From: les@jmdl.com (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #301 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/onlyjoni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Wednesday, July 19 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 301 The 'Official' Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. --- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. --- Ashara has set up a "Wally Breese Memorial Fund" with all donations going directly towards the upkeep of the website. Wally kept the website going with his own funds. it is now up to US to help Jim continue. If you would like to donate to this fund, please make all checks payable to: Jim Johanson and send them to: Ashara Stansfield P.O. Box 215 Topsfield, MA. 01983 USA ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: feminism ["Kakki" ] Re: Hissing as a musical arc [Bolvangar@aol.com] Re: Accordions (VLJC) [Bolvangar@aol.com] Re: feminism ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Re: Single Gender Marriage ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Labor Day list [AsharaJM@aol.com] feminism and humanism ["Duane J. Corpis" ] Re: Colors a little JC ["P. Henry" ] RE: Colors a little JC ["P. Henry" ] Re: Single Gender Marriage ["Mark or Travis" ] Re: Feminism (VLJC) [Catherine McKay ] Re: feminism and humanism [catman ] Re: Decorating Tips [Catherine McKay ] re: Yvette in English [Catherine McKay ] Re: Joni's Viewpoints ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] sigh... SUCH ignorance [Erin Stoy ] Re: Hissing as a musical arc [B Merrill ] stain imagery [Erin Stoy ] quick review on Wild things run fast ["James Phillips" ] Support your local listmember/songwriter and JM.COM! [Don Rowe ] Re: Joni's Viewpoints [IVPAUL42@aol.com] Re: Correcting Past Wrongs [IVPAUL42@aol.com] Re: Single Gender Marriage [Catherine McKay ] Joni in Special People Magazine!! [AsharaJM@aol.com] Re: Correcting Past Wrongs [Catherine McKay ] TNT tribute cd [dsk ] Re: Decorating Tips ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] Re: Jonis world view (kinda long?) - now [Lori Reason Subject: Re: feminism Kate Bennett wrote: > Emmy I don't think that Joni said anything about being anti >feminist at all. It's not about the ideas, its about the >label. I see Joni as a complete feminist under the definitions set forth here on the list. Consider what we know about her life, her struggles, her songs, her lyrics. The actions of an individual's life speak louder than one word or label, as well they should. What I have personally experienced is that *some* people, usually the very ones who you may wish to enlighten, will use a label against you to distract and divert you from the message you are trying to communicate. The label then becomes terribly ineffective and definitely secondary to the real goal. When people can use your chosen label against you like a weapon then it's time for a new strategy, if you get my drift. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:04:47 EDT From: Bolvangar@aol.com Subject: Re: Hissing as a musical arc Bruce wrote: <> Hello Bruce, great analysis of HOSL's musical shape. However, I'm still skeptical about that quote from the liner notes. I don't think there are "right" or "better" ways to approach any piece of art (except perhaps "open-mindedly"), and I don't agree that approaching the album the way Joni "intended" will necessarily yield more insight or a richer interpretive experience than a unique, independent approach will. And how *could* you listen to HOSL, or any other album, as anything but a total work? Except by only reading the words, or only listening to instrumental versions of the songs, or only looking at the cover art -- or only listening to half the songs? My "solution" to the mystery of HOSL -- not to diminish the album itself at all -- is that Joni got just a little bit pretentious when she wrote those liner notes. ;) - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:17:27 EDT From: Bolvangar@aol.com Subject: Re: Accordions (VLJC) Matt Snyder wrote: <> I think you can. Too much taste smothers all the life out of the music in my opinion. Leslie wrote: <> Most certainly not! That they have (or can have, if they wish) a certain cheesy French cafe ambiance, is one of the best things about them. Yet they can also be so meditative. Here, to prove I'm not biased against accordions I'll tell an opera singer joke: Q. How do you stop an opera singer from drowning? A. Take your foot off his head. (How's that for good taste?) - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:29:50 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: feminism Kate wrote: >Emmy I don't think that Joni said anything about being anti feminist at all. >Kakki spoke elequently about why someone might not want to be labeled. It is >not about the ideas, its about the label. Thank you, Kate. I was about to respond to Emmy in a similar vein, but you said it better than I could. It's exactly the same reason I don't like being called a feminist, or a "Miss", or a "Ms" or anything else. Just about every label under the sun, be it "feminist", "lesbian", "trans-sexual", or whatever, has certain stereotypes associated with it - some of which have been expressed (some VERY inaccurately) on this list in recent days. I'm Helen (or Hell) and that's the only label I need. Hell _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:36:45 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: Single Gender Marriage Jim wrote: >Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: >The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long >relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm >for gay marriage come from? Actually before I start, let me just say that this is IMO (and not humbly)! No, it's not true! The same stereotype applies to young heterosexual men. A young man "sows his wild oats", for example. Most