PeterDavid.net

I disagree with two points you make PAD:

I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.

Somethings rate being intolerant of them. Racism, discrimination, etc. The Selma Bus boycotts were petty and unimaginative? Boycotting Companies like Nike and Pepsi that traded with companies like South Africa was wrong? Hey, I admit that boycotts are a bit heavy handed, but sometimes you have to hit people over the head witrh a bat to get their attention. And Unions like SAG and UAW use boycotts all the time, although they call it a strike. In fact, SAG punished some people recently for taking jobs in acting during a recent strike, by not letting them apply for membership for a full year. Hollywood being a company town, that meant those people couldn't get a job in anything for a year. You can imagine my disdain for an organization that uses the very tactics it often criticises.

BTW, 'petty' just means that YOU don't think it's important.

So if anyone else wants to respond with "people have the right to boycott," save it. It's a NON-ISSUE, and I am sick of it. It seems self-evident to me, but I will now spell it out for the folks in the cheap seats: When I say something is "wrong," that does not automatically equate with saying that people don't have the "right to do it."

I have this feeling that you're addressing me specifically, but theat may just be me feeling self-important. At any rate, I don't argue whether or not someone has the right to boycott. I argue exactly the opposite of what you do, that boycotts are valid and justifiable. It's mainly for those times when injustices are just so great, or you want immediate attention or when letters just get directed to the round file.

Heavy handed, maybe. Wrong? No way.

Agreed.

Reminds me of the time when I tried explaining to a jury that the nudity/sex in comic books were artistic representations (exaggerated at that) and that I could purchase certain adult magazines depicting the same thing with real people. The jury saw no difference - they only saw the nudity/sex. No one was forced to buy the product, no boycotts of my business occured (but I would have loved to see people picketing my place of business), nothing detrimental (other than the comments in the local newspaper) happened at all.

Remember the guy who got arrested for burning the flag at some government building? He was making a statement with his actions. The general populace had a difficult time accepting that someone would go to the extremes he did too. He was trying to make a point that his constitutional rights were being ignored and overrun by the local government agencies. This act brought in enough attention, he got the appropriate action and everything (including his arrest for the flag burning) came out fine for him. Those who understood what he was attempting to do, applauded his harsh actions, those who didn't would never be able to comprehend why he was trying to get the attention.

Watch the HBO NEW Robin Williams comedy special that he recently filmed. Then, recall it was filmed before the current war action against Baghdad. I wonder, has he has been boycotted?

I'm agreeing with you Peter, not the previous poster, EClark1849.

**I'm agreeing with you Peter, not the previous poster, EClark1849.

Posted by Gordon Lee**

Well, at least I know you won't boycott me.

If boycotts have no "style"

What style do violent protests have? The delibrate blocking of key intersections and financial districts and hospitals.

Not much style present, but it is a right. Somewhat.

**If boycotts have no "style"

What style do violent protests have? The delibrate blocking of key intersections and financial districts and hospitals.

Not much style present, but it is a right. Somewhat.**

Blocking means of public access...I'm reasonably sure that is against the law, which would make it not a right.

Obviously, protestors do that in order to get themselves noticed. The 11 O'Clock news is more likely to air your activities if you're being dragged away by the cops than if you're off to the side and impeding no one.

What style is that? "Guerilla" style, I suppose. Showboating. I can tell you, if I was stuck in traffic being snarled due to anti-war protestors, my response would be, "I agree with you! Now get the *#%% out of the way, dipstick!"

Some people elevate the concept of getting noticed above everything. When you piss off even the people who are on your side, your approach needs rethinking.

PAD

eclark you said

Somethings rate being intolerant of them. Racism, discrimination, etc. The Selma Bus boycotts were petty and unimaginative? Boycotting Companies like Nike and Pepsi that traded with companies like South Africa was wrong?

Peter covered that already with

I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response:

(emphasis mine.) when something is aggregiously out of line then certainly some actions like a boycott are appropriate.

but even when they are they still lack style.

EClark,

Well, I guess we can both be self-important because I thought PAD was addressing me (since he quoted my thread). So, we can both feel self-important today. :)

PAD, I know you were being facetious about the farting, but couldn't the not hiring of that person be considered a form economic retaliation - a point you have said is wrong? Isn't it out of proportion to the action?

Anyway, back to the topic of the rights and wrongs of boycotts. EClark already mentioned the very ones I was thinking of (the bus boycotts in Montgomery and South Africa). Now, those might be considered proportional because you are talking about individuals taking on large corporations or government.

However, how are the Dixie Chicks different? They have a great deal more money and influence than most people on the street. They perform on stage before tens of thousands nightly and get to say what they want. They get put on the cover of magazines and invited on PrimeTime Live. Joe SixPack doesn't get that. The only response he has is writing a letter - which as EClark points out probably gets put in the trash bin - or making their point in a bit more personal way - economically. Not that this seems to be hurting the DC's much. They are now on prime time shows, the covers of magazines and still have sold out concerts and a number one album.

We could go round and round on this. In fact - it's probably way past time to let it die. I don't see boycotts as wrong. PAD, you see them all as wrong as near as I can tell (maybe not, but that's the impression I get). So, it may just be time to agree to disagree. Personally, I don't care about country music any more than most others around here - so we're all arguing over something we have very little to do with anyway......

I believe personal boycotts, or even group boycotts among people who feel the same way, are part of our supposed free-market economy. We have competition specifically for that purpose - so if one department store screwed you big time on a purchase, you and your freinds can make a point of spending your money elsewhere.

Same goes for music. If you dislike the Dixie Chicks' philosophy, don't buy their music. It's that simple. If you own a radio station, and you don't want to play it, that's your prerogative (and it's mine to refuse to listen to your station).

What I dislike, and see as a little dangerous, is MOB MENTALITY. The idea that, if you're caught walking out of a music store with a Dixie Chicks CD, you'll be attacked by an angry mob. Or the Dixie Chicks themselves having to endure death threats - there's no point to that. Recording music is their job, and whether they succeed or not depends on record sales - so maybe a boycott will work to that effect. Killing them is NOT an option.

Another example is a truck driver in Cincinnati OH who was arrested drove onto a sidewalk to chase away anti-war protesters. He's being hailed as a local "hero". But what if one of those protesters couldn't run fast enough? Or was in a wheelchair? Would any of us be willing to live with even one person's death from such a stupid and dangerous move? Would anyone be willing to simply laugh, and say "That's the price for going against the war"?

Freedom of speech INCLUDES freedom from persecution. If we have to fear for our lives, or feel unprotected by the government and police, which our taxes pay for, for simply displaying a dissenting opinion...then we are no longer free.

"Freedom of speech INCLUDES freedom from persecution. If we have to fear for our lives, or feel unprotected by the government and police, which our taxes pay for, for simply displaying a dissenting opinion...then we are no longer free. "

Jason... I couldn't agree more.

My dad, still a journalist, though as much as I try to dissuade him from that, has a poster which I agree with a hundred percent:

"Talk is cheap. Free speach isn't."

I recently re-watched the A&E Richard E. Grant/Elizabeth McGovern/Martin Shaw production of The Scarlet Pimpernel.

And throughout it all... the executions of people who spoke out against the cruelty of the Revolution (what it turned out to be)... When Mob Mentality rules, then what we get is blood. History teaches that.

Oh... and thought for today...

Everyone talks about being "patriotic" and "un-patriotic" a lot.

We can all name patriots and heroes of the USA, and other countries.

Yet, is being patriotic always a good thing?

As many heroes as I can name, I can name at least twice as many villains who did their job because they were "patriotic" towards their country.

Travis

I think in many instances a boycott is really nothing more than a preference motivated by some cause. To others, the cause becomes subject to some degree of validation and reinterpreted by some other person's preferences.

I am pro-choice. I have rationalized my position down to a fairly narrow libertarian idea of no government in private lives. For a year I extended my pro-choice stance to a relatively passive boycott of Dominos. I would not buy Dominos, but would not push the issue (e.g., if a group of friends bought Dominos, I would chip in and eat the pizza without preaching - social interaction and social activism are seperate in my mind). After a year, I found the boycott a silly distraction to my real belief and resumed acting normally. Dominos owner's beliefs his beliefs, mine are mine and I would be happy to discuss them over one of his pizzas if he wants. I'd buy.

Same goes to the Dixie Chicks beliefs. I like their music, think the fiddler is cute, and am not going to rationalize my preferences in a way that distracts from my cause. And as Bill Maher said a few weeks ago, it is possible to chew gum and walk -- and be against the idea of a war and fully support the troops in that war.

However, I will continue to boycott Roman Polanski. And I will socially express this boycott. I toss this digression into the debate because of your statement "I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant."

I think in cases as this, where the punitive, retialotory measures that were indeed appropriate for Polanski's action were avoided from his midnight exit to France. And words have gone ignored for as long. So, I don't think I have any other option but boycott him and hope my social stance in this boycott is heard by my circle of friends (or the visitors to PAD's site). I'll take the terms petty and intolerant in this example (or, the potential boycott waiting for the Girls Gone Wild guy because of his recent actions - I'll wait for a conviction of the crime, but I stand ready to lump him into my very small boycott circle) because the SOB has left me, or society, much else to strike at him with.

I mention the above because as silly as boycotts are in my opinion, I see some examples where words are not so powerful. And, if anyone does know of a "Capture Polanski" bounty, I would happily toss in the price of a movie ticket as a contribution to the fund. Please, no fakers...

Lighter side, I read about this somewhere and I hope to God it's true...

The Dixie Chicks (Who're currently among the Top Ten Highest-Selling Country Albums, by the by) aren't the only country artists to speak out against the war. Billy Ray Cyrus, the 'Achy-Breaky Heart' one-hit wonder, also criticized the government's actions. Pro-War activists arranged a (Wait for it...) bonfire rally where people could bring their Billy Ray Cyrus albums to burn.

No, wait, it gets better. Y'see, Billy Ray's not a top seller so a lot of the people who went to the rally didn't have any of his albums at home. So they bought some so they'd have something to burn. Billy Ray's sales were the highest they'd been in years.

As for me, I'm going out and not only buying the latest Dixie Chicks album, but the latest Springsteen. Which is interesting considering I've never purchased albums from either...

Now I'm assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?

-Jeff

Did John Byrne really once have a bodyguard? Yikes, I didn't know that there were so many people out there giving fandom a bad name. If this is so, then I'm disappointed in those clods who may have threatened him.

PAD you stated:

"Blocking means of public access...I'm reasonably sure that is against the law, which would make it not a right."

While I know what you meant, I would like to clear up a few things from a "legal" aspect because that statement was misleading. While there is no right to block public access (what you meant), because something is against the law does not automatically make it NOT a right. Abortions were against the law at one time, so was sodomy, so were inter racial marriages in some states. Well all know those things happen now because the Supreme Court deemed them to be Constitutional Rights. [As an aside there is a Texas sodomy case pending that may/may not deem that a fundamental right, most states just took it upon themselves to allow it.]

The court recognizes two types of rights: fundamental and non-fundamental. Fundamental rights are weighed by past cases and the relationship to other established fundamental rights as well as "deeply rooted tradition." There is a strict scrutiny in regards to fundamental right. Non-fundamental rights must only conform to a rational basis for their acceptance. Do the ends justify the means in protecting a valid state interest. As always this is vague language that can be manipulated and danced around for a SC Justice to do what he wants. Cynical but true.

Sorry about the Constitutional Law 101 lecture!

I really agree on everything you said, Pad (and most opinions on this forum are quite reasonable also). Thanks for giving me some new hope in Americans because recently, in Europe, most we get about America is mr Bush, mr Powell or (worse) mr Rumsfield opinions... It's nice to see some other views on what is or should be America.

As for the boycott issue...

I'm buying TMNT. :)

I agree, Mr. David. It's silly. The whole Dixie Chicks thing is silly. Maybe I'll buy their CD, too, though I intend not to listen to it (not my cuppa tea). I have Springsteen's latest anyway.

Oh, and I boycott Dominos simply because their pizza sucks. So I guess that's not a boycott. Whatever.

Down with "patriotic" zealotry!

Bill

Now I'm assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?

It's the difference between being supportive and punitive. I'm acting on behalf of a cause to try and make up for, in my own small way, those who I believe are acting in a spirit that is contrary to that cause. Also, I fully intend to listen to them and see if I get to like them.

PAD

Oh, and I boycott Dominos simply because their pizza sucks. So I guess that's not a boycott. Whatever

No, that's just brand preference.

PAD

At 2:41 PM ET, Jeff asked:

How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?

Of course I can't speak for Mr. David, but here's my motivation for doing something along those lines:

.... If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

- Robert A. Heinlein

What can I say? I don't quite care strongly enough about the issue to devote a lot of time, money, and effort to actively fighting the Righteous Attention Hounds among the "let's boycott!" crowd. So I'll just do my bit to counteract them.

Hey! I guessed more or less correctly! Now if only I weren't so slow a typist....

Gordon Bennett: As far as I'm concerned, it still comes down to a person's right on where they spend their money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Peter David: Gordon Bennett, no, it doesn't.

Luigi Novi: I agree with Gordon. People will look at an issue in whatever context or on whatever level they will. If someone like Gordon looks at an issue as a matter of where he spends his money, that’s just him.

Peter David: It seems self-evident to me, but I will now spell it out for the folks in the cheap seats: When I say something is "wrong," that does not automatically equate with saying that people don't have the "right to do it." And if you don't believe me, then next time you go to a job interview, fart loudly and repeatedly, and if the interviewer makes a face, point out you have the right to fart. And enjoy unemployment.

Luigi Novi: Interesting argument, given that the exact same argument can be made to Natalie Maines. She said something others found offensive. She can point out she had the right to say it. And enjoy some people deciding not to buy her music.

Oh, but that’s “retaliatory”, huh? Well guess what, Peter? It’s just as retaliatory when the interviewer doesn’t hire the farter. It’s not as if the interviewer isn’t hiring the guy because of his ability at the job, right? It certainly did seem that you were saying that he wouldn’t get hired because of the farting.

Peter David: I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.

Luigi Nov: I disagree. People don’t have to respond with words if they don’t want to, and I don’t think it’s wrong if they do so. There are many ways to respond to a given issue, and there’s nothing wrong with people deciding to vote with their wallets. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with me deciding that I don’t want to buy any of Todd McFarlane’s books or the Dixie Chicks’ music. If I simply don’t feel comfortable any more patronizing their works, that’s just that.

Why does it necessarily have to be “punitive”? Or “retaliatory”? Or petty and intolerant? Why can’t it simply mean that I’m making a personal decision?

