From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2005 #243 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org 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 Wednesday, June 15 2005 Volume 2005 : Number 243 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Michael Jackson, NJC ["Mark Scott" ] Re: Patti Smith's Meltdown London njc ["ron" ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC ["Kakki" ] Joni at the 1964 Calgary Stampede ["Les Irvin" ] Hejira Poster [Bob Muller ] Re: Hejira Poster ["Michael Flaherty" ] back in town and new Joni show ["Richard Flynn" ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC [revrvl@comcast.net (vince)] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC ["Ruth Davis" ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: Patti Smith's Meltdown London njc [Garret ] (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS [Lori Fye ] Re: no longer Michael Jackson, NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: Michael Jackson, NJC ["ron" ] Re: Hejira Poster [jrmco1@aol.com] Re: Hejira Poster ["Ric Robinson" ] Re: Joni at the 1964 Calgary Stampede [Doug ] Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS [Bob Muller ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:35:35 -0700 From: "Mark Scott" Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC From: "Kakki" 10 people say the elephant was in the room but they didn't take a > photo of it at the time to later prove it was there to others. So we > conclude it never was in the room? > I don't know what the answer to this is, Kakki. I do know that the whole Michael Jackson trial has made me uneasy in my mind and I have not been able to come to any kind of satisfactory resolution for the all issues that it raises. My feeling at this time is that the jury brought back the verdict that they felt they had to bring in under what the law dictates. Obviously they felt there was enough reasonable doubt to rule out a guilty verdict. The question of Michael's actual guilt or innocence is what makes me queasy. I just cannot be completely at ease in my mind that he didn't molest those kids. But I wonder what I base that feeling on and if it is really valid to assume anything in this case. If Michael is innocent, then a very public persecution has been carried out of someone whose only crime is that he is different from other people. He looks odd and behaves in strange ways that some people find unacceptable. I'm not talking about pedophilia or giving alcohol to minors here. He also has a lot of money and a very high public profile. All of this makes him a prime target for unscupulous grifters. Obviously the jury thought the alleged victim's mother, at any rate, if not the kid himself, was one of these types. The only thing that bothers me about this scenario is why someone on the grift would bring a criminal charge against their target. Seems to me it would be effectively killing the goose that lays the golden eggs if the target is sent to prison. Blackmail or extortion through a civil case would seem more logical. After all, that method has been successful before. So you come around to the suspicion that maybe Michael really was guilty. And in that case, a pedophile that has had access to many, many children over the years has been set free. Either way you look at it, it stinks as far as I'm concerned. If he's innocent, he's been publicly harassed and humiliated for no good reason. If he's guilty, a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place and a predator has been set free and will probably find new prey. I have also been disgusted by all of the attention this trial has gotten in the media. And yet I have to admit to having been sucked into it to a certain extent. Travis & I were getting ready to take our cats to the vet for their yearly exams and innoculations when the tv news started running footage of the SUVs on their way to the Santa Maria courthouse to hear the verdict. It was hard to turn off the car radio and go into the vet's office before the verdict was announced. I guess it's akin to driving past a car wreck. But the whole culture of celebrity is way out of control nowadays and all the attention anything that involves MJ receives is just symptomatic of that, I suppose. Court TV was still running 'coverage of the Michael Jackson trial' today and of course Leno seems to be talking about little else. Personally I'll be glad when the whole thing fades away. But I still can't feel good about it, whether Michael's guilty or not. I do think Michael is in desparate need of some kind of professional help. A lot of high-profile people who were robbed of their childhoods have turned into damaged adults. If anything is salvageable with MJ, I do think the effort should be made. If he is a pedophile, something should be done to stop him. But if he's just a damaged human being who looks and acts crazy, then he should be helped, not crucified. Mark E. in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:53:58 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Patti Smith's Meltdown London njc hi >>>garret wrote >I know i've banged on about the wonderfully eclectic lineup that Patti >Smith and > the Royal Festival Hall have pulled together for this two week long > festival > that started on saturday (good reviews of Ed Harcourt and Brian Jonestown > Massacre), but i wanted to remind the London JMDLers that they could see > something brilliant at this....................... On saturday 18th there > is a free event > called THE WORD & PATTI from 1pm: Live poetry and performance stimulated > by > Patti Smith's Meltdown. Readings, discussions and performances