From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2006 #331 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 Tuesday, September 12 2006 Volume 2006 : Number 331 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- 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!" ["Lori Fye" ] Re: (njc) Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [] Re: NJC Are you going to watch Both parts of the ABC 9/11 FICTIONAL DRAMA!!! [Brenda ] Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" [Brenda ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:59:45 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" I understand what you were referring to but I disagree that it matters. Taxpayers money paid for the Commission and for it's subsequent report, which is a work in the public domain. Anyone can do a derivative work from it, comprised of whatever they want as long as it constitutes speech. Whether or not people will support their work with their patronage or whether or not we agree with it is another matter that's not relevant to the taxes dollars paid. B 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 > > 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 18:02:50 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: Modern Times njc Em wrote: > 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. I'm not sure I would qualify it as huge. Yet. > It > pleases me, no matter what the mechanics of it. > Wondering, what do you mean by "younger demos"? > I mean 13-24 which has driven the Soundscan-based Billboard album chart until now. The chart doesn't really represent their music "consumption" any more. > 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! > Well, Mavis sure can do that to ya... heh... B ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:09:41 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" I'm not at all doubting the skill of reporters but that review was up within a day of the story breaking. And one can't deny the benefit of actually having someone write a review. That's exactly what publicists are paid to do. So unless they were counting on this controversy to drive numbers, to me it rings false that ABC wouldn't have pursued reviews, even if Albright didn't get a copy and certain right wing media outlets were marketed to strongly. B notaro@stpt.usf.edu wrote: > 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: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:02:30 +1000 From: Melissa Gibbs Subject: Re: Modern times Jerry wrote: "P.S. For you Joni-onlies, the connection here is that Bob is the only artist for which she compares herself." I thought Joni was also willing to entertain comparisons with Laura Nyro, or or am I confusing this with something else? Melissa in Sydney ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:55 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" I wrote, of movies, documentaries, and "docudramas" made about 9/11: >> Both (all) are in extremely poor taste, imo. To make money from this >> tragedy is just unconscionably grotesque. Brenda replied: > 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. That's a very good point. I guess the difference, for me, would be that CSNY were presumably trying to raise awareness (or perhaps ire) about a war that can and should be stopped, as opposed to simply making money from a horrific event that happened and is now just painful history. Afterall, the U.S. government sure as hell isn't allowing the coffins to be shown as they arrive at Dover AFB. Someone has to remind people that this war isn't a movie or a video game. (I would like to think that CSNY will give some of their concert proceeds to some good cause. Anyone know if that's the case?) I'm sure someone will counter that we should support and watch all of these 9/11 films so we can remember what happened (as if anyone can forget), and realize that terrorism should be stopped, too ... The question is, can it? I think not. The goddamned guns and bombs and religious insanity, not to mention generalized hatred of the West and particularly of the U.S., are here now, and here to stay. Even Andy Rooney's comment on 60 Minutes last night, about how the U.S. might begin to behave in such a way so as to convince those who hate Americans not to hate them ... well, they're nice words and they make a lot of sense, but I believe it's far too late. First, the U.S. changing its tune about much of anything is improbable, and second, it wouldn't matter anyway. The seeds of hatred (and craziness) have grown and have very deep roots -- and has anyone noticed that those seeds are primarily of male origins? But my real curiosity is this: why on earth would you pay $150 to go to a concert?? Given by anyone? I can't imagine doing that even to see Joni. : ) Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:55:10 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" Lori Fye wrote: > That's a very good point. I guess the difference, for me, would be that > CSNY were presumably trying to raise awareness (or perhaps ire) about a war > that can and should be stopped, as opposed to simply making money from a > horrific event that happened and is now just painful history. Thomas Kean has argued that this miniseries will raise awareness about the Commission's recommendations that have not been met and that something needs to be done about it. I would suggest that both are a matter of life and death to their proponents. As for who's making money, there were no commercials during that broadcast, so they aren't making any yet. Perhaps DVD sales but some