From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2006 #330 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 Monday, September 11 2006 Volume 2006 : Number 330 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- joni on The View [SMC1254@aol.com] Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [Smurf ] RE: joni on The View ["bluejr@adelphia.net" ] Re: NJC Dark Side Of The Rainbow ["ron" ] Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda ] Re: Modern Times njc [Brenda ] Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda ] NJC Re: college radio, some Joni content [Bob Muller ] Re: My Dead Angel njc [Em ] Re: My Dead Angel njc [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" [Victor Johnson ] Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" US POLITICS [Brenda ] Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda ] Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda ] Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" Muller wrote: be sure and put "SPOILER ALERT" in the subject line so you won't ruin the ending for Smurf - he may want to watch it someday. Very funny, Muller, but I already know the ending . . . Thousands of innocent people die in the towers and other acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001 and the twice-non-elected President leads a bewildered and clueless nation into a senseless war on countries with abundant petroeum resources, or access to those resources, which then results in many thousands more deaths --rather than taking the higher, wiser, and even more "Christian" road, which would have called for peace, self-examination, and understanding. Peace, --Smurf Bob.Muller@Fluor.com wrote: night..then be all set to watch tonight's conclusion.> OK Bree - but if you post about it, be sure and put "SPOILER ALERT" in the subject line so you won't ruin the ending for Smurf - he may want to watch it someday. Bob NP: Mother Hips, "Transit Wind" - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:55:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: joni on The View SMC1254@aol.com wrote: > Rosie is a HUGE Joni admirer and fan - you all probably know this. Yes, and the only reason to start watching The View again. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:55:02 -0400 From: "bluejr@adelphia.net" Subject: RE: joni on The View Original Message: - ----------------- From: SMC1254@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:39:04 EDT To: joni@smoe.org Subject: joni on The View >Rosie is a HUGE Joni admirer and fan - you all probably know this. Yeah, you could see her in the front row on the TNT TV special in 2000. Nice seats, if you can get 'em! JR in NH - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:59:23 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: NJC Dark Side Of The Rainbow hi well - i missed about 90% of the coincidences. probably something to do with the fact that i downloaded the video & watched in .flv format - which gave me a pciture about 1 inch square. plus no enhancing substances, plus being busy ripping cds into itunes. on reflection maybe its not the videos fault........... ron - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Goodspeed" To: "Bob Muller" Cc: "ron" ; "JMDL" Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:58 PM Subject: Re: NJC Dark Side Of The Rainbow > Traditionally, one partakes in the ingestion of substances that > um...enhance one's sense that what you are seeing is um...freaking > awesome. > > : ) Jenny > > On 9/10/06, Bob Muller wrote: >> >> Hi Ron - I have to say that I was also a little >> underwhelmed by the whole thing after reading so >> much about it. Maybe I should have read one of >> the many "lists of coincidences" beforehand so I >> could have been looking for these things. Most of >> the major ones I did catch. And a lot of them are >> no big deal. >> >> http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/DSotR/List.html >> >> Bob >> >> NP: CSN, "Anything At All" >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:11:50 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" You would have heard something from me Jerry had I been on this list at the time. I think Moonves punked out by caving. And frankly the way he runs CBS has me concerned about some of my favorite shows on Showtime (Weeds, TLW... Huff already bit the dust). I don't understand what the taxpayer money has to do with this though. Taxpayer dollars did not pay for the production. As a work of the government, the report itself is in the public domain and anyone can use it. Someone please correct me if I have that wrong. Brenda notaro@stpt.usf.edu wrote: > What is equally incredible is the howl heard hear over the Reagan biopic > which was never claimed to be based on a report which the taxpayers paid > millions for. And when CBS dropped it from being shown, I heard no cries > of the First Amendment over that. > > Jerry > > >> It just gets more unbelievable all the time. We have Democrats in >> Congress >> writing letters to ABC threatening them. What First Amendment, I guess. >> Where did the Clinton years go? Have some people really been able to >> completely erase them from their memories and now get to re-write it to >> absolve him and his administration from anything to do with Al Queda? The >> truth is all out there until the day they ban and purge everything from >> the >> internet and other sources. The Democrats spent months of time and >> taxpayer >> dollars raking Republicans over the coals during the 9/11 commission. >> This >> docudrama is based on that report. So now because the report has >> inconvenient facts of history, it has to