Dixie Chicks show why Clear Channel must be broken up
Oldfrat
after they felt compelled to deliver their political message, my wife felt
compelled to take a hammer to our Dixie Chicks CDs and mail the shreds back
to their label.
I'll miss their music. Wish they hadn't felt compelled to push their
politics in ourr faces.
They clearly have a right to voice their opinions and being celebrities
gives them a pulpit to do so. We also have a right to our opinions and
withdrawing our financial support for them is our only tool. They are free
to go on saying whatever they want. We are free to buy no more of their CDs
and attend no more of their concerts.
Clear Channel had nothing to do with our decision.
An entertainer's job is to entertain. It is certainly their right to express
their personal beliefs as part of this, be they political, philosophical, or
whatever. The more they stray from simply entertaining the masses, though,
the more they limit their audiences .It is a free choice on their part.
My sense is that the Dixie Chicks didn't realize the consequences of their
decision. That's too bad. I hope entertainers will learn from this and
make more informed decisions in the future. If their informed decisons
causes us to hammer more CDs, that's OK. Just want them to realize that
there are consequences of stepping out of the pure entertainer role.
"Bill" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b8aguv$r1r$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> The Dixie Chicks have shown how dangerous it is for the United States
> government to allow one company, Clear Channel, to own so many radio
> stations (something like 1200).
>
> Here's why it is dangerous:
>
> Fact 1: Dixie Chicks make anti-Bush remark in a public forum which gets
> widely publicized.
>
> Fact 2: Clear Channel owns something like 1200 radio stations in the U.S.
>
> Fact 3: the highest Clear Channel execs have strong ties to the Bush
> administration and Clear Channel is based in Texas.
>
> Fact 4: Dixie Chicks rely on many of the stations Clear Channel owns
> (probably close to a hundred if not more) to get people to hear their
songs
> in the hope that some of those people will buy their record. Thus Clear
> Channel can severely hurt the Dixie Chicks financially by refusing to play
> their songs or play them less than they otherwise would if one of the
Dixie
> Chicks had not made the anti-Bush comment.
>
> Fact 5: many Clear Channel stations, unlike the Dixie Chicks, supported
the
> war by holding what were called "support the troops" rallies though the
> purpose was to show support for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Clear
> Channel has a reputation for strong central control so it's likely these
> pro-war rallies were in some way encouraged by Clear Channel, or at the
very
> least, approved by Clear Channel. No Clear Channel stations held antiwar
> rallies.
>
> The above facts clearly illustrate how dangerous it is to democracy in the
> U.S. to allow one station, Clear Channel in this case, to have so much
> power. They have the power to have millions of people hear some performers
> and not other performers. Thus they have the power to make and break
musical
> careers.
>
> At the same time, they are a political player in that they support those
> politicians that vote in ways that are beneficial to Clear Channel (such
as
> voting to stop any restrictions on the number of stations one company can
> own overall or in one market).
>
> Thus they can easily cause some performers to lose millions in record
sales
> if those performers support causes and politicians that Clear Channel
> doesn't support. Thus if performers don't want this massive financial
loss,
> they have no choice but to either shut up or, better yet, actively support
> things and people that Clear Channel supports.
>
> Thus, because of the incredible power of Clear Channel in making and
braking
> careers, it's in the interests of all performers to show support for
> everything Clear Channel supports. This can include showing support for
> politicians that Clear Channel likes (perhaps this explains Dennis
Miller's
> pro-Bush, pro-war rantings). That support can be vocal and/or financial.
>
> And considering the money these performers make, *each* of those
performers
> in turn has great power to reward politicians and political causes - but
> only if they are ones Clear Channel supports (if they don't want to make
the
> 9,000,000 lb gorilla mad).
>
> There is no way that the Dixie Chicks won't take a massive financial loss
> because of the incredible power of Clear Channel to prevent millions of
> people from hearing them when those people put on their "local" country
> radio station.
>
> Thus not only does Clear Channel have a radio monopoly, they also have
> *incredible* political power.
>
> We must do all we can to break up the clearly dangerous radio monopoly
Clear
> Channel presently has. The Dixie Chicks have shown how dangerous the
> incredible financial and political power of Clear Channel is to democracy
in
> the U.S.