Consider how we choose which movies we see. People are often admonished to judge a movie after they’ve seen it, but there’s a situation in which we all don’t do that: When we’re trying to decide whether to see one. In so doing, we trying use all sorts of superficial cues to decide whether the movie might be good: The trailer. The writer or director. The stars. The genre. The plot. Word of mouth. If I decide I don’t want to see a film because I don’t like the lead actor, or because the trailer turned me off, is that petty or intolerant? No, because the entire act of choosing to watch a movie is based entirely on making guesses about a film you haven’t seen. Our decisions in this regard are often based on nothing more than a superficial whim, and nothing empirical or scientific. Is it wrong to do this? Personally, I don’t think so, because the only way you can choose to watch a movie is by taking a chance, a chance based on less-than-perfect guesswork.

Now let’s say that I’m perusing the racks at Tower Records and I see the new Dixie Chicks CD. I’m standing there, trying to see what emotions come up that might help me decide whether to buy it. Nothing very positive comes up. Then I remember a comment Natalie Maines made that I thought was just plain dumb. That memory turns me off the CD, and I walk away. Was this retaliatory? Petty? Intolerant? I personally don’t think so. Purchases of aesthetic things like entertainment is often idiosyncratic, and if being offended at something an artist said is one of the things that informs my purchases, there is NOTHING WRONG with that, period. I don’t have to base my purchases or what some other person says is right or wrong, nor am I being petty or intolerant just because he says it’s wrong for me to make my purchases in this way.

I will say that perhaps organised efforts to boycott such people may be seen as punitive or retaliatory, especially when the boycotters try to tell other sheep what to think and how to react. But I don’t think I’m being petty if I confine my individual purchases to what I feel like buying, regardless of the reasons.

Peter David: For instance: All those people who sit there contentedly and say, "I'm boycotting Dominos Pizza because the owner gives money to Project Rescue," …

Luigi Novi: And I don’t think it’s unimaginative to boycott an organization if they do this. If I don’t want my money to end up with that organization, that is perfectly right. I’m not obligated to be more creative than that in making that decision.

Peter David: If I say, "I believe in "A" and you respond with, "Well, I believe in "B"," that's speaking back. If I say "I believe in A" and you respond with, "Oh yeah? You SOB. I'm going to stop buying your work and try to get all my friends to stop buying it too," that is NOT speaking back. That is an attempt at punitive measures because you disagree with what I've said.

And that is wrong.

How can ANYONE not see that?

Luigi Novi: Um, because we simply don’t agree with you? Because some of us think you’re wrong? I don’t have to make my purchases based on your criteria, Peter. If politics informs my purchases, there is NOTHING WRONG with that. It’s my money. If the memory of something an artist said that offended me hangs in my mind at the record store, what am I supposed to do? Buy it anyway, even though I don’t like that person, because I can’t use politics as a criteria when buying stuff? I don’t agree with that. I’m sorry you think I’m petty, retaliatory or intolerant because of that.

Peter David: But patting yourself on the back because you're opting for a nice, easy boycott that's going to hurt no one except the local Domino's franchise is...there's that word again...idiotic.

Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that choosing to no longer buy Domino’s must equate with a pat on one’s back? Why can’t it simply be personal decision I make because not making it makes me uncomfortable?

From Jeff:

Now I'm assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?

From PAD:

It's the difference between being supportive and punitive. I'm acting on behalf of a cause to try and make up for, in my own small way, those who I believe are acting in a spirit that is contrary to that cause. Also, I fully intend to listen to them and see if I get to like them.

But it's still a matter of choice. You choosing to purchase seems to be in favor of their political views, with a secondary interest in the music. For me, my choosing to not purchase is my musical tastes with the political views coming in secondary, or even further down the list. That's just choice, no matter what the reasonings behind it may be.

-Jeff

Both right and wrong Peter.

You're right when you draw the line between saying something is wrong and saying someone has the right to do something. This is the frequent black & white, "if you disagree with me than you're a fascist denying me my rights" thinking. People should recognize that the art of debate is explaining to persuade someone else why your side is correct. This often involves arguing that your opponent's side is wrong; that does not mean your opponent is denied his/her rights -- and they can use those rights to argue against you.

You're wrong when you say about boycotts "saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant." Boycotting something is using your right as a consumer to place your money where you want, for whatever reason you want. It would be great if people who boycotted one thing gave money/time to the other side too, but boycotting alone *works*. Companies may not care about editorials in the paper decrying them, or indignant letters from upset folks; but when the companies' profits start to drop, those companies will take notice. In a sense, boycotting is the financial equivalent of a protest. It's a valid use of one's finances, it can last for a long time (Harlan Ellison still refuses to buy grapes from one food chain, from a protest began in the '70s), and it can result in change (Dr. Laura's show didn't get yanked because network executives suddenly felt liberal). It's also perfectly legal.

So are you saying that boycotts for any reason whatsoever are wrong UNLESS the boycott attains some level of cleverness and wit? That reasoning seems just a wee bit tortured.

Honestly, the mountain that has been made out of this molehill is absurd beyond belief. Other than some lost airplay, the Dixie Chicks have incurred no real damages from these boycotters, as their album and concert ticket sales attest. People who would never otherwise have bought their albums are doing so. They were interviewed on an ABC newsmagazine and are appearing on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. Yep, those boycotts REALLY stifled their rights!

Frankly, Mr. David, I'm finding your arbitrary demarcation of the terms of acceptable public discourse more troubling than people and radio stations offended by the band's comments choosing not to buy or play their music. It really seems like you're saying it's OK for individuals to express disagreement with the band by not buying them as long as they don't tell others why they're doing it or try to persuade others to do the same, which is all a boycott consists of. And radio stations apparently aren't allowed to make any decisions about the band's airplay since there's apparently a divine right to airplay that, I suspect, would be news to a few thousand garage bands. I find the idea that certain forms of perfectly legal speech and expression with long and at times proud traditions (such as the Montgomery bus boycott) should be off-limits because they offend your sensibilities more chilling than I do a radio station dropping a band's songs because of something the band said.

The fundamental error committed by the Dixie Chicks is not understanding their audience. The world of Country & Western music is probably the most strictly conservative demographic in music today. To denounce a Republican President on the eve of war and expect any outcome other than what they received is foolish.

I do not endorese the boycott, nor does it offend me. You see while we have the right to speak our minds many operate under the misapprehension that we have "Free" speech. We live in a TANSTAAFL society: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

You can say whatever you want, but words -- just like actions -- have consequences.

The Dixie Chicks are paying for their words. It is neither right nor wrong. It is what it is, the way of things.

Musicians and actors should stick to entertaining. Few of them have the wherewithal to do much else.

Ok, in response to PAD's argument of punitive response, I suppose what he's saying is:

When you choose to boycott a music cd based on something the artist said, you're boycotting something that's wholly on different grounds that what you're offended by.

For instance, if the Dixie Chicks put out a CD in which they simply orate their political views, and you disagree with their political views, then boycotting that CD would get your point across. But if you're boycotting a music CD that has no bearing on any form of politics, it's just a weak measure.

As for the farting example . . . I don't think he was using it with the employer's bias in mind, I think his point was to assume that anyone who would behave inappropriately in front of an employer would not get hired. Anyone who wants to argue that the employer is showing a bias is nitpicking farther than the example was trying to show.

As for patriotism, what I always think of is this:

The Nazis were being patriotic by killing and gassing people because their nation's leader told them to.

When I think of that, I realize how dangerous patriotism can get. It's good to remember your rights and why you were given them in the first place.

I agree with you Peter, individuals boycotting the Chicks is a non-issue. The real issue is the systematic corporate promotion of the Chick boycott by Texas radio station, and by default, advertisers and sponsers who all of sudden, treat the Chicks like lepers because Natalie Maines exercised her BASIC AMERICAN right, and spoke her mind. When did having an opposing viewpoint become an un-American thing? Isn't that one of Bush Jr's justification for invading Iraq...to allow the oppressed Iraqis the freedom of thought? Yes people and companies have a right to boycott. But in a country that so cherishes freedom, I'm stunned that few can see the parallels of the blacklists of 1950s with McCarthyism to Bush Jr administration tacit endorsement of the Chick's boycott.

If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything? Ok so there's no need to shout it from the rooftops that you're doing it, but wouldn't you be more inclined to go buy someone elses cd or book, especially since what you're boycotting/choosing not to buy is going to be a form of expression from someone you disagree with so why read/listen to things you disagree with?

'But if you're boycotting a music CD that has no bearing on any form of politics, it's just a weak measure.'

It may have nothing about politics in it, but why on earth would you buy it if you disagreed with the artist? Wouldn't you be more inclined to buy one by someone you liked? So but the same token but on a grander scale why would a radio station owner pay out money to someone with whom he/she really disagreed with? Okay so it would be petty if it's just out of some attempt just to get back at them and I agree with everyone being entitled to their point of view, but there is surely a natural form of boycotting?

Could do with someone a little more eloquent saying all of the above, but hopefully you get the idea.

Oh, I see Luigi Novi did say all of the above with far more eloquence than I could ever muster, I really should wait until I read all of the comments before posting. :)

If you started shouting 'Death To All Kittens' on this site Mr David, then why would I continue to buy Captain Marvel, even if there were no cat hating remarks or pro dog storylines? Wouldn't I be more inclined to spend my hard earned money on something else?If the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted for saying that paedophiles were great people really would you disagree with radio stations not wishing to give them airplay?

Death Threats are wrong and should be dealt with strongly. But in the contrast of the debate, we have missed a point of issue: Even before the Chickie Poos comment, they get death threats. If you are even moderately famous you will get the threats. I have security firm in a middle level market. It is not the crazy Americans or warmongers just your same percentiles of nuts.

Question to PAD, what is the responds from Joe America? If 60 Minutes does not return my call. If I help someone become successful even in the smallest way and I start to disagree with comments, style, well, anything. It is wrong to try to influence my circle of influence to stop with their support? I been doing that for years with X-men, I think it’s working too. (Tongue in cheek)

The truth about Domino's:

http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/domino.asp

\\Peter covered that already with

I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response:

(emphasis mine.) when something is aggregiously out of line then certainly some actions like a boycott are appropriate.

but even when they are they still lack style.

Posted by Jason K\\

Jason, with all due respect, Peter spent two paragraphs saying that if he didn't say something, he didn't mean it:

""Show me one posting, in the history of this board--in the history of my giving public opinions--where I have *ever* said people didn't have the "right" to spend their money elsewhere?"

Peter never said that the Selma Bus Boycott, Or the South African Boycott, or for that matter the "unpatriotic" Boston Tea Party, were appropriate or proportional responses. He just said boycotts are "petty and unimaginative". Which pretty much rules out ever using it for anything.

Look, I think I understand where Peter is coming from. I just flat out disagree with him, and my reasoning is simply this: As long as no one is forced or coerced to participate in one, I have no problems with them. That, of course, is why I DO have a problem with union strikes like SAG, WGA and UAW. It's one of the reasons I haven't joined the Writer's Guild, although I expect I'll have to sooner or later if I keep trying to break into writing.

Why does it necessarily have to be “punitive”? Or “retaliatory”? Or petty and intolerant? Why can’t it simply mean that I’m making a personal decision?

They're not mutually exclusive. Just because it's your personal decision doesn't mean it's not punitive, or retaliatory, or petty, or intolerant.

PAD

But it's still a matter of choice. You choosing to purchase seems to be in favor of their political views, with a secondary interest in the music.

No, it's in favor of *my* view that artists should be free to state their opinions without people being so intolerant that they cease supporting music they'd previously enjoyed. It has to do with me feeling compelled to pick up the slack of those "right-thinking" Americans who believe an appropriate way to respond to an opinion they don't hold is to get back at the person who holds it.

PAD

Boycotting something is using your right as a consumer to place your money where you want, for whatever reason you want.

Aw Keee-rist...

I mean, really: What part of the following was unclear when I first said it?--

"Why in the WORLD do people keep bringing it around to people's "rights?" Show me one posting, in the history of this board--in the history of my giving public opinions--where I have *ever* said people didn't have the "right" to spend their money elsewhere?"

PAD

It really seems like you're saying it's OK for individuals to express disagreement with the band by not buying them as long as they don't tell others why they're doing it or try to persuade others to do the same, which is all a boycott consists of.

Really? See, I thought what I was saying was that it's a shame people are so unable to separate artist from opinion that they cease supporting the artist's work because they disagree with their opinion.

PAD

I agree with you Peter, individuals boycotting the Chicks is a non-issue. The real issue is the systematic corporate promotion of the Chick boycott by Texas radio station, and by default, advertisers and sponsers who all of sudden, treat the Chicks like lepers because Natalie Maines exercised her BASIC AMERICAN right, and spoke her mind. When did having an opposing viewpoint become an un-American thing?

When the World Trade Center fell.

PAD

If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?

Because I'm able to separate the person from the work.

PAD

If you started shouting 'Death To All Kittens' on this site Mr David, then why would I continue to buy Captain Marvel, even if there were no cat hating remarks or pro dog storylines? Wouldn't I be more inclined to spend my hard earned money on something else?If the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted for saying that paedophiles were great people really would you disagree with radio stations not wishing to give them airplay?

Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it's rational?

Free speech is not absolute, Sparky. You can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and take two stars out of petty cash. The examples you're using both involve inciting or endorsing criminal acts. Animal cruelty is a crime. Sex with children is a crime. Inciting people to commit crimes is outside of the boundaries of free speech.

I am saying that it is incredibly thin-skinned to try and stab back at someone financially because you disagree with their politics. The political opinion held by one of the Dixie Chicks about a Texan who, until the Towers fell, was seen as a dunce...well, let's face it, that opinion's a pretty benign animal. That is simply not the same thing as actively endorsing cruel and criminal acts.

I think perhaps *one* person on this thread seemed to comprehend the word "proportional." Everyone else is dragging in civil rights and now child sex and animal slaughter. I don't know *where* that crap's coming from.

PAD

I've been lurking on this board for quite some time now, overjoyed that Peter David has a blog where fans can both offer feedback and bicker with him to their heart's content, yet horrified at the choice of background color, which can only be described as "periwinkle." I know this because when I was in grade school, "periwinkle" was the only crayon left untouched in my box at the end of the year. But I digress. I merely wanted to be polite and introduce myself before wading in here. I'm Dan, and I'd shake hands were it possible.