be discredited? I want my money >> back. Vanity Fair, which has become so anti Bush and anti Republicans the >> past few years even did an extensive report of how Clinton was offered Bin >> Laden a number of times and turned it down. Our National Security head at >> the time, Sandy Berger, has been found guilty of stealing classified >> documents. Why would he need to do that? It goes on and on. Fact is >> fact >> and it's all out there until they start the book burnings. They are >> already >> on the road to quashing TV content. Incredible. >> >> Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:21:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Joseph Palis Subject: college radio, some Joni content Hi y'all, So I applied and was hired as one of the many DJs in our college radio here in Carolina (www.wxyc.org) for the fall semester. While browsing through the website two days ago I realize that this is the first college radio station that went on air on the Net in 1994, and the first ever song played is Joni's "You Turn Me On I'm A Radio". How cool is that. I come on-air two hours a week. Only on Wednesdays at a reasonably early hour of 6AM (!!) so this Wednesday marks my debut broadcast (!!!). But last Saturday when four of us were oriented at 3am for a hands-on test broadcast we were asked to get 3-4 albums and practice speaking on air while managing the many controls. One of the new DJs asked if there is a Joni album around. When I asked her what her mini-theme is, she said that she'll play Joni then Mingus then Costello and then one other I forgot. Because it was her turn to be on air and she cannot find the Joni albums, she got some Ry Cooder and Miriam Makeba. I got me some Joni. I played Cassandra Wilson's "Black Crow", then Joni's "Not To Blame" then Bonnie "Prince" Billy's "the Way" then Venetian Snare's Hajnal. And when it was time to speak, man, nervous voice, lots of dead air, but after that I felt better. I wonder how those ultra-smooth voices on other radio stations could speak so effortlessly and so fast. Amazing people although I don't really want that myself but I am still impressed. Sorry for this rambling shameless promotion. (Maybe I'll play Holly Cole's "I Can See Clearly Now" as my opener) Joseph in Chapel Hill np: Saint Etienne "Downey CA." - --------------------------------- Dicouvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque soit le sujet ! Yahoo! Questions/Riponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos opinions et vos expiriences. Cliquez ici. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:37:20 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: Modern Times njc I think it happens quite often Em. Mary J. Blige has one of her biggest records in years, during a time when sales are down for everyone. And I think it is unquestionably the best vocal performance she has on record. I'd also suggest that there are two other reasons why the album made it to #1. First the Apple television campaign and second the erosion of CD sales with younger demos. Brenda n.p.: Beck - "Nausea" Em wrote: > and roots rock. A far as I'm concerned, musically, its roots rock. > :) > and to me, it *is* his best since "Desire" (which is his last one to > come out at #1) So its kind of nice to see sales results following what > seems about right. (for once) > Em > > --- Randy Remote wrote: > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gerald A. Notaro" >> >>> I'm surprised there has been no mention that Dylan's Modern Times >>> >> debuted >> >>> at #1 this week. That is certainly pretty hot news. It is his first >>> >> #1 in >> >>> 30 years and make him the oldest artist to ever to so. >>> >> I heard about that last night, and thought, 'cool, there are still >> alot of >> people who want to hear good old singer-songwriter stuff'. Nice to >> know. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:32:23 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" blckcrow@chorus.net wrote: > You mention that you're surprised that so many are protesting the miniseries without having seen it. Well, with the exception of those individuals and entities who were given advance copies (and those appear to have been conservative in rather significant proportions), NO ONE has > seen it! We're all operating blind, based on news reports and statements of those who tell us that incidents in the miniseries involving them either didn't happen in the way they were portrayed, or didn't happen at all. I'm reading my accounts from news sources I trust, and which are well-established. Should we halt our protests until the show airs, and irreparable harm has been done by biased, inaccurate depictions in a "docudrama" that many watching aren't going to separate from fact? Who are the "many" and what harm do you think is going to be done? I watched the show last night in its entirety and it is clearly a dramatization. One thing I did see that I hadn't given much consideration to before was the effort and coordination it took to capture Ramsey Yousef. As someone who did not live in New York when that happened, I know it did not register with me in the same way Oklahoma and 9/11 did. Brenda n.p.: Thievery Corporation - "Holographic Universe" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:58:34 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: My Dead Angel njc Nuri wrote, of Israel: > Nothing, i repeat, nothing that happens in this country is legal. I've always wondered, and now I wonder even more: why does anyone want to live there?? I don't wish to appear anti-Semetic or disrespectful in any way, and I am not trying to be a smart-ass. I would really like to know. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:17:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: NJC Re: college radio, some Joni content Whoo Hoo & congratulations, Joseph. I have many many fond memories of XYC when I lived in Raleigh. I used to have to finagle my "T" antenna on the back of my receiver to get it, but it was well worth it, even with the static that trickled in. While WKNC at NC State had some good shows, XYC consistently offered up better doses of indie & alternative music. They were always ahead of the curve. If you want a cover of "You Turn Me On (I'm A Radio)" you know who to ask. Will your shows be archived, I'm assuming they'll stream live on the web? Bob NP: Pearl Jam, "Education" Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:20:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" Taxpayers money paid for the 9/11 Commission. That was what I was referring. If the docudrama is based on it, why not stick to facts presented in it? Jerry Brenda wrote: > You would have heard something from me Jerry had I been on this list at > the time. I think Moonves punked out by caving. And frankly the way he > runs CBS has me concerned about some of my favorite shows on Showtime > (Weeds, TLW... Huff already bit the dust). > > I don't understand what the taxpayer money has to do with this though. > Taxpayer dollars did not pay for the production. As a work of the > government, the report itself is in the public domain and anyone can use > it. Someone please correct me if I have that wrong. > > Brenda > > notaro@stpt.usf.edu wrote: >> What is equally incredible is the howl heard hear over the Reagan biopic >> which was never claimed to be based on a report which the taxpayers paid >> millions for. And when CBS dropped it from being shown, I heard no cries >> of the First Amendment over that. >> >> Jerry >> >> >>> It just gets more unbelievable all the time. We have Democrats in >>> Congress >>> writing letters to ABC threatening them. What First Amendment, I >>> guess. >>> Where did the Clinton years go? Have some people really been able to >>> completely erase them from their memories and now get to re-write it to >>> absolve him and his administration from anything to do with Al Queda? >>> The >>> truth is all out there until the day they ban and purge everything from >>> the >>> internet and other sources. The Democrats spent months of time and >>> taxpayer >>> dollars raking Republicans over the coals during the 9/11 commission. >>> This >>> docudrama is based on that report. So now because the report has >>> inconvenient facts of history, it has to be discredited? I want my >>> money >>> back. Vanity Fair, which has become so anti Bush and anti Republicans >>> the >>> past few years even did an extensive report of how Clinton was offered >>> Bin >>> Laden a number of times and turned it down. Our National Security head >>> at >>> the time, Sandy Berger, has been found guilty of stealing classified >>> documents. Why would he need to do that? It goes on and on. Fact is >>> fact >>> and it's all out there until they start the book burnings. They are >>> already >>> on the road to quashing TV content. Incredible. >>> >>> Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:29:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Modern Times njc Its just a pleasant coincidence for me that what I considered his last really REALLY great album, ("Desire") was HUGE and now this one, the first one since "Desire" that I really really like, is also huge. It pleases me, no matter what the mechanics of it. Wondering, what do you mean by "younger demos"? Oh remember when we were talking about melissama? (sp?) I recognized (as such) some really PLEASANT and meaningful melissima (what was that word?) the other night when I was listening to Mavis Staples singing "Hard Times Come Again No More". OMG!!!!!!! I had no face left on the front of my skull! Em - --- Brenda wrote: > I think it happens quite often Em. Mary J. Blige has one of her > biggest > records in years, during a time when sales are down for everyone. > And I > think it is unquestionably the best vocal performance she has on > record. > > I'd also suggest that there are two other reasons why the album made > it > to #1. First the Apple television campaign and second the erosion of > CD > sales with younger demos. > > Brenda > > n.p.: Beck - "Nausea" > > Em wrote: > > and roots rock. A far as I'm concerned, musically, its roots rock. > > :) > > and to me, it *is* his best since "Desire" (which is his last one > to > > come out at #1) So its kind of nice to see sales results following > what > > seems about right. (for once) > > Em > > > > --- Randy Remote wrote: > > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Gerald A. Notaro" > >> > >>> I'm surprised there has been no mention that Dylan's Modern Times > >>> > >> debuted > >> > >>> at #1 this week. That is certainly pretty hot news. It is his > first > >>> > >> #1 in > >> > >>> 30 years and make him the oldest artist to ever to so. > >>> > >> I heard about that last night, and thought, 'cool, there are still > >> alot of > >> people who want to hear good old singer-songwriter stuff'. Nice to > >> know. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:30:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: My Dead Angel njc must be the olives! Em - --- Lori Fye wrote: > Nuri wrote, of Israel: > > > Nothing, i repeat, nothing that happens in this country is legal. > > I've always wondered, and now I wonder even more: why does anyone > want to > live there?? > > I don't wish to appear anti-Semetic or disrespectful in any way, and > I am > not trying to be a smart-ass. I would really like to know. > > Lori > Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:41:22 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: My Dead Angel njc Nuri wrote: The walls of every street in Jerusalem are covered with thousands of posters signed by the leaders of the Orthodox. Here's exactly what's written on them (I translated it to English): "We order all members of our holy community to hurt and attack every gay man and woman in the parade. A reward of 20000 Shekels would be given to anyone who hurts or kills one of the gay men and women from Sodom. We advice our sacred defenders to use home made bombs, knives, bricks, and sticks with nails". Wow Nuri, Insanity. They are probably all going to go to heaven and find out that Jesus is gay... which of course for them would seem like hell. Sorry to hear of your fallen angel. Amazing what fear can do. I'll pray a rosary for him. Love, Laura NP: Like a Rolling Stone on VH-1, how does it feel? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:41:23 -0400 From: Victor Johnson Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" The funny thing is, documented history from the very beginning has not always been factually accurate. You can go all the way back to Herodotus, the father of history, who did not always have all the facts and often embellished his accounts. So there's definitely a precedent there. If I'm not mistaken, there were wars back then too...though they did not include attacks on American soil, as far as I know... Victor On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Gerald A. Notaro wrote: > Taxpayers money paid for the 9/11 Commission. That was what I was > referring. If the docudrama is based on it, why not stick to facts > presented in it? > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:56:57 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu, Lama" Subject: njc, "No More Lies!" And someone tried to crash a single engine airplane (a Cessna?) into the White House but only clipped a corner. Jim >>>Andeemac2006 wrote: >>>America has not had any attack on the American >>>mainland for 300 years up to "9/11" On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Smurf wrote: >> Not true. I live on a battleground (Bunker Hill) and the Brits >> burned down the White House less than 200 years ago and you know >>there are more. Victor said, >World Trade Center bombing, February 26, 1993 Bob Muller said, >Oklahoma City bombing ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:28:52 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" US POLITICS Debra, Thank you for your reply. I approach this in the spirit of discussion and hope you do the same. dsknyc05 wrote: > Not by ABC! When I first started seeing the ads a > couple of weeks ago, it looked as though it was a > documentary. "Based on the 9/11 Report!" was a > prominent part of the ads. Sure, I recognized the > actor Harvey Keitel, but I don't think everyone would > and since the person he's portraying died on 9/11, > then of course some actor has to play the part. ABC is > now calling it a miniseries and a dramatization, but > it was the people talking about the inaccuracies that > gave it the docudrama label. > I did not see ABC's ads so I cannot refute or support this point. I did however watch the show and it is clearly dramatized and not a documentary. Frankly, after seeing it, I think the "docudrama" tag, wherever it came from actually confuses the matter more than it need be. For instance, clearly there were no cameras trained on the WTC garage that were able to capture the goings on inside the Ryder van or the getaway car and capture every word they said. So besides the multiple slates that tell that it's a dramatized production, and which state plainly that it is not a documentary, the thing itself tells you what it is. > I at least paused and was curious about what he was > saying and would say. The last I heard on Thursday > night was that he's looking at it all closely again. > Good for him. And who except him and the movie makers > know what the terms of his involvement were? "Advising > the production" may have been just giving his name to > make it all seem legit. But, sure, I'll pay attention > to what he says. > I saw him on This Week yesterday morning and his support for the miniseries seemed unshaken. One thing that I have found interesting about his comments is that he hopes it will somehow compel the public to press for action on the committee's recommendations. > As an aside here: Yes, I know all about the report. > So why did George Bush, as recently as Aug 21, claim > there was a connection? You would have to ask him. I would also recommend downloading the podcast of Meet The Press from yesterday where Cheney goes through great lengths to defend his statements and provide rationalizations based on semantics. He has got one helluva writer. Makes Safire's "nattering nabobs of negativism" look amateur. > The report is new. The > information it's based on is not. That lack of a > connection has been known for years, and yet still the > Bushies use it as one of their justifications for > invading Iraq. Who exactly are the "Bushies?" > Repubs might not have a problem with > such outright lying and manipulation, but I do, > especially when it results in so many deaths and such > destruction. > Why do you believe that party affiliation alone means that someone does not have a problem with outright lies and manipulation? Again, there have been Republicans disagreeing with Bush and stating those disagreements publicly from the onset. > You've mistakenly put my EVERY onto every