Further responses to responses...

In a message dated 11/3/01 12:29:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jdl@... writes:

> . It should
> >not be a surprise, then, that you do this with music as well.
>
> Well, Johnny, several things about that paragraph intrigue me. Let's
> begin with the inexplicable segue from politics to music. Yes, I
> "justify things to my own aesthetic." To my mind, any other way of
> approaching music turns it into an empty intellectual game. I work with
> music because the beauty of it speaks to me on a very deep level, and I
> make my own sense of beauty my one guiding star. Is that sense resonant
> with yours?

My aesthetic, no doubt, can be deduced by the programming I have done on AFMM
concerts, and by my own original compositions.

Is that sense powerful enough
> to survive the test of time? I am content to let time provide the
> answer to that question, and I humbly suggest that you do the same,
> rather than fretting over it.
>

Yes, we have other things to fret about, though I don't wait for time to wash
over me, preferring to be a bit more proactive.

> Now to the substance of your paragraph on the matter at hand. It
>

That's good!

> I am not a Jew, nor a practicing Christian, I am at a bit of a loss
> for
> particularly holy shrines of those religions, but imagine your own
> holiest shrine, and imagine it occupied by armed troops belonging to
> some other country, and to some other religion, and tell me how you
> feel.
>

Well, since I am irreligious (as you appear to be), I can only respond by
saying that Jews have been singing "Next year in Jerusalem" for 2 thousand
years. One might say they have a religious right to Jerusalem, at least as
compared with other religions.

Question for everyone: Where are our American troops in Saudi Arabia?
Answer: Americans don't know, but Arabs do.

> >One issue is the U.S. troops on holy land. The leadership of a mass of
> >land asks for defense by an outside Muslim country. Sure, I would like
> >to have the U.S. leave there because they, themselves are two-and
> >three-face. One could go back further in history and negate and
> >particular country or culture. The really beautiful cultures that
> >resonated art in early eras are most likely gone. They were wiped off
> >the earth because they had no armies to defend them (e.g., Crete).
>
> Nowhere do I hear you sympathize with the people whose religion we are
> tromping on. Why is that?
>

I am actually more concerned with you and the people on this list. Since
religious tracts are a fiction, their hijacking seems less something I can
sympathize with less than real people. I greatly sympathize with innocent
Americans of Middle, Near, Central, and Southeast ancestry. Frankly, we are
not tromping on anything in the Saudi Arabian desert. We are invited guest
who should be moving on, soon.

> >Another issue is to spend unnecessary focus on understanding why these
> >"villains" did this dastardly massacre. When Ghengis Khan's Mongol
> >army destroyed your town, would you stop one of the horse riders for an
> >interview? Would you ask for information on his parents? Try to talk
> >the individual rider out of it? (just being rhetorical) Didn't Hitler
> >tap a vein of Christian hatred for Jews? Wasn't Hitler "justified" in
> >his aims by the bad treatment he received by his very own culture, and
> >by the poor treatment that Germans received following WW I?
>
> No one is justified in killing innocents. I'm less interested in
> understanding the anger of criminals (who must in any case stand trial
> for their crimes) than I am in understanding the anger of millions of
> others who are not _yet_ criminals. Whether you sympathize with them or
> not, can you not understand the practicality of this wish?
>

I understand there were millions of Nazis, millions of Mongols, etc.
Sometimes a culture is psychically affected by history's onslaught. Hence,
East Germans have trouble looking people in the eye, and Israel feels if it
loses a single battle it loses its existence. If you were a Jew, who would
you trust?

> >In Amsterdam last week, I met a Scot coffeehouse owner in a neutral
> >place. He reminded us of Lockerbie and how after 5 years the
> >perpetrators were captured. After listening respectfully to his words,
> >I calculated quickly what the differences in the situations were, and
> >responded and gently as I could muster. After all, Amsterdam is deeply
> >fearful that there could be damage to their paradise, a true haven in
> >the world.
>
> Sorry, not understanding the relevance of this paragraph.
>

The distinction is based on the difference between criminal and war basis.

> The Taliban are a bunch of a*******, but our bombing is hurting women
> as much as Taliban, do you not agree?
>

Actually, I am not personally angry at the Taliban. They made their careers
on the backs of terrorists and are now paying the price. And no, I don't
agree that our bombs are hurting the majority of women. We are their only
chance.

> >Sorry we're in a war. It hurts inward and continuously destroys other
> >innocents. It is only the numbers that will make a difference. I have
> >to believe that no army has ever tried so hard to avoid innocents as
> >this one.
>
> Actually, I agree. But that does not absolve us from evaluating the
> effect that our actions still have on innocents.
>
It is a strange kind of triage.

> >Trust the UN to this? Srebrinicia, no!
> >Anyone else....Nato? No. Other Islamic nations or courts? No. Do
> >nothing?
>
> Is it more important to do "something", anything, rather than be
> perceived as doing nothing? I suggest that this is the U.S.'s big
> mistake. Bush felt he had to bomb someone, so he chose the Taliban,
> who are admittedly a bunch of thugs deserving of serious come-uppance,
> and bin Laden, another guy who by his own words wishes us all harm, but
> who may or may not be involved in the 09-11 bombings.
>
Enough people think al-Queda ("The Foundation") is involved. I've seen
enough evidence that suggests 9/11 might not have happened if Afghan Arabs
did not have protection by The Taliban. They were implicated in the Kenya
and Tanzania embassy massacres. How much more evidence do you want?