on > inspirational > favourites from William Blake to the Beat generation, with opportunities > for the > public to take centre stage. Invited guests include Lemn Sissay, Patti > Smith and > New York poet Janet Hamill. i am so stoked - i'll be in london from 23 to 29 june, & i've got a ticket for 24 june - patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! ron npimh - patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:22:51 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC Hi Mark, you wrote: > My feeling at this time is that the jury brought back the verdict that > they felt they had to bring in under what the law dictates. Obviously > they felt there was enough reasonable doubt to rule out a guilty verdict. Yes, and in one way I do understand how they might have reached that verdict and it makes me queasy about some aspects of our court system. Also, makes me a recall a jury I served on one time in a criminal child battery case. Without any stated agreement of collusion or outward decision amongst us to disregard some of the judge's instructions and some of the jury instructions, in actuality, that is what we all did unanimously in reaching our verdict. Regardless of what the prosecutor or defense attorney told us, we all somehow ended up with the same overwhelming picture of what we believed was the real truth and to this day I believe our verdict was correct and true justice was done. Legally incorrect, yes, but I think we all walked away with very clear consciences. > The only thing that bothers me about this scenario is why someone on the > grift would bring a criminal charge against their target. Seems to me it > would be effectively killing the goose that lays the golden eggs if the > target is sent to prison. Blackmail or extortion through a civil case > would seem more logical. After all, that method has been successful > before. What I recall reading in this case is that after the '93 civil settlement the law was changed to where if someone made the accusation or filed a civil claim, then there must also be a criminal investigation or prosecution, regardless of any civil settlement. It was thought that this change might help eliminate the possibilities of false accusations, blackmail, etc. made by any grifters looking to exploit someone. A grifter may think twice about going forward knowing that they would be required to testify and be grilled and scrutinized in the brighter lights of a criminal proceeding. I also understand that a Grand Jury first reviewed the evidence in this case and decided to hand down an indictment - allowing the criminal trial to proceed. > I have also been disgusted by all of the attention this trial has gotten > in the media. Absolutely, me, too. > But the whole culture of celebrity is way out of control nowadays and all > the attention anything that involves MJ receives is just symptomatic of > that, I suppose. It's becoming way beyond disgusting. Bleech! > I do think Michael is in desparate need of some kind of professional help. Based on some of what I have heard and read about his childhood alone, he desperately does. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:33:37 -0600 From: "Les Irvin" Subject: Joni at the 1964 Calgary Stampede Joniphiles - I need some help. At the link below you will find a JPG of the 1964 Calgary Stampede event poster. In the lower left, there is a blurb about the "West's Greatest Hootenanny" - at which Joni performed. If anyone can decipher what the text there actually says I'd be eternally grateful! http://s15.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3V580V9XEE5UA34MWSMB3WSOFU Thanks, Les ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:26:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Hejira Poster Hi Marilyn, how ya' doing? I've never seen a poster per se of that legendary Hejira album cover. What I would suggest if you have the CD is to take the insert into a Kinko's or something and talk to them about supersizing the picture into poster size for you. Maybe the LP photo would work even better, I assume it would be less grainy when they blow it up. Just a thought. Bob - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:50:24 -0500 From: "Michael Flaherty" Subject: Re: Hejira Poster From: "Michael Flaherty" Subject: Re: Hejira Poster To: Bob Muller X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2.3 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:45:24 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050615102644.69955.qmail@web31312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050615102644.69955.qmail@web31312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maybe the LP photo >would work even better, I assume it would be less grainy >when they blow it up. No doubt, but it still wouldn't be very good. Chances are, there were promo posters printed the year of release, but if so those are now worth a bit. Anyway, checking ebay for posters of that type may be your best bet. I got a very nice poster from Refuge of the Road for under 2 dollars which is now framed in my home office. Newer posters tend to be cheaper. Maybe some of PG are out there now? Michael Flaherty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:48:17 -0400 From: "Richard Flynn" Subject: back in town and new Joni show I'm back from the Children's Literature Association Conference in Winnipeg, where I got to meet Mags-a real pleasure. When I got back, the mail had a new Joni show, which I have uploaded to the JMDL tracker: http://jmdl.com/trading/bittorrent.cfm Here are the details for those who have registered and perhaps as an incentive for those who haven't to join