iraq, the inspectors were telling the world, "The weapons cannot be found." Where did they go? I don't know. Perhaps they were sold to Syria or North Korea. The point is that the weapons couldn't be found, yet that was the supposed basis for launching attacks against Iraq. That, and the "connection" between Hussein and Al Qaeda, which now appears to be the stuff of spy fiction. That, and the fact that the Cowboy who went to Yale and averaged a "C" decided that Saddam had better obey the order to get out of Iraq or else. > Why did they suddenly change their story when it looked like the cowboy from > Texas was actually going to act on all their resolutions? Perhaps they didn't trust his intentions? Or that he was smart enough to be in charge of leading this "crusade"? (GWB's favorite word, not mine.) > And interesting that we now learn more everyday about certain countries who > had back deals with Saddam and the $12 billion skimmed off the top in the > U.N. oil for food program. Oh for pete's sake. Skimming money is done all the time by everyone who can get away with it. It isn't right, but it's a fact of this greedy life. In fact, getting rid of Saddam could have been accomplished by other means (assassination is the most obvious), but then we wouldn't have had the opportunity to award all the subsequent no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc., so they could overcharge the U.S. government and steal even more of our its tax dollars. It's all the same sad sh**, imo. > Yet we feel bad that those certain countries opposed our actions and we have > a presidential candidate who thinks a better policy is to go back to letting > the U.N. decide how to run the world. After they've obviously been deceptive > and duplicitous to us all along. I think it was more than just "those certain countries" that opposed our actions, and the reason is clear: much of the rest of the world did not believe, and does not believe, we were right to act without full knowledge. As far as the U.N. being "deceptive and duplicitous" to us, I'm always left with the impression that the U.S. government is pissed off whenever it doesn't get its way within the U.N. > Doesn't seem like a realistic solution to terrorism to go back to the same > sh** that got us into many of the messes to begin with. And invading Iraq was a realistic solution to terrorism? What, other than killing Uday and Qusay and capturing Saddam (all good things), has it accomplished in the way of reducing terrorism?? As for the sons and father, three bullets could have accomplished the same thing, with far fewer casualties. Let's face it: there will always be terrorists. I'm not advocating sitting back and doing nothing, but bombing the hell out of every country we *think* might have a connection to terrorists isn't going to do it -- we'd have to blow up the entire planet. (I notice we continue to pretent Saudi Arabia has no knowledge or involvement -- why is that?) I don't know what the answer is, but what's been happening so far isn't it -- and I'm sorry, but "some" action is not always better than "no" action. This morning I asked Mary how she feels about the war, as we really don't discuss this stuff very often. She looked at me incredulously and said, "What do you mean? I feel the same as every other American: that we f***ed up and need to get the hell out of there." (Mary is my partner, a many-degreed, 12-year Air Force veteran who made E-7 in 9 years. I think it's so cute when she's naive, as it's quite a rare occurrence.) I grinned and told her that I wish that every American felt as she does. My feeling is that if GWB had played his cards better, he would have waited until NOW to go to war. Then he could have used his wartime popularity to win re-election. As it is, he's making the same (if not worse) mistakes his father made. Which is fine by me, as long as he doesn't capsize the planet before November. Hugs to you, Kakki, Lori ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:21:44 +0000 From: fauchja@comcast.net Subject: Neil Young's Greendale Movie NJC Oops. Got away from me before I could tell my story. Went and saw Neil Young's Greendale Movie today. The music from the Freendale CD by Neil and the Horse serves as the narrator while Neil shot the movie in 8mm which he then blew up to 33mm. He and the Horse do not appear in the film, but his whole family (Pegi, Zeke, Ben, and Amber, Ben Keith his steel player, Mrs Ben Keith, his manager, sound people and friend play the cast. When the lyrics have their character speak, they lipsync. It's Neil's vision, his opinions, and if you like Neil, you'll like this movie. I sure did. - -- GUITAR GUY EXTRAORDINAIRE - ---------------------- Forwarded Message: --------------------- From: fauchja@comcast.net To: joni@smoe.org Subject: Neil Young's Greendale Movie NJC Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:13:40 +0000 - -- GUITAR GUY EXTRAORDINAIRE > hi > > > >>>>bree wrote > >>>>>overall I feel the film will enrich people's lives. > > mmm - i had decided not to bother with the movie based on vinces > recomendation. > > however, i do have a huge amount of respect for bree's opinions & insights. > > i think ill put it on my to-see list & discover in a years time ive been too > late & missed it anyway. :-) > > i have the following issues with the movie: > > mel gibson as a religious man (when did that happen?????) > > all the hype = money making racket based on an emotional experience - > kinda like watching one of those excitable preachers / motivational speakers > where everybody goes away feeling good or bad, makes all kinds of personal > promises & commitments & forgets about it. being a follower of christ is > more than that - it is as real & as effective as walking into a brick wall. > > confusing the part with the whole. those people there present at the > time were emotionally stirred up to kill him. the roman guy stood back > amused & wondered how far they would go if he gave them enough rope. my > personal (and not based on anything solid) opinion is that he thought