From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #414 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, October 11 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 414 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- [NJC] NATIONAL ANTHEM: INSIDE THE VOTE FOR CHANGE CONCERT TOUR [Richard G] RE: karma NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: karma NJC [colin ] NJC talkin' & squawkin' on the jmdl LONG [was Stop the Bleeding] [dsk ] RE: karma NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] BOSE wave radio/cd player njc [colin ] Re: How Joni did on WXPN's Top 885 Songs of All Time (listener poll) ["M] Re: NJC Re: Joni on upcoming Dolly CD? NJC [Doug ] Re: debate, njc [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: silly joke anyone remember the entire punchline? njc [LCStanley7@aol.] joni dream ["dfrench" ] Re: joni dream [mags h ] Re: Moist Towlettes -- NJC [] Re: silly joke anyone remember the entire punchline? njc [] Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC PC ["Kakki" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:16:45 -0700 From: Richard Goldman Subject: [NJC] NATIONAL ANTHEM: INSIDE THE VOTE FOR CHANGE CONCERT TOUR Sundance Channel Monday 10.11.2004 6:30 PM repeat Monday 10.11.2004 11:45 PM NATIONAL ANTHEM: INSIDE THE VOTE FOR CHANGE CONCERT TOUR 315 MINS, Color (that's 5 hours & 15 minutes . . ..) Albert Maysles and D.A. Pennebaker have long been considered two of America's most influential documentary filmmakers. In the early 60s, Maysles and Pennebaker were part of documentary movement called direct cinema, which used the new technology of portable cameras to capture life as it unfolded. This technique proved essential in capturing America's burgeoning counter culture, especially as it related to music. In 1967, D.A. Pennebaker shadowed a relatively unknown folk singer by the name of Bob Dylan during a three week concert tour of England for his documentary DON'T LOOK BACK. Three years later, in GIMME SHELTER, Albert Maysles and his late brother David captured the violent reality of the Rolling Stones ill-fated concert at Altamont Speedway. In the tradition of these legendary works, Maysles and Pennebaker unite to take America's social pulse with a new documentary project, "National Anthem: Inside the Vote for Change Concert Tour." This film marks their first collaboration in forty years. Conceived by a loose coalition of musicians six months ago, "Vote for Change" is a multi-city, multi-artist swing-state tour taking place in early October. The "National Anthem" special captures this pivotal moment in US history through informal footage of musicians (including Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews Band, Dixie Chicks, and R.E.M) and their audiences in intimate moments from the tour. The documentary will be followed by a live broadcast of the final "Vote for Change" concert in Washington D.C. The October 11 concert includes performances by: Bonnie Raitt Bruce Springsteen Dave Matthews Band Dixie Chicks Jackson Browne James Taylor John Fogerty John Mellencamp Jurassic 5 Keb' Mo' Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds Pearl Jam R.E.M. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:36:00 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: karma NJC Colin, my posts were only in response to your original post about gwb.. I cannot make blanket statements that fit all situations as each situation is different & must be treated accordingly. >In most cases i agree with you. However, in the cases I quoted I don't.< ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:29:37 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: karma NJC Kate Bennett wrote: > it is only apathy or ignorance that allows such a monstrosity to >flourish. > and prejudice and fear.... > > BUT resorting to violence in response to violence makes no sense. > > In most cases i agree with you. However, in the cases I quoted I don't. I also think there are other cases where killing is right' Like the hijackers of the planes that were used to floor theWTC. If it had been possible, of course those men should ahev been killed by the apssenger sor anyone on thsoe planes. the hostage takers in the Russian school-if possible they should have been shot, no questions asked, before they ahd a chance. as it was, i think they were killed and hundreds of lives saved. riught and proper i think. Although of course hundreds of lives were also lost. Hwever, if any of those hostages takers ahd survived, i would not agree with capital punishment. Doing that would not save lives but make cold blooded killers of others. I used to think as you-that there was always a non violent way-but there isn't If I was in a situation where I could see many lives were about to be taken(like a man here 10 years ago or almost that, that went into a school and shot dead soemthing like 20 children), and I COULD do something, then i certainly hope I would. It is good to have ideas and to have principles(strongly held ideas) but to hold our ideas more important than lives is not right as far as I can see. bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:49:05 -0400 From: dsk Subject: NJC talkin' & squawkin' on the jmdl LONG [was Stop the Bleeding] Kakki wrote: > > Debra wrote: > > > And exactly who are those people? Or am I supposed to come up with the > > same group you have in mind, and then come up with a group response? > > That's unclear enough to be meaningless. I'm not doing it that way. It's > > too confusing. > > The fact that you don't even acknowledge that others with opposing > viewpoints have been jumped on and slammed here says a lot. "Says a lot"? Zinger #1, huh? I didn't say anything about others