us: Joni Michell and The Persuasions 1979-08-03 Oklahoma City Amphitheater Very nice audience recording Lineage: CDR MailTrade from reputable source> EAC (Secure)> flac (level 8, aligned and verified) Disc 1 Persuasions 01 Slip Sliding Away 02 Only Sixteen 03 Searchin'/The Real Nitty Gritty 04 Let Them Talk 05 All I Have to Do is Dream 06 Sincerely 07 Return to Sender 08 Stardust 09 Candles in the Rain 10 The Lord's Prayer Joni Mitchell 11 Big Yellow Taxi 12: In France They Kiss On Main Street 13: Coyote 14: Edith and The Kingpin 15: Just Like This Train 16: Free Man In Paris 17: Goodbye Pork Pie Hat Disc 2 18: Jaco's Solo/Dry Cleaner From Des Moines (cut in middle) 19: God Must Be A Boogie Man 20: Hejira 21: Don's Solo /Dreamland 22: Black Crow 23: Help Me 24: Amelia 25: Furry Sings The Blues 26: Raised On Robbery 27: Shadows and Light 28: Why Do fools Fall In Love? Disc 3 29: Woodstock 30: Jericho 1979-05-27 Berkeley Jazz Festival Greek Theatre Berkeley, CA with Jaco Pastorius, Don Alias, Herbie Hancock and Tony Williams not as high fidelity, but still pretty nice , esp. after Coyote--amazing musicianship--as might be expected 31 Coyote 32 Goodbye Porkpie Hat 33 God Must Be a Boogie Man 34 Chair in the Sky 35 Black Crow 36 Dry Cleaner from Des Moines 37 Woodstock 38 Twisted ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:04:33 +0200 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC >>This is very true. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt (what is a "reasonable doubt?") that the accused person did what he was accused of doing, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it. Likewise, there really is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty." If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, then it's likely because the police believe they have enough evidence to suggest that you might have done the crime. It's then up to you to prove that you *didn't* do it, just as much as the onus is on the state (here it's the crown) to prove that you did do it. You can be accused of a crime, put in jail without bail pending a hearing, spend a fortune on legal fees, have the case ultimately dropped; or have a mistrial declared; or have another trial, and be declared "not guilty" but, in the meantime, you will have lost all of your savings, have debt up to the eyeballs for legal fees incurred, have lost your job and many years of your life doing all of this. In the meantime, if you are in jail, you are still treated as if you were a criminal, even if you didn't do it. If you are very rich and influential, you can be released on bail. If you are poor and the charges are very serious, you may very well sit in jail all this time. Very scary stuff. Catherine<< I'm no lawyer but there seems to be some dubious content in Catherine's post. Here are my comments and questions; I welcome legal opinion which clarifies this. 1. >>Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt<< Doesn't this mean that the person is 'legally' innocent? 'Morally', 'ethically' innocent etc have no bearing here, surely? 2. >>what is a "reasonable doubt?"<< Look it up, it's defined in the books somewhere. 3. >>Likewise, there really is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty."<< This is news to me. I believed that until the judge slams down the gavel, everyone is 'innocent' until that point. Maybe I'm wrong? 4. >> If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, then it's likely because the police believe they have enough evidence to suggest that you might have done the crime.<< 'likely', 'believe' and suggest' are the key words here. Nothing proved at this point, accused is still innocent. 5. >> It's then up to you to prove that you *didn't* do it, just as much as the onus is on the state (here it's the crown) to prove that you did do it.<< Is this right? Don't the state, or the crown, have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, rather than the onus being on the accused to prove her/his innocence? I don't have many problems with the rest of the text, but the above seems, at least, open to discussion. mike in bcn np - Tom Waits, Potter's Field ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:38:06 +0000 From: revrvl@comcast.net (vince) Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC a jury finding of not guilty depending on local terminology is simply that, which is everything one can semanticise it, it could mean a person is innocent, it could mean the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt a person is innocent until proven guilty, that is presumption under law, and the state must prove guilt, an accused does not need to prove innocence - that is why the state goes first and lays out its proofs and then the accused has the right to its own proofs in response to the state's proofs bail is a function of flight risk - and in some jurisidictions factored in is the severity of the crime alleged - and may be requested at various points prior to trial, such as at a preliminary hearing - there is of course economic injustice in the system, no doubt, but those with money (Scott Peterson, OJ) are denied bail and lots of people without money are out on bond because of the flight risk and perhaps severity of alleged crime a person held without bond is kept in the county facility, a jail, which is no place I would want to be, but it is generally a much better place than prison and a lot of plea bargaining is done to keep sentences under 1 year (jail) rather than over one year (prison) beyond reasonable doubt is a standard in criminal cases; civil cases and civil infractions can have standards such as preponderance of