From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #164 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, April 12 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 164 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: The end or to be continued, last interview [Randy Remote ] Re: (NJC) now: whatcha readin'? and the books we fling ["Cynthia Vickery] Re: money money money njc [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Fw: Bush Doctrine--(much) long(er), now (NJC) (PC) ["Norman Pennington" ] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers (NJC) [Lori Fye ] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers [Em ] Re: Joni as Dolores Hope [Jerry Notaro ] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers [Jerry Notaro ] Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... [dsk ] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers [notaro@stpt.usf.edu] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers [Lori Fye ] Re: Crazed in a good way by NYC (NJC) [notaro@stpt.usf.edu] CROZ ["Janine Sherman" ] Re: CROZ [Nuriel Tobias ] Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... [AsharaJM@aol.com] Oh no, it's "notches" time again...:) [Nuriel Tobias ] RE: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... ["Wally Kairuz" ] patty griffin/janis ian njc ["Paul Mepschen" ] Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Almost famous, but VERY wrong [Nuriel Tobias ] Re: Joni's fingers (By Way of Sorrow - Julie Miller) [OzWoman321@aol.com] NYC grammar fiends -- NJC [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Re: Bush Doctrine--(much) long(er), now (NJC) (PC) ["Kay Ashley" Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, last interview Shazam!! It was her last with the late Mr. White. Nuriel Tobias wrote: > Randy Remote wrote: > "What Joni said in her last interview with Timothy White in > Billboard" > > Oh, do you mean she gave no interviews since then? > > Love, > > Nuriel > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:58:39 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: money money money njc Bob writes: << Boy Lori...yesterday you give us Paul's letter to the Corinthians, today we get Proverbs. For someone who is so anti-religion, you sure do quote the good book a lot. ;~) >> Careful, Bob. She is likely to smite you! - --Smurf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:05:00 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: money money money njc Bob wrote: > Boy Lori...yesterday you give us Paul's letter to the Corinthians, > today we get Proverbs. For someone who is so anti-religion, > you sure do quote the good book a lot. ;~) I'm not anti-religion, really, just anti-ORGANIZED religion. Of course, I'm opposed to organization in general -- ask around the JMDL to those who've personally seen my home office and you'll know that's true. Anyway, my grandmother raised me five days a week until I was about 5 or 6 years old. She attended the Church of the Nazarene at least twice a week, and read me mostly stories from the Old Testament, which I still prefer to the "newer" version. Yeah, pestilence and all. : ) As for Corinthians, I have to blame that on Joni, she of songs about the walls of Jericho and such. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:11:24 -0500 From: "Cynthia Vickery" Subject: Re: (NJC) now: whatcha readin'? and the books we fling <> oh boy! another opportunity to pimp for my favorite author! http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/ http://www.chuckpalahniuk.com/ desert island books for me, for sure. i love the way his sick mind works!! cindy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:18:16 -0400 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: money money money njc True...an amazing thing about it is that there is a multitude of biblical references in her songs, whether intentional or unintentional. I think she's got lots of unresolved business in that arena, which is as it should be...a constant search for (spiritual) truth & beauty like the rest of her work. Bob NP: Stan Ridgway, "Camouflage" 6/17/96 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:22:57 -0600 From: "Norman Pennington" Subject: Fw: Bush Doctrine--(much) long(er), now (NJC) (PC) Does the smoe server reject posts that exceed a certain length? I sent this at 11:08 MDT and it has not appeared in my in-box as I write. I aopolgize if this hits the list twice. Best Regards, bp > Hello Kay, > > You can add me to the (presumably large) list of your fans. I enjoy reading > your posts - they are so well written - and although we disagree on many > points, we also have some common ground. I'm curious...do you just sit > yourself down at the keyboard and bang these missives out, or do you follow > a structured "write, edit, polish" methodology? Whatever the answer, I > guess it makes no difference...brilliance is brilliance. I have some > thoughts on your thoughts, in-line below. > > > Kay writes: > > > Hey All, > > > > Buck, I appreciate you outlining the specifics of why you are in favor of > > Bush's tactics. I understand your points, but happen to largely disagree > > with you, as you know, :-) but I also happen to agree with you on some > > things. > > > > To be more specific: > > I agree that it is a good thing that the Taliban is no longer in power; > > I agree that it is a good thing that Afghanistan is no longer (so far as > we > > know) a major refuge for Al Qaeda; > > I even agree that it is a good thing that Hussein is no longer in power, > > because there's no doubt that he is an evil man. > > > > You may be right that Bush is doing the right thing, and in fact, despite > > my avowed lefty status, I really do hope that you ARE right -- because if > > you're not, we are royally f*cking up our own country and the entire world > > for decades to come. My objections are with tactics, as illustrated by my > > admittedly simple cockroach-steamroller metaphor, and with the long-term > > consequences of those tactics. I am a firm believer that violence only > > begets violence only begets violence, and I am a firm believer that in all > > aspects of life, one has to consider all consequences, short term and long > > term. > > I agree with your point about violence, up to a point. When one deals with > disagreements between two rational parties, dialog and compromise is > *always* the best approach. My perception is the "other side" (the > jihadists) are not interested in compromise or dialog, they simply want to > eliminate us and our way of life. The "mad dog" analogy works here...you > don't speak softly and kindly to an animal with rabies, you kill it. You > have no other recourse. The animal is infected - you cannot change the > reality of the infection - and the animal will attack you and will do you > harm unless you destroy it. I believe the Bush Doctrine is all about > eliminating threats. > > > I think that the Bush Doctrine, as we have witnessed it so far, is a > > really macho, knee-jerk, revenge motivated set of tactics -- in short, > > shoot 'em up at High Noon cowboy tactics. I think that we are ultimately > > making the world less safe simply because our actions to "stamp out" the > > "evil doers" are just creating more anger and hatred. Furthermore, there > > has been *no* leadership from DC at all, in terms of educating the US > > public about the roots of the anger and hatred that we are actively > > cultivating. The only ideological "leadership" we get is that "we are > > right" and "they are wrong", which is the kind of