it was > a big joke. (i guess weve all met people like that from time to > ime.............) > > if you cant beat them - join them - thats what happened to the church. > people with a lust for power & zero understanding of the nature of christ > got into the church in order to progress politically (mm - i wonder - > dubya????) > > most people have never experienced the presence and beauty of god. their > reference point is the people who claim to be christians acting on behalf of > god. that really is not much to go on, since its normally the crappy > christians who make the most noise. this seems to be an extremely strong > presence on this list. > > holiness & sin. people seem to be convinced that god takes some kind of > perverse pleasure out of instructing people to be holy, & have the sins > removed by jesus' sacrifice. anyone who has ever felt the presence of god in > any realistic way will realise its for our own good. its a scary, scary > feeling coming into gods presence, & one becomes all too painfully conscious > of ones own sins & inadequacies. you know all hose people shaking & falling > over in churches?? well, i guess arouind 80% of that is just a sham, but it > has also been my experience, & the experience of some really trusted > friends, that that is normally the cleansing power of god coming into > contact with the flesh. > > crushing the serpent - well im with vince on this one - it seems totally > inappropriate. even when the gospels speak about jesus coming into contact > with satan directly, all he did was say "get thee behind me" he knew satan > was nothing to get too fussed about (i guess) > > > > to conclude - god is good - religion & christians generally not > > > ron ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:12 -0500 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc (now 'how Bush won in 2000') > After that election, several major news and other organizations went to > Florida and counted (AGAIN) all the votes. By every method of counting and > interpreting the votes imaginable, Bush still won. Well, brother Jeb did promise George the state. I wonder if the saw horses are ready for the roadblocks again this November? Lori, who believes the Electoral College should be nixed ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:51:33 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: What is reality? NJC >No one here ever responds to a question I have posed a number of times. Why did the U.N. (Hans Blix's reports from the 1990s), Bill Clinton and intelligence agencies foreign and domestic, tell us for 13 years that Iraq possessed WMDs if he didn't? Why did the U.N. make numerous resolutions to this effect all those years?< I believe this issue has been discussed here ad nasuem. The short answer is that nobody knew for certain whether there were WMD's in Iraq which is why the inspection teams were there. Meanwhile back at the ranch that country club cowboy (if he's a cowboy I'm Hans Blix) & his PNC architects were hatching their plan based on false evidence to 'prove' they had evidence that Iraq had WMD's & that they knew where they were. And they pushed hard for an attack soon because of the imminent danger we were all in, etc. After all these 'misstatements' & more, I have a hard time comprehending how anyone can still cling to the belief that these people are anything but a pack of pathological lying liars with a well funded agenda that is as stone cold scary as it gets. They know what they want & will stop at nothing to achieve their goals now that they are finally in power (some again). They manipulate everyone & everything in their path & truth is just a casualty of war. And they are risking the lives & the health of our sons & daughters, brothers & sisters, mothers & fathers & friends to this end. That's my reality. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:47:36 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: What is reality? NJC PC >Kakki wrote: > > > >>No one here ever responds to a question I have posed a number of times. >> it has been answered a lot you just didn't agree with the answer and we all do that - not picking on you at all Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:49:59 -0500 From: vince Subject: njc how Bush (did not) win in 2000 >>After that election, several major news and other organizations went to >>Florida and counted (AGAIN) all the votes. By every method of counting and >>interpreting the votes imaginable, Bush still won*. >> >> > >Well, brother Jeb did promise George the state. I wonder if the saw horses are >ready for the roadblocks again this November? > >Lori, > > *not true at all by some methods and interpretations, Bush won, by some Gore won, by some, inconclusive ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:19:30 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: What is reality? NJC Kakki wrote: > No one here ever responds to a question I have posed a number of times. Why > did the U.N. (Hans Blix's reports from the 1990s), Bill Clinton and > intelligence agencies foreign and domestic, tell us for 13 years that Iraq > possessed WMDs if he didn't? Why did the U.N. make numerous resolutions to > this effect all those years? That's easy. Iraq DID have WMD development programs, including chemical weapon programs based on Antrax and other materials that came directly from laboratories in the US. That's what the sanctions and inspection teams were all about. When the Cheney bunch announced that we were going into Iraq because they had WMD, the UN announced that they were only 1 month from verifying that Iraq was WMD-free. That was part of the rush to war. If they were going to use that excuse, they had better do it before the UN said there were none. Within days of Powell going before the UN with his "proof" of WMD development, the European press exposed this "proof" as bad forgeries (since proven) and assertations from a guy who was dead. It nauseates me now to see Sen. Kennedy and all of them pretending to say they were fooled by Bush into going along with