Repub, and > that is not what I said. > Actually, no I haven't although I do confess to editing your post in the interest of length. My question about "EVERY" doesn't refer to every Republican but rather every issue. My list of issues was just a few of the things that could dispel this notion. Not even Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld have agreed with Bush on every issue. Or take someone like Rick Santorum who has been and still is in lockstep on the war but does not agree with Bush on immigration. > There are some Repubs who do agree with every action > the Bushies take, even when they have to call untruths > "facts" and repeat the Bushies' excuses in amazing > displays of the ability to rationalize ... Who are these people exactly? I still don't think you can justify saying that most or many Republicans are very stupid because they agree with Bush on every issue when there is no evidence to support that most or many DO agree with him on EVERY issue. > yes, there > are some Repubs who agree with everything the Bushies > have done. (Of course there's never enough time to > discuss every action the Bushies have taken so there > may be some little thing Bush did where his base > thought to themselves, hmm, not so good. If they think > that, then they sure do keep quiet about it.) William Kristol and George Will haven't been quiet. Just to name two prominent ones off the top of my head. > The Bush > supporters here on the list never surprise me, > although I always hope they do because then it would > feel like real thought has been put into what they > write instead of just hearing the Repub talking points > being repeated. Again who exactly are you talking about? Have you assumed that I am a Bush supporter? > On every issue involving Bush I know > exactly what some people here will write before they > even post. > I can assure you that you do not know that about me. > Other examples are Bush supporters on blogs making fun > of Democrats when it's clear the writers don't even > understand the issues, some Repub talking heads on > news shows who support the Bushies no matter what, > i.e., on every issue, sometimes with absurd excuses, > and some politicians who do the same... > I won't comment on blogs because the people posting could be anyone. People often post things that they don't even believe just to draw a crowd or start a fight. But if you do care to point to who the talking heads and politicians are who support Bush on every issue no matter what then I would endeavor to show you an issue where they do not agree with him. Or at least have publicly stated their disagreement. I truly believe the number who do is far less than you imagine. > Are they all "very stupid"? I don't know. That's a > harsh judgment. But lacking intellectual integrity? > Yes, I think so. I won't judge the intellectual integrity of people I haven't met personally myself. > It is unnatural to agree (or to show > ONLY their agreement) with every action that Bush (or > anyone!) has taken. > We do agree that it is unnatural to agree with anyone on every action they have taken. Where we disagree is that this is true for many Republicans. I don't think it's any more true of Republicans than it was for Democrats with Clinton. > For the reasons I stated above. Do you see the word > docudrama anywhere on the ABC website? I didn't the > last time I looked. And the emphasis on the first ads > was on how the show was based on the 9/11 Report, as > though it was factual, not made up. > On the ABC website is a promo button for the show. When you click on that to watch it these words appear before anything else: "Due to subject matter, view discretion is advised. The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression." These same words appeared throughout the broadcast a number of times. And they go one step better than calling it a "docudrama" in my opinion. And it's in the place where it matters most-the show itself. > I don't recall saying that only Repubs are the targets > of propaganda. No you didn't but I took your implication to be that propaganda is somehow working and continues to work on the many Republicans who agree with Bush on every issue. Perhaps you might not see how that conclusion can be drawn from what you have written. > As far as the Repub-labelled "going to war" vote: One > ongoing lie that especially grates is the Repubs > repeating that all the people who voted yes on giving > Bush the authority to pursue diplomacy re: Iraq (with > war as a LAST resort when all else had failed) saw the > same intelligence the Bushie insiders did. No, wrong. > The Bushies showed Congress only intelligence that > supported their already-made decision to invade Iraq. > But Debra what do you do with all of the Republicans and Democrats who had been in Washington before Bush was even elected? Do you honestly believe that there had been no conversations between George Tenet and ANY of these people? Can you provide back up to the notion that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee did not have access to information beyond what Bush presented to the larger Congressional body? I think both sides of the Congressional floor, Democrats and Republicans didn't want to appear un-supportive of retaliation in the post-9/11 environment, particularly with an election year around the bend. > Why do you label disagreement as "complaining"? I don't. Complaining is complaining. Disagreement is disagreement. But you have to know what something actually is to disagree with it I think. > Right > away, that's showing a partisan bias that is not > helpful. Then I've failed to properly express my