(b>NanciNet Digest 3-20-03
// A little Nanci content, a lot of free speech. [BP]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ChocChippy@aol.com [mailto:ChocChippy@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:25
To: nanci@world.std.com
Subject: NN: Nanci at The Bottom Line in NYC! EEEEEEE!
>From their website:
http://www.bottomlinecabaret.com
SAT MAY 3 DAVE ALVIN
Also Appearing:
TOM RUSSELL with special guest NANCI GRIFFITH
E-mail Reservations are being accepted for this performance
Doors Open 6PM for 7:30 Show/10PM for 10:30 Show
All Seats $22.50
I LOVE The Bottom Line! It'll be the smallest venue I've ever seen Nanci in.
(OH, I so needed some good news today...)
Kathleen W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Maybe not enough
From: Bill Page
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 14:53
Folks,
The reaction some of you had to my request that we not turn this into a
political list was not unexpected...anytime I've suggested that we curtail a
discussion I've been hit with charges of censorship, and this time was no
different.
But I may have been wrong.
My request was based on a couple of ill-advised posts that were intemperate
and provocative. One of them even used language referring to the president
that could be actionable, were it said in a different forum about a
different person.
But there has been much poetry, much passion, much eloquence in these
discussions. Our lives may have been emptier without these words.
I still wish we could keep the list focused on Nanci and her music. As that
relates to the current world situation, and her new song, it certainly can
include discussion of peace, of war, of sensible desires to address the
issues.
But it shouldn't include gratuitous insults of individuals, public or
private.
It shouldn't include partisan harangues.
Shoot, it shouldn't even include Charlie Daniels [unless he's sharing the
stage with Nanci, or saying bad things about her!].
Let's keep the dialogue respectful, let's keep it clean.
And if we can, let's try at least a little bit to be on topic.
Bill "four years is too long, I think" Page
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NN: More on Clear Channel
From: BMiller224@aol.com [mailto:BMiller224@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:46
This appeared in today's (03/19/03) *Chicago Tribune*.
It seems that Clear Channel is actually sponsoring pro-war rallies. So
their banning the Dixie Chicks is something more than just being timid about
offending supposedly conservative country music audiences.
Media giant's rally sponsorship raises questions
http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D03031
90157mar19§ion=/printstory
Bruce Miller
Oakland CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NN: Re: More on Clear Channel
From: John Graveling [mailto:kai21@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:04
I see that Michael Moore has written an open letter to President Bush. It is
very hard hitting and even says it comes to something when the Dixie Chicks
don't like you. Other comments like enduring 441 days of constant lies from
the President, may not endear him to the American public, but sometimes the
truth does hurt!!!!
John "where the blind (Bush) lead the blind (Blair) Graveling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NN: Re: Darryl Worley Interview and Album Info (NNC)
From: Tony Cox [mailto:tonycox@pacific.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 13:53
// in response to yesterday's post regarding Darryl Worley's song...
Yeah right - after 34 years of suffering under a brutal dictator, what the
Iraqi people *really* need is this kind of vengeful spirit unleashed on them
by a giant military machine as punishment for something they had no part in!
It's precisely this kind of moronic jingoism that causes the world community
to perceive the US as the single biggest obstacle to world peace. I would
hope that the majority of those troops are motivated by freeing an oppressed
people (in which case I support the action), not by seeing how many more
brown people they can kill to avenge for 9-11, but perhaps I'm being naive.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NN: "actionable language"
From: Reid Mitchell [mailto:reidmitchell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 16:06
Dear Bill Page and fellow Netters:
I'm trying to remember we haven't used language toward NANCI that wasn't
actionable when we've discussed whether she was rude at a concert or why she
still smokes.
Reid "defender of private vices" Mitchell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: NN: Times A'Changin'
From: Tom Gill [mailto:tgill@igc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 16:23
For some real excitement, see what the listeners of Natalie Maines' local
home town country radio station have to say about her.
http://www.klll.com/mainpage/guestbook.htm
I used to listen to that station- they actually played some rather
"alternative country" music and artists regularly- until last Friday, when
it seemed to have moved to a "Bash The Chicks" format.