> Please tell me, Johnny, whether you think Israel has done a good job of
> securing peace for the children of that nation.

I have never been to Israel, mainly because I couldn't accept living
willingly in the tension that I expected to find between Arab and Israeli. I
do not agree with the continuing settlements, though I understand why they
took place. The fact that there still is an Israel would seem to indicate
that they could have done a lot worse.

I'm sorry that people are justifiably afraid of a future where someone can
sneak up on you and your dear ones and take them out like a force of nature.
This force of nature must never be confused with the Moslem religion. Only
it is.

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Johnny wrote:]
>My aesthetic, no doubt, can be deduced by the programming I have done
>on AFMM concerts, and by my own original compositions.

Right, but you still haven't explained how music and politics all wash
together in your mind. For me, music is a refuge from politics, a place
where beauty reigns supreme. Others clearly have a different place for
music in their lives. As the wise sage once said, "Whatever floats your
boat."

[Johnny:]
>Yes, we have other things to fret about, though I don't wait for time
>to wash over me, preferring to be a bit more proactive.

You mean you spend time promoting your own music? That's probably wise.

[JdL:]
>>Nowhere do I hear you sympathize with the people whose religion we are
>>tromping on. Why is that?

[Johnny:]
>I am actually more concerned with you and the people on this list.
>Since religious tracts are a fiction, their hijacking seems less
>something I can sympathize with less than real people. I greatly
>sympathize with innocent Americans of Middle, Near, Central, and
>Southeast ancestry. Frankly, we are not tromping on anything in the
>Saudi Arabian desert. We are invited guest who should be moving on,
>soon.

You persist in the fiction that we are welcome guests in Saudi Arabia.
We are guests of the hated and feared ruling family, which was installed
by the West and has clung to power through various nefarious tactics
since then. "We are not tromping on anything..." If your failure to
understand this anger is indicative of this nation's failure, I foresee
great trouble ahead.

More importantly, correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your paragraph as
saying that you're more concerned about the lives of Americans than you
are about other people in the world. The old "us" vs. "them" attitude.
I suggest it is vital that we not segregate people in this manner in
our hearts.

[Johnny:]
>Actually, I am not personally angry at the Taliban. They made their
>careers on the backs of terrorists and are now paying the price. And
>no, I don't agree that our bombs are hurting the majority of women. We
>are their only chance.

Ohmigosh, Johnny, have you not followed the news at all? Are you not
aware that U.S. bombs have increased the number of refugees by several
hundred thousand? And at the same time disrupted convoys of food from
Pakistan? If there is not relief from this continuous rain of bombs
soon, there will be massive starvation in Afghanistan. "We are their
only chance." Chance for what, death by bombing vs. death by
starvation?

[JdL:]
>>Is it more important to do "something", anything, rather than be
>>perceived as doing nothing? I suggest that this is the U.S.'s big
>>mistake. Bush felt he had to bomb someone, so he chose the Taliban,
>>who are admittedly a bunch of thugs deserving of serious come-uppance,
>>and bin Laden, another guy who by his own words wishes us all harm,
>>but who may or may not be involved in the 09-11 bombings.

[Johnny:]
>Enough people think al-Queda ("The Foundation") is involved. I've seen
>enough evidence that suggests 9/11 might not have happened if Afghan
>Arabs did not have protection by The Taliban. They were implicated in
>the Kenya and Tanzania embassy massacres. How much more evidence do
>you want?

I want something more than vague statements by governments whose
officials have big axes to grind. Remember Clinton's bombing of the
aspirin factory in the Sudan? If we the people had demanded more
evidence before that happened, it would never have happened, and
innocent lives would have been spared, and yet another source of anger
against the arrogant United States would have been avoided. But Clinton
wanted a distraction from his Weenie-gate problems, so the bombs fell.
Can you not at least admit the possibility that Bush is as disingenuous
as Clinton was/is?

[JdL:]
>>Please tell me, Johnny, whether you think Israel has done a good job
>>of securing peace for the children of that nation.

[Johnny:]
>I have never been to Israel, mainly because I couldn't accept living
>willingly in the tension that I expected to find between Arab and
>Israeli.

Exactly. That answers my question.

>I do not agree with the continuing settlements, though I understand why
>they took place.

Really? Perhaps you can explain their rationale to me again? To my
eyes, they are illegal acts of aggression, a big part of the way Israel
has blundered for decades.

>The fact that there still is an Israel would seem to indicate that they
>could have done a lot worse.

Yeah, if we're going to put a positive spin on things, why not put it
that way?

>I'm sorry that people are justifiably afraid of a future where someone
>can sneak up on you and your dear ones and take them out like a force
>of nature. This force of nature must never be confused with the Moslem
>religion. Only it is.

Well, I'll have to scratch my head on that one, Johnny.

JdL