portion of revenue was given up. > Afterall, the > U.S. government sure as hell isn't allowing the coffins to be shown as they > arrive at Dover AFB. Someone has to remind people that this war isn't a > movie or a video game. > The show I went to they were by and large preaching to the converted. If they were trying to get young people out, they didn't price the tickets to be attractive. I don't know that people have to see the coffins to know that people are dying. I think you pretty much have to purposefully have your head in the sand to not know. > (I would like to think that CSNY will give some of their concert proceeds to > some good cause. Anyone know if that's the case?) > If they are they sure didn't let ticket buyers know that. They have a list of charitable organizations on their website but make no mention of any portion of tour proceeds going to any of them. Frankly if they are, they should have said so as it likely would have helped them play to fewer empty seats. > But my real curiosity is this: why on earth would you pay $150 to go to a > concert?? Given by anyone? I can't imagine doing that even to see Joni. > : ) > I've paid much more actually. But I'm in the business so I can take a deduction. ;-) Brenda n.p.: PTI ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:20:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Andeemac2006 Subject: Re: (njc) Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" >I've heard in tonight's episode Rice gets shredded. However, you have to >wonder what could be done with a vague warning (without specifics from >intelligence resources) that "there was a threat of of planes flying into >buildings." What should they have done? Grounded all flights until further >notice when they had no specifics to go on? - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you know that F15's fly around Washington 24 hours a day , so how did the plane hit the Pentagon, this is a very good question?? dont you think. How much did 9/11 cost??? Billions , a lot more than the cost of F15's flying round New York after these warnings about Jets flying into Skyscrapers???? dont you think, (Thinking about your probable answer,) So in reality Planes could fly even today into any one of the High Skyscrapers in New York, 6 years on, and we are not any further fowards, --for even I must admit that if a F15 shot down an Airliner it would kill the passengers and maybe hundreds on the ground when the Aircraft crashed which is not much of an answer is it. The only thing that I could conceve would work if there was a secret Scuttle button for the Pilots to activate IE the Auto pilot to go into an emergency re route over the sea and nothing short of destroying the Hydrolics would make the Plane crash into Buildings over New York. But I cant see the Pilots liking this scenario LOL. But I think that there must be people that are clever enough to outthink Terrorists, if there is not we are in trouble, so to say there was no way of stopping this attack, is no exuse really. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:24:39 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Andeemac2006 Subject: NJC Re: Subject:njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" Somehow I doubt that the people in Oklahoma City would agree. Sometimes terror is homegrown, which is one of the many reasons why declaring war on a noun is never successful. I do agree with you that 9/11 would have happened even without Bin Laden. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ I would agree Bob, and the guy that attacked Oklahoma dis-proves this Republican nonsense about "were fighting them over there to prevent from fighting them in America" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:35:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" Of course anyone can. My original comment was in reference to it as opposed to the Reagan biopic, which was not based on a Commission. My point was, the original project was labeled "ABC History Project" based on the 9/11 Commision. Which implies they stuck to the facts as presented by the Commission, which we taxpayers did pay for. Even the actors showed concern early on. From an interview with Harvey Keitel, broadcast last Friday: Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events  material I was given in the Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts there. Q: How was that met? Keitel: With discussion... ummm with argument. When I received the script it said ABC History Project  I took it to be exactly what they presented to me. History  and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem. In some instances it was too late because we had begun. If the actors voiced concern, can't we, the viewers, do the same? Jerry Brenda wrote: > I understand what you were referring to but I disagree that it matters. > Taxpayers money paid for the Commission and for it's subsequent report, > which is a work in the public domain. Anyone can do a derivative work > from it, comprised of whatever they want as long as it constitutes > speech. Whether or not people will support their work with their > patronage or whether or not we agree with it is another matter that's > not relevant to the taxes dollars paid. > B > > 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 >> >> 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 22:39:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" Weel, my comment never said it wasn't sent to others, just that it was strange that so many were distributed and targeted to conservatives, when even Madeline Albright