position. You can't show me the place where I've labeled all disagreement as complaining, can you? And let me ask this question: Do you think I have a partisan bias even though I have voted for Democrats in the past and will again? Would that make a difference to you? > Dems have a different view on some issues... > so we're all supposed to not say anything? Who wrote that? Yes Democrats have a different view on some issues. And there are differences amongst those views within the group of registered Democrats just as there are within the group of registered Republicans. > That's how > the Bushies steamrolled right over the Dems in > Congress who spent way too long trying to get along, > because if they said ANYTHING to the contrary to the > Bushies' wishes they were labeled as complaining or > whining or, now, as "appeasers". So the Dems tried to > get along, and look at the mess we're all in now! > So then it was up to the Democrats to have a strategy against that labeling. The Democrats were barely steamrolled over because they were hardly standing up. You see Debra, I want a strong Democratic party. I want it to be formidable. I want the Democratic platform to represent a clear agenda and plan that they can articulate so that there is at least the perception of choice. I want the Democrats to earn my vote like any other candidate, including Republican ones. > Good question. It's my label, borne of frustration, > for people willing to support an administration that > will do them harm. It does seem very stupid to me. My > anger and disdain are more appropriately focused on > the Bushies themselves, but sometimes I get angry, > too, at the people willing to be so manipulated. > But who is to say they are being manipulated just because they don't see it the same way you do? Personally I have friends of all political stripes and affiliations. I know registered Democrats who still support the war. I know Republicans who support Bush on many issues except the war. And others who basically only support him on the war. What I don't understand is your choice of the word "many." To me it's like saying that those different points of view simply don't exist or that they only exist on the fringes and I don't see how you can back that up. > Just because the Bushies claim the Dems > are the problem, why do you believe them? > Why in the world do you think I do? I know how to make up my own mind and my view is that BOTH can be a problem. Also WE are a problem because oftentimes we don't pay attention until something is a crisis and then we want a quick solution. Take the military recruiting section of No Child Left Behind as an example. That amendment was voted for in the House in May 2001, before 9/11 and before the commencement of the wars. During a time when Bush was struggling and generally looked weak more than 70% of Democrats voted for the amendment. You can believe that my representative at the time, Jane Harman (whom I voted for because I thought she was the better candidate in terms of representing my views) heard about it from me and as many people in my neighborhood as I could get to write, fax and email her about it. And Kate, in case you're reading this and if you still live in Santa Barbara you might like to know that Lois Capps voted for it too. Like you I do think we should hold people responsible-as many of them as we can identify. I know and supported someone who began working on that issue in California when the amendment was passed. She thought surely it wouldn't get past the Senate. Even the Democrat co-author of NCLB didn't stop it. The Senate only held the bill up because of spending issues. She has worked on this tirelessly for five years on the basis of privacy but couldn't get nearly the support or attention that the issue gets now. Yes California is going to institute legislation, but it could have been stopped from the very beginning so that time and money wouldn't have to be spent on legislation that shouldn't exist because the original provision shouldn't be there. I totally understand that the volume of legislation passing through Congress is enormous and keeping up is daunting. But there are so many more resources now then there were 10 years ago to keep abreast of the issues that one cares about most. > No, the Repub base will never vote for the Democrats. > So it's just the Republican "base" that are very stupid and make up the many? Because Republicans as a broad group have voted for Democrats in the past and will again. The "base" of either party isn't enough to secure victory for either side. > The people who may vote for the Dems this November are > the ones I enjoy listening to, arguing with, and > learning from... the Repubs who wonder about things > and don't just take in whatever the Bushies tell them. > I know it's hard for you to believe but there are Republicans who "wonder about things" who still may not vote for Democrats in November. There is no national election. And as the pundits are all so quick to say, Congressional races are run and won locally. I'd suggest that people should vote for who they think the best candidate is for representing their views, district and state. > > No, people were upset about specific scenes in which > the movie did not match what the Report said. > And many of the people who were upset by these scenes hadn't actually seen them. I wonder how many of them have even read the report in its entirety. > > Some disclaimers: Democrats and the Democratic Party > are not perfect, whatever that means to anybody. I > never liked Old Bush or Reagan and disagreed with most > of their policies, but when I talk about Repubs I'm > talking