because I'm not going to spend any time guessing what "others" you have in mind. My post was in response to your comment about being stonewalled. If you want to have a big confusing generalized historical discussion, then go ahead. I've always found it much more helpful to discuss specifics, and maybe go from there to the bigger picture. However, if you want to go the other way, no one's stopping you. > I'm not the only one who has brought up the lack of civility and attacks on > opposing viewpoints around here. There rarely seems to be a civil > discussion when points are brought up from the other side. And "your side" is always polite and civil? That's the message you're giving, and it's just not true. > If people were > interested in a thoughtful exchange, they would consider other input. Yes, you would. > Your side often seems blind to the insults hurled here at the other side. Yes, and true for "your" side also. > I guess that is because you think you are so right about everything that > incendiary comments are just righteous anger. Again, that "you think you're so right about everything" (oooooh, another zinger!) attitude is not limited to one side, although you do appear polite on the surface and just sneak the barbs in. Your little zingers are easily ignored most of the time. Unfortunately, though, they add up, and reach critical mass, and then people end up responding to the huge batch of belittlements, dismissals and insults, and it all gets way too emotional and very confusing. > Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I rarely if ever initiate these political > disucssions. I don't independently throw out some bomb that no one else has > brought up and then fight people over it. I feel that I am always > *responding* to other points already brought up. Whether you've initiated a particular discussion or just jumped in on one isn't the issue. From my point of view, it seems that if people don't respond to you enough, you come out with something way off base (such as Bush asking to go to Vietnam) and you get plenty of reaction, much of it negative, and then you feel picked upon, and start complaining about everyone else's behavior. That pattern has played out often here, especially while Bush has been in office. (Why is that? Where's that "seeing both sides" thinking you used to be so good at?) Once someone takes the bait, and responds to your provocation, it's hard to extricate one's self. I'm having a stuck in quicksand experience myself right now. > .... I came here to talk about music not politics, but > when I am bombarded with political messages almost every time I read the > list, it's hard sometimes to just swallow everything that is thrown out > without comment. To expect people to just take it is very oppressive. Yes, I know what you mean about having a hard time letting some comments pass without responding, and since there are so many more left-leaning people here than conservatives, you face many more disagreeable comments than I do. That's a tough spot for you and anyone here with conservative views to be in. Pro-Bush comments can easily get 10 or more negative responses, which is a lot to battle off; any "Bush sucks" type comments would get maybe 1 or 2 responses that I can easily ignore. Sometimes I think the lop-sided numbers alone are the main reason conservatives here feel so put upon. What can be done about that? > > All other information is ignored. According to you, > > whatever the rest of us say is worthless because we don't read enough or > > we all think alike or want to see everything negatively. > > If I thought it was really worthless, I wouldn't respond at all. Good point. I don't know why you do respond, since at different times you've made those three general accusations toward everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. > Why throw out stuff that is meant to attack other peoples' political > beliefs and then feel insulted if they challenge you? I don't mind being challenged. I react badly to my view being instantly belittled just because you don't agree with it. And, if you truly feel that people throw out stuff to attack your political beliefs, rather than respond to whatever comment you've made, well, that needs to be looked at next time it happens. > > > ... But I've come to see that some people want to and > > > need to believe the stories no matter what and I agree that facts > > > are not what they want to hear and it only frustrates them. > > > > You're speaking of yourself here, yes? > > No - you give me real facts and I will embrace them. I see opinions, > conjecture, theories, feelings put forth and that's what makes me > frustrated. Yes, that's all you ever see! That's what I'm fussing about. Right away you label whatever anyone else says as "opinions, conjecture, theories, feelings" (and SOME of it is, but not ALL of it), and you always claim to have the facts, as though only you have the truth, and your view is NEVER mere opinion, conjecture, theories or feelings. Whooo hooo! Wrong! Paul Bremer's remarks? Condi Rice's recent remarks that are exactly opposite the conclusion in two government reports? Many facts are put out here by different people and you completely ignore them, all the while acting like you're the only open-minded person here. That grates after a while. That's the only point I was trying to make in response to your comment about facing a "solid brick wall" because people don't respond to your political posts and all the links you come up with. > > It's making more sense to me now that you would be a Bush supporter. The > > way you treat other people's views is similar to the way Bush is > > unwilling to hear anything that doesn't fit what he's already decided. > > So