of my gay friends have been far less promiscuous in their lives than my heterosexual friends. >Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so >(s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument >in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? What am I missing or >misunderstanding? This is not the central argument in favour of gay marriage. Gay people marry (or would like to be ABLE to marry) for the same reasons as heterosexual people - because they love that person, and want to spend the rest of their lives with them. It would also be nice to have that commitment recognised "officially" in some manner. This option is not currently available. Sure people talk about the financial benefits, etc. but that's a side issue. As far as I'm concerned, and this really is just my opinion, the only reason anyone should marry - gay, straight, black, white, green, whatever - is for love. Hell _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:37:30 EDT From: AsharaJM@aol.com Subject: Labor Day list This is the list I have so far of people coming to the New England Labor Day Jonifest 2000. If your name isn't here, why isn't it??? ;-) If you haven't already signed up for the Labor Day list, please sign up right away! Most of the correspondence from now on will be going through the Labor Day list only. Also, if you would like to come, and your name isn't here yet, please let me know as soon as possible!! There is a LOT of planning to do!! All information and details (including how to join the list) can be found at: http://www.jmdl.com/nejf2000.cfm Wally K. MG Roberto Bob Muller Les Heather Patrick Maggie Chuck E. Kenny Grant Marian Jody Paz Jenny Goodspeed Leslie and Steve Mixon Brian Gross Mark D. Victor Mags Nikki Johnson Alison E. Claudia Leslie Shapiro John van Tiel Pearl and Steve Julius CatGirl Julie Z. Jim Lamadoo Rose Joy Hugs, Ashara www.photon.net/lightnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:25:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duane J. Corpis" Subject: feminism and humanism Paul wrote: >But there is an "other." It's called humanism, the basis of which is >written in the Declaration of Independence, which I would modernize to >say that "all humans are created equal." Frankly, my dear, if you're a >feminist, you are also a sexist. This is one of the silliest things I've read so far in this thread, if for not other reason than it seems that you are only skimming what most people are writing. Most people on this thread have been bending over backwards to explain that they want equal, not special, rights. Most people have been trying to offer multiple definitions of "feminism", indeed arguing that there are perhaps as many "feminisms" as there are women and men who call themselves feminists. Yet Paul keeps reducing feminism to radical, militant, man-hating feminism whose only agenda is to place women in power over men and who see women as superior to men. Frankly, my dear, that's bull shit. Feminism has been at the forefront of critical intellectual and political trends aiming to demonstrate that all differences -- race, gender, and sexuality -- have political, cultural, and social dimensions. Most academicians who consider themselves "feminists", for example, would argue that gender identities and gender roles are largely the product of history, culture, socialization, etc. etc. They argue this (1) because it makes a lot of sense if you look at the history of what it has meant to be a "man" and a "woman" -- these gender definitions and roles are not historically transcendent, they change and (2) because it argues for a radical politics of equality -- the few visible and true differences between men and women, between whites and non-whites are not enough to warrant disenfranchisement in social or political arenas. BUT disenfranchisement of women or people of color or homosexuals has been a persistent part of our society and culture, the Declaration of Indepdence being no exception (ALL MEN can't simply be modernized -- it has to be reckoned with. Forgive me if I call Thomas Jefferson a "sexist" by modern standards. By modern standards, he was also a racist, even though he wanted to emancipate his slaves in his will -- in fact, perhaps BECAUSE he wanted to emancipate his slaves. After all, if he truly believed in the equal dignity, rights, and values of man/humanity, why the hell did he own slaves in the first place???) I consider myself a feminist, and I'm a man. I also happen to be gay. I certainly am NOT a man-hater! That would be strange, now wouldn't it? Of course, there are some (though certainly not ALL) feminists who would dislike the fact that I call myself a feminist. They would point out that I embody male privilege, just because of my facial hair, my genitalia, my "straight-acting masculinity." On some level, they would be right. I do act straight, relatively masculine (though you'll never catch me watching a sporting event -- oooh boring!), and even though I fight the good fight, I benefit automatically from being a man in this society. I continue to call myself a feminist because I am self-reflexive to know where I am priviledged, and because my politics include levelling that priviledge. I agree with the radical feminist that I am privileged because of my gender -- I know that I've gotten jobs where a woman could have done the job or was in fact MORE QUALIFIED. I'd like to think that under those circumstances, I've always turned the job down. But you see, even that decision is a little patronizing. I'm in the position to turn it down. I'm the one, as a man, who has to power to choose. Perhaps I'm sensitive to the fight of my sisters because I, as a queer and a person of color, understand what priviledge is. YOu don't have to be a racist to benift from racial priviledge, for example. You don't have to be a homophobe to benefit from heterosexual priviledge. You don't have to