>
> Clear Channel must be broken up.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
Paul Burke
>
> We really like Dixie Chicks music. We really respect them as musicians. But
> after they felt compelled to deliver their political message, my wife felt
> compelled to take a hammer to our Dixie Chicks CDs and mail the shreds back
> to their label.
You shower of idiots.
>
> I'll miss their music. Wish they hadn't felt compelled to push their
> politics in ourr faces.
You mean faeces, I assume.
>
> They clearly have a right to voice their opinions and being celebrities
> gives them a pulpit to do so.
No, being human gives them the right to do so.
I've never heard such
You Americans are going off your heads. Right back to McCarthy (Lenin
and McCarthy?).
Free speech? No, we must destroy free speech in order to defend it.
I've never heard the Dixie Chicks, doesn't sound like my sort of stuff,
but sounds like they'd be better off claiming political asylum in the
UK.
America delenda est.
Paul Burke
David Rintoul
after one of them, Natalie Maines, made that offhand remark over in London.
Their album did drop out of first place on the Billboard country charts at
first. But, I see they're back in the top three again, and they've been
charting for 34 straight weeks, so I don't suppose they're missing any meals
over it.
You know, if I went through my record collection and smashed every record by
every artist who did something I didn't altogether approve of, I'd be down
to Gregorian Chants and the Kingston Trio. But, wait the Kingston Trio
criticized public transit and I'm a big supporter of that. And those monks
are Catholic and I'm not...so...hmmm.....
"In my opinion, talent is most likely to be found among non-conformists,
dissenters, and rebels."
David Ogilvy
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
Nigel Stapley
"Oldfrat" <old...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8b10k$5fb$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> We really like Dixie Chicks music. We really respect them as musicians.
But
> after they felt compelled to deliver their political message, my wife felt
> compelled to take a hammer to our Dixie Chicks CDs and mail the shreds
back
> to their label.
How puerile. Especially seeing as you'd already paid for them. Hope you both
felt better for the act.
>
> I'll miss their music. Wish they hadn't felt compelled to push their
> politics in ourr faces.
All they did was say that they were ashamed of Bush. In the last
presidential election, a majority of those who voted clearly felt the same.
Right now, a fair proportion of your fellow Americans still feel that the
man is an embarrassment.
>
> They clearly have a right to voice their opinions and being celebrities
> gives them a pulpit to do so. We also have a right to our opinions and
> withdrawing our financial support for them is our only tool. They are
free
> to go on saying whatever they want. We are free to buy no more of their
CDs
> and attend no more of their concerts.
Your loss, I suspect, rather than theirs.
>
> Clear Channel had nothing to do with our decision.
>
> An entertainer's job is to entertain. It is certainly their right to
express
> their personal beliefs as part of this, be they political, philosophical,
or
> whatever.
But if they do....
>The more they stray from simply entertaining the masses, though,
> the more they limit their audiences .It is a free choice on their part.
This is a recipe for characterless, meaning-free 'entertainment', of the
sort that fills the TV networks and the rosters of record companies right
now.
>
> My sense is that the Dixie Chicks didn't realize the consequences of their
> decision. That's too bad. I hope entertainers will learn from this and
> make more informed decisions in the future.
So they have the right to their opinions, but if they value their career,
they should shut up. "The Land Of The Free"....
>If their informed decisons
> causes us to hammer more CDs, that's OK. Just want them to realize that
> there are consequences of stepping out of the pure entertainer role.
I can't imagine them losing too much sleep over their CDs not being bought
by Stepford Persons who class conformity as a virtue.
Moreover, who now remembers the morons who burned Beatles LPs in the 60s?
Sad, I call it...
--
Nigel Stapley
(delete <gwrthsbam.> to reply)
That flapping sound you can hear in Washington and
London is the sound of pigeons coming home to roost.
David Rintoul
dollars every week just to quit singing my own kind of songs...But I decided
a long time ago that I'd starve to death before I'd sing any such songs as
that. The radio waves and your movies and your jukeboxes and your songbooks
are already loaded down and running over with such no good songs as that
anyhow."