I've had one question about this whole mess since it hit the press: Why is it so important that the Dixie Chicks know that you are displeased with their political views? It alwas seems spoken of as an imperative: "How else can we get our displeasure across, save but for a boycott?" is a question I've seen asked here more than once. I might get into a heated debate with a spouse or immediate family member, but my anger decreases with distance so that by the time it gets to complete strangers like the Dixie Chicks, I can barely manage a shrug. Why does this matter? Is there really a signifigant number of people out there who say, "I too now dislike President Bush now that the Dixie Chicks have finally weighed in?" I personally doubt it. I don't care about the politics of anyone but politicians. Let them make their pop/bluegrass/whatever, and we can go back to buying their stuff based on its own merits, or if our friends are listening to it, and save our anger for targets that truly matter. For instance, some bonehead who wanders in out of the blue and starts talking to everyone like he's smarter than the lot of them while using run-on sentences and too many commas. Guys like that really cheese me off.

Dan,

You said: Why is it so important that the Dixie Chicks know that you are displeased with their political views?

ME: I'm holding a press conference in an hour in regards to my opinion on Canada's position on the war. Oh, whats that. The press unavailble as they are too busy at the Robbins/Sarandon home as they recreate the Lennon/Ono bed in. Darn. Its too bad I am just a no nothing citizen.

On the up side, I like the cover work I've been seeing for Fallen Angel. Not sure if I'll pick up the series, but it sure looks perty.

I also like Buffy and Angel, especially how Angel has picked up even more toward the end (travelling ot yet another alternative dimension. So much fun, and no one is wearing a little black Van Dyke to signify they're evil.

Oh: I don't care in any way about the war, about boycotts or protests. For this reason, I try not to complain about them. I know I will never do anything one way or another to change the political atmosphere of my country except vote (which is debatable as to whether my vote actually counts anymore) or move to Canada someday. I will not post on boards trying to change other people's opinions that they have oviously spent some amount of time formulating (especially not the guy who runs the board). I will never call myself a patriot because even the patriots in 1776 were just angry farmers who didn't like paying taxes. If I hear one more cry for the US to bring freedom to other countries and then start restricting it here, I will burst my own ear drums.

I'll just wait, and post about the important stuff: television, comics, and the oddball fun stuff.

Stuff that matters.

By the way.....

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Robert,

Don't move to Canada. We have enough of your kind! :)

Peter David said:

"Really? See, I thought what I was saying was that it's a shame people are so unable to separate artist from opinion that they cease supporting the artist's work because they disagree with their opinion. "

To be honest, no I can't separate it. I have a moral issue with financially supporting the work of someone I disagree with. It would be viscerally unpleasant to me. At the same time, i'd tell people of like mind what I felt, and why, to save them from the experience. I can't watch a movie with Alec Baldwin because I've heard words he has said that have left a completely disgusting taste in my mouth, and I can't see him on screen without recalling those words; therefore, I don't get any joy, but actually some discomfort from seeing him. The same reaction I now get to the Dixie Chicks music. If someone does something to strongly upset me, they can expect I won't have much to do with them in the future.

Peter (and others who agree with him),

What are your thoughts on the very successful boycotts of segregated businesses in south during the civil-rights struggles of the 50-60's... or, the successful boycott of Paramount by gays, lesbians, their friends, family and loved ones, when she said (among many other like-minded things): "If you are gay or lesbian, you are a biological error"... and, please note, to make it all the worse, she said "you" not "your orientation!" ... and, finally, what are your thoughts on that overly dramatic, grandstanding little tea party up in Boston a few centuries ago?

Do I sense a man with a compelling interest (which would definitely impact someone's impartiality on a given subject) in there NOT being boycotts levied against businesses or the work of certain individuals?

You also seem overly defensive when people start speaking of the inherent "rights" involved with this topic. I would get defensive too, if I were in a position of denigrating as "useless, petty and intolerant, etc." someone's constitutional rights... and, for the record boycotts are a First Amendment right: (i.e. The Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., that nonviolent boycott activity is constitutionally protected.

Marco

**I think perhaps *one* person on this thread seemed to comprehend the word "proportional." Everyone else is dragging in civil rights and now child sex and animal slaughter. I don't know *where* that crap's coming from.

PAD **

I dragged in civil rights because you didn't exclude in in your condemnation of boycotts. Are you now making an exception for such? What WOULD you consider "appropriate and proportional"?

The Dixie chick boycot was dumb. We all should argue about Chrissie Hynde instead. She said onstage that not only did she want the U.S. to loose the war, but she wished for heavy casualities as well. That's ghastly.

Peter David (in response to the cat-killing):

Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it's rational?

Wow, that would have made a much bigger impact if you hadn't done the whole farting analogy.

Anyway, where's the shock and awe about how Rick Santorum is being treated for his spoken words?

It seems that intelligence will never again intrude into political debate, where it is so clearly unwanted. I think, PAD, that boycots are used because they have been proven effective in getting political results vs. rich fatcats.

I remember the boycots of the 80's, which I'd bet you weren't opposed to. For instance, the boycots against tuna that didn't sport the decal "dolphin safe." That was a very effective boycot, and I bet you won't sincerely attack it the way you attack boycots from conservatives.

You can say that is different from boycotting against political stance because of differences in importance of the issues. The difference between most liberals and most conservatives is in what issues they find important. They both end up visably treating symptoms of what they see as much larger problems, thereby exposing themselves to attack for pettiness: they never agree upon what are the larger problems.

In reality, I don't boycot for those reasons because I don't take the short term in politics, and in many cases I disagree with the spirit of the boycot itself. Also, the argument is vulnerable to slippery slope in that it becomes very difficult to justify when one does or doesn't boycot. I will say at times that people blow things out of proportion, but nobody that deep into politics will listen to an opposing opinion. That is the real problem in politics nowadays. Each side, with its own special flavor of media, can inundate itself with reinforcement of its opinions and attacks on the other side as much as it wants, which induces zealotry. That will foil everything good about this political system quicker than anything else. I suppose I will be ignored because I attack both kinds of hypocrites in this post, but you all deserve much more.

Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it's rational?

Because it's a good rhetorical trick. Done properly, the person takes an argument, stretches it to absurdity, and then explicitly or implicitly makes the point that the original argument was absurd to begin with, and the absurdity is more obvious when magnified. Admittedly, the trick isn't always properly executed. I think the intention was to point out that the original phrasing of PAD's position was stark: boycotts are per se absurd. However, I think we've all gotten the point by now that there are valid counter-examples, and PAD has adopted a more nuanced position, so at this point we're beating a dead horse. A lot.

The only question I have, is how does someone respond in an equalitive level, when someone like the Dixie Chicks use their platform to state an opinion. I mean there's no way I can get a message to as many people as a celebrity, so I end up having no voice in contrary at all.

I think these boycots in many way are a frustration that the average person gets, that they don't have the soap box the celebrities have.

So I guess my other question is, when a celebrity becomes an activist, and uses their celebrity to try to move a particular agenda, 1.Is that right of them and 2.What is the correct way for me to respond? If I continue to purchase their products, or watch their shows, aren't I simply enabling them?

I'm not saying I agree with the boycots. I'm just saying I'm not sure I have the answer, and I haven't seen anyone else here have the answer either.

It's easy to gripe about how things are being done, but actually coming up with another solution that works is another thing altogether.

Well, here's my take. The Dixie Chicks, or anyone in the public eye, can express their views to large numbers of people. They have access to the media.

I don't.

So, to have a proportionate response, what recourse do I have?

I can't become famous and newsworthy all of a sudden (unless I do something illegal).

Maybe an organized boycott is wrong - especially if it directed at a corporation (hey, most of the employees don't dictate the policy, yet they are being economically atacked). But, in the specific case of the Dixie Chicks, what other form of disaproval would you recommend? I don't think they read your weblog, so I doubt they'll read this.

For the record, I don't care who says what. But, as you point out, just because you have the right to do something doesn't always mean you should.

Oh, and one more thing. I think there is a big difference between a celebrity stating their opinion seperate from their work (like when PAD makes comments on his website), and someone who uses their station and celebrity as a platform to voice an opinion.

If I expected, when I attended a rock concert, that the performers would turn it into an anti-Bush, (or anti-war, or pro-war, or anti-black, or whatever) rally, then chose not to go, would that be a silly, vidictive boycot, or me not supporting the policital wrangling of the artist.

I think their are MANY, MANY, MANY celebrities who have stated unpopluar opinions in interviews, and in books, who recieve no retaliation.

I mean shoot, I sell comics in Oklahoma, and about 98% of my customers disagree with about 80% of PAD's opinions, and many who met him, for some reason don't like him, yet they still buy his books. I've only met one customer who wouldn't buy anything PAD because of their personal opinions of him.

I think the reason that the customers don't care, is that buy your comics don't translate to supporting your political views. Buying a Michael Moore video or book, or buying a Dixie Chicks does (for right or wrong) equate to actively supporting them.

As I am also a new(er) poster and long time lurker, this probably won't mean much. In spite of that, I have to say that I completely agree with Peter.

It is your right to choose to boycott. Boycotting against illegal, cruel and criminal behavior/acts/supporters is a good measure -- albeit marginally productive unless by MOBs. I believe the term in this thread has been "appropriate, proportional response". Boycotting a product, or service because of what a person/group/organization said or did that breaks no laws and enlists no one to break the law, is indeed everyone's right and freedom. It is, however, my opinion that it is childish. It sounds like being in school again. Lola said Tommy's a jerk, so I better avoid him instead of getting to know him on my own terms. Wrong? Well, I can see what drove Peter to use the word "wrong". It's not wrong in the purest sense of the freedoms given us; it just isn't very productive in the grand scheme of life and living on this ball of dust. It's also not the most open minded approach to dealing with a person's opinion (celebrity or not, political or otherwise).

I am reminded of a quote from "The American President" in which Michael Douglas' character gave a speech. To quote the relevant part, he said, "The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

With that in mind, my feeling is hey if you want to take a hardline stance by boycotting products, that's your perogative. To take it to the degree that most of those defending the opposing view on this blog take it: I highly doubt that you could maintain such a stance on every product produced by someone who has a political opinion opposite of yours. In fact I would wager it to be near impossible. I mean when does it stop? First, the Dixie Chicks, then Country music, oh and let's not forget SUVs, and hey while we're at it automobiles... Absurd much? It's childishness.

Now let's see... to wrap up, I believe I still need the obligatory tangent example. If you pull through a McDonald's and order a cup of coffee to go; accelerate a little too fast out of the exit to beat the traffic and whoop... the coffee spills all over you scolding (sp?) two-thirds of your leg. Well, that's certainly McDonald's fault for making that coffee so friggin hot! You gonna sue McDonald's? Dare I say boycott them? Is that not childishness? In point of fact, I do believe that actually happened if I recall my news correctly. I can certainly understand boycotting buying coffee at a drive thru, but not McDonald's entire menu. (And just for the record, I really detest McDonalds.)

Well, I'm sure this topic could be pummled with endless scenarios and each side will still adamantly disagree. So be it. For Peter's sanity though, I'd just like him to know there are those of us out their that really do understand your frame of mind.

Why are some of you using the "invisible" text to hide your names? Are you all the same person? Or you just don't want to be quoted?

Damn, my name came out "invisible" too. Peter or Glenn, I think that there appears to be one person who is just out to bait you (Peter) into getting pissed off. Since s/he cannot get away with flaming, s/he has resorted to goading you.

Btw, is this invisible name thing something that's been recently implemented?

-Andrew C.

Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?

PAD said: Because I'm able to separate the person from the work.

I'm saying: I'm a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don't believe there's any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor. When I write, that's *me.* I pour myself into it; it's personal. Work is personal. It's where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can't say that someone's work is separate from their opinions, because an artist's whole being goes into whatever they create-- that's the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don't think you can separate a person and the product at all.

And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree. On the contrary, sir-- I think it woke up a lot of people who never before realized exactly what that freedom cost. And now that they appreciate it, they don't want to see it abused. They aren't going to force you to respect it, but they aren't going to support the people who don't, either. Because the people who don't respect the freedoms they've been given are the ones who will lose it for us all.

--Haydee

"... bonfire rally where people could bring their Billy Ray Cyrus albums to burn.

No, wait, it gets better. Y'see, Billy Ray's not a top seller so a lot of the people who went to the rally didn't have any of his albums at home. So they bought some so they'd have something to burn. Billy Ray's sales were the highest they'd been in years."

Hey, I don't even care about his war stance. Even if it means raising his sales, I support any and all means of destroying the works of Billy Ray Cyrus. :P

Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?

PAD said: Because I'm able to separate the person from the work.

Haydee said: I'm a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don't believe there's any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor.

Well, I certainly can't agree with that. Personally, from what I've seen him say in the media, I think John Byrne's a schmuck, but, I like a lot of his work. I think Alex Ross is often a big spoiled crybaby, but, he shore do draw purty. [personal opinions for example, folks, not something I'm willing to waste time even arguing about]

Haydee said: When I write, that's *me.* I pour myself into it; it's personal. Work is personal. It's where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can't say that someone's work is separate from their opinions, because an artist's whole being goes into whatever they create-- that's the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don't think you can separate a person and the product at all.

I think you're assuming everyone artistic person puts the whole of their being into their work. Even if that were true (which I'm sure it isn't for some), what's that mean to me as a consumer? That someone with different views than me can't entertain me? It's perfectly easy to seperate the two. Just don't pay attention to the producer's views while you enjoy their work. Some people can do this, and some people can't.

Haydee said: And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree.

Meaning what? That you can't enjoy his work because he has a view that differs from yours that has absolutely no bearing on said work? Seems kind of petty and narrow-minded to me, but, that's just me.

'Dox out.

I dragged in civil rights because you didn't exclude in in your condemnation of boycotts. Are you now making an exception for such? What WOULD you consider "appropriate and proportional"?

I would certainly consider some comprehension of what the topic at hand was to be appropriate.

We were talking about free speech. At least I know I was. I was referring to actions people take in retaliation for others exercising free speech, a practice I consider inexcusable.

Someone then felt compelled to bring up Dominos in order to muddy the waters. I felt that boycotting Dominos was idiotic and boycotts in general are idiotic because they're usually unrelated to the action, are given little-to-no thought, and have little impact on the actual target. And considering it turns out the Pro-Life guy hasn't owned Dominos for five years, not only was I right that boycotting Dominos is stupid, but we're well into mega-stupidity.

But I obviously now have to spell out--because I thought that since we were primarily discussing free speech, people would be able to stay on track with that (but obviously not)--that endeavoring to bring economic pressure to bear on someone WHO IS ACTIVELY HURTING SOMEONE ELSE or TAKING ACTIVE STEPS TO HURT SOCIETY is an entirely different matter.

That I have to spell that out, frankly, staggers me. I was writing about boycotts in relation to free speech (the Dixie Chicks) or because someone didn't like someone else's opinions (Dominos). Taken to its ludicrous extreme, the suggestion is being put forward that I disapprove of everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement. Obviously I don't. Obviously different situations have to be considered individually, and the greater good must be judged as actions are taken.