be a sexist (you can even be a male feminist) to benefit from male priviledge. For example, because white is so normative in this country, so dominant as a racial category, most white people don't even think about the fact that they have automatic priviledge from being white. Put a white person and a black or brown person in suits in Manhattan, the white person is the one who will get the cab first. To be more serious, the white person would also be more likely to get the job first. ANd the white guy in the suit is the LAST person ever to get pulled over by the police simply for looking suspicious. Every day, I walk out the door and am confronted with my browness when I walk in a part of town (say, the financial district) or an institution (say, my university) that is largely white. It is one of the priviledges of being white that white people don't have to think about their race, because in large measure they don't have it. "Whiteness" is neutrality. In contrast, "blackness" or "browness" automatically sends signals -- just ask the police in NJ and NY who constantly use racial profiling. This is what threatens people about a truly radical politics of equalization (wether it regards race, gender, or sexual orientation). People will lose the privilege they consciously or unconsciously possess in society. So to feel better about their attacks on the disenfranchised, the underprivileged, they turn the claims for equality made by the underdogs into claims for special treatment. All I have to say is "WAKE UP!" Humanism, by the way, also has a history, stretching all the way back to the Renaissance. It has been, perhaps still is, a deeply SEXIST world view, because (like the Declaration of Independence) it has historically considered women NOT to be part of the human race, for human race was idenfitied as those with REASON, and women have historically been understood as lacking reason, and therefore not fully human. The good thing about humanism has always been its attempt to be self-reflexive. So Paul, until I see some more self-reflexivity in your posts, I won't regard you as a humanist, but as a typical middle-of-the-road guy who thinks he doesn't participate in the hierarchies of priviledge, but in fact does. The true humanists I know wouldn't feel comfortable extending the term to you, given your responses to the feminists on this list. - --Duane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:10:00 -0700 From: "P. Henry" Subject: Re: Colors a little JC kate inquired: >...I was thinking along the same colors as peach, except its not exactly peach. I saw the most striking color combo in a Joni photo but I can't remember where it was. Probably somewhere on the Joni website- and I know I saw it fairly recently. She was in a brilliant blue standing in front of an adobe-like wall that was earthy- orangey in color. There might have been blue flowers in the photo too. I wanted to paint my house that color, with the blue trim after seeing that picture. Does anyone recall where to find that photo? hiya kate! here ya go: :o) http://homepages.go.com/~jonifiles/albums/album/pic0.html Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:16:42 -0700 From: "P. Henry" Subject: RE: Colors a little JC oops! posted too soon... ;o) >YES! Thank you Mark- what a great memory. Ta Da! Here is the link to the photo- http://www.rolandus.com/USERS/RUG/ARCHIVE/WIN_96/FEAT14_2/JONI1.HTM > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:17:40 -0700 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: Single Gender Marriage > Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: > The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long > relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm > for gay marriage come from? > > Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so > (s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument > in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? What am I missing or > misunderstanding? I wish I had more time to address this now but unfortunately I have to go to work. I sometimes feel left out of these discussions because I can't post while they're going on. However, I would like to point out that Jim is asking these questions quite honestly and I believe would honestly like to be enlightened about them. Let's not rip him to shreds for being honest. I don't think Jim (correct me if I'm wrong, Jim) probably had much contact with gay people before he joined this list. He is asking to be enlightened. We can do that without raking him over the coals, can't we? I would rather people ask legitimate questions than keep their misconceptions clutched tightly to their psyches, afraid to let go of them. If they ask, they can be informed. So let's inform, not bash. Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:20:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Feminism (VLJC) - --- IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > Then attack and correct the injustices at their > core; trying to even them up > with alternative advantages is doomed because it > fails to place at a > disadvantage the same group that gains from the > original injustices. > That's a really tough call. Many employers as "equal opportunity employers" post job ads that "encourage" applications from women, minorities, disabled people, etc. This is an attempt to even out the inequities in certain lines of work that are dominated by white males. The white non-disabled males then feel discriminated against. The point is, the job is going to go to the person best qualified for it but, if two candidates are very close, then the one who belongs to an under-represented group is supposed to get the job. It doesn't solve the problem (at the core) of why there are inequities to begin with. While some of this can be attributed to an "old boys' club" kind of attitude amongst certain kinds of white males, I think this is less of an