From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2006 #52 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 Website: http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Thursday, February 9 2006 Volume 2006 : Number 052 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Joni and Carnegie [Catherine McKay ] Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA [Em ] Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA [Em ] Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA [Catherine McKay ] Mohamed cartoons, njc ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: njc: mohammed cartoons ["Sherelle Smith" ] Mohamed cartoons, njc ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Mohamed cartoons, njc ["Gerald A. Notaro" ] Re: Patti? NJC [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: Joni and Carnegie [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: njc: mohammed cartoons ["ron" ] Re: Mohamed cartoons, njc [revrvl@comcast.net (vince)] Re: a few cartoons, njc [revrvl@comcast.net (vince)] Re: Tre Cool is Randy's homie!!!!!!!! njc [Randy Remote ] Re: TI question [Bob Muller ] Mohamed cartoons, njc ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc ["ron" ] NJC Rant: Madonna and the Grammys ["Michael O'Malley" Subject: Re: Joni and Carnegie - --- "Snatch N. Grabster" wrote: > Tributes are a difficult thing. You can feel like > you're attending your own > funeral. > Yes! Exactly! Wouldn't you want to stand up and shout, "But I ain't dead yet!!!" Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:22:59 -0800 (PST) From: Em Subject: Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA LOL Catherine! I hear ya...but I kind of like the fact that on some level at least, she is considered attractive. Because she's my age! Exactly! So I figure as long as she's not "out" of contention for being sexually attractive...at least I, Em, am not categorically ruled out! She's pushing the envelope for us, I feel. Not my cup of tea musically or artistically....but I thought her legs looked awesome! the thighs! I could have done without the knee socks...but the thighs, my god! Sha can wrap those around my head anyday! So your kids think she's ancient, huh? Maybe like when I was a kid we thought of Zsa Zsa Gabor. interesting! :) Em - --- Catherine McKay wrote: > She really needs to cover her ass though in that video > they show on TV. I don't remember the name, but she's > wearing only bum floss and wiggling her ass at the > camera. My kids find it offensive because she's so > old. On the other hand, there's the genius lyrics of > "My humps." If that shite can make it to TV, what are > we all doing out here writing pointless e-mails for no > pay, to a group of only 800 or so? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Em Subject: Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA hey, we're *still* contendahs Catherine, on some other level, in some other way. :) yeah butt floss does what the New Yorkers call skeeves me. (sp?) i would agree, lose the butt floss, Madonna! Em - --- Catherine McKay wrote: > > --- Em wrote: > > So your kids think she's ancient, huh? Maybe like > > when I was a kid we > > thought of Zsa Zsa Gabor. > > interesting! > > :) > > She's still younger than me! but I think that, at some > point, no matter how good shape you're in, you have to > lose the bum floss! Em, you and I coulda been > contendahs if we had the money to hire personal > trainers and chefs to serve us the good low-carb > stuff, eh? ;-) > > > Catherine > Toronto > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:30:50 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc / NOW MADONNA - --- Em wrote: > So your kids think she's ancient, huh? Maybe like > when I was a kid we > thought of Zsa Zsa Gabor. > interesting! > :) She's still younger than me! but I think that, at some point, no matter how good shape you're in, you have to lose the bum floss! Em, you and I coulda been contendahs if we had the money to hire personal trainers and chefs to serve us the good low-carb stuff, eh? ;-) Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:21:32 -0000 From: "Ric Robinson" Subject: Re: dolly and both sides now. OMG NO!!! Dolly's BSN is AWFUL Ric - ----- Original Message ----- From: "clive sax" To: Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:59 PM Subject: dolly and both sides now. > Hi all, I was just listening to Dolly Parton talk on BBC Radio 4 about > her new album of 60's duets and she was chatting about Dylan and joni not > dueting with her on their respective songs. Of Dylan she said he was > absolutely not interested. Joni however was and the studio time had been > booked, unfortunately joni's mum had a heart attack and Joni needed to go > to Canada and arrange support etc for her parents. Dolly then went on to > say that she intended to sing many more joni songs in the future and that > she and Joni would be getting together. You can listen to the interview > at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/index.shtml and listen to > tonights show again (Thursday) Clive xx > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to deal with junk e-mail > here! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:26:29 -0700 From: "Les Irvin" Subject: TI question Does anyone know if Turbulent Indigo was released as an LP as well as on CD? Les ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:55:44 +0100 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Mohamed cartoons, njc This is the best I've read on the topic. Long reading but worth it Courtesy of : Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com Laurent The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments By George Friedman There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless, there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in general being warned to leave Islamic countries -- has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has its interesting moments. At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways. Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these cartoons. It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal. The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus - -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.) In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants. These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics. In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states. One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides. The Fissures in the West It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" -- there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely, there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we mean now. In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to 9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes, the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over the top. Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen. The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible. As the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EU offices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe. From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an argument that the Bush administration has been making from the beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune to the threat than the Americans are. This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the dominant populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London, threatening the city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive nerves. It becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to distinguish between their own relationship with the Islamic world and the American relationship with the Islamic world. A sense of shared fate emerges, driving the Americans and Europeans closer together. At a time when pressing issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the table, this increases Washington's freedom of action. Put another way, the Muslim strategy of splitting the United States and Europe -- and using Europe to constrain the United States - -- was heavily damaged by the Muslim response to the cartoons. The Intra-Ummah Divide But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between these two communities have always been substantial. Theological differences aside, both international friction and internal friction have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq, tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and Iran) -- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government involvement. Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria -- aligned with Iran -- is home to a major Sunni community; there is another in Lebanon. The cartoons provided what was essentially a secular regime the opportunity to take the lead in a religious matter, by permitting the attacks on the embassies. This helped consolidate the regime's position, however temporarily. Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are uneasy with the passions of the moment. Beneficiaries on Both Sides The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western governments to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is taken as a sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is constantly compressing each community, even as they are divided. One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and -- though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level -- didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December, purposely "to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in response to the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly been stirred. There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.) Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States: The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark" campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States over nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis who have raised questions about its flirtations with the United States in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe. The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult. It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but these are. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:08:58 +0000 From: "Sherelle Smith" Subject: Re: njc: mohammed cartoons Hi Ron, I missed hearing our country's reaction(s) to this event believe it or not. Sometimes I just need to step away from the world and gather my senses back. I think trying to politically and diplomatically approach this subject was a no win situation for anyone who tried. The U.S. has been the subject of ire for so long, I don't think we know how to act when we are "not" the target. I wonder if U.S. foreign policy advisors were burning the midnight oil on this one! Yikes! Sigh...we'll see what tomorrow brings. Sherelle >From: "ron" >To: "Sherelle Smith" >, >CC: >Subject: Re: njc: mohammed cartoons >Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:33:23 +0200 > >hi > > > >>>>>jennifer wrote > >>>> so what does everyone think of this controversy? > > >>>>sherelle replied > >>>>> While I have a healthy respect for those who are offended >when something they take seriously is made fun of, I don't understand the >need for violence and revulsion. This cartoon came from a newspaper that >did it on their own. I think something is way out of proportion here. > > >what i did enjoy was seeing the different spins put on our governments >reaction. the actual reaction was a wishy washy non commital non offensive >speech along the lines of "we support free speech but people should really >not be offensive" > >one newspaper had a big heading re the govt supporting free speech > >another had a big heading about the govt opposing hate speech > >what a crock - the actual reaction was a wishy washy non commital non >offensive speech along the lines of "we support free speech but people >should really not be offensive" > >& my personal; opinion - well - we all have to put up with a whole heap of >what we consider to be offensive about what is precious to us. its a part >of the price that we pay to be what others consider to be offensive about >what is precious to them. > >& as for muslims in general - well - i get seriously pissed off when all >christians, and god, are judged by the babblings and actions of morons who >call themselves christian but dont have a clue, & i guess that there must >be muslims out there who feel just the same. > > >ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:17:55 +0100 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Mohamed cartoons, njc The Reverend wrote : Yet lets say that some Islamic artists portrayed King Christian giving a blow job to Hitler in Tivoli gardens while storm troopers castrate Jewish men and spear Jewish babies all around and put severed baby limbs around a statute of Hans Christian Andersen - there would be a reaction. Probably not of the scale we have seen - but a reaction, yes. Dear Vince, I am sending you by private email (and to anybody who requests to me) some examples of cartoons such as < a cartoon showing an Arab being put into a flatting mill by two soldiers wearing helmets with Stars of David. The Arab's blood pours out and two Jews with kippot and Stars of David on their shirts drink the blood laughingly." Yet, we find very little condemnation and apologies from the international community when these cartoons are published. In response to the offending cartoons of Muhammad, many like The Vatican said that "the drawings amounted to an "unacceptable provocation" and the right to freedom of expression "cannot entail the right to offend the sentiment of believers." One wonders why the same standards have not been used in reacting to the above cartoons. On the other hand, Die Welt, one of the German papers to print the cartoons, got it right when they noted (as quoted in CNSNews.com ): "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they came across as less hypocritical," the Hamburg-based daily said, noting that no protests greeted the depiction by Syrian television of rabbis as cannibals." Unfortunately it is not just the Arab world that seems comfortable publishing blatantly anti-Semitic slurs in the guise of "political" cartoons. As previously documented by Honest Reporting, media in Europe and the United States have published cartoons that go beyond offensive. A political cartoon published in The Independent in 2003 depicted Ariel Sharon biting into the flesh of a Palestinian baby. The background shows Apache attack helicopters firing missiles, and blaring the message "Vote Likud." Sharon is saying, 'What's wrong, you never seen a politician kissing babies before?" The government of Israel lodged an official protest to the cartoon by Dave Brown. Yet no apology similar to the many we are hearing from around the world today was forthcoming. < Laurent [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of image001.jpg] [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of image002.jpg] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:25:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: Mohamed cartoons, njc Laurent Olszer wrote: > This is the best I've read on the topic. Long reading but worth it > > Courtesy of : Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com Interesting reading. One of the views held here in the American press is that Europe (especially France) is finally waking up to a serious world wide threat. How do you feel about that? Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:41:28 EST From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: Patti? NJC Bree wrote: While contemplating dipping potato chips in chocolate this morning...I'm wondering about Patti. Are you okay? Hi Bree, Is Marianne pregnant? I think Patti is a sweet name if ya'll choose it. Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:45:42 EST From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni and Carnegie Jerry wrote: I think Julius' explanation earlier of a rift between the promoters and Joni's management is the best explanation. I'm surprised, though, that Joni didn't over ride it all. Also, it may have involved demands of her being allowed to smoke where and when she wanted. Hi Jerry, I think she was smoking on a rift while promoting the over ride nature of the cat. Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:33:23 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: njc: mohammed cartoons hi >>>>>jennifer wrote >>>> so what does everyone think of this controversy? >>>>sherelle replied >>>>> While I have a healthy respect for those who are offended when something they take seriously is made fun of, I don't understand the need for violence and revulsion. This cartoon came from a newspaper that did it on their own. I think something is way out of proportion here. what i did enjoy was seeing the different spins put on our governments reaction. the actual reaction was a wishy washy non commital non offensive speech along the lines of "we support free speech but people should really not be offensive" one newspaper had a big heading re the govt supporting free speech another had a big heading about the govt opposing hate speech what a crock - the actual reaction was a wishy washy non commital non offensive speech along the lines of "we support free speech but people should really not be offensive" & my personal; opinion - well - we all have to put up with a whole heap of what we consider to be offensive about what is precious to us. its a part of the price that we pay to be what others consider to be offensive about what is precious to them. & as for muslims in general - well - i get seriously pissed off when all christians, and god, are judged by the babblings and actions of morons who call themselves christian but dont have a clue, & i guess that there must be muslims out there who feel just the same. ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:08:45 +0000 From: revrvl@comcast.net (vince) Subject: Re: Mohamed cartoons, njc Laurent, Sounds like Protocols of Elders of Zion shit in cartoon form. And it is disgusting and revolting. In today's Chicago Tribune a guest editorial from an Arab educational agency reports that the danish paper that printed the anti-Islamic cartoons had within the past two years refused to print similar anti-Christian cartoons because it would offend their readers. A question: who's zooming whom? In the depths of human sin, human depravity, all are losers. When the limits of taste are pushed into the offensive level, what do we say? Is a movie like the Aristocrats a brilliant examination of pushing the boundaries of what is considered humor to expose the absolute absurdity of such limits, or is it tasteless and offensive swill that glorifies incest, child abuse, and everything else disgusting? Is Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic" a provacative exploration of getting beyond the usual rhetoric on race and anti semitism or is it racist and anti Asian? The cartoons you have sent, I have not looked at yet but I have read your descriptions. Yes, filth like that is readily available in the anti Semitic world. The president of Iran calling for cartoons of the Holocaust is a pandering to the worst and basest forms of sin. Yet is there - in the sense of the Aristocrats or Sarah Silverman - a place where that reveals precisely what the problem is: hate which is so absurd that its very seriousness shows how ridiculous it is and exposes the basic level of hate that in this case may portray a Jew, in aother an Arab, in another a Christian, and we can go to China and find anti Tibetan filth,and Japan and find anti Korean filth, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc - and do we laugh, or cry. Do we mourn or laugh, saying, this exposes the human lie. Perhaps we do both. When Jews died to protest the raising of the Roman standard in Jerusalem on the grounds of idolatry, were they ridiculous ideologues, or martyrs? I was waiting for your response because I knew it would be challenging. This response of mine is meandering all over the place. We have seen antiIslamic cartoons, you ahve shared antiSemitic cartoons, we can easily find antiChristian cartoons (and those as a Christian I will confess are often based in some degree of truth) and every type of human deprtavity. I have heard and seen incredible and horrific antiArab incendiary things from Israel and what you have described is its mirror image, and none of it justifies the other. Maybe it is the source. I can tell Polish and Italian jokes amongst my Polish and Italian friends and it is fine, because the basic attitude is love, so its cool. I refused to watch the Sopranos for years because it plays to anti Italian stereotypes. I watch it every night now and laugh at seeing things that remind me of familia, yet it presumes a world of hatred and bigotry. Take it to the next level. A joke about running out of virgins is funny in some situations and offensive in others. Sarah Silverman would mock the cartoon below as not having the Jews drink from imported crystal. In light of the Holocaust, the cartoon described below is the highest level of filth. If I had just got finished listening to some of the hatred that pours out against Islam, I perceive it differnetly. If we play Exodus on the cd, do we become enobled or cringe at the line, this land is mine, God gave this land to me. Whose diaspora does that permit? In The Painist, when Polanski shows the last brick in the wall of the ghetto going in, do we feel the pain of the impending doom of the Wrasaw Jews, do we think about the Sharon wall dividing Palestinian