From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2006 #385 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, October 17 2006 Volume 2006 : Number 385 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... [Susan Guzzi ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [Alice Brown ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: mcMartin Day care center sex abuse case redux (NJC) ["Lori Fye" ] The Gato [RoseMJoy@aol.com] Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... ["Lori Fye" ] Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... ["Lori Fye" ] Justice in our own hands. NJC ["Bree Mcdonough" Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... I am going to keep this short - and not so sweet. Lori - as you know from the past here - I couldn't agree with you more and what breaks my heart is how many respond here to this organization with a big fat "BUT!" Really why can't you admit when somethings just wrong - god forbid it take one drizzle out of your swizzle stick! And the notion that boys at the age of 15 or 16 are more mature and able to judge is pure ignorance and stubborness. Really? Have yourself a child and leave him with a pedophile - nambla member - priest - do you really feel all warm and fuzzy about doing this for any amount of time? I don't think it matters whether or not you are male or female to judge this one. I happen to be a lesbian with some very cutting edge feelings about sex as well ... all boundaries and envelopes pushed - but as an adult I am, thankfully, just barely mature enough to know where to stop. I had this fight here a few years back - it really made/makes me sad - those of you that took part then or know me - know why. Apparently nothing has changed. Peace, Susan Lori Fye wrote: Benedicte wrote: > I'd like to agree, but it sometimes seems to me that this subject is better > left to the men and boys, at least as long as there is so much about male > sexuality that women cannot accept. I have very few, if any, issues about male sexuality. In fact, the idea of two men together, as well as some male-on-male erotic movies (okay, porn), is appealing to me. However, to leave the subject of "man-boy love" to the men and boys is to play right into what those particular men want. "It's a NAMBLA thing; you wouldn't understand." I repeat: there has to be a line that adults don't cross. It's not so very different from the line you don't cross when you commit yourself to another human being in love relationship. Most (not all, but most) people choose to limit sharing their bodies with just that one other person for the duration of the relationship. I'm personally not sure how honest that is to oneself; I'm not even sure human beings are really made to be monogamous; but living that way certainly makes most people's lives easier. We're all tempted by lots of things, and we all have to make choices as to what temptations to give into, and what to turn away from. It all comes down to consequences: if I choose to have sex with a child, what are the consequences? For the child? For me? Do I care? Decent people do care, particularly about the consequences for the child. And you can argue all day that a 15-year old is not a child, but how about if you think of your OWN child at that age (or younger, or older), and consider how you would feel if an adult had sex with him (or her)? I realize that some people don't have this kind of conscience, that many men think with the heads of their dicks (and some women think with their clits). You all know how I feel about people who are so self-absorbed or wrong-wired that they can't or won't differentiate, and can't or won't put the welfare of a child first. My simple solution is unpopular here, but it's always the same: a bullet. Lori Santa Rosa, CA - --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Alice Brown Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Dear Laura, Thanks for responding to my questions. What you are saying is very different from what I've heard. One thing that I thought was definitely true is that you have to be a catholic or you will go to hell. You are saying that you don't have to be a catholic or even a christian, but god does what he pleases. Does it please him to condemn some people to hell? Or do you mean that no one goes to hell? If everyone is saved from hell then why does the bible mention hell so much? Do catholics believe in the bible or is their religion independent of the bible? If there is a hell, is it a place of eternal suffering? How do you get to heaven? How do you get to hell? If god is an advanced being, why does he want us to be like him? That sounds more like narcissism. Perhaps catholicism has changed so much in the last couple decades that it's not at all like the catholisicm of my parents and husband (who grew up in the catholic church). Also, you mentioned that when catholics are asked whether they are going to heaven they say, "I hope so," because they are humble enough not to play God. Does god promise to save people from hell or not? If he does, why would counting on his promise be "playing him." That again seems to depict a narcissistic god. Thanks, Alice LCStanley7@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 10/16/2006 2:54:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, alicejbrown@sbcglobal.net writes: Is the religion basically accept god's love and you won't go to hell? Are you saying that hell is an eternal existence without the presence of god's love? If so, do people suffer there eternally? Can you just accept god's love in your heart, or do you have to combine that with mass, confession and communion? If you have to include mass, confession and communion: how often? Hi Alice, Yes, Catholicism is at it's core about accepting God's love. It teaches that God doesn't force love on anybody... it is our choice to receive God's love or not. God's love sustains our being, but we don't have to give God credit nor ask