couldn't get one when she personally requested one. It certainly goes to intent, and makes the protest from her and other from the Clinton administration reasonable. Jerry Brenda wrote: > I'm not at all doubting the skill of reporters but that review was up > within a day of the story breaking. And one can't deny the benefit of > actually having someone write a review. That's exactly what publicists > are paid to do. So unless they were counting on this controversy to > drive numbers, to me it rings false that ABC wouldn't have pursued > reviews, even if Albright didn't get a copy and certain right wing media > outlets were marketed to strongly. > > B > > notaro@stpt.usf.edu wrote: >> 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 19:42:35 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Andeemac2006 Subject: NJC Are you going to watch Both parts of the ABC 9/11 FICTIONAL DRAMA!!! 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... - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- No you dont want to watch the parts about G Wally Bush, and Rice, do you, the Clinton part is good enough to you and to hell with Critisism about the GOP party, A typical Republican viewpoint. Did you see the ABC news cast afterwards?? the Newsreader said " This was a film of Fiction" What the hell so ok forget about the whole thing its all lies?????????????????????????????? No you say, you mean all you wanted all along is bad publicity for the Democrats coming up to the Elections Its all so obvious isnt it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:42:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: Modern times She has stated so once recently when asked about her. But for years, it was only, and frequently, Dylan. Jerry Melissa Gibbs wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > "P.S. For you Joni-onlies, the connection here is that Bob is the only > artist for which she compares herself." > > I thought Joni was also willing to entertain comparisons with Laura Nyro, > or > or am I confusing this with something else? > > Melissa in Sydney ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:44:11 -0700 From: Subject: Re: (njc) Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" Hi Andee > Did you know that F15's fly around Washington 24 hours a day , so how did > the plane hit the Pentagon, this is a very good question?? dont you think. Yes, that is what I grew up presuming and I wondered that exact same thing when received an early morning phone call 9/11/01 telling me of these planes going into buildings. I sought out the answers and found them. They are out there but too long to go into here. If you want and I have some time, I will be happy to discuss it with you privately. > How much did 9/11 cost??? Billions , a lot more than the cost of F15's > flying round New York after these warnings about Jets flying into > Skyscrapers???? dont you think, I'm not following your line of thought here. > (Thinking about your probable answer,) So in reality Planes could fly > even today into any one of the High Skyscrapers in New York, 6 years on, > and we are not >any further fowards, No, no, no, have you flown in a commercial airline since 9/11 and gone through the extensive security protocol? We are definitely safer as far as screening airline passengers than we were 9/10/01. >--for even I must admit that if a F15 shot down an Airliner it would kill >the passengers and maybe hundreds on the ground when the Aircraft >crashed >which is not >much of an answer is it. It is one of the answers. > The only thing that I could conceve would work if there was a secret > Scuttle button for the Pilots to activate IE the Auto pilot to go into an > emergency re route over the sea and nothing short of destroying the > Hydrolics would make the Plane crash into Buildings over New York. But I > cant see the Pilots liking this scenario LOL. Actually the Pilots Association have suggested many revisions in procedures to protect the passengers. Lots more air marshalls are also on board flights and there have been many stories, even recently, of them restraining people who seem to be threatening. One thing that the air marshalls were protesting was that they always had to wear suits and dress formally - which was ridiculous because it helped identify them as something other than tourists. Finally, they now can dress like tourists or slobs or any way they want for a little cover. > But I think that there must be people that are clever enough to outthink > Terrorists, if there is not we are in trouble, so to say there was no way > of stopping this >attack, is no exuse really. We can say that more now, but not then. Our screening procedures for security threats at the airport prior to 9/11/01 were virtually non-existent, our immigration agencies were a joke. A person in the government made a rule that the FBI and CIA could not exchange intelligence so the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. We were living in a myopic world then. All those deficiencies have been addressed since then and while it is still a challenge at least some things have been changed. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:07:30 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: NJC Are you going to watch Both parts of the ABC 9/11 FICTIONAL DRAMA!!! Who are you addressing Andeemac? Debra wrote this and I hardly think she has a "typical Republican viewpoint." Brenda Andeemac2006 wrote: > > > 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... >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No you dont want to watch the parts about G Wally Bush, and Rice, do you, the Clinton part is good enough to you > and to hell with Critisism about the GOP party, A typical Republican viewpoint. > > Did you see the ABC news cast afterwards?? the Newsreader said " This was a film of Fiction" > What the hell so ok forget about the whole thing its all lies?????????????????????????????? > > No you say, you mean all you wanted all along is bad publicity for the Democrats coming up to the Elections > > Its all so obvious isnt it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:20:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Smurf Subject: Bush stepping on the US flag -- njc http://thinkinganddriving.com/blog/2006/09/11/appropriate-sept-11-tribute/ This guy *always* leaves me speechless. - --Smurf Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:27:28 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" The thing is we can't know what the intent of the publicity team was by who it went to any more than they could control what people would say about it once they got it. Conservative media, like Rush Limbaugh delivers numbers which could have been the sole intent of the PR team. As for why Albright didn't get it, again we don't know who else is portrayed in it who didn't receive a copy. It may "go to" intent but it doesn't prove it. This thing became a firestorm that they were not prepared for clearly in terms of responding. But if there was intent to shield all Democrats from seeing it, then the Democrats on the commission wouldn't have seen it either but they did. B Gerald A. Notaro wrote: > Weel, my comment never said it wasn't sent to others, just that it was > strange that so many were distributed and targeted to conservatives, when > even Madeline Albright couldn't get one when she personally requested one. > It certainly goes to intent, and makes the protest from her and other from > the Clinton administration reasonable. > > Jerry > > Brenda wrote: > >> I'm not at all doubting the skill of reporters but that review was up >> within a day of the story breaking. And one can't deny the benefit of >> actually having someone write a review. That's exactly what publicists >> are paid to do. So unless they were counting on this controversy to >> drive numbers, to me it rings false that ABC wouldn't have pursued >> reviews, even if Albright didn't get a copy and certain right wing media >> outlets were marketed to strongly. >> >> B >> >> notaro@stpt.usf.edu wrote: >> >>> 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 20:44:57 -0700 From: Brenda Subject: Re: njc, Tell ABC we "Don't Need No More Lies!" Gerald A. Notaro wrote: > Of course anyone can. My original comment was in reference to it as > opposed to the Reagan biopic, which was not based on a Commission. I guess we just disagree that this makes a difference. To me, once the actors were hired, it ceased being fact and became a dramatic work. And it's not called "The 9/11 Commission Report." The Commission is not named in the title. > My > point was, the original project was labeled "ABC History Project" based on > the 9/11 Commision. Which implies they stuck to the facts as presented by > the Commission, which we taxpayers did pay for. Even the actors showed > concern early on. From an interview with Harvey Keitel, broadcast last > Friday: > > Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events  material I was given in the > Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts > there. > > Q: How was that met? > > Keitel: With discussion... ummm with argument. When I received the script > it said ABC History Project  I took it to be exactly what they presented > to me. History  and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the > facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem. In some > instances it was too late because we had begun. > > If the actors voiced concern, can't we, the viewers, do the same? > Of course viewers can voice concern. But I don't think it's right for someone who haven't seen it to try to stop others from seeing it. That has been my objection all along. The actors are actually in the process. That makes a difference to me. If Harvey Keitel or any of the other actors who have to deal with the very liberal face that Hollywood projects have not called for its censoring, then I can't see why concerned POTENTIAL viewers should. I think that's where we part. And please note that Keitel says, "when he got the script." Scripts are called all sorts of things and I don't put it beyond the producers (not ABC) to use ABC's name once they got a commitment and to call it something they deem advantageous when it came to raising funds for the production. At the end of the day, as an average viewer I can only look at what is presented to me. I can choose to fore go speculation on things I can't know like someone's intent or all the different iterations of the project as it moved from idea to initial script to shooting script through all of the various edits to the final broadcast. Again, there we disagree as well. As for the show itself, I don't think that it at all presents the Democrats as weak as it does that they had discussions and everyone didn't agree. So far with the Bush administration they are simply not making it a priority. Now I wouldn't expect Rush Limbaugh to say that but it's there. And it wasn't something that was edited in because it had to be shot to begin with. Can't wait to watch the post show. And I'm missing football on top of all that! B ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:10:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Joseph