-Tom Gill
tgill@igc.org
Lubbock, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NN: RE: NanciNet #03319
From: Ken Stiffler [mailto:ksmsc@kmsx.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:40
Just to clarify:
I wrote:
>>Hey, I like that! Is that "Odio", as in maybe having the same root word as
"odious"? Odious Donald Rumsfeld. Sounds appropriate<<
And Bill added:
>>// odious, from the Latin "odium" - hatred [BP]<<
And I want to make it clear that I was thinking of odious more in its
equivalence to "repugnant" - as in "strong dislike, distaste, or
antagonism".
I've listened to enough of Donald Rumsfeld's press conferences to find him
repugnant (from my viewpoint). But "hate" him? I can't say that I hate
anyone. I have yet to run into an individual who I have not been able to
find some common ground with. Even when someone holds a viewpoint on a
particular subject that I think is potentially harmful, I'm far too aware of
(some of) my own failings and inadequacies to assume that that single issue
makes up the whole of that person.
Who knows? I might even be able to have a comfortably civil conversation
with Donald Rumsfeld, as long as we stayed away from any topic in the realm
of public policy.
Having said that, Donald Rumsfeld has expressed enough in his press
conferences for me to know that I strongly dislike many of his viewpoints,
that I am antagonistic toward many of his stated goals (or at least the
means by which he wants to achieve them), and that I reached a point where I
found listening to his press conferences downright distasteful. In other
words, I find him repugnant and, to that same extent only, odious.
It's highly probable that, if I weren't so dismayed about the USA being led
into a war that I suspect is unnecessary, and that I'm sure is going to have
far reaching and harmful long term consequences, I wouldn't have responded
to the "odio" comment in the first place. No matter how unpalatable I may
find someone's point of view, I *TRY* to take the attitude that this is a
person too. And deserves to be treated as such. Sometimes, though, my first
reaction to some comment or event runs off as if it had a mind of its own,
dragging my better nature with it.
I would guess, too, that I'm the person who Bill thought had made an
actionable comment. I'm no lawyer, and the law can be a strange thing, open
to new interpretation with every action that comes to court. But I see
nothing libelous or slanderous in my comments. It's just my opinion, based
on real statements made in DR's press conferences. But I daresay that I
could take transcripts of DR's press conferences and make a detailed
argument that a reasonable person, reviewing his public comments, might very
possibly come to that same opinion.
One last thing:
NanciNet has been pretty quiet for a long time, but even aside from the
feeling of "community" of some of the people here, if you just consider
NanciNet's primary function - to discuss the music of Nanci Griffith - there
is still a lot of useful information and interesting comments come through
from time to time.
I, for one, am very very VERY pleased that NanciNet is still around. And I
tremendously appreciate the effort that Bill puts into this. And the result.
I'm sorry, Bill, for having made things more difficult for you. Thank you
for keeping this forum alive and for putting up with those of us who tend to
go off topic and, sometimes, off the deep end.
Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NANCI, THE WAR, ETC, ETC
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:32:40 -0000
From: "Young, Howard"
It's difficult to know where to begin. In Scotland as elsewhere the current
situation has divided people. However, I believe it's important that we
discuss these issues openly and with respect. I'm not aware of anyone who
has any great love for Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq have suffered
unimaginable horrors because of his regime. Consequently, his removal and
prosecution for humanitarian crimes is long overdue. However, even given the
above it is difficult not to be concerned about how matters have and are
being progressed.
I am writing this on the morning on which war has begun. Like everyone else
I was shocked by the events of September 11th and supported bringing the
perpetrators to justice. However, no link has been established between those
events and Iraq. Indeed, it seems at times that old scores are being settled
and that oil rather than the welfare of the Iraqi people is the key issue.
It is particularly galling that Britain is four square behind America when
we helped supply Saddam with weapons in the days when (to quote Ronald
Reagan and other Presidents in a different context) he was our sonofabitch.