for it in order for God to give to us. God is all about giving unconditionally. We are not limited in how we are to pray, and we can pray for specifics or not. The more we come to know God and be like him, the easier it is to pray and prayers begin to seem to work in miraculous but really in very ordinary ways. There are certain laws we are created by that we need to respect or we suffer the consequences, like regardless of what I think of brick walls, if I run into one, it will hurt me. The purpose of the church is to be a means for people not to get hurt and to know and enjoy God's love. Catholicism is set up like a family. God is acts as both a father and often uses the church in this capacity. At best the church takes care of us as nurturing parents would. It doesn't always work out that way unfortunately because people are not perfect, but that is how Jesus structured it. As for eternal existence, we are living that now, but we can't see it clearly because of the fog on the mirror. St. Therese of Liseaux called it the Eternal Today. With God all things are possible and nobody can know for sure what is beyond the grave, but we do know we have some kind of spiritual intuition about that now. Catholics say, "I hope so," because they are humble enough not to play God. In the end three things last, faith hope and love, and the greatest is love because love is God. Faith and hope are gifts we enjoy in our humanity now, humanity which we believe is both spiritual and material in substance at present and will be still at some capacity beyond our understanding in the beyond. As for mass, communion, and confession, there are concrete suggestions as to when to go to these, but these guidelines have changed over the years.... just like the celibate versus the married status of priests which is something that could very well change in the future along with other aspects of what we know as catholic structure These things are important, but they are not god. Catholics don't believe you have to be catholic nor do "catholic" things nor be a christian to be "saved." It is all God's gift, and God gives as God pleases not as we might have it. Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:25:16 EDT From: Dflahm@aol.com Subject: Re: Mark Foley -- njc Wasn't Tom Foley a Democratic representative from Washington State, possibly a committee chairman when Democrats had the majority in H of R? David Lahm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:23:41 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu, Lama" Subject: How small is a one kiloton A-bomb? njc The BBC is quoting US intel saying that the N. Korean explosion was less than 1 kiloton. That's less than 5% of the size of our first atomic blast all those years ago. Microsoft's Encarta site said, >The Alamogordo test bomb , as well as the one dropped on Nagasaki were each equivalent to about 20 kilotons of TNT.> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570062_2/Nuclear_Weapons.html It takes a really big, skillfully designed implosion of conventional materials before the fission begins. And you can't blow up 3 atoms; there's a minimum amount of material required to make it "go". So, there's a possibility that the conventional material blew up but the fission didn't start. I'll bet a misfire would produce: 1. a smaller than expected explosion, 2. a brag session from the N. Korean gov't, 3. a small but detectable amount of radiation in the skies over international territory, 4. hesitance among the Security Counsel on how to respond, and 5. the State Department would say, they conducted a test of a nuclear device and the US Air Force found radiation in the air. In short, I don't think North Korea has figured it out yet. If they had an atomic bomb, Condi would have been all over it from day one and Dubya would have been stumping for carpet bombing. In any case, South Korea is still working with the North on 2 major projects (per the NY Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/world/asia/17koreacnd.html?pagewanted=2&ei =5094&en=891cb4c4775510b3&hp&ex=1161057600&partner=homepage Unlike the rhetoric in the US, it's business as usual over there. Jim L. my edits are marked by ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:31:38 -0400 From: "Sharon G" Subject: mcMartin Day care center sex abuse case redux of all the things to drag me out of lurkdom. Its not a concert or play or book or even my association with anyone on this list or that i travelled past the spot where the Joni Fest is happening or even Dar Williams but rather the thread on Child Sexual Abuse or molestation. Firstly, McMartin Day Care was the second national case of Child Sexual Abuse that was publicized. If you look at the history of CSAbuse, though its occurred in every culture, in every ecomonic level, in every state, and in 1 in 4 people's lives, it really wasnt discussed publically until the late 80s when Oprah talked about her own molestation. all of these major cases have allowed us to know much more about CSA and start to deal with the critical and sensitive issues involved. . i recommend the documentary called CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS. one of the critical issues in McMartin is that many of the interviewers were Male cops and they really werent trained to interview children regarding sexual abuse. Cops may have mislead the children to tell the story that they wanted them to. Chld Sexual abuse is the most taboo and offensive of all the crimes against children and in the 30 years since Oprah came forward, lots of developments in the field have emerged. One being, that there is only two concrete evidences of CSA - DNA and comfirmed STD. short of DNA and STD, CSA is still suspect but cant be verified and without STD...its a weak case. McMartin had neither at the time. the basic premise of "believing" children is complicated because. Children have to be interviewed to determine if they know the difference