Just got this e-mail from Dave Seidman. Being out in the sticks, I doubt I’ll have the opportunity to see this film in theaters, but…
“Back in 2003, when one of the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush,
conservatives denounced the Chicks, and radio networks and radio
networks refused to play their records, I think you announced on your
website that you bought a Dixie Chicks CD, just to support their right
to free speech and defy the denouncers.
I just got back from a screening of SHUT UP AND SING, a documentary
about the controversy. The directors (who were at the screening) said
that — in a replay of 2003’s radio blackout — the film is facing some
of the same resistance that the Dixie Chicks did. For instance, NBC is
refusing to accept or air paid ads for the film.
So I’m passing on a recommendation to you and others to see the film.
I don’t think it’ll disappoint you. It’s an interesting story well
told. Besides, the music’s terrific (and I’m not a Dixie Chicks fan).”
A week from today, we’ll have a chance to see just how much the rest of the population has caught up with the sentiments the Chicks expressed.
PAD
• 
btw, I’m not a Reba/TK/Country music fan, but I understand how those that are might have felt. (And again not the maniacs issuing threats- the “normal” country music fan.)
I honestly do believe she can say whatever she wants. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
The first word of the First Amendment is often ignored, but is extremely important. “Congress” as in “Congress Shall Make No Law”
Yes, I know. I beat you to the punch on that one.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
Private businesses (radio stations, newspapers, magazines) have every right to decide what they promote.
Again, that point’s already been made.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
As long as Congress doesn’t step in, no rights have been violated. Not even the spirit.
Untrue. If someone is silenced, they’re silenced, whether the government does it or private industry.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it.
No, they are not required to publish it. As I said, that point has already been made.
Your analogy nevertheless fails because Highlights wouldn’t be censoring political speech but merely sticking with their core competency: wholesome children’s material. Nothing would stop a would-be pørņ writer from submitting to magazines that feature pørņ.
The radio stations that boycotted the Dixie Chicks were country stations — featuring just the sort of music that the Dixie Chicks played.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
Of course, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton taught us that. If a radio station decides to play controversial artist X, or decides not to play controversial artist Y, there is likely to be a response from listeners. They have a decision to make. But it is their decision to make.
Yes, that point has already been made. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean it is wise. Stifling political speech also has consequences, regardless of whether it is done by the government or corporate America. In the latter case, it may be legal, but it still has the same effect: limiting the public dialog.
They may have the right, but that doesn’t mean it is right. And it doesn’t preclude my right to criticize them for it.
Nothing on the free marketplace of ideas?
Well, now we know who’s been paying attention in class….The basis of free speech is not for governments only…
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, nor freedom from rebuttal.
I never said that it was.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
It simply means that the government cannot stifle you.
Yes, I already made that point.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hëll they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad.
Agreed.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
No one said they did. But there are two separate issues that you are conflating. The First Amendment merely protects us (or is supposed to protect us, at any rate) from government interference with our right to free speech. But free speech is a much bigger concept than the wording of the First Amendment. It’s about the public discourse, and having access to a free marketplace of ideas.
Corporations are well within their legal rights to silence political opinions. I never said otherwise. So, rather than arguing with a straw man of your own creation, I’d rather you engage the argument I’m actually making:
When corporate America silences political speech, we are the poorer for it — regardless of the letter of the law.
(By the way, Jay, I really am happy to engage anyone in debate. You seem like an intelligent fellow and, while I am a liberal, I recognize the value in the conservative ideology. And frankly, I’m sure there is a logical counter-argument to the position I’ve advanced. It’s just that I believe the counter-argument you’ve offered thus far is a counter to an argument I actually haven’t made.)
Posted by: roger tang at October 31, 2006 05:09 PM
Nothing on the free marketplace of ideas?
There is now. You must’ve posted that while I was still writing my last post.
Patience, my young Jedi… 🙂
“Some fans were not burning their cds and issuing threats, but liked what the Dixie Chicks used to do and still liked Toby Keith and Reba.”
1) I always took that as more of a swipe at Keith and continuing their public spitting contest. POV.