What I was talking about was knee-jerk punitive measures being taken against people whose opinions were disliked, and there even seemed to be annoyance that they'd dared to state them. And a number of the responses have only highlighted a shocking state of mind: They're actors/singers/performers. They should just shut up and entertain us.

My God. Oh. My God.

How can people who claim to be patriotic Americans have so little comprehension for, and hatred of, fellow Americans?

Oh, and this is the best part: Now I'm accused of saying this because I'm being self-serving. Christ. Do you guys have ANY idea how many people have bitched me out about this, that and the other thing and ended with, "And I'm never buying your work again, even though I like it!" You think I sweat that? I just feel sorry for them, and wonder about how many noses they have to sever to spite their faces.

PAD

"Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it's rational?

Because it's a good rhetorical trick. Done properly, the person takes an argument, stretches it to absurdity, and then explicitly or implicitly makes the point that the original argument was absurd to begin with, and the absurdity is more obvious when magnified. Admittedly, the trick isn't always properly executed. I think the intention was to point out that the original phrasing of PAD's position was stark: boycotts are per se absurd. However, I think we've all gotten the point by now that there are valid counter-examples, and PAD has adopted a more nuanced position, so at this point we're beating a dead horse. A lot."

or maybe Pad has always had a nuanced opinion and some people can't or won't see it?

"I'm talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: "

this was copied form the start of the blog.

"Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?

PAD said: Because I'm able to separate the person from the work.

I'm saying: I'm a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don't believe there's any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor. When I write, that's *me.* I pour myself into it; it's personal. Work is personal. It's where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can't say that someone's work is separate from their opinions, because an artist's whole being goes into whatever they create-- that's the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don't think you can separate a person and the product at all.

And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree. On the contrary, sir-- I think it woke up a lot of people who never before realized exactly what that freedom cost. And now that they appreciate it, they don't want to see it abused. They aren't going to force you to respect it, but they aren't going to support the people who don't, either. Because the people who don't respect the freedoms they've been given are the ones who will lose it for us all. --Haydee "

so the latest captain marvel held which opinions of mr david's?

by the way in regards to freedom's and losing them I would worry more about the president passing acts that negate constitution rights much more than a country singer making a comment

Peter,

I really think most of us can seperate the artist from their views. For example, I'll go see a Susan Sarandon movie because I think she's a heck of a good actress. I might pass on a Tim Robbins film because he's a stiff actor. I don't buy Dixie Chicks music because I don't like their version of country or crossover country music. In fact, even though we disagree on the topic of boycotts, I'll be at Barnes and Noble the week the next New Frontier book comes out with cash in hand. Why, because I like what you've done with the series.

This has nothing to do with their political views. In fact, I don't want to hear about their political views other than in their art. Sarandon may act in an anti-war movie, you may write a story about being pro-choice, and I'll probably go see her movie and read your story. I might not agree with the artist on their views, but I'm pretty sure I'll get a good product. By purchasing a CD, a concert ticket or a book, I'm hiring that artist to entertain me.

And can it really be called a boycott if it's an individual person chosing not to buy a product? NARAL urging it's members to boycott Domino's (I don't know if they did or not...just an example) or Bill O'Reilly urging viewers to boycott French products (which he is doing) seems different than Joe Sixpack deciding not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD. Is there a national organized boycott of the Dixie Chicks? I know a lot of people have been complaining about Clear Channel (which I agree about the complaints), but I wouldn't think any boycott is coming from them, rather from individual stations.

-Jeff

"Oh, and this is the best part: Now I'm accused of saying this because I'm being self-serving."

Well, while I didn't post it anywhere, the thought was running around in my mind. While I won't repeat my reasons for why I DO believe in the use of boycotts, will point out what I see as the major difference in our views. You seem to believe that the ONLY reason (or at least the primary one) people boycotted the Dixie Chicks was to be mean and spiteful, and to cause them some monetary damage. I can't rule that out as the major motivation for some people, but I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. Money talks and this one spoke loud and clear. It certainly got a response from the Dixie Chicks.

I view a boycott as the same as I view a protest where people lay down in the road and block traffic for a couple of hours. I didn't like it. Thought it was stupid, and it had nothing to do with the war. But it got attention, which is what I thought it was designed to do.

Where is all this "organized boycott" stuff coming from, anyway? Far as I can tell, a bunch of people decided to retaliate against the Dixie Chicks in the only way they could. A couple radio stations joined the bandwagon (and since the DC ARE played on Clear Channel stations, and a poster mentioned a CC DJ was told to play whatever his listeners wanted to hear, I think that shoots the idea that the big bad apparently government run radio conglomerate (who most likely had a hand in Kennedy's assassination) is behind this atrocious assault on free speech...well, shoots it down.

Tell you a story.

Several years ago, Ethan van Scrier ripped Peter David over the first three pages of Young Justice. Anyone remember that? Talking AOL DC board history here. After a week or so of watching him insult PAD, I decided I wasn't going to listen to him anymore because I thought he was a spoiled, immature, stuck up little punk. So I dropped Impulse when he took over a couple months later, and I dropped New X-Men because he was the guest artist. I wasn't going to support someone I didn't like. Now, let me make this clear. PAD NEVER asked anyone not to buy his work. And to be honest, he'd probably be horrified that I decided to stay away from anything van Scrier drew. But, according to the logic on this board, since it was done (tangentially) in support of PAD, he must be the mastermind behind this boycott. Boycotts can't be an individual's choice, apparently. There HAS to be an insidious puppet master, and therefore it must be PAD. Shame on you.

I mean, if I choose to not buy a Dixie Chick album, I'm part of an organized boycott that is trying to suppress free speech! And if I choose not to watch a tv show, am I part of an organized boycott against it? Jesus. CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE. My choice. No government or group tells me what to think, and just because a radio station puts out a barrel for people to throw their CDs in, that doesn't mean they're ORGANIZING a boycott. That's called publicitiy. Prove to me that this is a directive from on high. Or read your first amendment. That might clear up the situation too. Has anyone actually SUPPRESSED the Dixie Chicks? They're still free to say whatever they want. But now they know that if 70% of the country disagrees with them, they'll hear about it.

Oh, and you know what, didn't Natalie Maines apologize? She said that she didn't mean what she said. So, it's a good thing the boycott forced her to come clean. Either that, or she's lying in her apology. That would make a nice story.

Oh, and the death threats she receieved? According to Entertainment Weekly, on a message board someone wrote that they hope the Dixie Chicks eat Earl's peas. Yeah. Yeah, that's terrifying.

Tim Robbins threatened the reporter that interviewed Susan Sarandon's Republican mother with specific bodily harm, and he gets a pass. Some guy makes a play on a Dixie Chicks song and ohmigod! Death threats!

Where's the Santorum column?

boycotts in general are idiotic because they're usually unrelated to the action, are given little-to-no thought, and have little impact on the actual target.

Oh, I can agree with that wholeheartedly. I currently work customer service for a major food company owned by a rather well-known tobacco company--for legal reasons I'm technically not allowed to name the company, but your first guess is probably correct--and we've gotten a lot of threats of boycott recently, largely by email, which I primarily work on. They are one of the few types of emails that we don't respond to.

Think about this. The emails announce that Mr. Joe Consumer will no longer buy the company's products because the company contributed to the Bush campaign. (Never mind the fact that they also contributed to the Gore campaign.) The Bush administration then led this military action into Iraq, so the logic appears to be that the company contributed to Bush, so the company supports and funded the war.

It gets better. The emails come in rashes, and when they do, they're usually the same email, hundreds of times, from hundreds of different people. People slap their name on the email and send it off to us. The letter is very passionate, but the people sending it clearly aren't, because if they were, they'd write their own email. The best part is, the most recent form email was sent in by hundreds of people with the same typos in each and every one.

So what we've got is, people on some sort of list are told to complain to the company and given a letter to send, which they don't even bother to actually read before they send it in, on the apparent theory that not giving money to a food company will end America's military presence in Iraq.

I'm positive the company doesn't take this seriously. We sure don't. These people can boycott the company all they want (though good luck to them in avoiding each and every product the company makes--many people say "I'll buy Brand X instead," unaware the same company makes Brand X, too) but they're not hurting the company, they're not hurting the presidential administration, and they're sure not having any impact on Iraq. Sending the letter and threatening boycott makes them feel like they've taken action, but they're not accomplishing a damn thing.

I'll say it again.

If you are a lefty and protest/boycott...you are an activist.

If you are anywhere else on the political spectrum, you are categorized as a simple whiner.

Luigi Novi: Why does it necessarily have to be “punitive”? Or “retaliatory”? Or petty and intolerant? Why can’t it simply mean that I’m making a personal decision?

Peter David: They're not mutually exclusive. Just because it's your personal decision doesn't mean it's not punitive, or retaliatory, or petty, or intolerant.

Luigi Novi: It doesn’t mean it is, either. The two can most certainly be mutually exclusive. Why assume that you can read the mind of someone making a personal choice? Couldn’t that possibly be considered petty or intolerant on your part, Peter?

I just got done responding to a poster on the imdb boards for a really badly-made science fiction film, who gave me the usual flame treatment that fans of dumb movies do when they read someone explaining why they don’t like a particular movie that they did like. This person was trying to tell me that oh, I have to put my opinions in a different category because it was just an escapist science fiction film, I don’t have a life, yadda, yadda, yadda. I tried to explain to this person that one’s reaction to any film of ANY genre is an unconscious reaction that they have little control over, which stems from intrinsic aspects of their personality, their tastes, their emotional makeup, etc.

Similarly, if someone chooses not to go to a movie or buy a CD for reasons other than the quality of the work, perhaps the person isn’t trying to punish the artist, but it’s just that he/she simply doesn’t feel comfortable patronizing that work. Why assume that it’s anything other than an intrinsic reaction, and not something diabolical or immoral like pettiness or intolerance?

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. The one is morally neutral. The other requires a moral judgment, and requires you to assume that you know what that person is thinking or feeling.

It’s easy to say that one should do it with words when one is a successful author with a public forum. Not so when one is not.

That said, yeah, I do think it’s petty and retaliatory when a radio station pulls the CD from airplay, because the station IS trying to keep the individual listener from making their own decision. The individual is just following their heart, and I think it’s condescending to act like I know that that person is trying to be punitive simply following it. This all such bullshit anyway, because the media only chose to report the part of the Chicks’ statement that was offensive. They didn’t mention that right after Maines’ statement, one of the others (I think MacGuire) spoke up and said that they support the troops. And I guess we’re also supposed to think it’s logical to punish the entire trio for what one of them said.

<

PAD

>>

The Dixie Chicks had a right which was not prevented to express their views. They did so in another country which made them look cowardly and petty. Thier fans reacted to the apparent cowardice by boycotting them. That is thier right. Do I think it's a good responce? Nah, but it makes as much sense to me as complaining about the US in London. Don't two stoopid actions cancel each other out?

Don't two stoopid actions cancel each other out? ---Mike Bass.

Obviously not, Mike.

My father said please, my mother said okay, and nine months later, I was born.

I've noticed a distinct pattern in the political messages here. PAD posts something bashing conservatives, then he gets a lot of angry responses from conservatives. He then picks the worst opinions from all of those responses, combines them into a straw man, bashes it apart with his defense, and then attacks the conservatives for being inhuman, stupid, etc. This does not make a discussion, is not intelligent, and really serves no benefit to anything. Why are these boards here? Better yet, why am I reading this dribble? I frequent a lot of comics message boards, but this board is nothing but a whine-and-bark pulpit. I'm in science, and we can't get enough web space and web people to distribute real knowledge. Thinking about the positive uses that web space can be put to, this board has finally succeeded in disgusting me.

I've noticed a distinct pattern in the political messages here. PAD posts something bashing conservatives, then he gets a lot of angry responses from conservatives. He then picks the worst opinions from all of those responses, combines them into a straw man, bashes it apart with his defense, and then attacks the conservatives for being inhuman, stupid, etc. This does not make a discussion, is not intelligent, and really serves no benefit to anything.

I agree, which could be why I haven't actually been doing that. I never used the word "conservatives." Others have, but I haven't.

There's a perception (again, stated by others) that the Dixie Chicks target audience is a conservative political base, but I don't know that for a fact and haven't commented on that either way.

Since you're asking, it's been my experience that liberals are just as prone to anti-free speech thought and deed as conservatives. The desire to punish those who disagree with you crosses all political boundaries. Again, I refer you to books by Nat Hentoff, who has described some of the most liberal colleges in the country where the student bodies have adopted policies and an atmosphere against free speech so repressive that it makes Bob Jones College look like Romper Room.

Indeed, retaliation for free speech and intolerance of opinions may be one of the few things on which conservatives and liberals agree. *Everyone* is in favor of free speech...for themselves, and for opinions they favor. When it comes to the other guy, though...

PAD

I've disagreed with a COUPLE of things PAD has said lately, but I've never felt bashed.

But, if he starts talking about how Jasmine is the pawn of the military-industrial complex in his Angel reviews, I'll probably start boycotting his books.

"Oh, and this is the best part: Now I'm accused of saying this because I'm being self-serving."

Well, while I didn't post it anywhere, the thought was running around in my mind. While I won't repeat my reasons for why I DO believe in the use of boycotts, will point out what I see as the major difference in our views. You seem to believe that the ONLY reason (or at least the primary one) people boycotted the Dixie Chicks was to be mean and spiteful, and to cause them some monetary damage. I can't rule that out as the major motivation for some people, but I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. Money talks and this one spoke loud and clear. It certainly got a response from the Dixie Chicks.

I view a boycott as the same as I view a protest where people lay down in the road and block traffic for a couple of hours. I don't like it. Thought it was stupid, and it had nothing to do with the war. But it got attention, which is what I thought it was designed to do. I didn't think the protesters were just being mean-spirited and tying up traffic. Some may have been, but if so, I think it was a very small minority.

I'm staying well out of the "boycott" issue, but I wanted to respond to one point on a related note:

Someone asked why there's no "shock and awe" about the response to Rick Santorum's comments, in comparison to the flap over the boycott of the Dixie Chicks.

The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bestiality, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He's a senator -- he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.

The Chicks don't. Even if everyone they talked to agreed with them, all those agreeable people could do is agree.

Therein lies the difference. (Well, one of them, anyway. I'm also inclined to believe that Santorum hasn't gotten nearly the flak he SHOULD be getting for his comments, but that's another matter entirely.)

TWL

P.S. On another note, the board's gotten a lot harder to read in the last few days thanks to the shift in background color -- any names w/o links are coming up as invisible, for instance. Peter or Glenn, anything that can be done here to ease readability?