the evidence, or clear and convincing, and those standards are set by statute defense of a criminal charge is costly - very costly - and there is no doubt those without means are at a deep disadvantage; that is true of so much in life and why we must always be involved in the struggle for justice ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC - --- Mark Scott wrote: > Either way you look at it, it stinks as far as I'm > concerned. If he's > innocent, he's been publicly harassed and humiliated > for no good reason. If > he's guilty, a gross miscarriage of justice has > taken place and a predator > has been set free and will probably find new prey. [...] > I do think Michael is in desparate need of some kind > of professional help. > A lot of high-profile people who were robbed of > their childhoods have turned > into damaged adults. If anything is salvageable > with MJ, I do think the > effort should be made. If he is a pedophile, > something should be done to > stop him. But if he's just a damaged human being > who looks and acts crazy, > then he should be helped, not crucified. > Mark, that's the most excellent post I've read in a long time and *completely* sums up my feelings about it, in a way that I could never possibly explain anywhere near as clearly as you've just done. Bravo! Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:16:35 GMT From: "Ruth Davis" Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC I think MJ should try a new career. He could reprise Tony Perkins' role in Psycho, using his secret, creepy voice. Ruth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:28:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC - --- mike pritchard wrote: > I'm no lawyer but there seems to be some dubious > content in Catherine's post. > Here are my comments and questions; I welcome legal > opinion which clarifies > this. > > 1. >>Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means > they can't prove beyond a > reasonable doubt<< > Doesn't this mean that the person is 'legally' > innocent? 'Morally', > 'ethically' innocent etc have no bearing here, > surely? I'm not a lawyer either but, just because a jury finds someone "not guilty", doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. > 2. >>what is a "reasonable doubt?"<< > Look it up, it's defined in the books somewhere. I hope they never pick me for a jury, because I'm sure I could always find a reason to doubt. > 3. >>Likewise, there really is no such thing as > "innocent until proven > guilty."<< > This is news to me. I believed that until the judge > slams down the gavel, > everyone is 'innocent' until that point. Maybe I'm > wrong? I probably could have explained that better and I will try to do it without creating a really long e-mail but... I know someone who is friends of some people who were arrested and charged with murdering their baby. It was big news here after it happened and then it sort of disappeared from the news but, all the while, things were going on. I hope I can capture the gist of this. The baby had been born prematurely and had a number of health conditions. The parents brought him into the hospital because he was very ill and shortly thereafter he died. Some time later (I'm not sure how long it took), the police arrived at the parents' home, arrested them both, took away their other child and put him under the care of Children's Aid. Both parents were thrown into jail and not granted bail. Add to this, they were both immigrants and their English wasn't that good. And neither of them was terribly educated and neither had a very good job, hence they didn't have a lot of money. There had been very recently another horrible case of a child being beaten to death by his parents and this was very much in the news so, no doubt, the Attorney General's office, the police and whoever else had this on their minds and were very much in Zero-Tolerance mode. There were hearings, pre-trials, all sorts of things at which evidence was presented that suggested that the child may have been severely beaten OR that there were medical reasons why some of this happened, which included the use of CPR which could have caused some of the damage. Several years and many, many thousands of dollars later, the judge determined that there wasn't enough evidence to prove the parents had, in fact, killed the baby. This all took place without there ever actually being a trial. Ultimately, both mother and father were released but they had been in prison by this point for several years. Their parents had mortgaged their house to the hilt to pay for legal costs. Their other child had been in foster care for a number of years. Their jobs were gone and, no doubt, there are still people who believe they are baby killers. I don't know if they did it or not. But, if they didn't, their lives have been effectively ruined. They have lost all faith in the police, the legal system and the concept of fairness. And, in the meantime, they were treated with utter contempt by the police and the penal system and they were kept in isolation from each other, and from other people. No one likes a baby killer and they are kept away from other prisoners. Another situation. A co-worker of mine has a 14-yr-old son who has been charged with sexual assault. His crime? He may or may not have touched a 14-year old girl on the bum. There was apparently enough evidence for the police to arrest him (he is not in jail, of course). He was expelled from his school and made to go to another one. There hasn't been a trial yet, although this happened last fall and there likely won't be anything like a trial until THIS fall. He says he didn't do