2) Still came well after the blow up. They could feel that they have very few fans left that fall into that group. There was also a bit more to that interview then what the Chicks’ detractors pointed out with that quote. I read it online when it came out and went away thinking that the quote had been pulled more then just a wee bit out of context.
“The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it.”
Hmmmmm… I don’t know if that really fits here though. To work, the Chicks would have to be out there claiming that they were being treated unfairly because the Metal stations refuse to play their country songs along with Ace of Spades, Hunter Killer and Dark Wings, Dark Words. not what they’re doing.
This is closer to a best selling writer with a good sales record in childrens stories submitting a fantastic story to Highlights Magazine that fits their target demo 100% and being refused because he or she stumped for a local Pol that the owner of the mag doesn’t like.
The Chicks didn’t change their music, they didn’t write a song like The Burning Bush (Flogging Molly) and they didn’t even throw a few cute refs in their work about Bush sucking and got caught after the fact. They spoke their minds outside of their recorded work.
And the result was that they got all their songs, even long time faves from well before the comment’s uttering, pulled from the air and they had some really dishonest attacks (par for the course for the media conservatives) thrown at them.
“caught up” or fallen behind?
Bill, I’d return your kind words, but I suspect we’d get a chorus of “get a room, you two!” Rather, let’s just say they’re reciprocated — and then some.
In fact, consider yourself invited to come on over to Wizbang and kick around whatever you like. We tend to be a bit more politically oriented than PAD’s pad.
(I’m very curious to hear his take on last night’s Heroes, and the latest word on the next New Frontiers novel — all of which I own.)
I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don’t think it applies here. I didn’t follow it too closely, but it seemed to me that the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was, largely, a “grass roots” thing. Radio stations — even giant conglomerates — don’t, as a rule, start such movements, they simply try to stay ahead of them. Their ideology is purely financial; if they thought they could make more money by playing the DCs rather than not, they’d put ’em on 24/7.
I still think it boils down to this: the DCs (well, Natalie Maines) said some things in a concert appearance. The fact that she personalized the insult to Bush, chose a concert venue to make it, and did it outside the country (quite a few people still think that “politics should end at the water’s edge”) as something they found morally repugnant, and decided they no longer wanted to subsidize such things.
(If I’m wrong, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. As I said, I didn’t follow it too closely at the time, and still find it a trifle dull.)
By the way, “Shut Up And Sing” was the title of a book by conservative author and talk-show host Laura Ingraham, and the Dixie Chicks were, I believe, among the entertainers she discussed. I wonder if she’s getting any royalties, or at least rates a thank-you in the liner notes?
J.
“‘That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.’
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?”
YES. absolutely yes. People should only say popular things.
Alright.. my last one was just a stupid joke… but this is serious – – >
Luigi Novi: “What really pìššëš me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hëll. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush”
PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution? They’re still country music singers! They’re still three fems who do nothing but sing for a farking living! Wait! Wait! No. I get it. Let’s compare it to stuff in real history that could actually count as a persecution and see if the haranguing that these three fems that make more-than-a-healthy-living-out-of-simply-performing-and-recording-music actually counts as persecution!
“Suffered”!? Let’s pick new words. You knowk, if what they have gotten counts as suffering, I want a piece of that.
I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don’t think it applies here. I didn’t follow it too closely, but it seemed to me that the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was, largely, a “grass roots” thing.
I’d be more amenable to that if it had ocurred over a period of a month or a month and a half. Even in these days of the internet, it usually takes that long for commercial trends to get traction and penetrate the noggins of corporate bean counters.
However, my recollection was that the Dixie Chicks got yanked off the air within a week. That points to me a lot more of corporate fear of a backlash, rather than a backlash itself. It’s not clear the negative sentiment (which truly existed) was substantial or just from a loud, small minority. (Though i could be proven wrong on that)
“I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don’t think it applies here.”
Really?
Cumulus Media, America’s second-largest broadcasting company, helped set up some of the CD bulldozing events and reportedly sent out an order that banned the group on all of its stations’ playlists. There were reports around here that the Clear Channel country stations were getting tons of calls to PLAY the Chicks stuff but told callers they wouldn’t because of word from higher up the food chain.