Oh, and as for conservative bashing on PAD's part, I don't think so. In my view, PAD's a liberal. In the past , both on AOL and now here, we've been at odds on everything from the environment and guns to the death penalty and free speech. He's been wrong on all of it. :)

Still, he's never said anything that would make me stop buying his books. Some of them, like Captain Marvel, I just don't like, and I personally thought he dragged out the Linda's Quest for Supergirl saga too long (it was boring me), but those are the only times I've ever made a conscious decision to not buy his work.

And there are only four actors whose movies I won't go see. Susan Sarandon, Madonna, Sean Penn, and Robin Williams.

Two of them can't act, and two of them just bug me.

**The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bestiality, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He's a senator -- he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.

The Chicks don't. Even if everyone they talked to agreed with them, all those agreeable people could do is agree. **

No single Senator can enact legislation on his own, so your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man.

The Dixie Chicks have the ear of America which is all they need. And as you said about Santorum, Given enough support, they could affect legislation that could directly affect your life and that of your friends. Remember, Santorum got to his positon because he convinced enough people to put him there. Is there some reason the Dixie Chicks couldn't trade in on their fame to do the same?

And you're right about the background color, but the white text font color needs to be changed to a darker color.

Mike Bass: They did so in another country which made them look cowardly and petty.

Luigi Novi: What it in the world does where the person makes the statement have to do with cowardice? I mean, I just don’t get this “It was cowardly because it was in England” silliness? She said what she said there because she was there when she was asked. What indication is there that Maines would’ve been any less reluctant to say what she did if she were in say, New Jersey or California? I mean, we’re living in the age of instantaneous communication, so she knows whatever she says will shoot around the globe faster than the Flash looking for a bathroom in Mexico.

EClark1849 writes:

"No single Senator can enact legislation on his own, so your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man.

The Dixie Chicks have the ear of America which is all they need. And as you said about Santorum, Given enough support, they could affect legislation that could directly affect your life and that of your friends. Remember, Santorum got to his positon because he convinced enough people to put him there. Is there some reason the Dixie Chicks couldn't trade in on their fame to do the same?"

Theoretically correct, but a massively specious argument.

Supposing that each camp here wanted to enact something controversial, the Dixie Chicks would need to convince millions of people it's a good idea. Santorum would need to convince 50 other senators (or 49 + Cheney), plus a majority of the House and Bush. That's a few hundred, many of whom agree with him already.

You'll forgive me if I don't stay up nights worrying whether any given celebrity is going to seriously affect my life. (That applies on either side of the political spectrum: I'm not worried about the Dixie Chicks *or* Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unless Arnold actually runs for governor, I suppose.)

And as for "your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man," ... I have plenty of faith in the Constitution. I have very little faith in those currently involved in upholding it. And my fellow man is all well and good, but I've got a lot of serious doubts about whether they can do a damn bit of good to influence anything right now. I think our voting system is seriously screwed up, and until something like instant-runoff voting (preference voting, whatever you want to call it) is put into effect I have doubts that the common citizen's opinion is going to mean a thing.

Cynical, ain't I?

TWL

The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bestiality, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He's a senator -- he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.

So...since almost half the Senators hold beliefs that I disagree with, and since they have the theoretical power to enact on them...

By God, they must all resign! I might be affected by something they believe in!

Okay, "Bashed Conservative" ... if you can point to me saying that I'm demanding (or even asking for) Santorum's resignation, then that scathing remark's justified. Otherwise, you're basically just being a dork.

The question was raised why the alleged "backlash" against Santorum's remarks is somehow more acceptable than it is against the Dixie Chicks. I answered. Pretty much end of story.

But please, feel free to mischaracterize me all you like.

TWL

Tim Lynch said: On another note, the board's gotten a lot harder to read in the last few days thanks to the shift in background color -- any names w/o links are coming up as invisible, for instance.

I don't see any difference in the background color. I also do not have the problem of the names being invisible. Maybe it's your server?

I've always thought my mother managed to put a certain amount of style into a one-woman boycott of her alma mater. A regular source of alumni donations for twenty years, stopped as soon as the school introduced speech codes. For the five years until the school dropped the codes, they still recived regular envelopes from her. She sent pollite letters explaining her problems with the policy- and copies of cancelled checks written to various First Amendment legal funds.

I'll admit I'm a bit confused.

If I don't like what a company does politically, and their are alternative companies that produce the same quality product, why shouldn't the politics of the company come into play?

The subject of Domino's is brought up. If I don't like their politics, and choose to express that by buying only Papa John's pizza...why is that wrong?

Furthermore, I find it a bit confusing that apparently SUPPORTING a group for their views financially is good (going out and buying the Dixie Chicks album just to support their views), while choosing NOT to support a group is bad (not buying Domino's because you don't like their politics).

I don't necessarily disagree...I just find some of the statement contradictory here.

To clarify my last statement...

I'm not opposed to anything said by PAD. I'm just trying to state that when identical sources of a product are available, I think making a decisions based on such issues is fine. It's literally a step above flipping a coin (or finding which place has a better coupon).

I'm pretty much a free speech and first amendment absolutist. In law school, I even made an argument deconstructing the "Fire in a crowded theatre" issue.

(Y'see, you're allowed to say what you want, but you're responsible for any injury that causes. There's no real harm in shouting that, but it would be the proximate cause for the issue. It'd be like the cartoon example of yelling 'fuzzy bunnies' on a mountain slope and causing an avalanche...it wasn't a crime to say 'fuzzy bunnies,' but the action was an intentional proximate cause of the harm that followed.)

...and while I do see it contradictory to not buy from a supplier because of a political stance, and to support someone because of a political stance, I do support companies and artists for being pro-first amendment. But I'm also uncreative enough to personally boycott companies when I do disagree with them.

A quick f'rinstance I can give is back in the early eighties, Omni magazine was a cutting edge science and SF magazine. I bought it for both aspects. However, when the editorial slant changed to reporting what used to be mocked in the 'antimatter' section as pseudo-science and quackery became the 'science' reported by the magazine, I gave up on it. I'm not going to support a magazine that perpetuates that sort of thing. That means I no longer bought the 'best of' story collections and the like. That's my personal loss, but I felt that even though the SF collections were separated from the context of bad science, I couldn't honestly give my money in good conscience to support a magazine that did just that.

I didn't call for other people to stop buying the magazine. I did write a letter explaining why I was stopping my subscription. I wasn't disagreeing with their right to say what they wanted...I just wanted nothing to do with a magazine that said the things it said.

The incredibly exaggerated and unrealistic comparison I can draw (this is a gross exaggeration and not really part of my argument, just extending my small difference of opinion to a large scale): if the KKK started publishing a well-put together magazine with terrific fiction, even if the content had nothing to do with the KKK (thereby separating the product from the producer's views), I would not buy it because it was affiliated with the KKK. That's a political choice. I fully support the right of the KKK to spew their hate verbally...that's the flip side of free speech...but that doesn't mean I have to support any of their commercial ventures.

That example is hugely magnified, but is done so to try to magnify my feelings on those issues. No, Omni commits no political sin in the same manner or level of the KKK in my opinion. I'm not equating the situation.

Just further thoughts. Sorry to ramble...

Furthermore, I find it a bit confusing that apparently SUPPORTING a group for their views financially is good (going out and buying the Dixie Chicks album just to support their views), while choosing NOT to support a group is bad (not buying Domino's because you don't like their politics).

I don't necessarily disagree...I just find some of the statement contradictory here.

Hmmm...

I'm sitting here thinking... thinking and thinking.

The one thing that I believe in, more than anything, is Freedom of Speech (shows what having a journalist as a father does)...

Statement: Me purchasing a Springsteen or Dixie Chicks album in support of their views is not a problem. Someone not purchasing a Springsteen or Dixie Chicks album against their views is not a problem.

People who organize book/cd/magazine burnings to oppose the views of the Dixie Chicks or Springsteen or Ezra Pound or Oscar Wilde or anyone... now that is a problem.

People who wish to prevent celebrities from exercising their free speech because they disagree with their politics (and yes, there is a movement right now that is doing that).... now that is a problem.

Let's talk about activism. Good activism vs. Bad activism.

Newman's Own is good activism. You buy a product; the proceeds go to a charity. You like product? You continue to buy product, more money goes to charity.

Bad Activism - publicly held book burnings.

Good Activism:

BillRitter:

For a year I extended my pro-choice stance to a relatively passive boycott of Dominos. I would not buy Dominos, but would not push the issue (e.g., if a group of friends bought Dominos, I would chip in and eat the pizza without preaching - social interaction and social activism are seperate in my mind). After a year, I found the boycott a silly distraction to my real belief and resumed acting normally. Dominos owner's beliefs his beliefs, mine are mine and I would be happy to discuss them over one of his pizzas if he wants. I'd buy.

Bad Activism:

Happened to a friend of mine. She had a Darwin fish on her car...

She pulled into a store... fifteen minutes later, as she left, she found a four page letter, explaining to her why evolution is wrong, why she is going to hell since she believes in evolution, and if she wants to avoid this she needs to... etc. etc.

Lesson: A good activist does not need to jump up and down and say "here am I... agree with me... DC bad... CH good..."

If you're that insecure about your beliefs that you have to have a crowd to enforce it... well, you have issues.

Now... do you have the right to protest... organize a protest? Of course... and I support that right... now whether it is tactful or not is another question.

On separating the artist from the art: If you can't do that... stop reading, looking at art and listening to music.

Most artists, especially the classic ones, have things in their lives that you can't live with... so just remember the line: ignorance is bliss.

Travis

I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from "Law and Order" for being critical of Janet Reno.

As for myself, I was considering getting the latest Dixie Chicks CD but for the time being I won't be buying it. It's not because I disagree with anyone's political views but because I think the lead singer is a jerk. The remarks were, as Natalie Maines herself later admitted, disrespectful at a time and place where disrespect was inappropriate. So I won't be buying the CD for the time being. I might change my mind later, and I think some of the reaction has been over the top, but for now I just don't want it.

If the Bush administration is behind a Dixie Chicks boycott, I would definitely have problems with that, but I have seen no evidence that that is the case. If this was the previous administration we'd have James Carville running around calling the Chicks "white trash" or some other names approved by the so-called progressives in this country.

Mr. David ...

"I just feel sorry for them, and wonder about how many noses they have to sever to spite their faces."

Bingo.

There were a couple of *big names* in the comics industry who showed themselves to be real jerks and generally caused us [organizing committee of conventions in Ottawa, Canada] some real headaches. Did I stop buying or enjoying their books? No. Because their work either had me [intentionally] doubling over laughing, or marveling at how they could point out what should have been obvious about the series, but no one else in the many years it ran ever seemed to piece together.

I avoid Woody Allen movies and Michael Jackson CDs. Oh, I must be outraged at the tabloid-fed bits about their home lives. Actually, I could care less. There are legal organizations created to investigate and deal with such things.

The former's films bore me (I stopped going after friends dragged me to two of them several years back) and the latter's 'music' annoys my auditory sensors.

Conversely, while I find a couple,of things Charleton Heston did as head of the NRA (not everything, mind you), I went out and bought the BEN HUR and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DVDs because I have long loved those spectacular epics and thought everyone involved were superb.

"I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. " EClark

The problem, as far as the girls were concerned wasn't the possible loss of income. They weren't worried about not being able to make the rent. What really hurt them was the hate, villification, and general intolerance being directed at them. Oh, and let's not forget the death threats. If this is your idea of valid ways of getting a point accross in a supposedly civilized society ...

"She sent pollite letters explaining her problems with the policy- and copies of cancelled checks written to various First Amendment legal funds." Wade

I LIKE her! That's a class way of getting the point across.

" I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from "Law and Order" for being critical of Janet Reno." - Robert

I didn't much care for it. Mind you, since he has arrived in Canada, Moriarty has shown himself to be something of a questionable individual. Nothing to do with his politics, just the actions in his personal life.

But I still watch L&O reruns, even his. Good show. And his getting drunk and hitting people doesn't change that. I would NOT, however, invite him to my home.

For the record, I don't think it is wrong to boycott someone because you disagree with them. If your principles require this, go for it. Try to organize if you want, as long as there is no compulsion.

I don't boycott myself, because I don't see the point. HOWEVER, I will stop buying or seeing something if the artist in question has become so 'noisy' that I CAN'T seperate the artist from the work.

For example, Susan Sarandon has never been a favorite. I'd still see her movies if the movie looked good. Now, however, I can't watch a movie without Sarandon (or Maclean, for that matter) preventing me from entering the world of the film. I always see Sarandon. Robbins, on the other hand, still wins me over.

A comic book example would be PAD's Young Justice 'dark arrow' issue which took a credible story, then shoehorned a ridiculous anti-gun stance that seemed out of character and clunky. I enjoy PAD's writing a great deal except when he gets the need to write a political issue comic that intrudes on his story. I may not buy those issues, but I wouldn't drop the title. I won't buy any Eric Larsen books, though, because every line reminds me of the pompous jerk I went to college with.

So, sometimes an artist can shoot themselve in the foot by becoming louder than their art (though that wouldn't be a boycott in the sense that it's the work that is failing me).

I wonder what Peter would do if the Dixie Chicks criticized his hero Bill Clinton.

Indeed, retaliation for free speech and intolerance of opinions may be one of the few things on which conservatives and liberals agree. *Everyone* is in favor of free speech...for themselves, and for opinions they favor. When it comes to the other guy, though...

PAD

Now that's something we can agree on. Everyone loves other peoples opinions (especially Celebes) as long as it agrees with theirs. And unfortunately the Dixie Chicks are in a business where they are dependent on the general public liking them and spending their hard earned money buying their albums. They get paid by a company who gets paid by Americans buy albums, they had to expect their comments about the president (which were personal and tacky and had nothing to do with the war) would not bold well with the people.

response/reaction is fine; death threats are not

also, labeling those whose opinions differ from yours as "un-american" or "unpatriotic" closes off the debate

pointless

I see that most of these comments have drifted from rational and logical to infuriated, overly emotional and sensitive. I think that the whole issue is that PAD believes that boycotts are unreasonable actions that do not distinguish between an artist's beliefs and their works. I do not wish to fan the flames with a commentary, but ask a simple question. So what do you feel is the best way to protest to distinguish between viewpoints and artist's work? I assume that you think the average Joe should write a letter to the artist and saying, "I disagree." But this is not as public a demonstration, and so the average Joe's voice is not as noticeable because he is not famous. Whereas celebs have their views spread all across the world. So what chance does Joe have of getting his voice heard as far ranging as the celeb? The other issue is that the artists usually don't even read the mail they get because they get so many fan letters, and the effort is basically wasted (as compared to PAD who actually is kind enough to answer his fan-mails personally, which I truly admire--hats off to you PAD for that). So I was wondering what people thought about that in an objective perspective on this. And I concur with everyone who says that death threats are unpatriotic. They are also completely missing the point and going way too far.