attitude that good > > parents try to curb in 5-year-old children. In the short term, the Bush > > Doctrine may appear to be exactly the correct thing, and in the short > term, > > it may actually produce what appear to be positive results; but in the > long > > term, the Bush Doctrine is going to be a disaster, both for the security > of > > the international community and for the integrity of our own democracy. > > History will be the judge, ultimately. There were dissenters to Reagan's > policies towards the USSR in the '80s. I was in England from 1980 - 1983 > and passed the "Peace Camps" outside the gates of High Wycombe AS and RAF > Greenham Common on a daily basis while I went about my work of providing a > communication infrastructure for the bed-down of the GLCMs in the UK. The > current level of dissent and opposition to Bush's policies in Europe is on > par with the opposition to Reagan's Cold War policies. History shows Ronnie > was correct. I firmly believe history will vindicate Bush, as well. > > Regarding ideological leadership... There have been plenty of explanations > and justifications given for Bush's policies, but not at the level the > opposition have gone to discredit or cast aspersions on those policies. The > general media (both written and electronic) tend to trade in sound-bites or > synopses, not detailed analyses. It is the responsibility of an informed > electorate to seek out information and inform themselves and not be > "spoon-fed." The Left tends to be better-organized and much more vocal in > their opposition than the Right is in their justifications for their > policies, and I lament this fact. We on the right have no equivalent to > Move-On-dot-org, and it's a damned shame. Still, The Truth is Out > There...you just gotta dig deeper and work harder to get at it. I wish this > was not so. > > > > > Here is my version of the Leftist, idealistic, pacifist belief system: > what > > I believe is that we as a species need to evolve psychologically and > > spiritually to a point where we no longer immediately go for the guns when > > someone hurts us. We need to stretch and grow. We need to repudiate war > > as a method for dealing with conflict. And when we come to the kind of > > crossroads that 9/11 forced upon us, the burden is on the one with more > > power to rise above. We are the ones with more power, despite the fact > > that we got our asses kicked on 9/11. It is our responsibility to LEAD. > > To me, true leadership is innovative, creative, and appeals to the > highest, > > most noble aspects of human nature; Bush's leadership has dragged us down > > into the gutter with the cockroaches, riling people up into a truly > > unsophisticated jingoistic frenzy that is unworthy of us as a nation. > This > > is War, not the goddamned Superbowl. > > Unfortunately, our enemies do not WANT to engage in uplifting debate on the > issues. They want to KILL us, at any place and any time. Bin Laden's Fatwa > is pretty clear on this point. Mobilizing public opinion to support the war > is damned difficult, especially when the Loyal Opposition is so vocal and > public in their dissent to the administration's strategies and tactics. I > submit we are tearing ourselves apart and are taking our eyes off the > ultimate objective, which is to defeat the jihadists and ensure the general > safety of the US, Europe, and the rest of the world. A bit more unity and > support would serve us well in achieving our objectives. > > > > > I listened to a good deal of Condie Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony this > > morning. I disagree with her that this is a war that needs to be fought > > offensively, and not defensively. And Buck, per your request, :-) I will > > attempt to offer a rational alternative that would still produce results. > > I believe that it is possible to have a defensive, largely covert plan > that > > would have created the same results that you champion. And I believe that > > it is possible to do so without destroying the fabric of our own > > Constitution and Bill of Rights in the process. How about taking all that > > money that we're throwing at Iraq and funnel it into hunting down the > > terrorist funding sources and cut them off? > > Once again, our efforts in this important area (funding sources and other > financial aspects) are not being publicized, but the effort IS being made, > as far as I can tell. > > > Perhaps some sabre-rattling > > would become necessary to convince other governments to comply, but even a > > pacifist like me can see the value in that. How about investing in > > espionage, international cooperation and international law to bring the > > terrorists into custody? > > Forgive me, Kay, but reversing the funding shortfalls and general > evisceration of the intelligence apparatus enacted by the previous > administration will take a significant amount of time. International > cooperation in intelligence matters is pretty good, from my POV, but it can > and will be made better. "International Law" requires general agreement on > principles, strategy and tactics, and is a thorny issue. I do not hold much > hope for the concept of International Law. > > > How about re-regulating the airline industry and > > forcing all the airlines to outfit their cockpits with bullet proof doors > > and whatever else the experts say is needed? > > This is being done. Speed, overcoming bureaucratic inertia, overcoming > oppostion from the pilots' unions, overcoming opposition from the airline > industry, and other items are significant impediments to achieving "safety" > in an expeditious manner. But, once again, the administration IS taking > action. > > > How about creating a whole > > shitload of jobs by forcing every single cargo ship and every single cargo > > plane that comes into any port in this country to be searched by large > > teams of counter-terrorism experts? If you hired enough of them, > > ships/planes could be examined quickly and without undue damage to > > commerce. (That's a job I could get behind: make the country safer, and > > you don't have to kill anyone!) > > There are significant technology initiatives in this area (sensors, > scanners, etc.) that hold more promise than legions of inspectors. > > > How about outfitting the FBI and the CIA > > with new computers and cross-organization proprietary databases that can > > actually talk to each other, and force them to cooperate, rather than just > > create another behemoth of a bureaucracy? (In short, take what we already > > have and make it work.) > > We REALLY agree on this one!!! As a person who spent nearly 20 years in the > IT industry (as a manager and consultant with Electronic Data Systems, among > other firms) after my USAF career, this is MUCH easier said than done. The > hardware and software is only part of the equation, more to the point, we > need to eliminate the legal and structural impediments to > information-sharing and cooperation. "Business process" is much more > important than the systems that are used to collect, store, and process > information, i.e., what is collected, from where, by whom, where does it go, > who uses it, who has access, how do you prioritize data elements, and the > Hurculean task of INTEGRATING existing systems. And, once again, action IS > being taken to remove legal constraints and structural deficiencies in the > current system...ergo, improve the business processes. The actions that > have been proposed and are being taken are generally being resisted by the > ACLU and other alarmists who