NBC and CW are doing it now. They’ve run ads for films of all types of late. Why not this? Corporate censorship reasons. Weinstein has sent out copies of clearance reports from NBC’s standards and practices department with handwritten notations stating the ads were deemed unacceptable because “they are disparaging of President Bush.” That’s the only reason. It’s not nice to Bush.
We can’t have a negative opinion of Bush on their nets, but gross out stuff (that I love by the way) like ads for Saw III, Hostel and Chainsaw DVDs and Turistas in the family hour is just fine? I hope they get jammed up hard by Weinstein.
“However, my recollection was that the Dixie Chicks got yanked off the air within a week.”
Hëll, it took less then a week around here.
I should point out that the above was meant to be, “We can’t have ads with a negative opinion of Bush on their nets,…”
I meant ads there. Nothing on their nets like that and Leno is in the soup line.
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.
***************
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?
**************
SER: This just poppped into my head — if Jay-Z or Kanye West or any other rapper had said that they were ashamed Jesse Jackson came from South Carolina or (insert black leader and place of origin here), there would be some fall-out. Heck, look at how Jesse Jackson went after BARBERSHOP because of some jokes about Rosa Parks and MLK.
This isn’t so much of an “is it fair or not” argument but more about putting things into perspective. A “hardcore” rapper saying he’s pro-Bush would have about as much backlash with his base as it did for the Dixie Chicks when they bashed Bush.
In many ways, the music business is politics. Public Enemy never realistically expected mainstream, conservative whites to buy their albums or go to their shows (though the kids of mainstream, conservative whites certainly did). However, I bet they were still aware of their audience and would have thought twice of dissing, say, Farrakhan in public.
“Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?”
Mike Sweeney (KC Royals), Jeff Suppan (StL Cardinals), and Kurt Warner (AZ Cardinals, formerly StL Rams) are all currently appearing in a campaign ad with Patricia Heaton, aimed at Missouri, quoting bad and pseudo-science, trying to defeat a state amendment that would protect and promote stem-cell research.
Curt Schilling all but dedicated his part in the Boston Red Sox 2004 World Series Championship to Bush.
I couldn’t disagree more with their positions, but I don’t respect them any less. I’ll remain a fan of Sweeney forever, unless he pulls a Kenny Rogers and attacks someone.
High profile athletes and entertainers have as much right as anyone else to speak up and speak out, and I don’t feel they should be punished or even specially rewarded for doing so.
Wildcat
“It seems like Maines made a tossed-off remark — an insult — that backfired.”
She made her statement during a concert in the UK (I think) on their European tour. She made it in the spirit of “we’re Texans, and we’re Americans, and not *all* of us agree with our President.” Obviously not her exact words. She was speaking to *that* audience, and not necessarily calling out Bush.
The “outrage” stemmed from pundits *here* saying it was “unpatriotic” for the band to say such things in foreign countries. As if their freedom of speech should no longer apply once they leave the US. And it wasn’t a “grassroots” backlash, as the storm was whipped up almost entirely by the radio whack-jobs and the corporate owners of those stations that blacklisted their albums.
When they returned to tour in the US, they continued to play to sold-out crowds, so it’s not as if the *fans* were insulted. That’s not to say some weren’t of course, but for the most part, those would seem to have been in the minority.
Wildcat
1i brought my wife to see it this past weekend. it was very well done.
Ugh, I heard a story on NPR this morning about Bush speaking in Sugarland (near Houston). They interviewed a few of the supporters there, and sure enough, one of them mentions the Dixie Chicks. Something about how he was ashamed they were from Texas. What that had to do with the mid-term elections is beyond my ken.
That kind of crap just irritates the heck out of me. Sure, on the surface he’s really only confirming that he’s an idiot, obsessing over a way overblown incident that happened three years ago. But he’s also helping confirm that all the rest of us Texans are idiots, too. And I’m sure I don’t have to mention the hypocrisy inherent in the fabricated controversy.
I’m not really a fan, per se, (though my wife is) but I’ll try to catch the film.
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry’s comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry’s comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Of course, that’s not what Kerry said.
Kerry was referring to the Bush Administration’s idiocy and lack of intelligence.
That much was evident by listening/reading to the ENTIRE section of his comments, rather than the single one that that dámņëd liberal media is going to single out (ie, the part the right-wing attack machine went after today).