issue now than it once was (depending on what business you're in, of course). But it is also something that needs to be dealt with right from the time kids start school (if not before). Why do so few girls go into engineering? (less true than it once was, but how much is nature, and how much nurture?) The problem of under-representation by non-whites is toughter - much of this stems from poverty. They can't get ahead in school because of poverty. They can't get a better job because of lack of education. Therefore they're stuck in this cycle of poverty/unemployment/poverty. How do you deal with that? Post-secondary education is getting more expensive, and grants are harder to get. If the kid can't even make it through grade school or high school, what chance do they have of getting post-secondary education? Maybe there should be more meal programs for kids in poor neighbourhoods - - who's going to pay for it? Governments are cutting back and the attitude these days seems to have swung back to believing that the poor deserve to be poor and wouldn't be poor if they weren't so lazy. And so on. > In that vein, if my state allows gay couples to > extend insurance and other > benefits to each other, then I should be able to add > my fiancee or girlfriend > to MY insurance in the same way. > But to allow gay "civil unions" to benefit while I > cannot is an example of > granting an advantage to a special group that > neither corrects an injustice > or provides an "equal" status. If you're living together in a common law relationship, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, you'd get the same insurance benefits as a "married" couple. It's the living-together thing that does it as far as I know. I don't think that gays who weren't living together as a couple would be given this coverage (as far as I'm aware), so they're just being given equitable treatment. I don't understand why people are so against this - it's not going to hurt anyone. For that matter, if you're single and living with your elderly mother, why can't you get her covered by your supplementary health insurance? (In Canada, you'd be able to claim an "equivalent-to-married" exemption on your income tax in this kind of situation, if you were supporting the other person, not that that gives you that much of a tax exemption, but it's better than nothing.) ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:31:19 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: feminism and humanism This was an excellent post, and reminded me of my own privileges as both a male and white. Thank you, Duane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:32:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Decorating Tips - --- Jim L'Hommedieu wrote: > Colin, > Do you REALLY want decorating tips from a > middle-aged, straight, lonely, > computer technician who lives in middle America?? :) > Think carefully...... > All the best, > Jim L'Hommedieu near Cincinnati > Let me guess Jim - earth tones, right? Beige, beige, beige.... ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:36:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: re: Yvette in English - --- Bolvangar@aol.com wrote: > On another note, I think "Yvette in English" needs a > really cheesy > oom-pah-pah accordion, for that French cafe sound. > We don't have to be > smothered in good taste all the time. ;) > I like that! ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:15:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Joni's Viewpoints On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > But there is an "other." It's called humanism, the basis of which is written > in the Declaration of Independence, which I would modernize to say that "all > humans are created equal." Frankly, my dear, if you're a feminist, you are > also a sexist. That's like saying if you support an independent Isreal you are a zionist. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:15:17 EDT From: PPeterson4@aol.com Subject: Re: feminism and humanism well I've been sucked into this thread in spite of all the hostility. Thanks to Duane for such a thorough presentation. Really good stuff. Paul Peterson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:45:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Bird Subject: For Carlyphiles (VLJC) The Irish music magazine HOTPRESS ran a review, written by Peter Murphy, of Carly Simon's THE BEDROOM TAPES in the July 19 issue, giving it 8 of 12 stars (actually "dice"), saying it "isn't perfect" but it's a "model example of what happens when bitter sentiment meets sweet harmony." Here's the fleeting Joni reference: - --The singer underwent a masectomy during her hiatus from the mainstream, and the psychic and physical wounds are addressed here in songs such as "I Forget" and "Scar." ... Here all the dirty little insecurities are exposed under the kind of ruthless scrutiny which separates the Jonis from the Jewels: "I said I'd been sick but was on the mend/I told him a few of the overall details/He said, 'that's too bad'/And he's never called me again." Bored here at work under the Pan Am roof, Nickel Chief ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:04:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Stoy Subject: sigh... SUCH ignorance Paul I writes: "Frankly, my dear, if you're a feminist, you are also a sexist." Once again, I shake my head at the ignorance Paul spouts. Feminism is not about women being superior to men, or about having privileges over and above those men have. It is about equal treatment for women and men. Educate yourself and maybe you won't make such ignorant statements. Erin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:46:14 -0400 From: B Merrill Subject: Re: Hissing as a musical arc Bolvangar@aol.com wrote: >Bruce wrote: ><intended-- it becomes a far more impressive and powerful work.