only about the Bushies, who are so far from > the traditional values of the Republican Party I don't > know how even the repubs can stomach them. > You interchange the terms quite frequently Debra. So if you are only talking about "the Bushies" whoever that is, then I can say it would help me to understand your position if you were consistent. > > Enjoy the show tonight! I'm not sure yet whether I'll > be watching and since I won't be home tomorrow night, > know that I won't be watching then... You can watch the whole thing online if you like. > you know, when > the movie will include all the scenes of Cheney > holding secret energy meetings in the spring of 2001... I think those would be my favorite scenes, > LOL! And, guess what, they wouldn't have to be made > up! > Well then why don't YOU make that movie? Best, Brenda n.p.: Marisa Monte - "Meu canario" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:30:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: Re: Modern Times njc Demographics, I believe. And what of "No Mercy" Em? That didn't rip at least a little bitty bit of your face off? Bob NP: Steely Dan, "Black Friday" Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:34:52 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" dsknyc05 wrote: > Repubs were told to not see that movie, and most > of them didn't, and yet they (columnists, right-wing > radio "entertainers", people on tv, people posting > here) had all sorts of negative things to say about > it. Funny how they all said the same things! > How do you factually know who watched Moore's film and who didn't? Brenda n.p.: Marisa Monte - "Quatro paredes" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Muller Subject: NJC Jolene, from Oddmund Oddmund wanted me to forward this track to y'all, so here 'tis. It's the "Jolene" cover he posted about a couple of days ago. Definitely a unique and haunting version of the Dolly Parton classic: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=548E2F0975A54B28 Bob NP: Radiohead, "Electioneering" Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:44:55 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" Jerry Notaro wrote: > ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, while Clinton > administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets > were denied them. Then how did someone from the Hollywood Reporter manage to review it on Thursday? Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:45:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Modern Times njc "Demographics, I believe." thanks Bob! As far as No Mercy: I respected it, but I never had the urge to party to it. Well except "Everything Is Broken". Hey everything is broken, might as well dance! Ladies' choice! No, really - it was good but it didn't rip my face off. But to be fair, I wasn't listening that well back then. In "Chronicles" that whole sound of his he described...I forget what he called it - the 3 step or something...I never could get much joy from it... But that's gone now. And he's singing real well now again! Anyway, to be honest I can't talk about this stuff in much detail. But I don't think that means I shouldn't talk..I think people's impressions are important too. So I'm giving you my impressions more than anything. Actually, I thought "Street Legal" (right after Desire) was pretty neat. I still listen to it. Something either draws me in or it doesn't. And no matter how many good reviews I read of it, my brain still rejects, if it ain't right. Same with 80's Joni! Just doesn't taste good for some reason. Its like you want the good red cherry cough syrup, but all thats's available is that weird green paragoric tasting stuff. Bob's re-issued the cherry! Em - --- Bob Muller wrote: > > > Demographics, I believe. > > And what of "No Mercy" Em? That didn't rip at > least a little bitty bit of your face off? > > Bob > > NP: Steely Dan, "Black Friday" > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:50:20 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" Lori Fye wrote: > Always running behind, I'm just now reading this interesting thread ... > > Brenda asked: > > >> There's already been a feature film, so why not a docudrama? >> > > Both (all) are in extremely poor taste, imo. To make money from this > tragedy is just unconscionably grotesque. > It's interesting because I felt the same way at the CSNY show when I saw the faces of dead soldiers on the screen. And I paid $150 for it too. Even though Neil was on stage and I respect him for putting his money where his mouth is for the causes he supports, I still found it distasteful. I didn't see the feature film and I won't even though I love Maggie. And had it not been for the controversy around it and for what Thomas Kean had to say about it, I probably wouldn't have watched this either. Brenda n.p.: Marisa Monte - "Statue of Liberty" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" I'm sure those DVD's got around. They were a very hot property. Reporters can get their hands on anything, and quickly, as they have demonstrated over the years. Jerry > Jerry Notaro wrote: >> ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, while Clinton >> administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets >> were denied them. > > Then how did someone from the Hollywood Reporter manage to review it on > Thursday? > Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:54:18 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" OK. Where to start? On "exhorted": Speaking just for myself, I'm sure that the groups you mention did ask people to petition. They usually do. I said "probably," because