Unfortunately, in spectacularly Kerry fashion, he mucked it up.
Kerry, the gift that keeps on giving…to Karl Rove.
I doubt this will stop the Democrats from winning the house but it will hopefully slow whatever tiny momentum kerry may have in getting another shot at the nomination so in that way the party–and all of us–win.
Someone upthread mentioned the US considering deporting John Lennon for speaking out – in the late 40s/50s, the great black actor/singer Paul Robeson’s passport was pulled because he refused to sign an agreement saying that he wouldn’t talk about the US civil rights situation while abroad.
They even pulled out a wartime “emergency” regulation and forbade him going to Canada to perform.
So, in 1952, his supporters set up a stage on a flatbed truck just this side of the Canadian border, and he played to a crowd variously estimated as twenty to forty thousand.
(I have a blog post that talks a litle about this, as well as other tings, at http://mog.com/fairportfan/blog_post/20972)
but it will hopefully slow whatever tiny momentum kerry may have in getting another shot at the nomination so in that way the party–and all of us–win.
The funny (or sad, depending on your POV) part is when Kerry got all fired up when respond to what the White House said.
Only 2 years too late…
Kerry’s a buffoon. I know he wasn’t really insulting the troops. But what a buffoon, to once again, put something out there that the opposition can easily twist and run with. He’s seen their strategy, and you’d think he’d be a little more careful now. I remember during the last election, the Democrats worried his wife’s mouth would be a liability. They should’ve been more worried about his. Ðûmbášš. Now he gets fired-up, as a last-ditch effort at damage control. Good luck, John.
Jay Tea: The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hëll they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad. But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
Luigi Novi: No, but they have a right to be free from death threats, the right to say whatever the hëll they please publicly (as opposed to the gentleman in the film who stated that “Free speech is fine as long as you don’t do it publicly”), and the right to demand that they not be persecuted by communications monopolies beholden to the Bush administration, which are the actual points made in the film.
Luigi Novi: What really pìššëš me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hëll. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush…
Blue Spider: PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution?
Luigi Novi: The death threats. The accusation that they were “traitors”. The assertion that their right to free speech was only acceptable if they didn’t “do it publicly.” The fact that public perception, the media and radio stations were manipulated by a concerted effort by the right-wing group Free Republic, as if the public was somehow incapable of making up its own mind about them. That sorta thing.
Next question.
Blue Spider: They’re still country music singers! They’re still three fems who do nothing but sing for a farking living! Wait! Wait! No. I get it. Let’s compare it to stuff in real history that could actually count as a persecution and see if the haranguing that these three fems that make more-than-a-healthy-living-out-of-simply-performing-and-recording-music actually counts as persecution!
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure why you use the qualifiers “nothing but” and “simply” when referring to their chosen vocation, as if that’s somehow not a legitimate occupation, nor do I see why the fact that they’re “fems” is any way relevant to this, but if you believe that this mitigates the fact that they were threatened, had their patriotism challenged and had their free speech rights questioned, then I respectfully disagree.
Jay Tea: Then they had a chance to either put it all behind them or try to shape it into something more palatable. Instead, they kept up the defiant, in-your-face attitude with their last single, “Not Ready To Make Nice.”
Luigi Novi: Really? Hmmm……let’s look at some of the lyrics of that song:
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hëll and I don’t have time to go ’round and ’round and ’round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hëll
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
Hmm. They’re still mad at the way they were treated? They don’t think they should do what others think they should? Well, that’s pretty unreasonable.
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge that they’d write me a letter sayin’ that I better shut up and sing or my life will be over
Whoa. They’re mad at the death threats? Geez, what a trio of bìŧçhëš.
Now for some sane analysis.
The song is not “in your face”, at least no more than any other song written by someone with a strong, powerful message to say, someone who’s rightfully angry at an injustice. If it is in your face, then I’d say more power to them. Perhaps you should go elsewhere for music that’s lukewarm, milquetoast, ambiguous, and devoid of personal vision and experience.