>> > > Hello Bruce, great analysis of HOSL's musical shape. Thanks, David. Glad you liked it. However, I'm still >skeptical about that quote from the liner notes. I don't think there are >"right" or "better" ways to approach any piece of art (except perhaps >"open-mindedly"), and I don't agree that approaching the album the way Joni >"intended" will necessarily yield more insight or a richer interpretive >experience than a unique, independent approach will. To demonstrate that, you would have to put forward a way of approaching the album which was NOT that which Joni intended, which would nevertheless "yield more insight or a richer interpretive >experience." That would be a fascinating project, and I encourage you to attempt it. Go for it! And how *could* you >listen to HOSL, or any other album, as anything but a total work? You could do this by listening to Hissing without paying any attention to the framework that Joni has set up. Just as... you could listen to a Beethoven symphony in reverse and so not grasp the harmonic development that he used to structure it. And you can also listen to a Beethoven symphony in its proper order and still not understand what he's doing. Not paying attention is always an option. My "solution" to the mystery of HOSL -- not to diminish the album >itself at all -- is that Joni got just a little bit pretentious when she >wrote those liner notes. ;) Well, I disagree; I respect her ambition here. (Go, Joni Go!) Which also means that I take it that you are diminishing the album. - -- thanks for the exchange, Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:28:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Stoy Subject: stain imagery David wrote an interesting post about stain imagery in Joni's work. It is also found in "Court and Spark": "They've all seen the stain on their daily bread, on their Christian name..." Erin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:07:26 GMT From: "James Phillips" Subject: quick review on Wild things run fast Dear list, I've been lurking in the shadows between songwriting and job interviews for the last few weeks and have been reading things that have been of interest. I finally listened to Wild things run fast, and it is a good album IMHO. I especially loved Moon at the Window and Be cool. To me, the album holds up just like how Blue has held up all these years. The song sequence is really well balanced IMHO as well. Anyways, this is part 1 of the deluge of posts from me to-day, James Phillips Now playing the Magazine by Rickie Lee Jones ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:13:57 GMT From: "James Phillips" Subject: Michael from Mountains Okay, the 3rd and final post from me to-day (thank Gawd some of you are saying:) ) Does anyone know whom Michael from Mountains was written about? If this question has been asked and answered in the past, I'm sorry to ask it again, but I would like the know a bit more. James ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Rowe Subject: Support your local listmember/songwriter and JM.COM! This is, I suppose, a semi-shameless plug -- so let me put out an apology in advance. Nonetheless, my album of original songs -- "Closer Now" -- is available at www.mp3.com ... For every copy purchased by members of the jmdl -- I'll donate 50% of my take ($2/sale) to Jim at jonimitchell.com ... here's what to do: Click over to: http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/38/don_rowe.html Once you purchase a copy of the album, you'll receive a confirmation order # e-mail from mp3.com. Forward that message to me at: dgrowe227@yahoo.com I'll then keep a record of your order, and send Jim a check. Thank you all so much. Someone once said, "We all want to be naked and famous". Right now, I feel only naked! ;-D Don Rowe ===== "I do not object to others hiding from history. What I object to are others hiding history from ME." - -- Shelby Foote __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:24:12 EDT From: MDESTE1@aol.com Subject: Correcting Past Wrongs NFL To Address Underrepresentation of Women Players Dateline : New York The National Football League today announced that after polling its owners and finding overwhelming support for the plan that it would embarc on an unprecendented plan to equalize the heretofore discrimination against women. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue's statement: Prior to the implementation of this plan the NFL had always been populated exclusively by male athletes. I want to go on record that this was not because men were better athletes it was because the average salary in the NFL is just under 2.73 million dollars per player. This inequity is disgusting and we all know it. We all know that the only reason they have been granted these jobs as players in the NFL is because they are men and our society has unfortunately only used gender to select any and all of its job beneficiaries.. The tallents needed to compete in the NFL are running, jumping, throwing, and showering, with a little bit of swearing. We all know that women can do all these things and more. For instance we have never addressed the interior decorating factor in our locker rooms and the use of loofas and scented soap in the showers. Women can play this game and we all know it has only been discrimination that has kept them off our playing fields in the NFL. If they can throw lamps in the White House they can throw footballs in our stadiums. If they can elbow and scratch at deep discount sales in the nations retail outlets the day after Thanksgiving they can fight for yardage on our fields of valor. Therefore we are going to establish an affirmative program to incorporate women onto each and every team in the NFL for the upcoming season. We have constructed our program to accomodate the discriminatory factors given them by nature in their somewhat smaller bodies. For instance we normally have Offensive Tackles in the 325 to 350 pound weight class. We