invoke the "privacy" argument and advance those > "Big Brother" fears. There is significant opposition to implementing a > system that allows the intelligence community to cooperate with the law > enforcement community. It's Fear and Mistrust, pure and simple. > > > And to borrow from Kucinich, how about create a > > Department of Peace, whose sole mission would be to examine as objectively > > as possible all the causes of unrest and misery in the world (which would > > require a lot of mature self-examination), and come up with plans, in > > concert with the UN, the WHO, etc., for the US to take nonmilitary action > > in order to improve the lives of others in the world -- truly humanitarian > > action, which in the long term would make us, and the world, more secure? > > And here's a big one -- how about start investing billions of dollars into > > developing wind power, solar power and hydrogen fuel cell technology? > > Within 5 years, we could have windmill farms and photovoltaic cell farms > in > > the uninhabitable deserts of this country, built and working and plugged > > into the nation's powergrid. More jobs, more jobs, more jobs!! More > > security! Less dependence on foreign oil! No need to drill in Alaska! > > Isn't this the obvious, correct path? > > Aside from the Department of Peace, I agree with you on these points. The > US does a huge amount of humanitarian good, both in the public/government > and private/religious sectors, that is generally overlooked. More > investment is definitely needed in alternative energy sources. Being a > conservative I believe tax incentives, rather than direct federal > investment, would be the proper action(s) to take to stimulate investment in > these areas. Viable alternative energy remains largely an economic > proposition at this point, i.e., it's the cost/benefit equation. I'd buy a > fuel cell powered car if I didn't have to pay a $15,000.00 premium over a > gasoline powered vehicle...assuming performance/efficiency were equal > between the two systems. It ain't a "build it and they will come" > proposition at this point in time. > > > > > And here's another biggie -- how about we actually pay our dues to the > > United Nations, and instead of subverting the UN at every turn, how about > > working with them proactively and allow the UN to fulfill its mission, > > instead of us hijacking and perverting its mission? The UN, with the > > proper support, is fully capable of dealing with problems like the Taliban > > and despots like Saddam Hussein. On occasion, military action is > required; > > but if it is military action that is truly agreed upon by a truly > > multilateral body, then that military action is more likely to be > respected > > by the world at large, and less likely to foment more hatred and > > resentment. > > This point is a hot button with me. I believe the UN subverts the US at > every turn, and not vice-versa. There is just SO much that's wrong with the > UN. I cannot go there. I'd sooner see the UN HQ building converted into a > NYC Housing Authority and ship that corrupt, politicized debating society > off to Botswana or someother deserving place. But, OTOH, doing that would > undercut the hooker industry in NYC... > > I'm outta gas. Perhaps I'll respond to your other points later, > perhaps I won't. I find this debate to be tiring, in the sense that it > takes a lot out of me to sit at the keyboard and type out a response. Would > that we could sit down and crack a good bottle of Beaujolais and have this > exchange in real time. I DO appreciate the tone and content of your posts, > Kay...I cannot emphasize this particular point enough. In another post you > mentioned you had just returned from India. It's good that you have seen > something of the world outside of NYC. As an aside, I spent three years of > my youth and two years as an adult in Turkey and other parts of the Middle > East. I also spent a significant amount of time in South-East Asia and the > Pacific Rim, as well as Europe, while in the USAF. During my career with > EDS I traveled to, and did business in, Beijing, Moscow, Singapore, and > London. My world view is shaped by my experiences, as I'm sure yours is. > It's the ol' "walk a mile in their shoes" thing... > > Thanks for your intelligent, thoughtful posts. I look forward to more. > > Best Regards, > bp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:24:52 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers (NJC) Em wrote: > One thing I see immediately on this list is I'm not one of the more > intellectual ones! lol! to say the least. I dispute that remark, but it doesn't matter. Being "intellectual" is not a requirement. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:29:41 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers Jerry wrote: > And we almost lost her before they came up with the VG-8. Though most of us > were less than thrilled with the results. We did get to hear her perform > that much longer. Quite true! Had it not been for the VG-8, I probably wouldn't have had the pleasure of seeing Joni in New Orleans in 1995, or at Yasgur's Farm in 1998! My only "complaint" about the VG-8 is that I don't care for it on Taming The Tiger. Otherwise, whatever makes it easier for Joni to play is fine by me, even if I don't think she plans to play for *us* in the future. > As Simon sez: That's all, folks! Are you conferring with Simon on the sly, Jerry? And does Simon know something he's not telling the rest of us? Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:32:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... - --- Lori Fye wrote: > > (The other books I threw across the room were "On the Road" by > Kerouac and > > "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves). > > Sounds like a trip to the library for me, since I haven't read either > of those. Lori, if you've not read any Kerouac and you DO end up liking it, wow, I envy you in a way...you've got a heck of a treat and a heck of a ride ahead of you. I would feel so blessed knowing there were stuff out there that would BLOW ME AWAY like Kerouac. It would be like finding another Dylan. Perhaps in a parallel universe. Em ===== "A minotaur gets very sore" ....ISB '68 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:49:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers you guys what the heck is a VG-8? Is it a sort of keyboard? And whats up with her fingers? Em - --- Lori Fye wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > > And we almost lost her before they came up with the VG-8. Though > most of us > > were less than thrilled with the results. We did get to hear her > perform > > that much longer. > > Quite true! Had it not been for the VG-8, I probably wouldn't have > had the > pleasure of seeing Joni in New Orleans in 1995, or at Yasgur's Farm > in 1998! > > My only "complaint" about the VG-8 is that I don't care for it on > Taming The > Tiger. Otherwise, whatever makes it easier for Joni to play is fine > by me, > even if I don't think she plans to play for *us* in the future. > > > As Simon sez: That's all, folks! > > Are you conferring with Simon on the sly, Jerry? And does Simon know > something > he's not telling the rest of us? > > Lori ===== "A minotaur gets very sore" ....ISB '68 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:50:21 -0400 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: Joni as Dolores Hope > Jerry Notaro wrote: > >> A bit unfair, Randy. Joan has always been a moral, as well as musical, hero >> of mine, but she was the anti-war artist, not an anti-war artist. > > You lost me there OK. I should have left the caps in. She was THE anti-war artist, not AN anti war-war artist. In other words, it is unfair to judge anyone's activism to Joan's. > >> She wasn't >> the standard, but the exception. We have to remember that Joni was a >> foreigner here, and even native born American were being jailed for >> expressing their anti-war opinions (including myself in 1968.) > > I don't know of any musicians being jailed for expressing themselves. Oh Joan herself and her husband were. As were many others. > Followed, harrassed, tapped, yes... > >> I always >> considered The Fiddle and the Drum to be one of the greatest anti-war songs >> written, and as relative today as when Joni first recorded it. > > I do too. It's the only anti-war song she did. Others, like Woodstock But one great anti-war song better than 99.9% of those writing and performing at the time. And even Woodstock, in its refrain, is certainly lyrically and poetically antiwar. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:52:08 -0400 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers > Jerry wrote: >> As Simon sez: That's all, folks! > > Are you conferring with Simon on the sly, Jerry? And does Simon know > something > he's not telling the rest of us? > > Lori > Nope. I just have a good memory. That is the exact line Simon posted to the list the last time this came up. He doesn't post often, but when he does......... Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:01:26 -0400 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Re-release of Ghostyhead with bonus tracks Only available from her website, for you RLJ completists: http://www.greatbigisland.com/detail_ghostyhead.htm Bob NP: Stan Ridgway, "Train Of Thought" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:12:57 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers Em wants to know: > you guys what the heck is a VG-8? Is it a sort of keyboard? There are people here more knowledgable than myself about this (Paz? Chuck? Everyone else? Where are you?), but as I understand it, the VG-8 is a (computer?) device that is able to store different guitar tunings. This allows the guitarist to avoid actually retuning strings between songs. Instead, the preferred tuning can be chosen from those already stored, using a foot pedal, I think. Here's a blurb from the 'net: http://www.vg-8.com/vg-systems/vg-8/ > And whats up with her fingers? I don't know; I missed that part! Are we talking about Joni's post-polio syndrome? Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:17:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers But for a guitarist, hmm wouldn't it be more fun to just have 8-10 diff. guitars standing by, all perfectly tuned in the diff. tunings by the 2 gentle men? 'Specially if you could afford really delicious ones... (umm guitars that is) :P Em - --- Lori Fye wrote: > Em wants to know: > > > you guys what the heck is a VG-8? Is it a sort of keyboard? > > There are people here more knowledgable than myself about this (Paz? > Chuck? > Everyone else? Where are you?), but as I understand it, the VG-8 is a > (computer?) device that is able to store different guitar tunings. > This allows > the guitarist to avoid actually retuning strings between songs. > Instead, the > preferred tuning can be chosen from those already stored, using a > foot pedal, I > think. > > Here's a blurb from the 'net: http://www.vg-8.com/vg-systems/vg-8/ > > > And whats up with her fingers? > > I don't know; I missed that part! Are we talking about Joni's > post-polio > syndrome? > > Lori ===== "A minotaur gets very sore" ....ISB '68 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:27:24 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... Deb Messling wrote: > > In the spirit of my book discussion group, in which radical disagreement is > cheerfully encouraged, I'll say that "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is one > of three books in my lifetime that I actually threw across the room in > anger - I disliked it that much. After all these years, I can't defend my > opinion at all, but I remember finding the actual prose unbearably > pretentious and "look at me." I've always liked more unassuming prose. The passion of book lovers is impressive! And what a book, to cause such a reaction! I love all of Tom Robbins's books, although I read them so long ago I can't remember much except something about a blue-thumbed traveler and the feeling of "oh, the wonder of it all!" I might have a different reaction if I read his books today. > (The other books I threw across the room were "On the Road" by Kerouac and > "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves). I also read "On the Road" years ago, and remember feeling ho-hum about it. And have never read "The White Goddess" but think I will since you had such a strong reaction. The books I've wanted to throw across the room (that's so dramatic, kind of like the "hair on fire" phrase heard so often these days)... anyway, the books I've intensely disliked are Moby Dick (I've started it three times and know all about Queeqeg and his worshipping and never get much past that; it's all so weighty, please release me!) and Henry James (hell is having to read a Henry James novel!). Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:27:05 -0400 (EDT) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers Quoting Em : > But for a guitarist, hmm wouldn't it be more fun to just have 8-10 > diff. guitars standing by, all perfectly tuned in the diff. tunings by > the 2 gentle men? 'Specially if you could afford really delicious > ones... (umm guitars that is) > :P > Em Don't know about that Auntie Em, but I sure wish they made VG-8 autoharps in my day! I was forever tuning mine. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:30:29 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers Em wrote: > But for a guitarist, hmm wouldn't it be more fun to just have 8-10 > diff. guitars standing by, all perfectly tuned in the diff. tunings by > the 2 gentle men? 'Specially if you could afford really delicious > ones... (umm guitars that is) > :P Well, Paz would prefer 2 gentle women, I'm sure ... (how about Donna and me, Paz?) but I digress. ; ) When I saw Joni in New Orleans, I *think* she was alone on stage. (Although I'd also had probably 8 hurricanes prior to the show, so don't quote me.) Anyway, if she's playing without benefit of an entourage, the VG-8 is be a blessing for her. (I'm trying ever-so-hard not to rhyme VG-8 with "great." Oops, there it is!) Hurricanes aside, I didn't notice the "tinny" sound in New Orleans, nor did I notice it in Bethel (and I was reasonably straight). But it jumps right out of TTT. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:01:05 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Crazed in a good way by NYC (NJC) Catherine McKay wrote: > > So, what is a "regular" coffee in NYC? In Toronto, it > means coffee with cream and sugar, but I understand in > some places, it means black coffee. These things are > never as simple as they seem! A regular coffee is coffee with whole milk and sugar, usually scooped into the cup by the counterman just before he slaps the top on. It's a term used at delis and local coffee shops and all those sidewalk carts where workers get their mornin' joe. Starbucks doesn't use that term. (Those other places will be here long after Starbucks has crumbled onto itself.) And you're right about it not being simple, especially if you want coffee other than black or regular. Then it's a tricky negotiation along the lines of: Coffee with milk, please. Ya want sugar? No, just milk. Sugar??? No sugar. No sugar!!??? That's right, just milk. Sugar on the side? No thanks. Two? Three? No sugar. Just milk. Just milk? No sugar? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Bye. Bye. NEEEEXXXT!!! That's just until you become a regular customer. Then it's more like: Hi. Mornin' (top goes on the filled cup prepared just the way I want it) Thanks. Bye. (ahhh, blessed simplicity!) Debra Shea, in NYC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:13:21 -0400 (EDT) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: Crazed in a good way by NYC (NJC) Quoting dsk : > Catherine McKay wrote: > > > > So, what is a "regular" coffee in NYC? In Toronto, it > > means coffee with cream and sugar, but I understand in > > some places, it means black coffee. These things are > > never as simple as they seem! > > A regular coffee is coffee with whole milk and sugar, usually scooped > into the cup by the counterman just before he slaps the top on. It's a > term used at delis and local coffee shops and all those sidewalk carts > where workers get their mornin' joe. Starbucks doesn't use that term. > (Those other places will be here long after Starbucks has crumbled onto > itself> No sugar. In Buffalo, regular coffee means more than coffee with cream and sugar. It means 1 cream and one sugar. Otherwise we ordered coffee double double. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:15:21 -0400 From: "Janine Sherman" Subject: CROZ Clear DayHappy Easter everyone, We all know David is credited with discovering Joni and has made public statements acknowledging her genius, but he has also made recent statements claiming she is ungrateful, angry, and bitter.......... Just returned from San Diego and read in The Weekly in the Music Scene section written by Josh Board: There were 4 fans waiting outside the Performing Arts Center in Escondido waiting to meet him. One was a teenager with a Woodstock album he had signed by a bunch of the performers. David Crosby's bus pulled up at 4:15. He got off a few minutes later, with his long white hair blowing all over. He walked over, spread his arms out and said, " I won't sign autographs for you guys. You're all dealers, and you're going to sell that stuff. I'm not doing it. It's over. Goodbye. " He smiled and raised his arms and started to walk away.Since he recently got busted for having pot and weapons at a hotel, plus he'd had a liver transplant in 1994, I said, "You should worry more about not doing drugs than about people wanting your autograph." He flipped me off and kept walking, wiggling his middle finger behind his back the entire time. All the best, Janine NP: sounds of the seals at LaJolla cove ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Nuriel Tobias Subject: Re: CROZ If the man wants to do drugs, it's he's business. (and how can a crossby fan, if indeed he's a fan, give him that advice? If Joni refused to hug you would you tell her "You'd better worry about your smoking problem, lady? I'd just say, "ok, thanks, love you anyway", and leave her be). If he doesn't want to sign his name on a Woodstock album, it's also he's business. I always felt that this group of artists from the 60's would all end up in bitterness. Not all of them, but most of them. They had a dreamy plan to change the world with their art, and when dreams are out - bitternss is in. I don't blame them for that. You don't need to be an artist to be bitter these days when you see the state of things. Must admit i was surprised to hear that David is upset about Joni. I thought they were close friends, and Janine, if you don't mind, could you please tell us more about what has happened between them. Thanks and Love, Nuriel Janine Sherman wrote: Clear DayHappy Easter everyone, We all know David is credited with discovering Joni and has made public statements acknowledging her genius, but he has also made recent statements claiming she is ungrateful, angry, and bitter.......... Just returned from San Diego and read in The Weekly in the Music Scene section written by Josh Board: There were 4 fans waiting outside the Performing Arts Center in Escondido waiting to meet him. One was a teenager with a Woodstock album he had signed by a bunch of the performers. David Crosby's bus pulled up at 4:15. He got off a few minutes later, with his long white hair blowing all over. He walked over, spread his arms out and said, " I won't sign autographs for you guys. You're all dealers, and you're going to sell that stuff. I'm not doing it. It's over. Goodbye. " He smiled and raised his arms and started to walk away.Since he recently got busted for having pot and weapons at a hotel, plus he'd had a liver transplant in 1994, I said, "You should worry more about not doing drugs than about people wanting your autograph." He flipped me off and kept walking, wiggling his middle finger behind his back the entire time. All the best, Janine NP: sounds of the seals at LaJolla cove Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:56:13 EDT From: AsharaJM@aol.com Subject: Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... Debra wrote: <<(hell is having to read a Henry James novel!).>> She *has* to? Why are they making her read a Henry James novel? He's not from New Zealand!! ;-) Hugs, Ashara, feeling silly today ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Nuriel Tobias Subject: Oh no, it's "notches" time again...:) Just when you thought it was over, another "notches" idea is here for you to drive you insane...:) Doesn't "notches" mean "nights" in Spanish? Love, Nuriel Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:05:36 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... loved this one, ashes! wally, who's having one of his classes read "the turn of the screw" this month... > -----Mensaje original----- > De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de > AsharaJM@aol.com > Enviado el: Lunes, 12 de Abril de 2004 05:56 p.m. > Para: dsk11@bellatlantic.net; messling@enter.net; joni@smoe.org > Asunto: Re: (NJC) Tom Robbins ... > > > Debra wrote: > > <<(hell is having to read a Henry James novel!).>> > > She *has* to? Why are they making her read a Henry James novel? > He's not from > New Zealand!! ;-) > > Hugs, > Ashara, feeling silly today ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:13:46 +0200 From: "Paul Mepschen" Subject: patty griffin/janis ian njc Hey Kate and list, I think I agree that Patty is the best singer-songwriter out there right now. There's a few lyricists who rival her, especially Dar Williams, but the songs as a whole are just so perfect. I love the last two albums (including the live one). Her new album comes this month, I'm very excited!~ There's always Ani Difranco, whom I love, but her songs are not as complete. I haven't been reading digests at all, but did anyone mention janis ian's new album, Billie's Bones?? God, it's fantastic. Her best work in years and years. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:10:02 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: The end or to be continued, Joni's fingers Jerry writes: << I sure wish they made VG-8 autoharps in my day! I was forever tuning mine. >> "IN MY DAY" ! ! ! ? ? ? Oh, Jerry! Is your day over? - --Smurf, a whippersnapper to the end ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Nuriel Tobias Subject: Almost famous, but VERY wrong It's only now that i got to see 'Almost famous'. Now i know we've talked about it more than once, and maybe this was already mentioned, but has anyone notice the very embarrassing mistake, regarding Joni in that movie? The scene that happenes in 1969, when the boy is checking out the albums his sister left behind her, and he sees "Blue". (Yes, Joni has become a time traveler). As a film that claims to be a tribute to the music scene at that time, i find this mistake to be a very unprofessional one. It would have never happen in a British production - right, Colin?:) Love, Nuriel Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:39:25 EDT From: OzWoman321@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's fingers (By Way of Sorrow - Julie Miller) Hello, All - Nuriel... and then Lori... posted: > >And as for the "fingers" part of the subject - could someone please > explain > >to me how on earth can Joni paint so much, but claim she can't play? > > Perhaps Joni just doesn't have *it* in her to play anymore, except for > perhaps > herself and those closest to her. I'm thrilled that she wants to paint! > Paint > on, Joan. When I was doing research for trivia tidbits to sprinkle throughout our Joni Birthday Concert this past November, I came across the following quote from Joni which seems to address this issue: "I sing my sorrow, I paint my joy"... http://www.jonimitchell.com/Folio/Folio.html Enough said... :-) Susan http://www.heartsdesireconcerts.com http://www.horseofadifferentcolorbooking.com "I'm the kid who has this habit of dreaming Sometimes gets me in trouble too But the truth is I could no more stop dreaming Than I could make them all come true..." ~ Buddy Mondlock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:41:17 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: NYC grammar fiends -- NJC From today's gawker.com: 7 If you broke up with him because he wrote "you're" instead of "your" in an email, then head to Coliseum Books to hear grammar-witch Lynne Truss discuss her bestseller East, Shoots & Leaves with Frank McCourt. Now me: Although the title of this book, which I first heard about on this list, is "*Eats*, Shoots & Leaves," I thought one of our NYC listahs might be interested. Also, the following is from gawker. It made me laugh: Queer Eye vs. The Bible # Outside of Manhattan, the Bible is the new bible for style and self-help, notes Low Culture. And not much has changed in 2000 years, as you can see in this comparison of Carson Kressley and the Book of Jeremiah: This is what the LORD said to me: "Go and buy a linen belt and put it around your waist, but do not let it touch water." Jeremiah 13: 1 Personality starts in the crotch region. But you knew that. Get a vintage leather strap and find a belt buckle that says something about your personality. Carson 179 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:43:38 -0400 From: "Kay Ashley" Subject: Re: Bush Doctrine--(much) long(er), now (NJC) (PC) Hi Buck! Somehow your post didn't make it onto digest, but I did receive it and very much appreciate your POVs (PsOV?) as well as the tone and tenor of your writing. My hope has been not to be a shrill or whatever kind of lefty but instead to present my views in a way that invite discussion and debate, rather than promote name calling. Apparently it has worked with you, at least! :-) BTW, I tend to bang the missives out, though I am one of these anal grammar freaks, so I do proofread before sending; with imperfect results, I am sure. As an aside, I am extremely fond of semicolons; they allow one's thoughts to wander tangentially; and yet they also provide an accepted structure within which one can wander; which reminds me: do you think it's possible to go off on asymptotes when one's thoughts are beyond tangential? I am going to attempt to rein in my tangential tendencies and succinctly respond to your email. 1. "Mad dog" analogy: I totally understand what you're saying. I sincerely hope that you are right, while still maintaining my position as outlined in previous emails. 2. You wrote, "The Left tends to be better-organized and much more vocal in their opposition than the Right is in their justifications for their policies, and I lament this fact. We on the right have no equivalent to Move-On-dot-org, and it's a damned shame. Still, The Truth is Out There...you just gotta dig deeper and work harder to get at it. I wish this was not so." I find this to be very interesting -- my perception as a lefty is that our POV is not well represented in the mainstream media. I guess it's a variant of the grass is greener principle... To me, people like Rush Limbaugh make MoveOn necessary. The tone of the popular right-wing media figures is mean and childish, and I perceive MoveOn as one of a few voices trying to bring some reality back into the public discourse. 3. You wrote, "History shows Ronnie was correct." I think this is debatable to say the least. When you have more gas (perhaps "fuel" is a nicer sounding word), I would be interested to hear more about why you say this. 4. You wrote, "Unfortunately, our enemies do not WANT to engage in uplifting debate on the issues. They want to KILL us, at any place and any time." True -- and yet I think that it is totally possible to defeat such an enemy without adopting the extremely dangerous pre-emptive strike doctrine that this administration is employing. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is analogous to the problem with censorship: who decides when it's (grammar freaks, note that this is a contraction of "it" and "has" -- less common than our favorites "it is" and the possessive "its" [my god, I am such a geek]) gone too far? I think that elaborate defensive strategies are better than offensive ones, for myriad reasons; and naturally I think that unnecessary (imo) offensive strategies (Iraq) are unspeakably immoral. 5. You wrote, "Forgive me, Kay, but reversing the funding shortfalls and general evisceration of the intelligence apparatus enacted by the previous administration will take a significant amount of time. International cooperation in intelligence matters is pretty good, from my POV, but it can and will be made better. "International Law" requires general agreement on principles, strategy and tactics, and is a thorny issue. I do not hold much hope for the concept of International Law." Interesting points -- certainly I agree that hiring Freeh as head of FBI -- someone who refused to have a computer on his desk -- was a big mistake. The "evisceration of the intelligence apparatus" is certainly partially to blame, but this was a natural progression following our apparent "victory" in the Cold War. Not to be a slavish Clinton apologist, but I do believe that the structural and cultural issues both within and between the FBI and CIA are so profound and deeply ingrained that there would have been the same massive failure of intelligence even without a reduction in funding during the '90's. And I also think that the "evisceration" would have occurred even if we had had republican presidents during the 90's, since, as I posited, it was a natural, if short-sighted, thing to do following the collapse of the USSR. I don't have enough specific knowledge to combat your cynicism regarding International Law, but what is the alternative? Multiple states, all pursuing their personal versions of pre-emptive strike ideology? I think that following the 2 world wars of the last century, establishing international law of some sort, however problematic, was necessary to prevent chaos. Perhaps we can debate further about international law, green technology and the