Palis Subject: RE : NJC Re: college radio, some Joni content Hi Bob -- Thanks for the nice words! And for the offer to help. I dont tknow if my stint will be archived or if they archive at all but yeah we will be on air live. We can bring our own music as long as we play from the heavy/medium/light rotation but the music library has tons of music and I get excited easily. Bob, I am thinking of doing a 4-song segment in the course of the 2-hour stint where I play songs sung in another language by an unusual artist who covered it. Like Marlene Dietrich singing "Blowin' in the Wind" and "Puff The Magic Dragon" in German; Darryl Sherman singing "I'm in the mood for love" in Japanese. Maybe we can get a Vietnamese version of BSN from your collection? If you tune in this Wednesday (although I'd rather you wont since I will be uber nervous), I will be playing an XTC tune if I cannot find my fave XTC song "Dont let the loveless one sell you a world wrapped in grey", knowing how big a fan you are of this severely underrated band. I guess like a greenhorn i am still on the stage where I play my own favorites and not have concepts yet but . . . . Thanks and I may send you a holler one of these days for advice. Joseph in Chapel Hill np: Tom Scott and Phil Woods Bob Muller a icrit : DJs in our college radio here in Carolina (www.wxyc.org) for the fall semester.> 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 - --------------------------------- 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 22:30:48 -0700 From: Subject: Re: Re: njc, Tell ABC "We Don't Need No More Lies!" >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. In fact one of them was sent to this list and that is what started this whole thread. > 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. I pretty much agree with you. I probably would have never been interested in this particular one until I read about all the controversy amidst some surprisingly good reviews. That all aroused my curiosity. As for Oliver Stone, I had come to regard him as a joke over the years but was persuaded to go see World Trade Center and was amazed. No B.S.at all - just a very heartfelt, suspenseful and very well-made account of a couple of NYPD officers trapped in the ruins of one of the Towers. >read the 911 Commission Report that this "docudrama" was supposedly based >on. There are many who feel that that report is fictionalized in part and leaves out large hunks of critical information on the other. Nonetheless, I think it is a good start and it does provide a very dense amount of historical background and answers many of the questions people initially raised. > 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). Why belabor it? It was true. The groups organizing the protests had websites who told you exactly who they were. All you had to do was Google them. At least they were honest enough to say who they were in contrast to others who tried to obfuscate it. >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. That's why I tried to be helpful and let people know from the outset ;-) If I really wanted people to have their entire enterprise tainted, I would have sat back and never said a word. I know - no good deed goes unpunished. LOL > In any event, I think you're grossly exagerating to what extent the > demonstrations in question were "fronts for other messages," Huh? I don't think that is what I said. What I always tried to say is that some groups who were originating the materials being forwarded to the list were not pure anti-war groups. Whatever. > 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. Well, exactly, so if it actually does discredit the protest movement, why would you want to be associated with it? > 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. O.K. > Why? (as to the first sentence). F 911 is a self-styled documentary with > a definite agenda They both are somewhat related to the events of 9/11 versus the Reagan pic which was just a personal hit job on him, not a historical record of events in his adminstration. Nonetheless, there were conservatives who thought it should be left alone and not protested. .>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. But F-9/11 was more on point as far as subject matter and was systematically refuted as a pack of B.S. and ludicrous lies afterward by numerous people both on the left and right. Yet no senators or people in Congress sent threatening letters to Mr. Moore. No one censored him. People saw it and then dissected it. Others showed their dissent by not going to see it and putting more money in his pocket. Compare that to the initial reactions to ABC's presentation where some wanted to just shut it down before most anyone had the chance to view it. I just finished tonight's episode. NOT flattering at ALL to Bush and Rice. So some could, I suppose, call it somewhat "even-handed." > 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. It doesn't surprise me at all. You have a bright mind. I took a lot of flack for criticizing it without seeing it but I'd already seen more than enough of Mr. Moore's works over the years to be make what I thought was a fully justifiable decision. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:49:29 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: history njc >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.< well how typical... history embellishes... while herstory is ignored ;~} ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2006 #331 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------