Woody Guthrie
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
news:3ea97...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
RB
nothing more than media bullshit; that in truth they have sold very well
since all the brouhaha. What's that old adage about there being "no
such thing as bad press"?
And yes, Clear Channel does dominate the US media way too much, and in
political ways too.
While you guys are burning your Dixie Chicks albums, you can toss some
Woody Guthrie and Paul Robeson LPs on there too... better late than
never, right?
JesiAna
Woody Guthrie and Paul Robeson LPs on there too... better late than
never, right? >>
Somehow I doubt that anyone who would burn Dixie Chicks albums has ever heard
of Paul Robeson. Unfortunately, many people have not, and have never had the
pleasure of hearing that amazing voice and that stunning spirit shining through
the voice.
They all learned to sing "This Land is Your Land" in school, no doubt, but only
the first verse or two, not the subversive ones.
Jesiana
"If you can walk, you can dance. If you can talk, you can sing."
Judge Magney
an artist's work, literally or metaphorically, is an appropriate
response to a political disagreement with the artist.
Nearly as disturbing is the notion that artists should be reduced
to the status of "entertainers" and measured by the popularity of
their opinions rather than the quality of their work.
And the reference to "more informed decisions" is a painful but
explicit echo of McCarthyist rhetoric, most likely unintended here but
raised with full consciousness of its connotations by more experienced
partisans.
"Oldfrat" <old...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<b8b10k$5fb$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
> We really like Dixie Chicks music. We really respect them as musicians. But
> after they felt compelled to deliver their political message, my wife felt
> compelled to take a hammer to our Dixie Chicks CDs and mail the shreds back
> to their label.
<......>
JR
> > My sense is that the Dixie Chicks didn't realize the consequences of their
> > decision. That's too bad. I hope entertainers will learn from this and
> > make more informed decisions in the future.
Turn off FoxTV and get the facts. The Dixiechicks CD is STILL #1 on the
Country Bilboard charts and it has NEVER wavered. No matter what the
Bushie lemmings spew out about their disgust in free speech, the
Dixiechicks statements got postitive reactions from real Americans.
THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
RB
JR <no...@all.edu> wrote:
> The Dixiechicks CD is STILL #1
From www.michaelmoore.com: ( a bit outdated, but germane nonetheless)
Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because
their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her
home state of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country
stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are
NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1
on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly,
on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4. In
the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to
ANY of the Dixie Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they
were all sold out. (To read Rich's column from yesterday's Times,
"Bowling for Kennebunkport," go here. He does a pretty good job of
laying it all out and talks about my next film and the impact it could
potentially have.) Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war
ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week. They have
not been hurt at all -- but that is not what the media would have you
believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than
to keep the voices of dissent -- and those who would dare to ask a
question -- SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few
well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe
or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if they would do that to
the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol' me?"
In other words, shut the f--- up.
Karl Fisher
> felt better for the act.
It is called freedom of expression. If you defend the right of
someone to burn a flag to demonstrate their views, then surely you
defend (and support) other people when they stomp records. No
difference. People expressing their views for all the world to see.
Just because you disagree with their views, doesn't make it stupid.
This is freedom of expression.
> All they did was say that they were ashamed of Bush.
If they wanted to voice their disapproval of the US President, it
should be done here in the US where possibly other Americans could be
persuaded. If they wanted to make comments like that, why not make
them at the Houston or Dallas concert. Come say it over here.
> Right now, a fair proportion of your fellow Americans still feel that the
> man is an embarrassment.
73% agree with the decisions made to go to war to remove Saddam
Hussein.
> So they have the right to their opinions, but if they value their career,
> they should shut up. "The Land Of The Free"....
Baloney. They will continue to work and make a living. But if they
want to continue making millions of dollars, they will need to be more
considerate of the people that purchase their music. These are
millionares that are not going to make as many millions as they once
were.
If they were so loyal to their political views they would be willing
to forgo those extra millions. This is not about political dissent,
this is about economics. A bunch of little guys like me, hit a couple
of millionaires right where it hurts......in their pocket books.
Are you tolerant of my views? Let's not be hypocritical.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
RB
karlf...@yahoo.com (Karl Fisher) wrote:
> These are
> millionares that are not going to make as many millions as they once
> were.