are hereby declaring that Offensive Tackles can now be no more than 125 pounds so that this discrimination shall end. Women will in the future protect the backside of the quarterback on the field as well as in the courtroom. Wide receivers are normally very fast and frequently run the 40 yaerd dash in under 4.5 seconds. This discriminated against women who can not run that fast so we have ruled that wide receivers will not be allowed to run the 40 in less than 5.5 seconds. By doing this we have created a new inequality because those defensive players who will going up against the offensive tackles and wide receivers will now be much bigger and stronger and faster than their opponents so we had to create new rules which require that the defensive ends and the cornerbacks now be smaller and slower. All offensive plays will have to be run only at the men to protect the female defensive players from the highly negative violent tendencies of the awful men who will remain in the league. Former Seantor Patricia Schroeder will oversee this aspect of our rules committee. The bigger faster and stronger men who used to have these jobs will just have to get other jobs in the name of progress. While opening up new jobs for women at the four positions mentioned it will create a new inequity by making the Guards on the offensive line bigger and faster than the defensive ends so we are outlawing the blocking of the defensive end by the guards and center which are the positions that the men can compete for. In turn we are no longer allowing men to play the outside linebacker positon because they would be able to physically overpower the offensive tackles. Blitzing and in particular swearing while blitzing will now be prohibited in the new NFL. This brings us to the running backs and quarterback positons. Everyone knows these are the highest paid positions in the NFL. As such they have been only given to men just because they are men. We all know Joe Montana, Dan Marino and John Elway couldnt throw any better than Whoopie Goldberg and Gloria Steinem and Donna Shalala so for the next 25 years only women will be allowed to play the Quarterback position to make up for all these years of discrimination. We in the NFL know that what appeared to be those line drive bullet passes of 75 yards or more that Elway threw were really possible only by the cruel hoax of male chauvanistic mysoginist special effects photographers who have been relieved of their positons with ABC and CBS so now the fans can rest assurred that those 30 yard wounded duck looping forward passes that will be throwen by the new generation of women quarterbacks will be just as damn good as those phoney Elway and Marino passes they have seen on TV. Running back positons will be granted only to women to equalize the amount of money paid formerly only to men who were running backs. The tackling of these new female running backs will only be allowed when done by the female defensive players. Women have been physically bused long enough by men and this historic reality will end in the NFL by this pronouncement. No klore tackling of the running backs will be tolerated. This will open up the game and make it more exciting for everyone. Young girls seeing their sisters spike the ball and do the cabbage patch smurf dance in the Superbowl will be inspired to achieve greater heights in life and in their careers. Its working in our armned services now so it can work here. We have also ruled that the defensive backs MUST allow the passes to be cought to protect the new quarterbacks from a loss of self esteem inherent in failure. Once the passes are cought tackling of them will be prohibited so that the receivers must be allowed to score on every other completion so that the statistical data compiled by the women quarterbacks throughout the year will achieve our statistical objectives under our affirmative program to correct a generation of inequities in awarding these lucrative jobs as players to only men. Lastly there is the final frontier of coaching. We all know that coaches dont necessarily have to know anything except how to cuss out officials. Our recent study of married officials determined that their wives and girlfirends in some cases were actually superior to any coach in the league at harranguing them. We even found that in many cases new interpretations of long-used expletives were ascertained to be effective in getting the officials to change their mind which is precisely what the coach is trying to do. For instance one official was told by his wife that if he didnt do this or that he would be "sleeping with the dogs". He changed his mind. SO we are ruling that no less than one half of all the coaching jobs in the NFL will immediately be awarded to women coaches. Lastly I have one final announcement to make. Even though I have been running this league for 15 years and prior to that I was a foremost labor attorney and expert negotiator it has been made clear to me that only my sex was responsible for me getting this job in the first place. There had to be at least a million or so women who were more qualified than I. In fact no woman was even considered can you imagine that. Therefore I have decided to resign my positon and award my job to someone who has the best characteristics of both sexes to act as your commissioner. She is politically brilliant but tough as nails. This person is not only a sharp legal mind but was very persuasive in convincing me that if I didnt do this my personal FBI file and IRS returns would somehow find their way into the mainstream press. I know that for the last eight years or so much progress has been achieved in righting the historic wrongs of so long under the leadership of this person and so I want to introduce your new NFL Commissioner Ms.Janet Reno. I will now take your questions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:17:30 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: feminism Yes this makes sense to me Mags. As I said, I have come to embrace the word feminism more over the years but I still would rather not be defined by any one word, whether it was political, religious, etc etc. Who I am & what I believe is important consists of such a wide range of concepts. So if someone were to ask me if I was a feminist, to answer honestly, I would have to engage them in a discussion of the issues and not just give a yes or no answer and assume we all agreed on what it meant. It would take longer, be more complex, but it would be more truthful for me. All I can speak for is me. ******************************************** Kate Bennett www.katebennett.com www.cdbaby.com/katebennett www.amazon.