it. A number of his friends, male and female, say he didn't do it. A number of her friends, male and female, say he did do it. A whole bunch of people were there when the incident happened, so did he do it or didn't he? In any case, my co-worker has now spent $11,000 on lawyer's fees so far. There was talk of him plea-bargaining to "common assault" but my co-worker doesn't want him to admit he did that, if he didn't do anything. She taught him not to lie. For all intents and purposes, despite our apparent belief that people are "innocent until proven guilty", people are treated as if they are guilty, even if they're not and that's what I mean by "guilty until proven innocent." It's just words. > 4. >> If you are arrested on suspicion of having > committed a crime, then it's > likely because the police believe they have enough > evidence to suggest that > you might have done the crime.<< > 'likely', 'believe' and suggest' are the key words > here. Nothing proved at > this point, accused is still innocent. > 5. >> It's then up to you to prove that you *didn't* > do it, just as much as > the onus is on the state (here it's the crown) to > prove that you did do it.<< > Is this right? Don't the state, or the crown, have > to prove beyond all > reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, rather > than the onus being on the > accused to prove her/his innocence? > > I don't have many problems with the rest of the > text, but the above seems, at > least, open to discussion. > > mike in bcn > np - Tom Waits, Potter's Field > Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:46:37 +0100 From: Garret Subject: Re: Patti Smith's Meltdown London njc Quoting ron : > > i am so stoked - i'll be in london from 23 to 29 june, & i've got a ticket > for 24 june - patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > > ron > npimh - patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > patti smith with bert jansch & roy harper!!!!!!!! > That sounds like an exciting show! I think Lenny Kaye had a hand in pulling that night together. I'm pretty bloomin' excited about Patti Smith performing Horses on the 25th. GARRET NP- Roisin Murphy, Night Of The Dancing Flame (I am LOVING this album) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:27:00 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS There's no time left to write paper letters and get them into the mail ... the vote is tomorrow. Please read and, if public media matters to you, participate. Hi, You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year$100 millionand end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Thanks! P.S. Read the *Washington Post* report on the threat to NPR and PBS at: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745 ~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:01:08 -0400 From: vince Subject: no longer Michael Jackson, NJC Catherine McKay wrote: > >I probably could have explained that better and I will >try to do it without creating a really long e-mail >but... I know someone who is friends of some people >who were arrested and charged with murdering their >baby. It was big news here after it happened and then >it sort of disappeared from the news but, all the >while, things were going on. I hope I can capture the >gist of this. > Particular cases where the system go awry are of the utmost importance and we must be ever vigilant in pursuit of justice. Individual cases do take away from the fact that the system overall works, it is as good as it gets and we must ever fight for justice. In all of this, what incredibly disturbs me is that my government is operating the functional equivalent of Dachau at Gitmo and elsewhere and we cannot seem to stop it. Vince PS Before I am accused of anything, Dachau was not a death camp, it was the place for "enemies" of the state who were held for years in horrid conditions, often tortured, without charges, etc etc etc etc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:21:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: no longer Michael Jackson, NJC - --- vince wrote: > Particular cases where the system go awry are of the > utmost importance > and we must be ever vigilant in pursuit of justice. > Individual cases do > take away from the fact that the system overall > works, it is as good as > it gets and we must ever fight for justice. > I hope that's right because, hearing some of these stories, and a few others, scares the bejeebers out of me. Of course, I have to recognize that I may be missing some very important information in these cases, because what I'm hearing is someone's take on the story but, nevertheless, it makes me wonder. I think that in many cases the system does work well for most people, and probably better than it did 100, or even 50 years ago. We're not hanging people anymore (at least, not here.) Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:39:24 -0500 From: "mack watson-bush" Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS I did this immediately Lori. Also sent the link to everyone in my address book. I exhort all to take part. mack Np: judy garland. Has anyone else heard her version of "I'm Old Fashioned", could be the finest single tune I have ever heard? Her voice actually becomes a part of the music, or vice versa. Pure perfection. Damn. > http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ > > A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, > starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free > children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the > history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, > Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. > > The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year$100 millionand > end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved > children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards > from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might > not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. > > Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach > 400,000 signatures today? > > http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ > > Thanks! > > P.S. Read the *Washington Post* report on the threat to NPR and PBS at: > > http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745 > ~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:02:14 +0200 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Re: michael jackson NJC >>I'm not a lawyer either but, just because a jury finds someone "not guilty", doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.<< no it doesn't, and vice versa too. I sympathise with the people in your example (suspected child killers) and what happened to them should not happen, but I was talking about something slightly different and I'll repeat what I said earlier here, namely that >>I believed that until the judge slams down the gavel, everyone is 'innocent' until that point.<< I mean(t) to say that they were not legally punished for the crime in any way; without a doubt they were treated terribly by the system but they were never legally guilty, and as you said, they never went to trial, presumably because what the police and / or prosecutors 'believed' to be true turned out to be untrue, or was difficult to prove to be true. They were never punished on the basis of a conviction, not that it makes it any easier. >>For all intents and purposes, despite our apparent belief that people are "innocent until proven guilty", people are treated as if they are guilty, even if they're not and that's what I mean by "guilty until proven innocent." It's just words.<< I see what you mean, except that I wouldn't agree that ALL people are treated as if they were guilty. I'm sure it happens in some / many cases but not all, surely. It's just words. Thanks for clarifying, mike in bcn np Lmdia Pujol - ieie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:08:07 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Michael Jackson, NJC hi >>>>mark wrote >>>>>The only thing that bothers me about this scenario is why someone on the grift would bring a criminal charge against their target. Seems to me it would be effectively killing the goose that lays the golden eggs if the target is sent to prison. Blackmail or extortion through a civil case would seem more logical. After all, that method has been successful before. it cuts down on the risk. if the person starts with a civil case, & loses, they could be ordered to pay the legal costs of the defendant, & in mj's case that could bankrupt most people. if they go with the criminal case first, the state pays for the prosecution costs. if mj is found guilty, then a civil case is a formality. if he is found not guilty, then the merits of the case are thoroughly evaluated in court at someone else's expense. the plaintiff then has a thorough evaluation as to whether the evidence is sufficient for a civil claim & can decide to proceed or not. even if a person is found not guilty in a criminal case, he can still be found at fault in a civil case due to the differing burdens of proof. (beyond reasonable doubt as against a preponderance of possibilities) mj could still find himself on the sharp end of a civil claim................ & as far as the verdict goes. he has been found "not guilty" as opposed to "not being found guilty". there is a world of difference between the two. ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:16:17 -0400 From: jrmco1@aol.com Subject: Re: Hejira Poster Why don't you go straight to the source and ask the photographer Norman Seeff himself, Marilyn? There are a couple of additional shots of Joni on his site, as well as contact info. He's got the Hejira cover on the site along with some other great ones he's done. I'll keep an eye peeled for a poster-size of the Hejira design for ya though. https://www.normanseeff.com/ Good luck! - -Julius - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:50 +0100 From: "Ric Robinson" Subject: Re: Hejira Poster If you're very quick, there's this... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=104950&item=7522406150&rd=1 Ric - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Hejira Poster > Why don't you go straight to the source and ask the photographer Norman > Seeff himself, Marilyn? There are a couple of additional shots of Joni on > his site, as well as contact info. He's got the Hejira cover on the site > along with some other great ones he's done. I'll keep an eye peeled for a > poster-size of the Hejira design for ya though. > > https://www.normanseeff.com/ > > Good luck! > > -Julius > > > > - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:11:32 -0400 From: Doug Subject: Re: Joni at the 1964 Calgary Stampede This is as much as I can see, or guess. Thursday July 9 - Afternoon and Evening at 1:30 and 8:30 p.m. _________ Oscar Brand of the "Let's Sing Out" CTV Network Television ____ _______ by a ___ of ____ ____ folk singers. Les Irvin wrote: >Joniphiles - > >I need some help. At the link below you will find a JPG of the 1964 Calgary >Stampede event poster. In the lower left, there is a blurb about the >"West's Greatest Hootenanny" - at which Joni performed. > >If anyone can decipher what the text there actually says I'd be eternally >grateful! > >http://s15.