UN at another time. I am running out of gas myself at this point. Enjoying the debate! :-) Kay "Norman Pennington" To: , Kay Ashley/Nwy/US/WCG@WCG bcc: Subject: Re: Bush Doctrine--(much) long(er), now (NJC) (PC) 04/12/2004 01:08 PM EDT Hello Kay, You can add me to the (presumably large) list of your fans. I enjoy reading your posts - they are so well written - and although we disagree on many points, we also have some common ground. I'm curious...do you just sit yourself down at the keyboard and bang these missives out, or do you follow a structured "write, edit, polish" methodology? Whatever the answer, I guess it makes no difference...brilliance is brilliance. I have some thoughts on your thoughts, in-line below. Kay writes: > Hey All, > > Buck, I appreciate you outlining the specifics of why you are in favor of > Bush's tactics. I understand your points, but happen to largely disagree > with you, as you know, :-) but I also happen to agree with you on some > things. > > To be more specific: > I agree that it is a good thing that the Taliban is no longer in power; > I agree that it is a good thing that Afghanistan is no longer (so far as we > know) a major refuge for Al Qaeda; > I even agree that it is a good thing that Hussein is no longer in power, > because there's no doubt that he is an evil man. > > You may be right that Bush is doing the right thing, and in fact, despite > my avowed lefty status, I really do hope that you ARE right -- because if > you're not, we are royally f*cking up our own country and the entire world > for decades to come. My objections are with tactics, as illustrated by my > admittedly simple cockroach-steamroller metaphor, and with the long-term > consequences of those tactics. I am a firm believer that violence only > begets violence only begets violence, and I am a firm believer that in all > aspects of life, one has to consider all consequences, short term and long > term. I agree with your point about violence, up to a point. When one deals with disagreements between two rational parties, dialog and compromise is *always* the best approach. My perception is the "other side" (the jihadists) are not interested in compromise or dialog, they simply want to eliminate us and our way of life. The "mad dog" analogy works here...you don't speak softly and kindly to an animal with rabies, you kill it. You have no other recourse. The animal is infected - you cannot change the reality of the infection - and the animal will attack you and will do you harm unless you destroy it. I believe the Bush Doctrine is all about eliminating threats. > I think that the Bush Doctrine, as we have witnessed it so far, is a > really macho, knee-jerk, revenge motivated set of tactics -- in short, > shoot 'em up at High Noon cowboy tactics. I think that we are ultimately > making the world less safe simply because our actions to "stamp out" the > "evil doers" are just creating more anger and hatred. Furthermore, there > has been *no* leadership from DC at all, in terms of educating the US > public about the roots of the anger and hatred that we are actively > cultivating. The only ideological "leadership" we get is that "we are > right" and "they are wrong", which is the kind of attitude that good > parents try to curb in 5-year-old children. In the short term, the Bush > Doctrine may appear to be exactly the correct thing, and in the short term, > it may actually produce what appear to be positive results; but in the long > term, the Bush Doctrine is going to be a disaster, both for the security of > the international community and for the integrity of our own democracy. History will be the judge, ultimately. There were dissenters to Reagan's policies towards the USSR in the '80s. I was in England from 1980 - 1983 and passed the "Peace Camps" outside the gates of High Wycombe AS and RAF Greenham Common on a daily basis while I went about my work of providing a communication infrastructure for the bed-down of the GLCMs in the UK. The current level of dissent and opposition to Bush's policies in Europe is on par with the opposition to Reagan's Cold War policies. History shows Ronnie was correct. I firmly believe history will vindicate Bush, as well. Regarding ideological leadership... There have been plenty of explanations and justifications given for Bush's policies, but not at the level the opposition have gone to discredit or cast aspersions on those policies. The general media (both written and electronic) tend to trade in sound-bites or synopses, not detailed analyses. It is the responsibility of an informed electorate to seek out information and inform themselves and not be "spoon-fed." The Left tends to be better-organized and much more vocal in their opposition than the Right is in their justifications for their policies, and I lament this fact. We on the right have no equivalent to Move-On-dot-org, and it's a damned shame. Still, The Truth is Out There...you just gotta dig deeper and work harder to get at it. I wish this was not so. > > Here is my version of the Leftist, idealistic, pacifist belief system: what > I believe is that we as a species need to evolve psychologically and > spiritually to a point where we no longer immediately go for the guns when > someone hurts us. We need to stretch and grow. We need to repudiate war > as a method for dealing with conflict. And when we come to the kind of > crossroads that 9/11 forced upon us, the burden is on the one with more > power to rise above. We are the ones with more power, despite the fact > that we got our asses kicked on 9/11. It is our responsibility to LEAD. > To me, true leadership is innovative, creative, and appeals to the highest, > most noble aspects of human nature; Bush's leadership has dragged us down > into the gutter with the cockroaches, riling people up into a truly > unsophisticated jingoistic frenzy that is unworthy of us as a nation. This > is War, not the goddamned Superbowl. Unfortunately, our enemies do not WANT to engage in uplifting debate on the issues. They want to KILL us, at any place and any time. Bin Laden's Fatwa is pretty clear on this point. Mobilizing public opinion to support the war is damned difficult, especially when the Loyal Opposition is so vocal and public in their dissent to the administration's strategies and tactics. I submit we are tearing ourselves apart and are taking our eyes off the ultimate objective, which is to defeat the jihadists and ensure the general safety of the US, Europe, and the rest of the world. A bit more unity and support would serve us well in achieving our objectives. > > I listened to a good deal of Condie Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony this > morning. I disagree with her that this is a war that needs to be fought > offensively, and not defensively. And Buck, per your request, :-) I will > attempt to offer a rational alternative that would still produce results. > I believe that it is possible to have a defensive, largely covert plan that > would have created the same results that you champion. And I believe that > it is possible to do so without destroying the fabric of our own > Constitution and Bill of Rights in the process. How about taking all that > money that we're throwing at Iraq and funnel it into hunting down the > terrorist funding sources and cut them off? Once again, our efforts in this important area (funding sources and other financial aspects) are not being publicized, but the effort IS being made, as far as I can tell. > Perhaps some sabre-rattling > would become necessary to convince other