between a lie and the truth. Children who detail sexual encounters beyond their years are a reliable witness. The courts handling of children, their interviews and how they have to face their alledged molester are areas where advancements have been made. the idea is children should be believed and that risk be taken vs children not being believed. the power disparity between kids and adults is the reason. the assumption of kids is that the would not be believed. Also many have been threatened not to tell so empowering and protecting their courage and bravery is important. If i had a choice. id rather side with the child then take the risk that they were being abused and I didnt believe them.... sorry if i babbled but these are complicated issues and there are some really good resources on child sex abuse. sorry my professional life is showing.... I am a 20 year child welfare social worker who teaches child abuse and neglect. If you want to look at the Major indictors of CSA and then examine what we know about Michael Jackson's cases, its facinating.... BTW..... Streisand at the Garden was as close to perfection.... i think that i have died and gone to heaven..... sharon G - -- Trust your intuition It's just like going fishing You cast your line And hope you're getting a bite But you don't need to waste your time Worrying about the market place Try to help the human race Struggling to survive its harshest night paul simon sage advisor, does weary mean wiser dar williams ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:48:17 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... Rick wrote: > However, I also realize that > certain things evoke such an emotional response from our society that it doesn't > even matter whether the person is guilty or not...and one of those things is > child molestation. Let's not forget those two day care owners, and people like > them, who are considered guilty and may not always be so...Caution, is all I > urge. I hear you loud and clear, Rick, and I very much sympathize with the wrongly accused. To be wrongly accused of something so heinous would be personally devastating, even before taking into account the damage it would do to one's reputation, livelihood, etc. It is imperative that the facts be determined prior to accusing someone. However, often the perceived danger to a child is the greater imperative  and that must remain the thought process. At the very least, a child who may be in danger must be removed from the situation and persons who may be causing that danger  even, unfortunately, at the risk to an innocent person's reputation. That said, it's very difficult (almost impossible, perhaps) to remove a child from a situation without saying why, and there's the quandary. Susan wrote: > I had this fight here a few years back - it really made/makes me sad - > those of you that took part then or know me - know why. Apparently > nothing has changed. Nah, it really hasn't. I'm all for looking at all the possible combinations of the human Rubik's cube, but I can also understand the frustration of some people  who most of us would probably label as "conservative"  over some of the ridiculously liberal viewpoints out there. People seem to want to be as warm and fuzzy as possible to every-goddamned-body, regardless of how depraved certain offenders may be. "Oh, they were damaged by [blah blah blah], that's why they're like that." I get so tired of that attitude. What are we trying to make up for? What are we trying to achieve? Like it or not, some people can't be "rehabilitated." For example, Bush is like he is, and many of us have a great time vilifying him (I know I do). Why then, would you not vilify an adult who wants to (or worse, DOES) have sex with a child? You think Bush wasn't damaged by some sort of [blah blah blah]? Surely, he was. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted and punished to the FULLEST extent for his war crimes. And I want to see pedophiles receive the same treatment. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:47:32 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:57:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, alicejbrown@sbcglobal.net writes: Thanks for responding to my questions. You are welcome. What you are saying is very different from what I've heard. That doesn't surprise me. If one isn't catholic or even if one is catholic but hasn't questioned, or is a a fundamentalist catholic, etc., what is at the core of the church is likely to be missed. One thing that I thought was definitely true is that you have to be a catholic or you will go to hell. You are saying that you don't have to be a catholic or even a christian, but god does what he pleases. Yes God does. There was a time in church history when it was taught that people had to be catholics, but that was eventually set straight. Even the term "catholic" means "universal" which is a reality of the presence of God in the midst of people. God's love is universal, not specifically for any one group of people but rather all are considered God's children and salvation is had even by those who never have heard the bible. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was a good example of this and was respected by other faiths for not pushing religion on people but rather just serving them. Does it please him to condemn some people to hell? Have to ask him. Or do you mean that no one goes to hell? The only beings catholics are sure are in hell are the fallen angels. If everyone is saved from hell then why does the bible mention hell so much? The old and new testaments are very different obviously. Jesus didn't focus on hell like some of the earlier prophets did. Do catholics believe in the bible or is their religion independent of the bible? Catholics are not fundamentalists. Catholics believe the bible came out of the church, that God is the author but used people in their humanity to write it. There is acknowledgement of myths in the bible as well as historical records. The bible contains several different literary genres and the catholic church discourages people from reading it fundamentally. Even some of the historically oriented texts were oral tradition before they were written down. Catholics don't get hung up on the words so much as focus on the Word who is God and is Love. Catholics are encouraged to read the bible prayerfully rather than like a text book. At one point in history, the leadership of the church discouraged people from reading the bible at all because they were reading it not to hear God speaking his loving word to them but rather in order to point their own finger at others including the leaders of the church, judging others using the bible. So to prevent this type of fundamentalism, where the book is read focusing on specific parts rather than the whole book and the history out of which it was written, the leaders said it was better if the people didn't read it at all. If there is a hell, is it a place of eternal suffering? The most clear catholic explanation of hell I have heard is that hell is not being able to experience God's love. How do you get to heaven? When we love God above all else and our neighbor as our self, we are already there. If heaven is thought of as the kingdom of God, it is here on earth right now. Still we can only see it through a fog of a sort. How do you get to hell? God only knows. If god is an advanced being, why does he want us to be like him? That sounds more like narcissism. Because God is happy. Perhaps catholicism has changed so much in the last couple decades that it's not at all like the catholisicm of my parents and husband (who grew up in the catholic church). It ebbs and flows. Have to look at it over the course of history rather than just at one particular point in time... otherwise one could get locked into thinking crusades are at the heart of the catholic church or or Latin masses are more holy than novus ordo masses. The church has a history of failures but many more successes. It is easy to focus on the negative and unfortunate when people have to live through things like the crusades or indulgences, etc. But even in those times, the core of the church survives. Today is a good time to be catholic in my opinion. Does god promise to save people from hell or not? If he does, why would counting on his promise be "playing him." That again seems to depict a narcissistic god. God wants all people to experience his love, but God doesn't force his love on anybody. The concept of a promised salvation without regard to the choices of people is not my understanding of God's ways. I am aware that God has given me the choice to reject him if I want even if in the past I have claimed him as my Lord and savior. As St. Fautina said, God's greatest attribute is mercy, and if I do reject God's love at some point, God will always take me back if I want to come back. Reminds me of a godly art teacher I know who is waiting for the second coming of her lover. Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:54:46 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: mcMartin Day care center sex abuse case redux (NJC) Sharon G wrote: > If i had a choice. id rather side with the child then take the risk that they > were being abused and I didnt believe them.... Thank you, Sharon. I'm glad you're out there, doing what you do. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:07 -0400 From: "Richard Flynn" Subject: RE: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... I can't stand it any more, Lori. Vigilante justice is just wrong. Not to mention that the instances of actual pedophilia are so exaggerated by our culture's hysteria about it, that without ironclad evidence, one must be very careful. That's what the rule of law--and courts--are for. You say "It is imperative that the facts be determined prior to accusing someone. However, often the perceived danger to a child is the greater imperative and that must remain the thought process." NO. Despite the Bush administration's efforts to the contrary, the accused has the presumption of innocence. Of course we should protect children, but no one deserves the type of justice you propose. If a true fact-finding in a court of law convicts the accused, the penalty needs to be determined according to the law. It's a sad day indeed when we feel we can take the law into our own hands. That's lynch-mob mentality, not justice. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Lori Fye Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:48 PM To: joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... Rick wrote: > However, I also realize that > certain things evoke such an emotional response from our society that it doesn't > even matter whether the person is guilty or not...and one of those things is > child molestation. Let's not forget those two day care owners, and people like > them, who are considered guilty and may not always be so...Caution, is all I > urge. I hear you loud and clear, Rick, and I very much sympathize with the wrongly accused. To be wrongly accused of something so heinous would be personally devastating, even before taking into account the damage it would do to one's reputation, livelihood, etc. It is imperative that the facts be determined prior to accusing someone. However, often the perceived danger to a child is the greater imperative  and that must remain the thought process. At the very least, a child who may be in danger must be removed from the situation and persons who may be causing that danger  even, unfortunately, at the risk to an innocent person's reputation. That said, it's very difficult (almost impossible, perhaps) to remove a child from a situation without saying why, and there's the quandary. Susan wrote: > I had this fight here a few years back - it really made/makes me sad - > those of you that took part then or know me - know why. Apparently > nothing