Chris

" I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from "Law and Order" for being critical of Janet Reno." - Robert

For the record, Moriarty wasn't fired from L&O, he quit to protest what he saw as censorship in the arts.

I think that the whole issue is that PAD believes that boycotts are unreasonable actions that do not distinguish between an artist's beliefs and their works.

IMO, Chris hit on what has caused the real issue here. I don't think PAD is biased due to being liberal. But maybe there is a chance of personal bias as an artist?

PAD, you have clarified that you don't necessarily think that boycotts are wrong, but you do think boycotts such as these are disproportional. I'm guessing that opinion is driven on some level by the fact that you, too, are an artist (and a damn good one, as we all agree, or we wouldn't even be here), and probably take such boycotts more personally than us averages joes and janes with no creative outlet.

And I'm not even disagreeing with you on that. The fact that you are anti-war doesn't mean I'm any less eager for the next "New Frontier" book, and the fact that the Barenaked Ladies seem to be anti-war on their blog doesn't mean I don't want them to hurry up and release their next CD.

What I disagree with is the idea that such boycotts are automatically petty or irrational. Whether or not one agrees with the intent, or the result, there are people out there who believe strongly enough about that issue to intentionally deprive themselves of music they enjoy. To decide that such action was taken to be petty and vengeful, or without considered thought, is to assume more than we can know about the individuals involved.

Coming in sort of late in the game, but...

I guess what it comes down to for me is, who cares what the Dixie Chicks or Susan Sarandon or anyone in the public eye has to say about any given political topic. Does anyone think that whatever Maines said is going to cause a groundswell that changes the opinion of her listeners? Or that Charlton Heston's "...from my cold, dead hands" NRA speech is going to convince people who haven't already decided to be pro-gun (or anti-legislation, depending on your interpretation)?

When my brother spouts off his far-right conservative beliefs, I smile politely and let him rant on; similarly, when Tim Robbins spouts his liberal beliefs, I smile politely and let him rant on, too (not that I could stop him, but that's not the point...). And I don't love my brother any less for the fact that I disagree with some (okay, most) of his politics, any more than I dislike Robbin's movies any less because I disagree with some of his politics.

Because, in the end, they aren't going to change my mind about anything I've already reached a conclusion on. At the most, contrary views will challenge me to try to understand their perspective, thus better strengthening my own perspective.

And, really, would you want someone who's that easily swayed on your side of the fence, anyhow?

Just, just answer me this question : nobody expects me to VOTE for someone whose politics I disagree with, so why should I be made to feel guilty if I refuse to BUY something from someone's politics I disagree with?!? Just answer that simple question.

Seriously, Peter saying it's like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if you boycott...well, I like my nose (well, maybe it's a little lopsided on the left, but I think it gives me personality). I, however, don't much like the Dixie Chicks, so how exactly is this causing me pain? And don't say it's because I'm supressing free speech, and I should feel the symbolic pain, because, no, I'm not and I don't. Now, if all music ended because I don't buy a Dixie Chicks album, then I've obviously been wasting my superhuman powers of suggestion on petty things when I could have been tracking down Mia Kirschner.

Tim Lynch's response is a Senator has the power to DO something about his opinions, and a celebrity doesn't. My initial response is why did the celebrities form Not In My Name if their intention isn't to get people to do something about their intentions. Tim Robbins doesn't speak just to be heard (although maybe he does want the attention...he hasn't had a hit in awhile); he speaks to get people to do things his way. Oh, and he speaks in order to threaten reporters and try to quash their right to report, because, you know, his rights are the only ones that matter.

So, anyway, I've decided that people are trying to take away my right to assemble (book-burnings bad activism? Well, maybe morally, but tragically, it is a right!) by saying I shouldn't boycott.

Shame on you!

Ryard: "Just, just answer me this question : nobody expects me to VOTE for someone whose politics I disagree with, so why should I be made to feel guilty if I refuse to BUY something from someone's politics I disagree with?!? Just answer that simple question."

Look, maybe there's a hidden clause here that's so obvious to you that you're not saying it. Some hidden clause like "...if the disagreement is severe enough". Because otherwise, I have to ask you if you really would recommend living your entire economic life by finding out if all of your local shopkeepers are Dems or Repubs, and only buying from the ones that vote your way. That's what you seem to be arguing. And I think buried in PAD's point of view is the opposite of that buried clause, in that he doesn't think that an entertainer insulting the President of the USA can ever reach the level of what we might call a boycottable offense.

I do not wish to fan the flames with a commentary, but ask a simple question. So what do you feel is the best way to protest to distinguish between viewpoints and artist's work? I assume that you think the average Joe should write a letter to the artist and saying, "I disagree." But this is not as public a demonstration, and so the average Joe's voice is not as noticeable because he is not famous. Whereas celebs have their views spread all across the world. So what chance does Joe have of getting his voice heard as far ranging as the celeb?

This is a question I see a lot: We're private citizens and they're megastars. We can't compete for attention.

My response?

Boo frickin' hoo.

Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there's one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their asses off to get into a position of national or even international attention.

And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here's a novel idea that I've seen no one broach. How about...you're not entitled to equal time? How about...they've earned it and you haven't?

People accuse me of taking an anti-boycott/anti-punitive stance because it's self-serving and want to avoid being boycotted myself.

I offer you a counterthought, if we're all hot to discuss motivations: Every person who complains that they haven't got an equal platform with movie stars or entertainers is suffocating in jealousy. Drowning in it. So suffused with jealousy it's oozing out every pore. Because megastars worked and sacrificed and had the talent and dedication to get where they are...and other people don't. And because they don't, rather than aspire to get up to the level of these people whose opinions they resent, they endeavor to stab back at them, to drag them down. To say, "Hey, I put you on that platform and I can knock you down, sucker."

Seems to me nothing more than petty jealousy. It's not about voicing opinion or equity: It's about embarking on a pathetic, controlling power play that is unworthy of anyone who pretends to embrace free speech.

You want to find a practical way to show you oppose what the Dixie Chicks said? Here's a notion: When Bush runs for re-election, donate to his campaign. Volunteer to stuff envelopes, ring bells, get the vote out. Let the Dixie Chicks do what they can to support their VIEWS, and you do what you can to support your VIEWS, and stop trying to figure out how to stab back at the PEOPLE whose views you DON'T LIKE.

Hope that answers it.

PAD

So, anyway, I've decided that people are trying to take away my right to assemble (book-burnings bad activism? Well, maybe morally, but tragically, it is a right!) by saying I shouldn't boycott.

Um... what the??

Did I say it wasn't a right?

I said it was bad. As in my opinion that it was bad.

It smacks too much of Nazi Germany and McCarthy-ism.

A) You have a right to express your opinion.

B) If you choose to express your opinion by burning books, please go ahead, because:

i) it shows your mindset

ii) it's the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.

iii) maybe you'll get arrested by burning books in a no burn zone.

C) You have the right to protest.

D) You have the right to boycott.

E) I was just suggesting, in an homage to the Animaniacs ("good idea... bad idea...") that there are better ways for you to be an activist than to be extreme.

Travis

Don P.:

Because otherwise, I have to ask you if you really would recommend living your entire economic life by finding out if all of your local shopkeepers are Dems or Repubs, and only buying from the ones that vote your way. That's what you seem to be arguing.

Seems? I know not seems. Politics is certainly ONE aspect of who I support, but not the only or defining one. But it IS a valid one, as valid as picking and choosing the politics of who to vote for.

Hell, if a person doesn't want to buy a Dixie Chick album because the month has an "r" in it, what gives ANYONE on the planet the right to say that's wrong? More power to them for having an easily quantifiable world view.

But, hey, I'll try the argument I seem to be seeing a lot here. Next time I say something my girlfriend considers stupid, say, about her cat...Damn, I hate that cat. So she turns her back to me in bed...I'll tell her that she doesn't actually have a right to do that because I had a first amendment right to speak without consequences (unless I'm a Republican politician), and since I know she likes sex, she's just spiting herself. Oh, and she's not allowed to make a decision unless "the disagreement is severe enough" and the person actually offended by those comments is not allowed to judge their severity.

Of course, that assumes she really does like sex, and isn't faking, but women don't do that, do they?

Do they??

Anyway, if, as you say, PAD's point of view is the opposite of that buried clause, in that he doesn't think that an entertainer insulting the President of the USA can ever reach the level of what we might call a boycottable offense.

Well, sure, Peter (and you) can "THINK" that, but that doesn't by any stretch of imagination make that absolute truth. I happen to think that it's a very boycottable offense, but that's just a difference of opinion, and I can respect that.

Honestly, the more I ponder this...I'm becoming far more offended by people telling me what I can and can't do than what the Dixie Chicks said. I can't believe the hypocrisy.

things have been getting too serious here, of late. may i present:

YIDDISH FILMS FOR 2003

1. GONIF WITH THE WIND - A thief tries to acquire ownership of Tara through

a forged deed.

2. THE PUTZMAN RINGS TWICE - A Mohel murder mystery.

3. SCHNORER RAE - A freeloader tries to get in on the union movement.

4. BALABOOSTA COCKBURN - John Wayne's wife memorizes Grossinger cookbook.

5. THE GOOD, THE CHABAD, AND THE UGLY - A kosher noodle western.

6. MOBY DRECK - Captain Ahab harpoons the wrong end of the whale.

7. THE CINCINNATI YID - Steve McQueen uses some of his poker winnings to

start a reform congregation.

8. LITVAK BIG MAN - Dustin Hoffman learns that his parents are an American

Indian and a Lithuanian immigrant.

9. THE SEDER HOUSE RULES... Zaydie lays down the law on Pesach.

10. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KIBBITZER - Paul Newman and Robert

Redford do standup shtick while they rob their victims.

11. BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KVETCH - the extras complain that whistling the

theme song dries out their mouth and hurts their lips.

12. THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LATKE - an overdone potato pancake turns

into a monster.

13. MAMZA POPPINS - A talented nanny has questions about her

birth-legitimacy.

14. THE MATZO CANDIDATE - Frank Sinatra is brainwashed into thinking that

it's always Passover.

15. MISTER SCHNAPPS GOES TO WASHINGTON -Jimmy Stewart thinks he's still

filming Harvey.

16. DRIEDELS OF THE LOST ARK - Harrison Ford plays Chanukah games.

17. ALEPH DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE - Neither the waitress nor the old

Hebrew school can be found.

18. BORSCHT-TIME FOR BONZO -Ronald Reagan tries to train an Ashkenazi

monkey.

19. SINGING IN THE CH'RAIN - Gene Kelly gets horseradish on his umbrella.

20. THE SIX CENTS... Three Jews each put in their two-cents' worth.

21. SNOW FALLING ON SEDERS... Unexpected storm disrupts Passover.

22. DREYDEL WILL ROCK... Chanukah toy comes alive.

23. OY OF THE BEHOLDER... Singles kvetch about their awful dates.

24. GOYS DON'T CRY... Rabbi explains why only Jews observe Tisha B'Av.

25. ISN'T SHE GEVALDIK... Yeshiva boys read Jacqueline Susann.

26. STUART LADLE... Mouse makes chicken soup for Shabbos.

27. THE GREEN MOYEL... Young man performs first circumcision.

28. MUN ON THE MOON... Astronauts discover hamantaschen filling on lunar

surface is not green cheese.

29. GOY STORY II... Jewish man divorces shiksa, marries another.

30. ANGELA'S KASHAS... Woman reveals secret recipes.

31. SUPERNOVA... Space scientists discover powerful strain of lox.

Travis:

Did I say it wasn't a right?

I dunno. Did I mention you by name? Or I was I making a rather general over-the-top statement?

Travis:

I said it was bad. As in my opinion that it was bad.

It smacks too much of Nazi Germany and McCarthy-ism.

I do agree that all the people trying to tell me and others we are somehow doing something wrong by choosing to exercise my rights does smack of Nazi Germany and McCarthyism, that is true.

Travis:

B) If you choose to express your opinion by burning books, please go ahead, because:

i) it shows your mindset

ii) it's the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.

iii) maybe you'll get arrested by burning books in a no burn zone.

Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks' right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person's right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That's what I call hypocrisy.

PAD:

Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there's one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their asses off to get into a position of national or even international attention.

And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here's a novel idea that I've seen no one broach. How about...you're not entitled to equal time? How about...they've earned it and you haven't?

Wow. Just...wow. OK, to counter, at the absolute most BASE level, how exactly does their status as entertainers give them the "earned" right to talk about politics? They didn't earn their stripes there, did they? Become elected, work for the people? Claw through local assemblies, state houses, governorships, national Congress? So why do they get a right to speak on politics?

And watch out when you mention John Q. Public. Travis might think you're singling him out.

PAD:

Every person who complains that they haven't got an equal platform with movie stars or entertainers is suffocating in jealousy. Drowning in it. So suffused with jealousy it's oozing out every pore. Because megastars worked and sacrificed and had the talent and dedication to get where they are...and other people don't. And because they don't, rather than aspire to get up to the level of these people whose opinions they resent, they endeavor to stab back at them, to drag them down. To say, "Hey, I put you on that platform and I can knock you down, sucker."

Also PAD:

Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it's rational?

I don't think I need to comment there. Except, you know, for that comment I just wrote.

PAD:

You want to find a practical way to show you oppose what the Dixie Chicks said?

I think we did find a practical way. It's just some people didn't like it. But it worked.

PAD:

Let the Dixie Chicks do what they can to support their VIEWS, and you do what you can to support your VIEWS, and stop trying to figure out how to stab back at the PEOPLE whose views you DON'T LIKE.

Again, I think we did find a way to support our views. It just wasn't a way you liked.

Wow. Just...wow. OK, to counter, at the absolute most BASE level, how exactly does their status as entertainers give them the "earned" right to talk about politics? They didn't earn their stripes there, did they? Become elected, work for the people? Claw through local assemblies, state houses, governorships, national Congress? So why do they get a right to speak on politics?

Wow. Just...wow.

I mean, am I that lousy of a writer that I can't make the simplest, clearest point without it being missed?

I wasn't referring to their right to speak on politics, although frankly, that's a question with such an obvious answer, I can't believe I must say it: They have a right to speak on politics because they're Americans and we live in a society which--theoretically--values opinions and the expression thereof.

I said specifically that they had "earned" national and international attention through their efforts and excellence at their professions. The question of rights (*sigh*) never entered into it.

I mean, c'mon, guys. I'm used to having my meaning distorted, but this is just getting ridiculous.

Again, I think we did find a way to support our views. It just wasn't a way you liked.

You're wrong. You didn't find a way to support your views. You found a way to try and get back at others who didn't share your views. It's two different things.