Sorry, wrong answer. Their record sales are just fine. Probably was
even good PR.
> If they were so loyal to their political views they would be willing
> to forgo those extra millions.
Why? Why are dissent and wealth mutually exclusive?
Perhaps you mean that they should donate some of their dough to the
anti-war cause?
> This is not about political dissent,
> this is about economics. A bunch of little guys like me, hit a couple
> of millionaires right where it hurts......in their pocket books.
Uh huh, sure you did. Feel better now?
dshe...@netusa1.net
Oldfrat wrote:
> I hope entertainers will learn from this and
> make more informed decisions in the future. Just want them to realize that
> there are consequences of stepping out of the pure entertainer role.
And I trust that in fairness you also apply this rule to Bruce Willis, Tom
Selleck, Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ricky Skaggs, Loretta Lynn,
Darryl Worley, Dixie Carter, Kelsey Grammer, Ted Nugent, Lee Greenwood, et al?
Didn't think so.
Darrell Sherrod
Kokomo IN
d
infamous words Natalie spoke weren't even about the war -- they expressed
her displeasure with GWBush. People said a lot worse things about Clinton
even before Monica Lewinski. The same commentators that are so outraged
now thought it was funny then.
Since when is a citizen who criticizes the President considered unpatriotic
-- inside OR outside the country? A lot of people, privately and publicly,
have expressed shame regarding the way Bush has been handling international
affairs. Even die-hard Republicans I know think he has crossed the line
more than a few times when dealing with other countries. Now he has a war
to hide behind (and has anyone dared say 'wag the dog'?) we are suppose to
shut up -- and respect someone whose entire presidency seems to be nothing
but one campaign stop after another ? Does the guy ever do any work?
Conrad Shiba
I suppose that you supported the blacklisting of Pete Seeger too?
"Oldfrat" , or is that "Old Fart?" <old...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8b10k$5fb$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> We really like Dixie Chicks music. We really respect them as musicians.
But
> after they felt compelled to deliver their political message, my wife felt
> compelled to take a hammer to our Dixie Chicks CDs and mail the shreds
back
> to their label.
>
> I'll miss their music. Wish they hadn't felt compelled to push their
> politics in ourr faces.
>
> They clearly have a right to voice their opinions and being celebrities
> gives them a pulpit to do so. We also have a right to our opinions and
> withdrawing our financial support for them is our only tool. They are
free
> to go on saying whatever they want. We are free to buy no more of their
CDs
> and attend no more of their concerts.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
RB
d <sweet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> we are suppose to
> shut up -- and respect someone whose entire presidency seems to be nothing
> but one campaign stop after another ?
Lately it would seem so.
As a Canadian (one of those "near enemies" -- one would almost think by
some reports -- ) who travels to the US often, I notice how incredibly
uptight everyone is these past few weeks. Nervous to be percieved the
"wrong" way -- what is patriotic, who is loyal, etc etc.....
We share your pain... I didn't vote for Bush either!!
Karl Fisher
> > These are
> > millionares that are not going to make as many millions as they once
> > were.
> Sorry, wrong answer. Their record sales are just fine. Probably was
> even good PR.
You are making my point. They are not being denied their ability to
express their opinions. Yes is is going to cost them some money, but
not they won't be left without a way to feed their children.
> Why? Why are dissent and wealth mutually exclusive?
NO. This is not about dissent. This is about millionaires wanting to
spout their political opinions on my dime. Free speech is never 'free'
if someone else is paying for it. The paying person always has the
right to stop paying for that opinion. That is freedom of
expression....mine.
> Perhaps you mean that they should donate some of their dough to the
> anti-war cause?
They can do what they want with their money. Just don't expect me to
support them. Those are my rights.
> > A bunch of little guys like me, hit a couple
> > of millionaires right where it hurts......in their pocket books.
>
> Uh huh, sure you did. Feel better now?
I sure do. I always feel better when I am able to express the rights
afforded me in the Bill of Rights. If you are going to support the
Dixie Chicks' right to free expression, you should support(and
encourage) mine.
David Rintoul
If you are going to support the Dixie Chicks' right to free expression, you
should support (and encourage) mine.