it, when all they are doing is trying to save their own asses, now that everyone knows it was a complete sham. If the Europeans knew way back then, why didn't our own guys know? Because (with a few exceptions) they were too spineless to stand up to Bush, same thing with the Patriot Act, and when they circumvented the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. BTW, if you recall, once the WMD claim began to be exposed, the Bush administration stopped saying it was about WMD and started saying it was "Operation Iraqi Freedom", to liberate the Iraqi people from this tyrant. An example of using an unrelated truth to mask the real aim, which was to get a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Bush knew there were no WMD. It was a PR ploy. I suggest looking into the information from Scott Ritter. He was a member of the US inspection team, before we pulled out. (Another lie Bush's people keep repeating is that we were thrown out.) If we had not pulled out of the inspection process, we might have reached the unacceptable conclusion that the weapons inspection process had, in fact, been successful in destroying Saddam's WMD programs. > interesting > that we now learn more everyday about certain countries who had back deals > with Saddam and the $12 billion skimmed off the top in the U.N. oil for food Political corruption. Kind of like the Vice President's company, Halliburton getting those billion dollar deals. (Notice I did not say former company, because he still recieves a stipend from them). RR ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:47:22 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: Clearing up the gwb god thing once & for all! NJC Not sure why it wasn't identified as such, but this is from Al Franken's bestseller, Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which I just started reading, and am enjoying immensely. One thing the left has going for it is better humor. Kate Bennett wrote: > "God chose me to write this book. > > Just the fact that you are reading this is proof not just of God's > existence, but also of His/Her/Its beneficence. That's right. I am not > certain of God's precise gender. But I am certain that He/She/It chose > me to write this book. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:11:48 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: March 21 On March 21 the following articles were published: 2000: "Joni Mitchell Taps Orchestras For Tour" - AllStar Website (News Item) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=472 2000: "Strings Attached" - VH1 Website (News Item) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=475 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:26:25 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: eastmountainsouth / damien rice / emmylou re-issues NJC hi just wanna say a great big thank you for the heads up on all the above :-) i managed to sneak away from the seminar i had to attend in paris this week & stock up - getting into the virgin megastore there, well, i guess its like a kid in a candystore if youre used to the cd shops we have here :-) & i had just started to get emmylou's back catalogue on cd - up till now i just had a couple of cassettes, the box set, & everything since wwreccking ball (also a couple of radio shows) so the re-issues are just great - & theyre cheaper than the normal cd releases!!! having been listening to them i am yet again amazed at her musicianship, as well as her choices of songs to cover. the title track off "pieces of the sky" is so good it makes me ache just to listen to it, and thats just straight after listening to "boulder to birmingham" the only issue i have is with the "bonus" tracks - they seem to be kind of just tagged on & dont really fit in with the rest of the album, which were complete listening experiences in their own right - or is it perhaps just that i have grown used to most of her albums as they were originally released??? ron np - cats squawking for breakfast ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:36:36 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's movie njc hi >>>>i wrote >>>>>anyone who has ever felt the presence of god in any realistic way will realise its for our own good. >>>>colin replied >>>>so if they don't have the same experience as you, it wasn't real? heard that so many times and it still holds no truth.... colin - if you read my mail, which you quoted, you will see that i said *any* realistic way. i cannot speak for anyone else. only for myself & the eperiences i have had. what anyone else experiences, and whether it is real or not, is up to them to determine but one thing i would like to point out - & i see that i fell into the same old error when writing the above. real does not equal genuine. people can have "real" experiences, whether or not it is genuine is solely up to them to determine. the difference between reality & genuine. well, the easiest illustration is counterfeit money. its there, it exists, you can touch it, feel it, rub it. it has substance - its real. it can probably be used in many different shops, in some cases it can be passed off to banks, if its good enough. but it still aint genuine & never will be.............. ron np - emmylou - quarter moon in a ten cent town - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:59:32 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: Clearing up the gwb god thing once & for all! NJC Sorry I thought it was clear when I included the link at the bottom of the quote which is his website... Al has always made me laugh whether he was writing for snl or himself... Because he's smart enough & by golly I like him! >Not sure why it wasn't identified as such, but this is from Al Franken's bestseller, Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which I just started reading, and am enjoying immensely. One thing the left has going for it is better humor.< ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #120 ***************************** ------- 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)