governments to comply, but even a > pacifist like me can see the value in that. How about investing in > espionage, international cooperation and international law to bring the > terrorists into custody? Forgive me, Kay, but reversing the funding shortfalls and general evisceration of the intelligence apparatus enacted by the previous administration will take a significant amount of time. International cooperation in intelligence matters is pretty good, from my POV, but it can and will be made better. "International Law" requires general agreement on principles, strategy and tactics, and is a thorny issue. I do not hold much hope for the concept of International Law. > How about re-regulating the airline industry and > forcing all the airlines to outfit their cockpits with bullet proof doors > and whatever else the experts say is needed? This is being done. Speed, overcoming bureaucratic inertia, overcoming oppostion from the pilots' unions, overcoming opposition from the airline industry, and other items are significant impediments to achieving "safety" in an expeditious manner. But, once again, the administration IS taking action. > How about creating a whole > shitload of jobs by forcing every single cargo ship and every single cargo > plane that comes into any port in this country to be searched by large > teams of counter-terrorism experts? If you hired enough of them, > ships/planes could be examined quickly and without undue damage to > commerce. (That's a job I could get behind: make the country safer, and > you don't have to kill anyone!) There are significant technology initiatives in this area (sensors, scanners, etc.) that hold more promise than legions of inspectors. > How about outfitting the FBI and the CIA > with new computers and cross-organization proprietary databases that can > actually talk to each other, and force them to cooperate, rather than just > create another behemoth of a bureaucracy? (In short, take what we already > have and make it work.) We REALLY agree on this one!!! As a person who spent nearly 20 years in the IT industry (as a manager and consultant with Electronic Data Systems, among other firms) after my USAF career, this is MUCH easier said than done. The hardware and software is only part of the equation, more to the point, we need to eliminate the legal and structural impediments to information-sharing and cooperation. "Business process" is much more important than the systems that are used to collect, store, and process information, i.e., what is collected, from where, by whom, where does it go, who uses it, who has access, how do you prioritize data elements, and the Hurculean task of INTEGRATING existing systems. And, once again, action IS being taken to remove legal constraints and structural deficiencies in the current system...ergo, improve the business processes. The actions that have been proposed and are being taken are generally being resisted by the ACLU and other alarmists who invoke the "privacy" argument and advance those "Big Brother" fears. There is significant opposition to implementing a system that allows the intelligence community to cooperate with the law enforcement community. It's Fear and Mistrust, pure and simple. > And to borrow from Kucinich, how about create a > Department of Peace, whose sole mission would be to examine as objectively > as possible all the causes of unrest and misery in the world (which would > require a lot of mature self-examination), and come up with plans, in > concert with the UN, the WHO, etc., for the US to take nonmilitary action > in order to improve the lives of others in the world -- truly humanitarian > action, which in the long term would make us, and the world, more secure? > And here's a big one -- how about start investing billions of dollars into > developing wind power, solar power and hydrogen fuel cell technology? > Within 5 years, we could have windmill farms and photovoltaic cell farms in > the uninhabitable deserts of this country, built and working and plugged > into the nation's powergrid. More jobs, more jobs, more jobs!! More > security! Less dependence on foreign oil! No need to drill in Alaska! > Isn't this the obvious, correct path? Aside from the Department of Peace, I agree with you on these points. The US does a huge amount of humanitarian good, both in the public/government and private/religious sectors, that is generally overlooked. More investment is definitely needed in alternative energy sources. Being a conservative I believe tax incentives, rather than direct federal investment, would be the proper action(s) to take to stimulate investment in these areas. Viable alternative energy remains largely an economic proposition at this point, i.e., it's the cost/benefit equation. I'd buy a fuel cell powered car if I didn't have to pay a $15,000.00 premium over a gasoline powered vehicle...assuming performance/efficiency were equal between the two systems. It ain't a "build it and they will come" proposition at this point in time. > > And here's another biggie -- how about we actually pay our dues to the > United Nations, and instead of subverting the UN at every turn, how about > working with them proactively and allow the UN to fulfill its mission, > instead of us hijacking and perverting its mission? The UN, with the > proper support, is fully capable of dealing with problems like the Taliban > and despots like Saddam Hussein. On occasion, military action is required; > but if it is military action that is truly agreed upon by a truly > multilateral body, then that military action is more likely to be respected > by the world at large, and less likely to foment more hatred and > resentment. This point is a hot button with me. I believe the UN subverts the US at every turn, and not vice-versa. There is just SO much that's wrong with the UN. I cannot go there. I'd sooner see the UN HQ building converted into a NYC Housing Authority and ship that corrupt, politicized debating society off to Botswana or someother deserving place. But, OTOH, doing that would undercut the hooker industry in NYC... I'm outta gas. Perhaps I'll respond to your other points later, perhaps I won't. I find this debate to be tiring, in the sense that it takes a lot out of me to sit at the keyboard and type out a response. Would that we could sit down and crack a good bottle of Beaujolais and have this exchange in real time. I DO appreciate the tone and content of your posts, Kay...I cannot emphasize this particular point enough. In another post you mentioned you had just returned from India. It's good that you have seen something of the world outside of NYC. As an aside, I spent three years of my youth and two years as an adult in Turkey and other parts of the Middle East. I also spent a significant amount of time in South-East Asia and the Pacific Rim, as well as Europe, while in the USAF. During my career with EDS I traveled to, and did business in, Beijing, Moscow, Singapore, and London. My world view is shaped by my experiences, as I'm sure yours is. It's the ol' "walk a mile in their shoes" thing... Thanks for your intelligent, thoughtful posts. I look forward to more. Best Regards, bp _____________________________________________________________ The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on your systems and notify the sender immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its content to any other person. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #164 ***************************** ------- 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)