has changed. Nah, it really hasn't. I'm all for looking at all the possible combinations of the human Rubik's cube, but I can also understand the frustration of some people  who most of us would probably label as "conservative"  over some of the ridiculously liberal viewpoints out there. People seem to want to be as warm and fuzzy as possible to every-goddamned-body, regardless of how depraved certain offenders may be. "Oh, they were damaged by [blah blah blah], that's why they're like that." I get so tired of that attitude. What are we trying to make up for? What are we trying to achieve? Like it or not, some people can't be "rehabilitated." For example, Bush is like he is, and many of us have a great time vilifying him (I know I do). Why then, would you not vilify an adult who wants to (or worse, DOES) have sex with a child? You think Bush wasn't damaged by some sort of [blah blah blah]? Surely, he was. However, I still want to see him tried and convicted and punished to the FULLEST extent for his war crimes. And I want to see pedophiles receive the same treatment. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:31:09 +1000 From: "Rachael Byrnes" Subject: my apologies Hi All, My apologies for posting my last message as a reply to the digest. I didn't realise it would include the whole digest. I think I know what I'm doing now. Best wishes ______________________________ Rachael Byrnes Singer/ Songwriter www.rachaelbyrnes.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:31:27 EDT From: RoseMJoy@aol.com Subject: The Gato Now I know just how Joni felt when she couldn't come to NYC for the Carnegie Hall tribute for the Music for Youth! I've got a very sick tomcat to nurse back to health.............lower urinary tract problems......Second visit to the animal hospital in 2 days...my nerves are shot, but I must keep a close eye on him to make sure he doesn't get blocked up..........OMG the stench!!!!!! lmao Say a little prayer for Nemo.....have to give him more meds now.... later, rosie in nj ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:55:13 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... Richard wrote: > It's a sad day indeed when we feel we can take the law into our own hands. > That's lynch-mob mentality, not justice. Who said anything about taking the law into our own hands? I wrote: > However, I still want to see him tried and convicted and punished to the FULLEST > extent for his war crimes. And I want to see pedophiles receive the same treatment. I wrote "tried and convicted," if indeed the evidence supports a conviction. If convicted, then yes, I do believe capital punishment is warranted -- and I support the law being changed to accommodate that. Call me barbaric, if you wish. However, there is barely enough room in the world for all the healthy, decent people, and I can't stand that scumbag pedophiles are allowed to use the world's limited resources. Just my 2 cents, which I continue to stand by. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:58:23 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... Further to this, which I wrote: > It is imperative that the facts be determined prior to accusing > someone. However, often the perceived danger to a child is the greater > imperative and that must remain the thought process. I was talking about REMOVING a child from danger, not about killing the suspected abuser without due process of law. If you don't agree that it is always imperative to remove a child from perceived danger, period ... then I'm simply mystified by your thinking. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:49:20 -0400 From: "Bree Mcdonough" Subject: Justice in our own hands. NJC While just beginning to type this.. the TV on the background playing.....I heard John Mark Karr..the suspected child molester and possible murderer of the Ramsey girl... on Larry King..say... America is great and wonderful. This was in response to him being let go ...because of the basic tenet.... innocent until proven guilty It's the great underpinning of this country.. the very stamp that sets us apart from most countries. Like Richard said..we are a nation of laws...and those laws must be adhered to. But I understand where Lori is coming from. This past summer there was a very heinous crime committed by two foster parents in Cincinnati. Without going into too much of the details...because they are so repulsive....these foster parents left their child of six or seven....a beautiful autistic boy ..wrapped with duct tape in a blanket and put in a closet for the weekend. The parents left him while they went to a family reunion. With temperatures in the nineties that weekend...the child died. They made up a ruse that the child had been kidnapped. They were found out and are now both in jail awaiting trial. (they are both segregated from the general prison population. Fearing if their fellow prisoners had their way with them ..they would never make their court dates) Believe me... I thought on more than one occasion what I would like to do to these two.... it wasn't pretty.....details best kept to myself. Two of my nephews have relayed to me about loving to have Bin Laden in a room just for five minutes...I can only imagine. But I understand their rage. I guess I'm saying that we all have thoughts of revenge.....I think it's a very human thing. I know a lot of the saints of the Church had very evil thoughts....so I feel I'm in pretty good company. But in the end..we leave it for the courts to handle ...and hopefully...justice will be served. Unlike Lori .... though....I am against the death penalty. Although..sometimes I have to rethink it..especially given the case I just described. But thinking it's best these two..IF GUILTY... will have to think about what they did... serving out their life sentences in a 6 X 8 cage. Bree ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2006 #385 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------