I, personally, didn't receive any of those "exhortations," or, if I did, deleted them without reading them. I didn't base my comments or my actions on anything I read from those groups: I based them on what I read in the Washington Post and the New York Times, to name a few sources. When Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger say in internationally-respected newspapers say that scenes involving them were falsified or simply didn't happen (and yes, OF COURSE some people saw advance copies. I never said they didn't!), then I pay attention to that. As for me, I only have so many hours in a day. My time is valuable. I won't see this "docudrama" for the same reasons I won't go to most Oliver Stone movies, didn't mcuh care for "Pearl Harbor," and refused to see Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" some years back: factually inaccurate, pseudo-historical portrayals of historical events are a waste of my time. If I want to be entertained by fiction, I'll pick something more more uplifting and light-hearted, perhaps, than this. If I want history, I'll read serious history, see films that at least ATTEMPT historical accuracy, or perhaps, read the 911 Commission Report that this "docudrama" was supposedly based on. RE: "hearsay": we're not in a court of law. And even judges credit some sources about others. I'm doing so here. You wrote: "I'm glad that fact is finally being acknowledged. There were people here > forwarding material straight from those groups to this list. I did not > think the posters were Marxists, but did suspect they did not know the > origins of the material they were forwarding." Well, I'm giving you and others the benefit of the doubt. I know you felt very strongly that this was the case back and 2001, and a little later. I think I remember reading, off this list over the years, that at least some groups with Marxist ties did organize demonstrations. Let's say for argument's sake that it's true (and my statement was probably stronger than it should have been because, in fact, I don't know that that was the case). What I objected to then, and object to now, is the assumption that the entire enterprise is tainted because of the association of a number of those who put the events together for those who, frankly, might not have had the time or know-how to do so otherwise. The organizers, whoever they were, gave us a place to go. Furthermore, I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of organized groups, including the local groups in Madison I wrote about 5 years ago, had absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. In any event, I think you're grossly exagerating to what extent the demonstrations in question were "fronts for other messages," and to what extent they BECAME "grass-roots" expressions, even if there originally had at least some links to specific groups. But then, I think this supposed link to Marxism, which has been brought up again and again ad nauseam, has been done for no other reason but to discredit the protest movement. You wrote: "Individuals protesting content is not censorship. What I wrote was that I > thought a line was crossed when five Democratic party senators decided to > send a letter to ABC making a veiled threat about broadcasting licenses in > the second paragragh of the letter posted on their site here: > > http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624 > > To a lesser degree, while he is now a private citizen and not in an official > government role, the fact that Clinton's lawyers sent a letter to ABC Friday > concluding that "We expect that you will make the responsible decision to > not this film." Wow. How more heavy-handed can you get?" OK. I obviously missed this part of your e-mail, if it was part of the one I replied to. Yes, I can see where that could be viewed as "government action." "> > NO ONE has seen it! You're deleting what I said prior to that phrase. Obviously, some people were given advance copies: I acknowledged that, and indeed, based my response to the movie on it. The full quote goes something like, "With the exception of A, B, and C, no one has seen it" (I don't have my original post in front of me). Read the whole thing. " Again, while many conservatives thought that the Reagan pic was kind of in > sick taste, they did not want to ban it or edit it because, of course, that > would be hypocritical to conservative ideals of constitutional freedoms." Some conservatives, especially in the past five years, have done lots of things inimical to the ideals of constitutional freedoms, "conservative" or otherwise. Pardon me if I don't see the Republicans as the party of "constitutional freedoms" right now. "However, I think the comparison to the Reagan pic is a > red herring. A better comparision would be reactions to and content of > Fahrenheit 911 but I personally don't have the desire to go there." Why? (as to the first sentence). F 911 is a self-styled documentary with a definite agenda. The Reagan biopic and the 911 docudrama are TV films purporting to describe historical events, each of which contains scenes that have been said to be inaccuate and/or fabricated by people who should know. Sounds like oranges and oranges to me. Finally, would it surprise you to hear that I've never seen Fahrenheit 911? I haven't. The reason is that, despite the fact that it don't see it as being a true "documentary," I like my history to be history, and my entertainment to be. . .oops. I guess I've been there before already. Mary, NOT off to see the docudrama. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2006 #330 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------