PAD

"Tim Lynch's response is a Senator has the power to DO something about his opinions, and a celebrity doesn't. My initial response is why did the celebrities form Not In My Name if their intention isn't to get

people to do something about their intentions."

Of course that's their intention.

It is, however, not in their immediate abilities. Nor yours. Nor mine. Nor Peter David's, for that matter.

For any of us to want to make our own biases, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies become law, we need to convince our elected representatives (at whatever level is relevant).

Rick Santorum, and I can't believe I'm pointing this out again, is one of those elected reps (okay, metaphorically for those of us not in PA, but you get the idea). He has a much more immediate and direct access to legislation than any of us does. As such, his words carry more power and thus must demand extra attention -- pro or con.

I fervently hope that viewpoint is sufficiently clear by now.

TWL

ii) it's the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.

Just for the record, I'm not a big fan of flag burning. I think it should remain a protected form of expression, but I personally would never utilize it in order to try and make a point. I think as an image it's too (honest to God, no pun intended) incendiary. No one burns a flag because they're trying to say burning flags is a great idea. They do it to try and draw attention to some cause they're supporting. But the image so enrages people that you don't have a prayer of convincing someone with an opposing viewpoint of the merits of your case. They'll be too busy being pissed off that you burned the flag.

Just seems to have extremely limited effectiveness, and I really don't think it's the way to go. Too many people have been wounded or died in defensive of the flag and what it stands for. Why diss them?

PAD

Those who disagree with Peter are generally expressing the following argument (and I'm paraphrasing here):

* I have the right to boycott anything I want.

* What criteria I use to determine where my money is spent is entirely up to me, and can't (and shouldn't) be dictated.

* The Dixie Chicks (or whoever) have their freedom of speech through the public stage; I have the freedom of speech through my purchasing power.

To points one and two, I agree wholeheartedly: You most assuredly have the right to boycott, and you can use whatever basis you want to purchase something (I'm sure there are people out there who bought a Korn album just because it had a Todd McFarlane cover). What Peter is (I believe) arguing is that, while you have the right it's not a rational course of action; that it's about the equivalent of saying, "I'm not going to buy that shirt," just because you don't like the way the store displayed it on a manequin. Just as an employer firing an employee solely for something he does outside the workplace isn't rational (well, nor is it legal, but that's moot to this particular discussion), so too is it irrational to not buy an artist's work for something he does outside his art. It's a legitimate reason for you because it's your reason, but that doesn't make it rational. And in the end, a point that is backed by rational decisions is generally received with more legitimacy.

As to the third point -- that spending is a means of responding to free speech -- well, that's a question that's seriously under debate, from a Constitutional perspective. That's no small part of what the debates over campaign finance reform were about, as I recall. Lobbying groups and businesses argued that their contributions were a form of expression, and therefore protected by the constitution; opponents disagreed. Now, I'm pretty sure no clear-cut legal decision was made in this arena (though, it's worth noting, some finance reform was passed), but it does demonstrate that this argument is on specious ground.

Of course, when it comes to the government taking action, an organized boycott would be a violation of the boycottee's rights, but I don't think the government is going to be telling people not to buy Dixie Chicks albums (unless they change their names to the French Chicks...).

(And, FWIW, I'm disinclined to agree that a large corporation organizing a boycott is legit, either, as that feels a bit too close to the whole monopoly principle. But I'm not even going to try to figure out where the law is on that one.)

Something occured to me tonight while I was thinking about this subject.

Do the Dixie Chicks even CARE if people boycott them? I mean, these girls are millionaires I would assume (not willing to invest the time to look up the net worth of the Dixie Chicks), or at least what I would consider filthy stinking rich. I think I could make a reasonable assumption that they could retire right now and never sell another record and be just fine.

Doesn't that mean the message is completely lost that's trying to be sent? Or is it only to feel "powerful" that people are doing it?

Just, just answer me this question : nobody expects me to VOTE for someone whose politics I disagree with, so why should I be made to feel guilty if I refuse to BUY something from someone's politics I disagree with?!? Just answer that simple question.

Okay. Because when you're voting for someone, you're selecting someone whose politics are in line with your own in the hopes that they will represent your personal interests and viewpoints in the government. They are your representative.

When you're buying someone's music because you like their music, there's no intrinsic reason for politics to enter into it, particularly if their music has nothing to do with their political opinions.

Call me if the Dixie Chicks start recording albums with songs like "Prune the Shrub" or "Go Screw the USA." Otherwise, again, the conscious decision to stop buying their albums is an act of intolerance stemming from a desire to punish someone with opinions other than yours.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason one might feel guilty is because they know they're doing something petty and wrong.

PAD

This is where the logic escapes me.

PAD:

When you're buying someone's music because you like their music, there's no intrinsic reason for politics to enter into it, particularly if their music has nothing to do with their political opinions.

The thing is, I hardly think the Dixie Chicks' concert goers bought those tickets to hear the group's opinions on politics. I agree there was no intrinsic reason for politics to come into the performer/fans relationship. But the boycotters also weren't the ones who brought politics into it. And for the life of me, I cannot see how it is petty or wrong for the fans to respond politically, and completely within the context of the purely economic relationship they have with the band, after the band brought politics into the equation. Truth is, bands perform, and the public responds by buying the product or not -- it's just how the system works.

I'm guessing the public did base their buying habits on the music alone, until the band brought politics up at the concert.

Schoolyard logic? Maybe. But why just blame the fans, when they didn't bring the politics into it in the first place? And moreso, why blame the fans while praising the performers?

Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks' right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person's right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That's what I call hypocrisy.

Again, I was talking about extremism. And the "no-burn" zone line is actually how people who get arrested for burning a flag are tried with.

My question was this... the way you phrased it "bad activism? tragically, it is a right"

seemed you were questioning whether or not it was bad. If you weren't, my fault.

It is a right to burn books. It's a right to be David Duke...

I just don't think it's good.

Do I agree with the sentiments of the Dixie Chicks... maybe... not really anyone's business but my own. Did they have the right to say it?

Yes.

Should they have said it where they did?

No. They should have said it in Austin, Texas, or Raleigh, NC. Overseas was too much bad taste.

And finally... yes we have a right to say what we want, and to boycott what we want, and to express ourselves in any fashion that does not physically hurt anyone (unless we get paid... then we're called professional sportsmen).

But, to paraphrase Stan Lee, with great rights come great responsibilities. You have the right to own a gun, but you also have the responsibility to make sure that your children don't get a hold of it, that you use it properly, etc. etc.

Same thing with speech, and all of our other freedoms.

People seem to forget this. And I will include the Dixie Chicks...

Travis

//I'm guessing the public did base their buying habits on the music alone, until the band brought politics up at the concert.//

Amazing, especially since people like U2, Sting, Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel and many others seem to infuse their politics with their music, and most people who listen to them don't care. And infuse their concerts with political rhetoric.

Watch Rattle and Hum, for an example. Or listen to Bullet The Blue Sky, Biko, Sunday Bloody Sunday, and a million others.

Artists have always been political.

Dante's Inferno, Milton's Paradise Lost, Steinbeck, Twain, Picasso, Michaelangelo...

Because, ahem, to sound trite - "Art imitates Life."

All art is, unless you're just a really bad, unimaginative artist - or just a singer, is the culmination of that artist's life.

Music and politics go hand in hand... Mozart had to please the king (that sounds dirty), and Elvis had to pose to go to war... Wagner was a supporter of the Nazis. In fact, I think we all should stop listening to the Ride of the Valkyries. (Not because of his Nazi ties, just because I'm really really really tired of that piece.)

My point is... well... whichever. I'm saying trying to get away from politics in music... just listen to Britney Spears... or any other singer. That's a surefire way to get away from it.

Travis

PAD:

**Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there's one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their asses off to get into a position of national or even international attention.

And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here's a novel idea that I've seen no one broach. How about...you're not entitled to equal time? How about...they've earned it and you haven't?**

Yep, the performers have worked hard to rise to the heights of their profession. However you seem to be equating that to earning the ability to speak publicly about politics with immunity to criticism. All they have earned is the ability to sell concert tickets, CD's or movie tickets. That's it! As citizens, they have are able to to speak in public about whatever they want but they need to remember that actions have consequences. And since all of the polls I've seen showed a majority of americans approve of the president and his actions concerning the war in Iraq, it should come as no suprise that there is a backlash against the Dixie Chicks.

-Jeff

And for the life of me, I cannot see how it is petty or wrong for the fans to respond politically, and completely within the context of the purely economic relationship they have with the band, after the band brought politics into the equation.

Then you never will.

That's okay. No one can comprehend everything.

PAD

Yep, the performers have worked hard to rise to the heights of their profession. However you seem to be equating that to earning the ability to speak publicly about politics with immunity to criticism.

Thank you for putting "seem to be" in front of the misstatement of my view, considering others have misstated it and haven't bothered with the qualifier.

I didn't say they should be immune to criticism. I said fans of their work who truly believe themselves to be advocates of free speech shouldn't try to turn around and penalize them just because they have different opinions.

A boycott isn't criticsm. It is punitive. It is a power play. It has jack-all to do with free expression or criticism and everything to do with trying to get back at someone with whom you disagree. It is unworthy of anywho who pretends to be an advocate of free speech.

Now if any of you have the guts to state clearly and for the record, "I don't believe that others should have the right to express an opinion different than mine, and if they do, I will try to hurt them if I can," go right ahead. That will at least be honesty.

PAD

Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks' right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person's right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That's what I call hypocrisy.

I missed something. What consequence was being called for to retaliate for people burning books? Aside from, y'know, being labeled as Nazi assholes?

PAD

Jeff, no one is suggesting that they are or should be immune to criticism. What Peter and others (including myself) are arguing is that boycotting is, at best, really ineffectual criticism or, at worst, not actually criticism at all, but coersion.

This is criticism. This is criticism. So they definitely are receiving it, and I don't hear anyone saying word one about abolishing it. Why? Because no one should be saying anything like that; because this is America, and free speech is one of our basic rights.

But voting with our dollars is, at best, a questionable form of "speech" (see my above post), and rarely effective on the individual level.

I'm not sure I'm getting it. Sorry for being dense.

The Chicks use the platform that the buyers have given them (by buying their work and making them a sought after commodity) in a manner that some buyers don't like. They withhold their buying because they feel that the Chicks have misused the platform they've been given. They aren't saying the Chicks can't speak out, just that they aren't going to financially support them.

Again, I'm not of that ilk (because I don't buy anyone's CDs), and I don't feel strongly about them one way or the other, but if other people do feel strongly, why SHOULDN'T they withhold their financial support? It isn't like the Chicks are going to be "hurt" in any way (obviously no more than they hurt those offended).

Artists do not exist in a vacuum. They must cater to their patrons if they want their support.

Not providing the Chicks financial support when a person feels they are behaving immorally is not immoral.

Death threats aside (and those people should be prosecuted), the Chicks have gotten the message. They are free to speak idiotically if they want, but their patrons have made themselves heard.

I do like your point about people earning the forums they speak from, but let's remember who put them there. If you hired a nanny who taught your children to hate Isreal, I'm thinking you'd take retaliatory measures to hurt her by firing her sorry tush.

Or would you keep her on?

It seems to me that the issue is not one of free speech, but a poor understanding of the Dixie Chicks traditional audience, which, I'm assuming, is a conservative, southern base. Given that the Dixie Chicks are both individuals and a business, I believe it was a poor business decision to utter those fateful words that night in England. Although the reaction in the press and some of the irate fans has clearly crossed the line (death threats, violence), I can't for the life of me understand why the Dixie Chicks didn't see this coming. It's called knowing your audience.

The fact that Maines chose to make her remarks to an audience that paid to see her and the Dixie Chicks perform songs also strikes me as wrong. As wrong as an individual using his/her buying power to punitively attack the artist by boycotting any products from the band. Had Maines exercised her rights in a public forum and not a concert that fans paid to attend, I think she'd be in a better position to claim that the punishment is not proportionate to the mistake.

I'm also curious as to what others think when liberals use a boycott, as they did successfully against Dr. Laura's tv show last year. Is this wrong as well or is it okay because you agree with the viewpoint?

I'm sure I buy much from people who hold a view I disagree with, and will continue to do so. Robin Williams is the only actor who's ever been in movies that made me cry (ironic, seeing as he's most often known for his comedy.) Peter swings to the left of some of my own views, but he writes a damned fine book.

What I've held to is that I support the right of the Dixie Chicks to make their statement, and I support the right of the boycotters to make their rebuttal. When the government steps in to stop either side, let's all join hands and rage against that, shall we? :)

(Meanwhile, the only boycott I've ever done personally is against Exxon; until the restitution is made to the Alaskan fisherman for the Valdez, as ordered by the courts, I'll continue to get my gas anywhere other than at the sign of the double-cross. Just my opinion, you're free to have another.)

A boycott isn't criticsm. It is punitive. It is a power play. It has jack-all to do with free expression or criticism and everything to do with trying to get back at someone with whom you disagree. It is unworthy of anywho who pretends to be an advocate of free speech.

That is such obvious BS that I'm actually ashamed you wrote it., For one thing it makes no distinction between those who have honestly boycotted to send a message and those who do just want to punish. I know you know the distinction exists because you pointed it out yourself in your post about the burning flag. Apparently, you've fallen victim to the same kneejerk inability to separate the message from the offense. Boycotting seems to be your "burning flag".

The boycotting seems to have ticked you off more than the alleged death threats the Chicks claim they received. What I find somewhat amusing about that is that the people who sent the death threats did what you suggested. "If you disagree with someone, say it with words...".

OK, I couldn't read all of the posts(darn phone service being interrupted and all) but,...

I find it odd that Diane Sawyer never mentioned the fact that the radio stations spearheading the boycott of the Dixie Chicks are owned by Clear Channel.

I also find it odd that noone boycotts someone like Toby Keith for being pro war. I mean, pro war?? C'mon!

Lastly, I can only hope Santorum is voted out of office on the day his son comes out of the closet.

Col

Damn, I love a good arguement/debate! While PAD and I probably will never agree on the "A boycott isn't criticsm. It is punitive" statement (and I know he's losing sleep over it...LOL), I'm glad he's got this forum and allows others to participate. Peter, thank you.

I do like your point about people earning the forums they speak from, but let's remember who put them there.

They did. They themselves did.

Perhaps that's what people don't seem to grasp. There's this recurring theme: "We put them there." As if it was great burst of altruism, sone generous and selfless act on the part of the audience. And because of this selflessness and generosity, the peformers owe them to not step beyond the boundaries that the audience places upon them.

What a load of crap.

They put THEMSELVES on the world scene. They did it by creating a body of work so commanding, so attractive, that people bought their albums because they like the albums and go to their concerts because they like the music. Audiences didn't do this out of selflessness. They did it because they themselves were entertained.