The dilemma for someone like myself who opposes the war is what to do and
say about the problems that the ordinary Iraqi people are suffering. Critics
would say that I'm simply a woolly liberal who by opposing war is supporting
this brutal regime. In turn I would point out the hypocrisy of both Britain
and America in their previous support for Saddam and the small matter of
International Law. Moreover, what do we do about other regimes e.g. North
Korea, Yemen, China?. Operating an ethical foreign policy is fraught with
difficulties. The UN may be flawed but to ignore or ride roughshod over it
harms us all in the long term.
In Scotland the papers have been filing stories about stars who have been
speaking out against the war and the backlash they are facing. In particular
they have highlighted the criticism of Martin Sheen. The West Wing is a
favourite programme of mine and I took the opportunity to e-mail NBC to
express my support for Mr Sheen. There is much talk about a new McCarthyism
in America although I suspect it is exaggerated. Democracies do have flaws
but it's still the best system we have. Consequently, the denial of
different views shames us all.
It's no surprise that Nanci has spoken out and I admire her very much for
that. She is of course big enough, wise enough and old enough to defend
herself. However, it's important to let her know that her comments are
appreciated. Having had the privilege of meeting her many times and
discussing such issues I know that at the core of her being is a big heart:
someone who cares deeply and intensely about the world and the people in it.
I imagine that for other fans that is part of the reason she attracts such
love and affection.
I sincerely hope that the war is over quickly and with few casualties
whether amongst the troops or the civilian population. I also hope that a
more peaceful world emerges and that a whole new generation of martyrs are
not created. I never again want to witness another September 11th or
anything like it. In Britain we have a tabloid newspaper called The Sun. It
is right of centre and fully supports the war. Anyone who dares to criticise
the current action is either a wobbler or a traitor. Such language and views
don't help anyone. As I said at the beginning let us discuss these issues
openly and with respect. Regards, Howard Young.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:36:45 -0600
From: Ken Gipson
Subject: Music & Politics
I have been a devoted Nanci fan from the first time I ever saw her on TNN
when she was beginning to get the much-deserved exposure. I have seen her
evolve into a wonderful musician with a unique voice as well as a beautiful
woman. Along with that evolution has come her positions on political issues
including landmines. I respect her views and agree with the banning of all
landmines around the world. I understand and accept her position on the
impending removal of Saddam from control of Iraq. I support the President,
George Bush, on this matter because I don't believe you can either trust
Saddam to be truthful or to be able to use containment as a method of
long-term foreign policy. Saddam has been determined to get retribution for
the 1991 Gulf War and has done much to support the violence in the Middle
East such as paying money to the families of suicide bombers/murders. It's
not a stretch to believe that he would provide many of the terrorist
organizations with pieces of his weapons of mass destruction.
I am reminded of a quote by Edmund Burke. "The only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I don't want to see the
U.S. go to war but when you consider the alternatives, we simply can't let
Saddam continue to be a threat to the U.S., the Middle East, or the people
of Iraq.
Regarding Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks recent statement about being
ashamed that The President is from Texas, I think she used some ill-chosen
words to express herself. Unfortunately, once uttered, the damage is done.
Many of the group's fans were seriously offended and they have been
expressing themselves through the radio stations and by not purchasing their
CDs. I feel Natalie felt compelled to make some kind of statement
considering the anti-war sentiment in the U.K. and Europe. While I'm not
sure an apology was called for, (after all we still believe in the 1st
amendment) her apology seemed to only make matters worse. The comments will
take a toll on the group's popularity for a while but in the long term, if
they continue to create and perform great music, time will heal all wounds.
Musical artists are not unique to making their feelings known. Best known
perhaps is Barbra Striesand. She has been a long time liberal democrat
promoting causes and raising money for the Democratic Party and their
candidates. While she is not wildly popular for her beliefs and political
activity, her talent is phenomenal and she still sells out concerts and
sells CDs.
Music is a form of expression for how we feel and musicians will continue to
speak out. Some we will disagree with while others we will agree. We are
all Americans and we deserve to allow everyone to speak their piece whether
we agree or not.
Ken Gipson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions about NanciNet? Send e-mail to bpage3@yahoo.com
Return to Archives or The Blue Moon Page