villages, do we think that Polanski may have had sex with an underaged girl, do we think that is perhaps understandable that a survivor would act out after his pregnant wife had been butchered, where do we go with it? What remains is that if we look at human depravity, we will never win the race to see which is the worst. The context of all hate - what then do we say? So again my point is that unless we ourselves in those who commit the acts we most deplore, we will simply be denying our own human complicity, our own humanity. And we are further from the beginning of the quest for the solution than ever. With love for you Laurent, Vince - -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Laurent Olszer" > Dear Vince, > > I am sending you by private email (and to anybody who requests to me) some > examples of cartoons such as > > < a cartoon showing an Arab being put into a flatting mill by two soldiers > wearing helmets with Stars of David. The Arab's blood pours out and two Jews > with kippot and Stars of David on their shirts drink the blood laughingly." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:17:49 +0000 From: revrvl@comcast.net (vince) Subject: Re: a few cartoons, njc If I owned a newspaper, would I publish those cartoons on the grounds of free speech? A large part of me says: yes. Would I then publish the antiSemitic cartoons that you sent on the same grounds? When Europeans and Middle Easterners burn Bush in effigy, am I offended or saying, right on? When someone denouces my country for having starting an immoral war and killing lots innocent people and spreading the very violence that we profess to oppose, I do agree. My friend says, "how dare they criticise my country." Thanks again for sharing a most thought provoking article, much of which I agree with, and other things it says chsallenge me, which is good, it is the only way I learn and grow, In the end, this article is wrong in its ultimate sentence. It is not hard to believe that cartoons can be that siginificant. After all, they are: Art. And everyone of us here is here because we believe that Art has power. Vince - -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Laurent Olszer" > This is the best I've read on the topic. Long reading but worth it > > Courtesy of : Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com > > > It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but > these are. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:22:15 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: Tre Cool is Randy's homie!!!!!!!! njc From: "vince" > You did a gig with Tre Cool???? Tre Cool is your homie???????? > Wow!!!!!! Green Day is one group that I really want to see in concert. I > am in awe of you now knowing that you appeared with Tre Cool. Yeah, although I don't remember him at all; at the time, he was just a drummer for a punk band, The Lookouts, and probably only 14 at the time. I knew the leader of the band, Lawrence Livermore, who started Lookout Records, the label Green Day released their first couple of albums on before going big time with Warner. Tre dated one of my daughter's best friends, too. The gig was funny because I was a sometime guitarist with a local cover band, Ray and The Reveleers, and the Lookouts played first, to a bunch of Northern California hippies. Myself and one other guy were the only ones who liked them at all. Everyone else including (especially!) my bandmates were pretty much stunned, and glad when their short set was over. It was fun watching them squirm! I wish I had seen Green Day when they played in my area; then again, they were just another band I was not familiar with. I still have a copy of The Lookouts 1st LP. Part of the Lookout Records story is below, if anyone's interested, with a link to the full article. I think LL wrote about the gig in question in an issue of his 'zine. "It was the middle of the 1980s, and Lawrence Livermore was marooned and flat broke on a mountain top in remote rural Northern California. Only occasionally able to even afford a trip to town, he began to amuse himself by typing up his musings on the punk scene and anything else that popped into his head. When finances made it feasible, he would run off copies at the local feed store (home of the only xerox machine within 50 miles), and thus was born Lookout magazine (the name was inspired by a fire lookout tower on an adjacent mountain). The fledgling fanzine began to attract a following, and at the same time, Lawrence's other main interest, a punk rock band called (what else?) the Lookouts, was taking shape. The final piece fell into place when Lawrence asked his nearest neighbor (a mere mile or so down the road) to join as drummer. The fact that the person in question was only 12 years old and had never played drums before did not seem to deter Lawrence; as he put it later, "There weren't a whole lot of people to choose from." The new drummer's nickname was Tre; Lawrence encouraged him to add the surname of "Cool," and the Lookouts were off and gigging...." http://stage.vitaminic.com/lookout/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:25:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: dolly and both sides now. - and it gets worse! Ric, I agree and I hope her statement was made in jest. As much as I love Joni covers I don't want Dolly to do any more - Lord hear my prayer! BUT...if you'll click this link below and give a listen to this cover of BYT, you'll be rushing, RUSHING to hear Dolly. OMG if you can make it all the way to the end without laughing I'll give you a dollar. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=298430&songID=2977018 Bob NP: Kings Of Leon, "Velvet Snow" - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:26:22 +0000 From: Box of Paints Subject: Re: njc Mohammed cartoons And especially when, apparently Muslim fundamentalists, who never even saw the cartoons, made thier own up involving The Holy Prophet (pbuh) as bestial and claimed that these were the cartoons in question, not the one which is rather tame, actually, with The Holy Prophet wearing a turban on his head which had a lit fuse and the word 'bomb' on it... I'm not sure if the whole cartoon was funny or not, I haven't seen it... These fundamentalists apparently then took these 'bestial' cartoons and took them to the Mullahs in the Middle East which obviously caused more outrage than the original... It seems that somehow the Danish Muslim council seemed to WANT to cause this outrage rather than actually portray the cartoons as they are... having gone online since starting this reply I HAVE seen the cartoons and bar one or two really dodgy ones... they are really quite tame, and it seems that the cartoonists themselves seemed to know what the exercise was about... (it seems that the cartoons were created for the purpose of pushing the envelope and about raising the profile of the newspaper (one of the cartoonists had even drawn himself in a Muslim turban (I'm not sure when the last time I saw a Muslim in turban, possibly the 19th Century but I wasn't around then... typically Danish to confuse Muslims with the Sikhs!) with the words 'PR Stunt' written on his turban... So we are talking about a small influential vociferous group of fundamentalist who are perpetuating this violence and furthering the view that all Muslims are hot-headed and bloodthirsty... Yes, I agree with freedon of speech and freedom of the press and people should have the right to criticise government (which the freedom of speech theory- and it is a theory even here in England - is based...) but I can't recall Denmark having a Muslim government. Anyway... my two cents... Jamie Zoob On 09/02/06, vince wrote: > I don't know that many of us can fathom the depth of the insult that bthese cartoons convey to conservative Islam. It is idolatry to make a representation of the Prophet, and to make demeaning representations of Mohammed is beyond inflammatory. In the same way, conservative Jews who understand the Decalogue in a certain way or follow traditional practice of not making any human attempt to replicaste the deity will never write the name of God, but G_d, nor pronounce the name of God (transliterated as YHWH) alound, instead, saying the word "Adonai" when reading a Scriptural passage. It is considered profane and idoltarous to make graven images - any represenatton - of the divine image and certainly profane for a human to say the name of the Holy One. Islam shares much of the same practice, especially as far as not making representations of Mohammed who is the Prophet but is not God, and thus not someone who is to be represented as if he were an object of worship. > > If some obscene cartoons blaspheming God were dropped into a Hasidic community, there would certainly be a reaction, although most probably not of this type and intensity. > > Judaism has in its history many examples of force being used to resist graven images in Jerusalem and elsewhere. But no Christian should say a critical word of the Islamic reaction to these cartoons considered the various Crusades, Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, Scopes Trials, bombings of abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices, and waging a generation of a Cold War against godless Commies, and other such things as Christians have done when they felt something holy was being profaned. And I say this as a Christian, and as a pastor. I am not proud of that history, but I cannot ignore it and then judge the Islamic reaction. - -- I am a lonely Painter I live in a Box of Paints I'm frightened by the devil But I'm drawn to those ones that 'aint afraid... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:35:48 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: TI question It was released on cassette and CD, not on LP. Seems like I read somewhere that NRH was the last Joni album to be released on vinyl. Bob NP: Laura Williams, "Big Yellow Taxi" Les Irvin wrote: Does anyone know if Turbulent Indigo was released as an LP as well as on CD? Les - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:04:19 +0100 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Mohamed cartoons, njc JERRY wrote: "Interesting reading. One of the views held here in the American press is that Europe (especially France) is finally waking up to a serious world wide threat. How do you feel about that?" RICK wrote: "What I can't seem to understand is why is it that in a lot of European countries, and for that matter to some extent in America, why are the extremist Muslims being allowed to call the shots? Why do they get to do whatever they want every time they are "offended"? Most civilized people know that you can't just go out burning down buildings and killing people if they do something that pisses you off. Why do the Muslims get sort of a "Free Pass" to act like animals and dress it up in the guise