Palatable? I LOVED this song. I just downloaded it, and it was the first song by them that I ever heard entirely. I heard it in the trailer, but only when I connected the title that you indicatd, “Not Ready to Make Nice”, did I realize that it was that song, because I remembered that lyric in the trailer. And I loved it. It was the purest form of art: An artist talking about the pain of something they’ve endured in their life, in this case, having their very lives threatened simply for voicing their beliefs. it’s a beautiful song, and it’s the first song by them that I’ve placed on my iTunes player.
Defiant? Yeah, they are defiant. Because they have a right to be. Who you think they are to act as if they do not have a right to be defiant about being mistreated the way they were, I don’t know. Nor do I know why you speak as if you somehow decide, with wording that comes off as factual, what is “palatable”.
But hey, let’s hope you don’t ever have someone threaten you for voicing that opinion. If it makes you upset, some might accuse you of being “defiant”. And that would not be “palatable.”
Craig said:
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry’s comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Of course, that’s not what Kerry said.
Well, Craig quoted the first, said the second, but I don’t know how to do the layered thing.
Craig, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. That’s exactly what Kerry said.
I don’t believe that’s what he MEANT, though, so I partially agree with you. But instead of apologizing for a verbal slip and moving on, he’s standing firmly, saying that we should have KNOWN he meant to say, and taking him at his actual words is a partisan cheap trick.
It’s pride, it’s petulance, it’s arrogance, and it’s extremely insightful into his character.
J.
I can’t find the quote anywhere online. Anyone have a link to reference?
Media Matters for America has the Kerry quote plus good background on it in several items on their site now. Here’s a key passage from one of the MMFA items on this:
… Kerry said “Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” According to Kerry, he was referring to President Bush’s poor preparation for the war, not the lack of education of members of the U.S. military. Kerry said he botched a joke, and according to CNN, a Kerry aide said Kerry was supposed to have said: “I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”
In the context of Kerry’s speech, in which he was criticizing Bush, the explanation that he intended the line to be another jab at Bush and bungled the wording slightly seems quite reasonable to me, and much more plausible than that he meant it as a jab at the troops in Iraq.
From way back at the top of the page, Mike posted:
“Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?”
No, I haven’t. I’m not much of a sports fan, but even so I have noted on many occasions professional athletes using their fame in order to express their personal opinions to the public. People who are actually sports fans, and who watch sports regularly, should be even more aware of these incidents than I am.
One notable example is religious belief. A number of players use the spotlight they get during professional sports in order to make a public profession of their faith in God.
Another notable example: many athletes over the years have expressed their opinion on the abortion issue in an effort to influence their fans to support the same side they do in this matter. There is a group, “Athletes For Life”, which has been active for about 20 years in opposing abortion and promoting abstinence.
And when I lived in Pennsylvania I recall Joe Paterno, a famous football coach, being a featured speaker at a GOP convention. That’s quite a while back; I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of similar incidents in more recent years, of notable sports figures campaigning for politicians they support, but as I said at the beginning I’m not a big sports fan so the names don’t mean much to me and the stories don’t impress myself in my memory.
If even I am aware of these incidents, then those of you who are bigger sports fans should also be aware of them. And yet, I can’t recall any major controversies — certainly not on a par with the treatment of the Dixie Chicks — surrounding these incidents. Nor do I recall hearing politicians blasting professional athletes for using their fame this way, even though blasting actors for doing it something of a cliche by now. (The comic strip Mallard Fillmore, for example, has used that as their joke a fairly large number of the times I’ve seen the strip.)
Interestingly, most of the Hollywood celebrities who get blasted for expressing their views publicly are expressing liberal views, and most of the athletes who do not get blasted for expressing their views publicly are expressing conservative views. That may or may not have any bearing on the matter. But to believe that athletes don’t express their opinions publicly seems to me to be clearly wrong.
It’s pride, it’s petulance, it’s arrogance, and it’s extremely insightful into his character.
Everything we needed to know about Kerry came up early, when he fell snowbarding and blamed the secret security guy. “I don’t fall down,” the “son of a bìŧçh knocked me over.” At the time it was just worth an eye roll, now it seems like a revealing peek into his mindset.
He makes mistakes–as do we all. He blames everyone else for them–which you might be able to get away with but is a pretty dumb characteristic for soemone trying to get elected.