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3V580V9XEE5UA34MWSMB3WSOFU > >Thanks, >Les ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:49:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS Remind me again why Government should fund PBS? In its day it might have been appropriate, but TV has evolved considerably since the days of three networks and Public Broadcasting. I'm not sure that I see a need for it anymore. Of course, I don't know why we should spend over 200 billion in Iraq (other than the fact that I sleep so much better at night knowing that those Iraqis won't be attacking me with weapons they don't have), but that's a whole 'nuther issue. Bob NP: Foo Fighters, "Hell" (from their new 2-disc set released yesterday) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:44:31 -0400 From: "Richard Flynn" Subject: RE: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS Bob-- Yes, TV has evolved to the point where news is presented as a circus (viz, the recent Michael Jackson extravaganza) or a political propaganda ("fair and balanced"---NOT). Public Radio, in particular, is the only form of in-depth reporting on the broadcast or cable spectrum. Do you really think there's a lot of quality children's programming on the tv except on PBS? (There is some, but mostly there's a lot of crap.) I have every cable channel known to humanity--and I very rarely watch television--but I do listen to the radio, public radio--every day, and I contribute annually. Public TV and radio are worthy of our tax dollars, just as the Endowments are. And, as you point out, there's a lot of stuff we spend our money on that's inexcusable, like this illegitimate f*cking war. Your pal, Richard - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Bob Muller Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:50 PM To: mack watson-bush; joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS Remind me again why Government should fund PBS? In its day it might have been appropriate, but TV has evolved considerably since the days of three networks and Public Broadcasting. I'm not sure that I see a need for it anymore. Of course, I don't know why we should spend over 200 billion in Iraq (other than the fact that I sleep so much better at night knowing that those Iraqis won't be attacking me with weapons they don't have), but that's a whole 'nuther issue. Bob NP: Foo Fighters, "Hell" (from their new 2-disc set released yesterday) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:57:14 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS TV has evolved? To reality shows, forensics, infomercials, "fair and balanced" news, forensics, B movies starring Bruce Willis, forsensics, 15 variations of Law and Order. It makes me nostalgic for the days of "My Mother the Car." Geez, about all I watch on TV is PBS and TCM. The reason government should fund PBS is the same reason government should fund libraries. The marketplace won't support either of these institutions, and they enrich our lives immeasurably. At 06:49 PM 6/15/2005, you wrote: >Remind me again why Government should fund PBS? In its day it might have >been appropriate, but TV has evolved considerably since the days of three >networks and Public Broadcasting. I'm not sure that I see a need for it >anymore. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Deb Messling -^..^- messling@enter.net - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:11:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: RE: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS Good points, Richard - I wasn't considering the children's programming issues which is certainly a consideration. As for NPR, I agree with you and have been a contributor myself - my wife listens to it everyday as well. Maybe NPR needs to be picked up XM or Sirius...my gut feel is that most listeners DON'T support it with their $$. I was more questioning the need for PBS (probably not a good issue for me as I gave up everything but The Simpsons & IFC). Then again, I grew up on crappy Saturday cartoons and that was OK because I had parents who limited my TV time and actually enjoyed reading to me and playing games with me and pushing me out the door to play, pretty much the same approach I used with my son. Speaking of the media....isn't it funny that now that the MJ verdict is announced, the media has immediately pasted poor Terry Schiavo's mug back on the front page? Anything to create a subterfuge for the Downing Street Memo, eh? And thanks for being my pal - I'm yours too and PALS RULE! Bob NP: The Sundays, "Cry" - --------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:20:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS By evolved, I don't mean to say that it's improved - far from it...like Bruce says, "57 Channels & nothing on", but by the same token there's the History Channel, A&E, Discovery, and other networks who offer higher quality programming than the lowest common denominator crap. As for the reality shows - man, what an embarrassment to our culture, but if they weren't successful & popular they'd be axed, right? Maybe we'll live to see the day. Bob NP: Elvis Costello, "When I Was Cruel, No. 2" Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:45:41 +1200 From: hell@ihug.co.nz Subject: Re: Joni at the 1964 Calgary Stampede Doug wrote: > This is as much as I can see, or guess. I can add a bit more: Thursday July 9 - Afternoon and Evening at 1:30 and 8:30 p.m. Starring Oscar Brand of the "Let's Sing Out" CTV Network Television show. Supported by a host? of well-known folk singers. Hell ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:00:15 -0400 From: vince Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS because it is as independent news as we get, something that commercial broadcasting cannot give us - it does things because it not corporate controlled and serves us with such range of news sources and programs, shows that that in-depth look at issues - without NPR and PBS where would we do - all commercial tv gives as children's shows lame cartoons and for what commercial tv gives is the hokey contrived sensationalized drama they pass off as :history: never another Eye on the Prize, never another Baseball, Civil War, New York, commercial broadcast does not give us that which is important to our culture. Bob Muller wrote: >Remind me again why Government should fund PBS? In its day it might have been appropriate, but TV has evolved considerably since the days of three networks and Public Broadcasting. I'm not sure that I see a need for it anymore. Of course, I don't know why we should spend over 200 billion in Iraq (other than the fact that I sleep so much better at night knowing that those Iraqis won't be attacking me with weapons they don't have), but that's a whole 'nuther issue. > >Bob > >NP: Foo Fighters, "Hell" (from their new 2-disc set released yesterday) >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:03:15 -0400 From: vince Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS Deb Messling wrote brilliantly > > > The reason government should fund PBS is the same reason government > should fund libraries. The marketplace won't support either of these > institutions, and they enrich our lives immeasurably I would add, and the betterment of our culture to come up with: The reason government should fund PBS is the same reason government should fund libraries. The marketplace won't support either of these institutions, and they enrich our lives and the betterment of our culture immeasurably. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:48:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: (NJC) This time, it's for real: Save NPR and PBS - --- Deb Messling wrote: > TV has evolved? To reality shows, forensics, > infomercials, "fair and > balanced" news, forensics, B movies starring Bruce > Willis, forsensics, 15 > variations of Law and Order. It makes me nostalgic > for the days of "My > Mother the Car." > > Geez, about all I watch on TV is PBS and TCM. > > The reason government should fund PBS is the same > reason government should > fund libraries. The marketplace won't support > either of these > institutions, and they enrich our lives > immeasurably. > A few of us at work had a discussion/argument about stupidity TV the other day (sometimes we actually do work, but it's a lot more fun when we have discussions like this). I was bitching about stupid reality shows, when one of my co-workers pointed out that supposedly TV is smarter now than it ever was, the idea being that reality TV does more to make you smarter than sitcoms like Gilligan's Island. The reality shows (supposedly) make you think, because you're anticipating various options that people can/should take, or thinking about what you would do in their place, yelling at them when they do something you don't agree with; whereas the old-fashioned "golden age of TV" sitcoms were very linear and you just watched them, but didn't interact. Although I see his point, and maybe it's a valid one, most TV still sucks and I am SO not interested in watching reality TV or idol shows. And even though I'm a lazy lump, I can't sit still and watch TV for hours. It either makes me antsy, or I fall asleep. I haven't watched TV for a long time. I used to watch The Simpsons faithfully and that was about the only show I ever watched, at least on any regular kind of basis, but I haven't even watched that for a long time, because I get fed up with the wonky schedules. I do watch movies, but mostly rented ones, because if something's on TV, it's not usually at a time that's convenient for me. I agree with you about libraries and public TV. I love my library, especially when you can put holds on things by internet and they call you when it arrives at your branch. It also means I don't have to go out and buy a bunch of books that I may never read again and which are pain in the ass to deal with if you move. Can you imagine a library being funded by commercial enterprise? This book is brought to you by Coca Cola! The MacDonald's collection! Ads on every page, or clusters of ads interspersed between pages of a story, like magazines, which, ironically, you pay for. Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:05:52 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Public Broadcasting - NJC Thanks Ruth for posting this, I hope folks will take the 1 second it takes to go in & basically click the link to send this to their gov't reps now... this administration has gone to far! Cutting big bird! Actually I think it has more to do with getting revenge on Bill Moyers (my hero... I imagine there are many here who are fans of his interviews with Joseph Campbell)... Bill is such an incredible man...spiritual, educated, wise... he stands for everything that is right in this world... >It is actually worse than I thought when I posted my last message. The plan in Congress is to slash funding for public TV and NPR by $100 mil this year, and eliminate ALL FUNDING in two years. If any of you want to take action on this, you can copy the following link: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=5663-2791183-XRBohK41G81SBXgIEc XOaw&t=3 Ruth< ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2005 #243 ***************************** ------- 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)