of religion? They have been doing this for years in Europe, where they chose to move incidentally....They have tried to change the way things run in the Netherlands, and now in Denmark as well. They have killed people in the Netherlands too for disagreeing with them. Maybe the answer is deportation. I'm sure people will be angry that I said that, but you know the interests of public safety seem to me to be more important than having an open immigration policy. After all, how much leeway are we allowed in their countries if we say something they don't like?" To make a long (hi)story short, for years the drive behind french foreign policy towards the arab world was OIL. Not love, not tolerance. More recently a second factor was weighed in: fear of social unrest due to France's 10% muslim population. Now maybe the trend is changing to "enough open borders". What the french people as a whole really think may be put into action by the next likely president (Sarkozy) But that reaction comes 30 years too late as a great majority of french muslims are citizens and no planning was ever done by the french government to integrate them. Just give them some dough so they keep quiet....for some time. Don't take me wrong, many french muslims are honorable and productive members of society. But the ones that aren't probably never will, and those tend to be the young, so the future looks grim. To answer Jerry, and to quote myself, I was surprised to see on french national TV (after 30 years of brown-nosing to the arabs) a jewish settler from Gaza during the israeli pullout who said "don't fool yourself, the arabs don't want just Israel. They already have France, Belgium, etc and their next target is America and the West in general)." When I see and hear that churches and christian stores were burned down in Beirut & Damascus near the Danish embassy, I cannot help thinking this statement is demonstrated. VINCE added: "I have heard and seen incredible and horrific antiArab incendiary things from Israel and what you have described is its mirror image, and none of it justifies the other." Vince, I know where you stand and that you mean well. However you are making dangerous comparisons here. I think what you mean by "none of it justifies the other" is the theme of the Spielberg movie "Munich", which is that violence breeds violence. (I am waiting for my kids to be available so I'll go and see the movie with them) Basically I agree with those statements even though it's a no-win situation because the israelis couldn't just sit there and do nothing so either way they lose. However, in terms of the acts themselves, please do not compare the "humiliation" that arabs endure at the hands of some israeli soldiers with, as Rick said, "people acting like animals". Did you forget the images shot by a stealth italian reporter of 2 lost israelis being dismembered and thrown out the window to an angry palestinian mob? You don't see israelis behaving like that, ever! Likewise, please do not compare the ghetto walls with a wall designed to prevent terrorist attacks. These comparisons are used by the arab press to make israelis look like nazis. You know better Vince. As for me, I will be traveling solo to Rajasthan, India from april 8th, and looking for the meaning of life during 3 weeks so hopefully I can make sense of all this craziness. Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:17:12 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Obligatory Award Show Rant njc hi >>>>randy wrote >>>> Faith Hill/John Legend/Kelly Clarkson...I'm running to the fridge for a mayonnaise on white bread sandwich. you missed something really special - john legend was the funniest part of the the show. had the sound off (listening to mark heard) & was laughing at the way he was hamming it up. then curiosity got the better of me & i switched the sound on & nearly wet myself - esp when he got a standing ovation....... so i watched a bit - enjyoyed paul mccartney, struggled to watch mary scarey doing "gospel" with cleavage & see through skirt, but when kelly clarkson won the whole temporary suspension of disbelief thing crashed - & the off button was pushed ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:39:47 +0000 From: "Michael O'Malley" Subject: NJC Rant: Madonna and the Grammys Ok, here's my rant. Granted, Madonna has incredible legs and heaps of energy, but I hardly recognize her. What has she done to her face ? The worst is that at 47 years of age, I cannot believe she is still playing the slut card, as if she was 17, flaunting her tush all over the place and acting like the world's biggest co*ktease. It's very old and tired, imho. Methinks Madonna has finally run out of ideas on how to reinvent herself. Incredibly, her stuff still seems to sell. However, it is interesting to note that American Idol outranked the Grammy TV ratings by a longshot. Personally, I prefer the PLUG independent music awards. Here you can find out what's really going on in music. Sufjan Stevens just won the best album and male artist of the year award. http://www.plugawards.com/award_nominees.php?PHPSESSID=1ec68a015d448f50ee51700a67a0b516 Michael in Quebec NP Sufjan Stevens - Michigan _________________________________________________________________ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN. Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2006 #52 **************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------