Now he wants to get a do-over for the 2004 election. Earth to Kerry–you lost. You will never beat George Bush. It’s over. You had your shot. He beat you. Move on, nothing to see here.
Gore is obviously the smarter man. After a period of bitterness he reinvented himself and is now worth a second look. Kerry? Never.
Thinking it over, at first I thought that Hillary Clinton had to be thrilled at the sight of a rival acting like a dûmbášš but now I wonder. If kerry ceases to be a viable candidate it removes a rival she can easily–easily!–beat. Democrats are notoriously hard on front runners, often turning to the alternative just as victory is in the former leader’s grasp (Howard dean being the obvious example). Having that alternate be someone as gaffe prone and tone deaf as Kerry would be a blessing.
Earlier, in response toa comment by Luigi Nova about the persecution the Dixie Chicks have suffered, Blue Spider wrote:
“PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution?…
“‘Suffered’!? Let’s pick new words. You know, if what they have gotten counts as suffering, I want a piece of that.”
I’d just like to note that, when radio talk show host Dr. Landers was facing a somewhat comparable situation — listeners upset with some of her expressed views were trying to get her program taken off the air — she responded with much more exaggerated language. I recall her at one point saying that such efforts were the eqivalent of “ethnic cleansing”!
Folks who turn off the Dixie Chicks, or want to start campaigns against Clint Eastwood because he cast Tim Robbins and Sean Penn in a movie (this happened), just because one of them expressed a dissenting opinion — and not for any other
aesthetic reason — strike me as childish and dangerous; they’re the compilers of enemies lists, who want the public square occupied ONLY by those who agree with them. This ESPECIALLY goes for artwork produced before the offending statement.
The folks who burned Dixie Chicks CDs burned CDS that existed long before Natalie Maines said what she did, as if the music, once loved, is now forever tainted.
Seriously, this is bûllšhìŧ. I dunno if I will ever be able to bring myself to pay money for a Mel Gibson movie again, after his anti-semitic rants of this past summer, but that’s my choice. It’s not a “boycott,” it’s not sending hate mail and burning his films in the public square, and I can’t see my current distaste for the man changing my positive opinions of GALLIPOLI, THE ROAD WARRIOR, and even LETHAL WEAPON 2. Those are completed works, and sealed units. Gibson’s input
on them, and my own opinion of same, are already formed.
By contrast, burning the past works of the Dixie Chicks, because of something one of them said, is Nazi behavior, in that it seeks not only to punish them for their supposed transgression, but also to obliterate their work.
Craig, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. That’s exactly what Kerry said.
I know exactly what Kerry said, and I know that it had nothing to do with the troops.
The troops were not mentioned anywhere near that comment, so the only way you could come up with that is if you intentionally twist his words to come up with the worst result possible.
He was talking about Bush. Anybody who actually gets more than a five-second sound byte out of that knows it.
Bill, Roger, you both said exactly what I was trying to say, but me trying to be clever just fouled everything up. Either that a I should’ve rothought it a few times to make sure it actually made sense.
Here’s something to consider. Now, with opinions on the war changing, if the Dixie Chicks had said what they did rather than back then, do you think there would’ve been as large a backlash?
but me trying to be clever just fouled everything up
Quit taking after John Kerry, and everything will be fine. 😉
Trust me, Craig, Kerry isn’t someone that I’d try to emulate. I don’t have the “I’m right and you’re goofy!” element in my personality that politicians seem to need. I’m occasionally TOO willing to see the other person’s POV. And not only that, I write my own jokes, which are usually SPECTACULARLY funny in my head, but when said aloud all one hears is the cricket concerto.
Adam raises a good point. If most people are so offended by something the Celebrity Z says(just because X is SO overused, not trying to single out people with Zs in their name) do they suddenly stop liking something they previously liked?
Jay Tea: Craig, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. That’s exactly what Kerry said.
Luigi Novi: And if the full quote provided by Nova Land via CNN was correct (and indeed, Craig did point out that the full quote was quite different from the one Dave W. referenced above), then what he said was clearly directed at Bush
Jay Tea: I don’t believe that’s what he MEANT, though, so I partially agree with you. But instead of apologizing for a verbal slip and moving on, he’s standing firmly, saying that we should have KNOWN he meant to say, and taking him at his actual words is a partisan cheap trick.