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic…the album grows more intriguing with repeated listening" All Music Guide "lyrically, it's a work of art overall" Indie-Music.com ******************************************** - -----Original Message----- From: pat holden [mailto:pholden@iprimus.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:58 AM To: Kate Bennett; joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: feminism Kate Bennett wrote: > Emmy I don't think that Joni said anything about being anti feminist at all. > Kakki spoke elequently about why someone might not want to be labeled. It is > not about the ideas, its about the label. > > Emmy wrote: That's my belief anyway and although I admire Joni beyond > description I > cannot figure the anti-feminist side of her out and Mags, smitten with insomnia wrote: I still feel that you can live into whatever your definition of feminism is and be strong and sure of your convictions without the need or want of fitting into the box of a definition created by someone else. hopefully, this makes sense. - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- _~O / /\_, ___/\ /_ - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:33:34 EDT From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni's Viewpoints In a message dated 7/19/00 11:14:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, notaro@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu writes: << On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > But there is an "other." It's called humanism, the basis of which is written > in the Declaration of Independence, which I would modernize to say that "all > humans are created equal." Frankly, my dear, if you're a feminist, you are > also a sexist. That's like saying if you support an independent Isreal you are a zionist. Jerry >> If you support an independent Israel that is governed by Jews even though half the population are Arabs, then are you not? Paul I ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:44:49 EDT From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Correcting Past Wrongs In a message dated 7/19/00 1:34:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MDESTE1@aol.com writes: << I know that for the last eight years or so much progress has been achieved in righting the historic wrongs of so long under the leadership of this person and so I want to introduce your new NFL Commissioner Ms.Janet Reno. I will now take your questions. >> Welcome to the monkey house! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:49:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Single Gender Marriage - --- Mark or Travis wrote: > I would like to point out that Jim is > asking these questions > quite honestly and I believe would honestly like to > be enlightened > about them. Let's not rip him to shreds for being > honest. ... > I would rather people ask legitimate questions than > keep their > misconceptions clutched tightly to their psyches, > afraid to let go of > them. If they ask, they can be informed. So let's > inform, not bash. > Mark, you have such a balanced view of things! God - if there is a God ;)- love ya! ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:58:34 EDT From: AsharaJM@aol.com Subject: Joni in Special People Magazine!! In the Special Collector's Edition of People Magazine, People Celebrates the 80's, there are 2 pictures of Joni. Page 15, under soulful solists, and again on page 64 at the No Nukes Concert. Hugs, Ashara www.photon.net/lightnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:09:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Correcting Past Wrongs - --- MDESTE1@aol.com wrote: > NFL To Address Underrepresentation of Women Players > Dateline : New York > > The National Football League today announced that > after polling its owners > and finding overwhelming support for the plan that > it would embarc on an > unprecendented plan to equalize the heretofore > discrimination against women. Laugh though you may, if a woman can play well enough, then go for it! One of my nieces is one of two girls (aged 14) on an otherwise all-boy hockey team. She's good. She has played on all-star teams representing her province (Alberta) in Canada-wide competitions. The ability to play the game (whatever it may be) and to be good enough to make the team is all that counts. P.S. I hate sports. They could ONLY have been invented by macho men out to show off to women and other men who's got a bigger dick (pardonnez-moi mon anglais). For cripes sake, the damn ball (in North American football) isn't even round!) I also wonder about all that tackling stuff - I figure it's probably just an excuse for guys to cop a feel off each other and still be a *real man*. ;) ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:37:08 -0400 From: dsk Subject: TNT tribute cd This cd from Steve Polifka is great! I had no idea it would be like this. I'm blown away by it! The bit of money I sent to cover the cost of the blank cd and postage doesn't begin to cover the time and expertise that have obviously gone into creating this. It's a very generous gift, this sharing of the music, and a wonderful tribute to Joni in its own right. These things really impress me about it: The sound is so clear, like a regular cd, I can hear each twang of Richard Thompon's guitar on Woodstock (still makes me swoon) and each piano key that Diana Krall and Elton John press, and Joni sounds great! It's as though she's right here. And the editing is very cleanly done, with no abruptness anywhere. It's mostly music, but I like that there's enough of the talk left in to give the feel of the show. And as if that wasn't enough, the cd booklet and cover with color photos from the broadcast are beautiful, very well designed. All very lovingly put together. Great job on this Steve! Thank you so much for creating this and sending it along to me. Listening to it again -- wow. Looking again at the cd cover -- wow. Thank you. It's a treasure. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:57:57 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Re: Decorating Tips Yes, Catherine, in my experience you can't go wrong with beige carpet, off-white walls, and (this part is crucial) a beige vertical blind for the sliding door. :) (It disappears into the wall when closed.) :) Furthermore, I'll share my other decorating tips for settling a living room with my fellow JMDLers. You folks may not have been properly enlightened. :) The key to settling the living room is to make the position of the stereo speakers the first priority. I moved the speakers every 6 months or so for the first 4 or 5 years in my last apartment. The only way to a Fabulous result is to get the stereo sounding great first. :) Of course, you can't leave the windows uncovered for 4 or 5 years. You'll have to put SOMETHING up. Just buy earth tones, as Catherine so wisely pointed out. Don't get distracted from positioning those speakers! :) Next time, we'll talk about how standing up a bed mattress in your living room will cut standing waves. :) Jim wrote: > > Do you REALLY want decorating tips from a > > computer technician ?? :) > Catherine (in Toronto) has her way with me: > Let me guess Jim - earth tones, right? Beige, beige, beige.... ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 00 21:58:59 MET DST From: Lori Reason Subject: Re: Jonis world view (kinda long?) - now Catherine said: > But the problem > is, in many of these countries, there is so much > poverty that, if they didn't send the kids out to > work, they'd starve. They can't send the kids to > school because they need to get food on the table. > In many households, ... the servants are treated > like ... (family) poor relations). ************************************ The ILO - International Labour Office - headquartered here in Geneva just held a conference with the focus to stop child slave labor. But as you so rightly point out if the kids don't earn some money their family suffers. The ILO is working on one end of the problem, as is their mandate. So often there is a lack of coordinated effort which comes from the Member States themselves. How do you convince a government to increase it's minimum wage (if one exists) when they are being dictated to by a military regime? The UN passes a resolution, then boycotts the offending country - in principle. I wish someone would think of a better way. The purpose of these kids not getting an education is that they will not rise in society - and the present regime will maintain power. So effective. > And you can't legislate this kind of thing > without making plans for how to deal with what comes > after all the slaves are free. Maybe my view is way too Utopian, but in a healthy society where housekeepers weren't looked down upon, but respected for their part in the culture - as a person from whom you benefit because they free you up to do what you prefer to do and make your life less stressful - who would be a slave? Would I chose to go to work and leave my kids (if I had any) with someone who got to stay at home and be with them all day? Nope. I'd rather do something at home until they were in school. It's about choices. We have them, and developing countries (so named by the fact that they are *not* developing) don't. I saw what Cesar Chavez did in California for the migrant workers - boycotting works. Yes, the people suffer for a while - sometimes a long while - but they would have suffered indefinitely without a boycott. Yes, the US was delusional in thinking that people in Iraq and Yugoslavia could rise up and oust their "evil" leaders. What our gov't didn't (doesn't) realize is they cannot - not with the military in power. People living in these regimes have gotten used to being repressed and afraid. Also, as they haven't grown up in our culture they don't think like we do. Why are we (the US Gov't) so surprised by this? Aren't our Ambassadors trained in cultural sensitivity? Iraq and Yugoslavia do not have the same kind of gov't as So. Africa did. The boycott in So. Africa was effective - it brought the De Klerk regime around *and* there happened to be a person who had the will to bring the change, *and* Mandela had the support of the people. In Iraq you would get shot just thinking about it. If Hussein cared so much about his people he would provide them with the medicine and food they need instead of re-stocking his military. Do not be fooled like Kofi Annan was. In India Gandhi's hunger strike worked because he was such a charismatic person, but it did not work when he was in Africa because he was a foreigner there. > Broken noses alter faces > Situations alter cases. > > I have no idea where that quote came from, but I love it.> It's a great one. Another favorite of mine is: "If we all live by an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we'll all end up blind and toothless." Lori (I hope this makes sense.) ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #301 ********************************* ------- Post messages to the list at ------- Siquomb, isn't she?