----------
That's absolutely right, Karl. If anybody tried to stop you from smashing
up your Dixie Chicks collection, I'd be the first one to protest. I'd even
make up another "pathetic attempt at a protest song" and put up with being
called "idiotic" and "obnoxious" in the process.
You can smash up any artist's record you like. Just be sure to pay for it,
first.
Come to think of it, I was asked to record "George Has the Planes" but I
decided against it because I don't take my topical stuff seriously. That
might have been a mistake. Who knows?
It might have been a "smash" hit!
Steve and Trish
now that the human genome is sequenced, it can be seen that human beings and
kidney beans share ca. 85% of the same genetic information. whose side can
you be on?
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://steventrish.home.mindspring.com/webpage_files/start.html
"Conrad Shiba" <shi...@searnet.com> wrote in message
news:3ea9...@post.newsfeed.com...
Judge Magney
for their music.
There is a huge and reprehensible leap between (say) refusing to buy
tickets to a theater's showing of a Michael Moore film, and boycotting
the theater in retaliation for showing it, or boycotting the films of
a director who praised Moore's work.
Freedome of expression protects your right to express and advocate
totalitarian ideas, but it does not validate them as moral,
appropriate, or intelligent.
JM
karlf...@yahoo.com (Karl Fisher) wrote in message news:<80e66368.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> NO. This is not about dissent. This is about millionaires wanting to
> spout their political opinions on my dime. Free speech is never 'free'
> if someone else is paying for it. The paying person always has the
> right to stop paying for that opinion. That is freedom of
> expression....mine.
>
RB
> This is about millionaires wanting to
> spout their political opinions on my dime. Free speech is never 'free'
> if someone else is paying for it. The paying person always has the
> right to stop paying for that opinion. That is freedom of
> expression....mine.
What really bugs me about your attitude is that it appears that you are
saying ("on my dime") that performers who speak their opinions should
somehow be at the rein of the paying public. You're right, you can stop
buying thier product, but it doesn't change "free speech". By
extension, if I'm a plumber and I say Bush sucks ass in Iraq, does that
mean that everyone whose toilets I unplug gets to somehow tell me what
to say or not say?
I think you're just pissed off because your money (and a lot of others)
helped create celebrity for the Chicks, and then they have the nerve to
go and express beliefs contrary to yours. Life is full of surprises.
Nigel Stapley
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "Nigel Stapley" <nsta...@gwrthsbam.lineone.net> wrote
> > How puerile. Especially seeing as you'd already paid for them. Hope you
both
> > felt better for the act.
>
> It is called freedom of expression. If you defend the right of
> someone to burn a flag to demonstrate their views, then surely you
> defend (and support) other people when they stomp records. No
> difference. People expressing their views for all the world to see.
>
> Just because you disagree with their views, doesn't make it stupid.
> This is freedom of expression.
Fine...except that you had already paid for the albums (I hope). So you're
cutting off your nose to spite your face by cutting them up and mailing them
back to the record company.
Besides which, what has the content of their CDs got to do with an
expression of political belief? I've never heard their stuff - is their any
political content in their music? If not, then you've been doubly fatuous.
>
> > All they did was say that they were ashamed of Bush.
>
> If they wanted to voice their disapproval of the US President, it
> should be done here in the US where possibly other Americans could be
> persuaded. If they wanted to make comments like that, why not make
> them at the Houston or Dallas concert. Come say it over here.
I would hope that they would. It's just that they happened to be in London
when GWB was at his most egregious and footling.
>
> > Right now, a fair proportion of your fellow Americans still feel that
the
> > man is an embarrassment.
>
> 73% agree with the decisions made to go to war to remove Saddam
> Hussein.
That's not the same thing as saying "73% of Americans believe that GWB
*isn't* a total dipstick".
(BTW, interesting to see that the war *was* about getting rid of SH, rather
than all the reasons stated).
>
> > So they have the right to their opinions, but if they value their
career,
> > they should shut up. "The Land Of The Free"....
>
> Baloney. They will continue to work and make a living. But if they
> want to continue making millions of dollars, they will need to be more
> considerate of the people that purchase their music.
In other words, they should pander to the lowest common denominator
prejudices of the 'audience'. As I said before, that's a recipe for dire
standards of art the world over.