being a Bush supporter may not have anything to do with Iraq or other > > issues, and has everything to do with a similarity in general attitude. > > Or, to say it another way, you (and other Bush supporters) and Bush > > think the same way. > > You are free to psychoanalyze all you want. Great. Thanks, Kakki. Except I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing and wasn't doing that. I was looking at behavior, over time, and seeing patterns. I don't have a clue about, or any interest in figuring out, the motives for that behavior. > I will admit to doing the > same in trying to figure people's thinking patterns, too. I think, however, > that is a less than ideal way to understand people and tends to lead more to > insult rather than enlightenment. One observation about anyone or anything is NEVER the whole story. I think it helps, though, to clearly see people's behaviors. It makes it easier to accept whatever they do (as long as it's not destructive) as being "just the way they are." I'll happily accept Bush's "way of being" when he's no longer in a position to affect the world. > You mean another insult and putdown from Debra. That "Ms. Superiority" label was meant to be very clear. I guess I'm supposed to read your code and figure out now what you mean by "another" insult and putdown. No thanks. I'm not playing no matter how many zingers you fling. > Citing to 9/11 to say you > know how serious the threat is is a given. Really? Your statement came across completely differently, as a complete dismissal of the experience of anyone who doesn't agree with you about supporting Bush. I think everyone in the U.S. and the world sees how serious the threat is, not just Bush supporters. > Why is it so difficult to understand that people like me and others think > that changing the focus or trying to diminsh the terror threat by saying it > is all Bush's fault, a scheme by a cabal of PNACers, an oil industry > conspiracy, and the other conspiracies that dominate the discussion in some > quarters, indicates to some of us that the focus is really not on the actual > terrorist groups who are out to harm us? Why is that so difficult to > consider? Why is that considered an insult from me? It is an honest and > substantive question. > > > The split is about the WAY that threat has been dealt with. Bush > > supporters think invading Iraq makes us safer, anti-Bush people see just > > the opposite. > > That is certainly a no-spin statement and I agree. Good. I'm glad you agree with that because after reading everything you wrote and paring away whatever gave me pause, that's what was left as the issue people are really disagreeing on. Starting a discussion from that point would include everyone. Starting a discussion from your point automatically dismisses anyone who disagrees with you about Bush, because you've already decided they don't support Bush because they don't see a threat. So you think you've started from a fact, and I see it as you starting from the conclusion you've already drawn. You've instantly dismissed my experience and thoughts and observations and facts, and meanwhile I'm expected to appreciate being hammered with what you claim to be the truth. The result is a confusing, feel bad, situation for everyone that eventually explodes. I hope that's clear enough to be helpful. You've been in the hot spot for a while now, Kakki, and sometimes not treated well, and I think you're sincere in not understanding how that could possibly happen. So, for whatever it's worth, I've given you my view about that, and expressed how some of what you do, without realizing it, results in negative reactions toward you. I want to emphasize that's the way I see it based on my own (usually unwritten) reactions over the past few years. I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else here (and although I'm using the words "I" and "my" a lot, that's just to use my reactions as an example; your political posts are rarely directed toward any specific person, and I want to make sure you don't think that's what I'm saying, or complaining about). And, as always, Lord (and everyone else) knows I'm not perfect myself, and no one else is either. However, when there's a continuing pattern of the same reaction from lots of different people, and someone (in this case you, Kakki) is confused and hurt by that, then it's something to be looked at closely, I think. I hope this answers some of your questions. Debra Shea, in NYC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:11:44 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: karma NJC Kate Bennett wrote: >Colin, my posts were only in response to your original post about gwb.. > your responses didn't make that obivous to me. sorry. you amde statements that seemd to me to have a much wider reach than just whether or not it would be good to kill bush in oreder to save the world. Your posts didn't mention him or this propostion so I missed your intent. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:29:16 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: karma NJC Yes I do realize they wandered into some wider vagueness so sorry I wasn't clearer. all this talk of how I see the world & such has got me quite sick of my own self. lol. >your responses didn't make that obivous to me. sorry. you amde statements that seemd to me to have a much wider reach than just whether or not it would be good to kill bush in oreder to save the world. Your posts didn't mention him or this propostion so I missed your intent.< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:30:39 +0100 From: colin Subject: BOSE wave radio/cd player njc Has anyone heard one of these? Are they as good as is said? - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:54:15 -0700 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: How Joni did on WXPN's Top 885 Songs of All Time (listener poll) Timothy Spong wrote: > Fellow Jonilistas, > > WXPN, the adult-album-alternative-format radio station affiliated > with the University of Pennsylvania (for our international members: U > of P is NOT a state or state-related school. It was founded by > Benjamin Franklin as Pennsylvania Academy and is private and a member > of the Ivy League) to which I frequently refer, as it is where I > usually hear Joni on radio, recently moved to a new building and, as > part of the celebration, held a listeners' poll to determine "The Top > 885 Songs of All Time" (the station's broadcast frequency is 88.5 > MHz). I didn't see one song by Rickie Lee Jones or Carly Simon. I don't think there was anything by Emmylou Harris either. Mark E in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:55:03 -0400 From: Doug Subject: Re: NJC Re: Joni on upcoming Dolly CD? NJC Yes, there are many jokes about Dolly but in my opinion she's the real deal. I just picked up her latest live album Live And Well. Most of the songs are her own and she covers After The Gold Rush and, believe it or not, a great bluegrass version of Stairway To Heaven. For anyone who is a secret admirer of Dolly like I was, get this CD. I would love to see Joni work with Dolly, it might lighten her up a bit. Doug SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: >Thanks for keeping us abreast of this latest Dolly news, Bryan! > >. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:58:53 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: debate, njc Bree wrote: BUT when asked a few questions towards the end to do with social issues like partial birth...he stumbled badly. Hi Bree! Welcome back from lurkdom! As for the above, I saw very differently from you on this... not that Kerry stumbled at all but rather gave very thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent, and effective answers. His answers set me more firm in my decision to vote for him. It isn't too late to change your mind Bree and vote for Kerry. Wink. With great love for you, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:02:03 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: silly joke anyone remember the entire punchline? njc Kate asked: Q what happens when you play a country song backwards? You get puked on, find out the name of the other woman, and hear a cowboy crying because his fists hurt so much. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:55:58 -1000 From: "dfrench" Subject: joni dream i dreamt i was in my old house by the beach a junk single wall small roomed 3 bed plantation home relocated from the other sid eof the island . when the cane companies upgraded they sold off buildings to ht ehigh bidder then cut them in managable sections to haul off to whereever lots to reassemble and rent out..........sash windows, plank flooring no bathroom ...the furo and toilet were in a seperate bath house behind.......... in front of the land a narrow strip of sand then a smooth reef typical for the east side of the island....sunrise over blue ocean in your face ... banana trees behind and spider lillies in front very green lush this house was so old there was not a level floor to be found ....the kitchen sloped from the sink back down i guess the plumbing was holding everything up on that side . joni was in my kitchen. sitting at a small table bitching about something waving and pointing...........then she wanted to leave but there were no doors ...... couldnt get out so she tried to open the window but was struggling......i helped and we got it open then we stuck our heads out and looked down.....we were way way up in the air hundred feets no way to jump down and we just started laughing . she said im going out and climbed thru the window and wiggled around grabbing on this and that scooting around clinging and just laughing it was so funny........we were laughing so hard i woke myself up...and my wifey ..........she said i was making funny noises...i got out of bed to go pee and was laughing.....its hard to pee when your half asleep laughing so hard it was so funny......im HAPPY TODAY THANKS JONI ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:24:00 -0700 (PDT) From: mags h Subject: Re: joni dream Once upon a time, there was a young woman named Joni Mitchell, who became this most amazing singer and song writer...and rightly so, she hailed from the grand Canadian prairies after all. I can well imagine that one of Joni's dreams may be that her fans quit their petty pissing wars and focus on what matters in this world...no more weanie wagging okay? enough. enough. Mags np: Arlington, Wailing Jennys when we think of beauty we often think of those things we cannot hold, the moments when we are loved, the distant rainbow, the sweet ordinariness of times when nothing exceptional happens, but we are aware of doors to other worlds, & the shaft of light drenches the now with unspeakable joy. rita gormley vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 1:31:01 -0400 From: Subject: Re: Moist Towlettes -- NJC Bob, By all means, bring on the Joni Mitchell Moist Towlettes (R). I could use a case to disinfect a few threads which have degenerated into insults. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 1:46:24 -0400 From: Subject: Re: silly joke anyone remember the entire punchline? njc You're momma's reincarnated. Daddy gets out of jail. And you know there may be more, Jim From: "Paul Castle" Subject: Re: silly joke anyone remember the entire punchline? njc Kate asked > Q what happens when you play a country song backwards? Something about your dog comes home and the pick-up starts. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:59:15 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Stop the Bushies - NJC PC Colin wrote: >sarcasm isn't the way to deal with this Kakki. I satnd by what i said in both emails. if you can't understand the difference between what i said above and also saying I >don't wish anyone dead, then you are not as bright as i have hitherto thought...... Your first remark that I had spun what you had said blew me away and I thought you were trying to head-trip me. Then I thought maybe someone else might have wrriten it instead of you. It seemed awfully clear what you meant and then later I thought the meaning of "take someone out" to you means something different than it does in American slang which is to have someone killed. Then again you seemed to emphasize the point with other language such as "if he survives" and "you read me right" and "It's ethical to kill" under certain circumstances. It would have been enough for a visit from the Secret Service if you lived in the states. Kakki - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:32:01 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC PC Colin wrote: You always always state how many ohter people are > hounded out of here because of it. You eman like |Marcel? Like the guy > who recently left, Smurphs friend(sorry i can't recall his name)? Nope and nope. I am thinking of about three or four women who have left, some of whom were called "Marcel in drag" practically the first time they posted some opposing political comment. I am thinking of a number of others (men and women) who have gone over to Joni only of have left completely because of the discourse. They haven't publically come out and announced to you why they have left or gone to lurk - they tell people who understand - but the reasons are because of the hostile environment and rude treatment by some people for certain political views. > People who disagree with those on the right are called-even by > you-dishonest, stupid, bleeding hearts(which actually is compl.iment), I'm the one who gets called a "liar" around here and I don't use that word towards others here. I have debunked rumors that go around but I don't call the person posting them liars or dishonest - I attribute the dishonesty of certain things that are published to political machines, so to speak. Once someone knows something is proven wrong and they continue to post it over and over, I still haven't called them dishonest. I have never called someone stupid or a bleeding heart (a term I have always found to be offensive). > liberals(as if that were an insult, unpatriotic, terrorist sympathisers, > and lord knows what else. I have referred to "leftists" and tried to distinquish between "liberals" which I think is a different category. Republicans are routinely called all kinds of things here if you haven't noticed. Never called anyone unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer (I consider those to be generally stupid remarks to come back with in a political debate). Will agree there are people out there who voted for Bush who have used those terms, but I have not. I do not think people who dissent are either of those things, unless they would show me their card membership in Al Queda or another known terror group. I don't think you might know that a lot of Republicans and Libertarians are all for freedom of speech, even some of the most offesive, because if and when the shoe is on the other foot (the opposing party is in power) they sure want to be able to speak their own dissent. >Or they play the passive agressivve innncent > and get all 'upset' instead of owning their own shit and being honest. This is where I think you go way over the line - the name-calling, the putdowns. It's 20 times anything Marcel ever did. I try to be polite and civil and then get accused of trying to be superior, or uppity or passive aggressive. There's nothing I can do about that perception of me. I seriously try not to be offensive but sometimes when speaking one's mind nothing one can do in the way of delivery is going to make everyone else happy. I sometimes tend to write a bit "legalistically" because that is most of the style of writing that I do. I also went to schools growing up that were somewhat old-fashioned and the way I was taught to write and the writing I was exposed to was kind of antiquated compared to now. I'm not trying to make excuses, but it's something I consider when being called passive aggresive or whatever when I don't intend to so that. > It is really important that everyone really understand that attacking an > idea is NOT the same as making a perosnal attack. saying, as Kate did, > that she really can't understand how people still support Bush, is most > definately not the same as saying she thinks those that do are fucking > stupid! Oh she did say something along those lines the other day and that's why it brought Bob S. out from over on the onlyjoni list. >You can do the same but in order to do it you too > must leave the personal stuff, or innuendoes, out of your writing. I don't mean to write innuendoes or personal stuff towards people, except when I might be joking or kidding with them on other subjects, which is just my sense of humor and intended to be a sign of affection towards someone. >And yes, i can think of at elast 3 people who proffess peace and love and > their writing shows the opposite. that is their problem not yours and > just don't reply with same. Excellent point and I'm glad you made it. Kakki - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #414 ***************************** ------- 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)