Luigi Novi: And he’s right. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know better than to think that Kerry was criticizing a line of work that he himself was once in.
Jay Tea: It’s pride, it’s petulance, it’s arrogance, and it’s extremely insightful into his character.
Luigi Novi: Which, given the refusal on your part to acknowledge the obviousness meaning of what he said, is just another way of saying that you don’t like Kerry because he’s on the other side of the political aisle, and has nothing to do with any objective assessment of him or his words. It’s little different than when people accuse Hilary Clinton of being “ambitious” (as if you can get ahead in politics by being wishy washy), or the Dixie Chicks of being “in your face” or “defiant”. It’s the sort of thing that is only bad because someone you’re predisposed to disliking is exhibiting it.
Bill Mulligan: Everything we needed to know about Kerry came up early, when he fell snowbarding and blamed the secret security guy. “I don’t fall down,” the “son of a bìŧçh knocked me over.” At the time it was just worth an eye roll, now it seems like a revealing peek into his mindset….Now he wants to get a do-over for the 2004 election.
Luigi Novi: This is no more revealing of his mindset than the mindset of anyone else who gets into an accident. When someone knocks another person over, the other person typically blames the first person for doing so. And in what way does this have to do with the 2004 election?
This is no more revealing of his mindset than the mindset of anyone else who gets into an accident. When someone knocks another person over, the other person typically blames the first person for doing so. And in what way does this have to do with the 2004 election?
I’ve been in the exact same position and it would never occur to me to snap at the other guy…especially if said guy was there to protect my stupid life.
I think these unguarded moments show us for what we are. But your mileage may vary.
My point about the 2004 election is that Kerry’s angry response is a function of him wishing he’d showed some spine at his supposed bad treatment by the Swiftboat Vets. Pointless, of course. It does him no good and, as we have seen, has caused trouble for his party right before an important election.
I just saw the movie. Pretty good insight into what happened three years ago from the inside.
(sarcasm on)
She wants to be angry at people who’ve dared make death threats against her? The insolence of the woman!!!
(sarcasm off)
I think I’m gonna start buying their albums.
I’m just sorry I missed out on their Ottawa tour dates. 🙁
“…20 seconds of Bush with the word “Liar” flashing on the screen is not a movie commercial, but a political spot.”
No, it’s not a political ad, it’s the truth.
(“I never said stay the course.”)
Yes. And he never said it. at last count, around 31 or so times.
I’ll just bet that some people thought,
“How dare them wimmens speak up, them uppity bìŧçhëš.”
The radio frequencies belong to the people of this country.
The radio stations lease the frequencies from the government, which acts as an agent of the people.
An individual station has the right to stop playing Dixie Chicks music as the program director directs.
This was not the case here. Cumulus and Clear Channel gave direct orders to their stations to discontinue playing Dixie Chicks music and they furthermore made sure that it was publicly proclaimed as often as possible.
This was a corporate action using the public airwaves; this was corporate censorship, and was allowed by the governmental agency that controls the airwaves; the FCC did not step in; therefore, many people may feel that it is thus censorship -by-proxy by the Federal Government.
————–
Evil triumphs when good men fail to step in and stop it.
My favorite celebrity story probably isn’t true and it’s about someone I rather like, Nevertheless it’s too funny not to repeat:
Bono is at a U2 concert in Ireland when he asks the audience for some quiet. Then in the silence, he starts to slowly clap his hands.
Holding the audience in total silence, he says into the microphone…”Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies.”
A voice from near the front of the audience pierces the silence…”Føøkìņ stop doing it then!”
These women are left wing whørëš.
I think my issue with the Chicks and their supporters is this: They didn’t offer a criticism of Bush or his policies. They didn’t stand up, say that Bush was wrong, and then offer reasons and evidence to support such a statement. Instead, they simply insulted the President. Now, let’s suppose that the Chicks had done what I suggested, the rational arguments, supported with evidence, and that Bush had then stood up at a fund raiser and said “I’m ashamed to come from the same state as the Chicks.” What would their reaction have been to that? They’d have been outraged, and so would the press and everyone else. So, why are they surprised that so many people are ticked off at them?