They did the work. Audiences then noticed the work and bought it, but they didn't "put" them anywhere.

PAD

That is such obvious BS that I'm actually ashamed you wrote it.

Oh, Christ, spare me.

For one thing it makes no distinction between those who have honestly boycotted to send a message and those who do just want to punish.

That's because there is no distinction. The only message being "sent" by those who boycott in the name of opinions they don't like is, "I'm going to try and punish you for saying this." The only honesty would be if people admitted that's what they were doing, instead of hiding behind high-flown rhetoric.

I know you know the distinction exists because you pointed it out yourself in your post about the burning flag.

And that rates a big "huh?" My post about flagburning was that it was a less-than-effective means of expression that I personally wouldn't undertake because it would muddy my message. My point about boycotts is that they aren't a means of expressing an opinion at all, but instead a strong-arm controlling tactic undertaken to be punitive.

Your endeavor to try and combine the two is so outlandish that, frankly, I'm actually ashamed you...nah, I'm kidding. I expected it.

PAD

I'm also curious as to what others think when liberals use a boycott, as they did successfully against Dr. Laura's tv show last year. Is this wrong as well or is it okay because you agree with the viewpoint?

This is going to drive you nuts, because people keep smugly thinking they can pigeon-hole me. But I was asked about this over on my AOL board a while back (a place where Eclark regularly showed up to disagree with me about pretty much everything) and I'll say it again: I took no joy whatsoever in her being hounded off the air. I think her opinions were wrongheaded, but there's lots of people on the air with wrongheaded opinions. Frankly, part of me even wonders if the reason they were able to get her out of there was because she was a woman.

PAD

Thank you for responding, if only to that part.

And no surprise, I disagree. There are a lot of people who have put together a body of work that is sound, well-crafted and went nowhere.

Artists work their butts off, and whether they (we, since I am one, too) admit it or not, they gear their work to the audience and the audience rewards them by paying for their work.

The audience puts you there, and you either cultivate it or you split (to quote William Goldman "I'm too old and too rich to put up with this crap.")

Artistic success is an equation: Hard Work+Good Choices+Audience Love = Success. Remove any one of those and your equation is broken.

Artistic success is an equation: Hard Work+Good Choices+Audience Love = Success. Remove any one of those and your equation is broken.

No.

Artistic success is measured purely by whether the art measures up to the artist's standards, and whether it affects the viewer on some sort of emotional level (ideally that which the artist intended.) Beginning, middle, end of artistic success.

You're confusing it with commercial success, and that is not--repeat, NOT--something that occurs through some sort of awards system conceived by the audience. Audiences are too mercurial, too fickle, too disloyal to pat themselves on the back and take any credit for putting artists where they are. To put it in its baldest terms, it's like lions patting themselves on the back because they were clever enough to be captured by trappers.

Commercial success comes from artists being clever enough, innovative enough, lucky enough, dedicated and gutsy enough to attract, entice, and hold onto their audience. Probably the absolute master of this is Madonna. She has been reinventing herself for twenty years. Do you credit her success to the audience sticking with her? No. You credit it to her for continually coming up with new ways to MAINTAIN her audience.

Audiences, by nature, do not remain. They wander away. Always. Audiences are one collective Dark Willow: Constantly teetering on the edge of announcing "Bored now."

PAD

You know, there is something here I think just has to be said.

Who cares what the celebrities think? I mean, Martin Sheen may be a very intelligent man, I don't know, but the fact that he is an actor does not make him any more knowledgeable about foreign or domestic affairs than he would be otherwise. Natalie Maines is a young woman from a family of musicians and if she graduated from high school that's as far as her formal education goes. She's famous because she can sing, and as PAD pointed out she put in a lot of work. Her political opinions don't bother me, and I doubt they bother the President. In the same way, it doesn't bother me that Viggo Mortensen chooses in real life to speak more like Grima Wormtongue than Aragorn. I'm not going to deprive myself of the "Lord of the Rings" movies because of it.

Now, the manner in which she expressed her opinions -- and she wasn't being critical of the President, she was being insulting -- does bother me. I won't be buying her CD for the time being because I simply wouldn't enjoy listening to it. I don't consider it punitive. The amount of money Natalie Maines would be missing due to missing one CD sale probably wouldn't buy her a stick of gum.

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that people are reacting on a very emotional level. We're talking about someone who publically slammed someone whom a lot of us like and respect. Furthermore the man is the Head of State and she did it on a foreign stage. That is going to upset people. Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music (as can be demonstrated by the number of patriotic hit songs in country as compared to pop, rock, or other) and a backlash is inevitable. That's not being petty or vindictive -- that's being human. I do think it will blow over eventually, especially if Natalie manages to say something about the incident that sounds intelligent (which doesn't seem likely). If she had just said she was opposed to the war, there might still have been a backlash, but it would have been a lot smaller.

I certainly wouldn't support blacklisting or organized boycotts in this case. It just seems to me like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. I hope that if PAD does buy "Home" he enjoys it. And if he does like it, may I suggest the music of Alison Krauss with or without Union Station. I have no idea what her political views are.

This is going to drive you nuts, because people keep smugly thinking they can pigeon-hole me. But I was asked about this over on my AOL board a while back (a place where Eclark regularly showed up to disagree with me about pretty much everything) and I'll say it again: I took no joy whatsoever in her being hounded off the air.

Well, I didn't show up JUST to disagree with you. We just happened not to see eye to eye on everything from the environment to whether kids should be allowed in R-rated movies.

It wasn't just you, though. Just before I left AOL I got into it with Kurt Busiek about NAMBLA and some license plates in Florida. Most of our disagreements though, then and now, seem to deal with how far to take Free Speech.

I had this same argument about boycotts with you about the Bill Maher incident following 9/11. Apparently neither of us has changed our position on the subject. At least you're consistent in your views, and I like that.

Robert: Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music

I'm hoping, Robert, that what you meant was "country music fan base skews more conservative". Because I just feel it's wrong to declare one group more "patriotic" than another based solely on their tendency to wear their national pride on their sleeve. Yes, you're more likely to find "God bless the U.S.A."-type songs in country music, but you're equally likely to find "Give peace a chance"-type songs in pop/rock, and the composers of both types no doubt feel they are being patriotic.

I just think it's an important distinction to make.

Robert: Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music

Alan : I'm hoping, Robert, that what you meant was "country music fan base skews more conservative". Because I just feel it's wrong to declare one group more "patriotic" than another based solely on their tendency to wear their national pride on their sleeve. Yes, you're more likely to find "God bless the U.S.A."-type songs in country music, but you're equally likely to find "Give peace a chance"-type songs in pop/rock, and the composers of both types no doubt feel they are being patriotic.

I just think it's an important distinction to make.

Very important Alan. Patriotism means : Love of and devotion to one's country

It does not mean absolute blind "no matter what the government does, we support it."

Nor does it mean, just because I scream it loud, I'm a patriot, and if you don't you're not.

Patriotism is many things. Including the right to love this country so much that you criticize it and the government.

Oh... and in the end... the government and the country are two separate entities.

Just because I disagree with the government, does not mean that I do not support our country.

Travis

Hmmmm. Good points, PAD. Well supported. Will ponder.

Do you think artists "owe" anything to their fans?

I very deliberately chose "patriotic" versus "conservative" when describing country-western songs because what I'm describing is not about political philosophy. It's about love of country, and specifically love of America. "Give Peace a Chance" is not a patriotic song, though those who listen to it may be patriotic (and I don't think John Lennon would be described as patriotic in any sense of the word, nor would he want to be). How many pop, rock, or rap songs are pro-America or use American imagery in a non-ironic way?

If you like, you can assume that when I used the word "patriotic" I was referring to "God Bless the USA" (an insipid song, by the way) style patriotism. There was no intention to say that anybody else was not patriotic. Heck, I don't even own a flag.

**Hmmmm. Good points, PAD. Well supported. Will ponder.

Do you think artists "owe" anything to their fans?**

Of course. They owe their best effort. If people are plunking down good money for your artistic endeavors, you better give it your all every time. Your best won't always be *the* best. You can't knock it out of the park every time. But at the very least, you should always be looking to make contact.

PAD

Sorry, I just couldn't read all of the comments listed here... So many great thoughts and views... Mind if I share a few???

The Dixie Chicks, much like nearly everyone in the entertainment business, are a product. Individually they are Americans, but as a group they are a product. I won't say anything about my rights, I think Mr. David has made his point perfectly clear, but I wanted to put a different spin on it... ;)

If a chocolate candy company started putting large amounts of Alum in their products, I would get extremely sour chocolate. I wouldn't buy it anymore, becuase hey, who wants sour chocolate?

I saw what Ms. Maines said at her concert, and anytime I hear their music (part of the Dixie Chicks product), I will also get that sensation of a sour taste in my mouth. Whether it is from a CD that I have bought, or a radio station here in DFW, I will move on to something else. Wrapped in a term like 'Boycott' makes it easier to categorize, that's really all.

The public at large has the opportunity to decide on whether the actions of Ms. Maines has impacted the overall DC product. Their actions, words, views, musicianship, and lyrics are all part of the same product. You really cannot separate them. Try as you might, people will not buy the best of candies from Satan. (Not saying that DC = Satan, just making the point)

If Osama bin Laden were a country musician, would you believe that not buying his CD's was wrong as well? Yes, I know its a stretch, I saw that before as well, but you have asked us to separate the views of the individuals from the product imprinted on the Compact Discs. I just don't see how that is justifiable.

I was going to ignore this post some more, but I had a further thought about my earlier rantings, PAD. You avoided my accusation the way you avoid 9/10 of all accusations that are levelled against you, and that is by finding a loophole in a secondary point and then saying that the entire accusation is not correctly levelled against the point you are discussing. Sometimes you avoid the more important parts of the accusation by ideologically throwing yourself under a lesser part of the accusation. That is annoying, and not in any way that should flatter you. I certainly take pride in the fact that I will not align with parties unless *they* happen to agree with *me* on the point at hand, but I earn this pride by critically examining all sides with the same scrutiny.

The point was that you indicate your allegiance by what you decide to speak out against and when you decide to speak out. Your (and everyone else's, respectively) beliefs and character are most accurately indicated by what you do, not by what you say. In this case, "what you do" is choose when to speak out. "What you say" is the exact choice of words. I am hardly concerned with your exact choice of words.

I am concerned about the selectivity you use when choosing to speak out, and by the fact that you claim an unjustified degree of fairness when you say you aren't really anti-conservative. I don't have a problem with bias. I have a problem with bias that is hidden behind a claim of impartiality. That's why I don't like Fox News (conservatives hiding behind a facade of impartiality) and it is also why I find issue your political comments, even when we agree (as we do in part here).

Anyway, to the thread thesis: Certainly, I will refuse to buy whatever I want: nobody would recommend to me that I have no choice in how I spend my music money. However, I will not try to silence the Dixie Chicks or violate their right to speak in any way. I will point out that fame/notariety is absolutely no indicator of a person's knowledge of political issues. I think what people are really concerned about is that they recognize most people are swayed by the fame and status (as elements of power) backing up an opinion, not by the logic of an opinion. That makes the annoyed parties want to control what famous people say. In principal and in legality, it is an undefendable position because famous people have rights too. In this flawed world that we live in, where Platonic forms are no more than aspirations, they have a *moral* (not legal) point when saying that people should be careful to say what they mean. Famous people should be doubly careful, as their opinion carries more weight and has more extenuating consequences, no matter the source of their fame.

Now, concerning boycots: I agree that they can be ineffective in certain cases. This is one of those cases, in which they are used to shut up a person. They may have said what they said in the first place for greed, because they realized they were now in a crowd of people who would agree with that opinion. That part of the hypothesis is unprovable (as it establishes the assumption that we can never trust them at all, and cannot reliably get their position on anything no matter what), so we have to settle for the other, simpler, part: that they did. This serves to force a falsely held opinion onto the performer. The idea is that the boycot will be broken once they decide to agree with their fans. That is dishonest, because it is assumed that their artistic expression stems from who they are: including their world/political views. I wouldn't trust a person who all of a sudden broke that kind of boycot because the performer started saying something else. I would be in favor of not buying their CD's any more, because nobody is forced to appreciate any artist's work. That work is, as partially stated above, a function of AND expression of a particular world view, and I can choose not to buy art that offends my world view. I don't buy Eminem's CD's, even though I feel that he has some degree of talent, because I don't agree with his channelling of that talent. I could do the same thing with the Dixie Chicks if I wanted, but it would be a personal boycot alone and is as pristine from moral fault as any kind of disagreement can be (a long book can be written on the subject of hypocrisy if it is interpreted broadly). Even if it were an organized boycot, that remains within my rights, but not within morality if the standard procedures of boycotting are observed. That's all my opinion.

Durn it! I see there's a couple of editing errors I left in my post that garbled some meaning. I meant this:

In this flawed world that we live in, where Platonic forms are no more than aspirations, they have a *moral* (not legal) obligation to be certain that they say what they mean. Famous people should be doubly careful, as their opinion carries more weight and has more extenuating consequences, no matter the source of their fame. That's a matter of conscience. Can we all deal with the consequences of what we say, even when it results in hurting certain others?

and...

so we have to settle for the other, simpler, part of the hypothesis: that they meant what they said.

"I am concerned about the selectivity you use when choosing to speak out, and by the fact that you claim an unjustified degree of fairness when you say you aren't really anti-conservative."

I'm not anti-conservative. I'm anti-stupidity. I dislike liberal stupidity as much as conservative stupidity. I have great tolerance for opinions that are well thought out and expressed, even if they don't concur with mine. I have little tolerance for stupid opinions. I don't suffer fools gladly. I wish I did.

"Now, concerning boycots: I agree that they can be ineffective in certain cases. This is one of those cases, in which they are used to shut up a person."

That may well be your opinion, but it's not mine. I don't see boycotts being done to shut people up. I see them as childish, control-freak, punitive measures taken by people who truly value free speech...as long as it's their own.

PAD

Perhaps no one is reading comments on entries this old, but I have to ask. How is it that the guy who asked Spider-Man to stop the criminal was a private security guard? I just happened to read Amazing Fantasy 15 in Essential Spider-Man and I checked out issue 275 just to be sure. The guy who asked Pete to stop the criminal seems to have PD on his collar and threatens to "run in" Spider-Man for his failure to help. He was also at the Parker house beside a police car when he told Peter his uncle was shot. He was then at the warehouse seemingly in charge of the scene, and was called Captain by another character.

It's true in issue 200 the same officer was shown working as a private security guard, but some police officers take those jobs when they retire. So what is it I'm missing?

--

Burt Ward, and no, not *that* one.