>These are
> millionares that are not going to make as many millions as they once
> were.
>
> If they were so loyal to their political views they would be willing
> to forgo those extra millions. This is not about political dissent,
> this is about economics. A bunch of little guys like me, hit a couple
> of millionaires right where it hurts......in their pocket books.
Meanwhile, huge corporations diddle their workers out of their pensions,
other companies with close ties to political power destroy the environment.
If you also hit *them* in their pockets, then bravo. Otherwise, you're being
both hypocritical and faint-hearted.
>
> Are you tolerant of my views? Let's not be hypocritical.
You are perfectly entitled to your views *and* to express them peaceably. So
are others. But if the time ever comes where you will face unemployment for
doing so (as has already happened to a number of people in your country
already, even before the 'war'), then you may need to reflect as to whether
your disc-dissing action was necessarily a good example to set.
--
Regards,
Nigel Stapley
(remove <gwrthsbam.> to reply)
>
> Karl Fisher
> Wylie, Texas
David Rintoul
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
news:b8e6hl$qc8$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Tony Spadaro
audience should limit itself to being entertained. While I think audiences
have every right to have a political opinion they ought to think of the
consequences to themselves if they for some unholy reason attempt to express
that opinion.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Oldfrat" <old...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8b10k$5fb$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Tony Spadaro
protest.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"RB" <vw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vwram-D7B07B....@news.telus.net...
JesiAna
I expect Oldfrat would do just that. I know I would. However, I am all for
artists speaking their minds and showing their thinking in what they choose to
perform. After all, folk music has a long tradition of being VERY political and
really "mixing it up" in national and world affairs. To this I say hurrah! Yes,
they do need to know there are risks to this, and I think most do. Pete Seeger,
Paul Robeson, Utah Phillips, Tommy and Colum Sands, Malvina Reynolds, Holly
Near...they have put their money where their mouths are so to speak, and thank
goodness for that!
The Dixie Chicks' music is not political; perhaps they ought to consider making
it so. They also might consider changing their style and their audience a bit.
Folkies would never have been in such a flap over their words; the country
crowd seems to be much more pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-'conservative'
establishment.
Steve and Trish
politics? freee speech/expression?
as fat freddy asked the librarian at state college, "where's the fuck
books?"
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030424-082135-2159r
DIXIE CHICKS NAKED ON 'EW' COVER
The Dixie Chicks were able to reveal plenty in their ABC PrimeTime Thursday
interview with Diane Sawyer but their photo on the cover of the new
Entertainment Weekly is about as revealing as can be.
The nude trio is wearing only contradictory messages -- "Saddam's Angels"
and "Proud Americans" is printed on Martie Maguire's leg, while "Free
Speech" and "Shut Up" appear on Natalie Maines' forearms and belly.
The cover touts an interview with the group, saying "Country's Controversial
Superstars Take On Their Critics." The magazine's May 2 issue is due on
newsstands this weekend.
Maines on March 10 said she was "ashamed" President Bush is from the trio's
home state of Texas.
She told Sawyer she could have chosen better words to express her feelings.
"The wording I used, the way I said it, that was disrespectful," said
Maines, without apologizing for questioning Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
"Are we in an atmosphere where that's allowed anymore?" asked Emily Robison.
"You're either with us or you're against us?"
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://steventrish.home.mindspring.com/webpage_files/start.html
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cPEqa.37389$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Karl Fisher
> Fine...except that you had already paid for the albums (I hope). So you're
> cutting off your nose to spite your face by cutting them up and mailing them
> back to the record company.
Of course I paid for the CDs. Do you think that flag burners bought
the flags they burn? Of course they did. When they burn flags that
they purchased, are they "cutting off their nose to spite their faces"
? HELLO, its called political expression.
> Besides which, what has the content of their CDs got to do with an
> expression of political belief? I've never heard their stuff - is their any
> political content in their music? If not, then you've been doubly fatuous.
When a demonstrator burns a flag, are you concerned about the
workmanship of the flag? Of course not. Once again, its called
political expression. Is a flag burner doubly or triply "fatuous" when
he burns a perfectly good flag?
> BTW, interesting to see that the war *was* about getting rid of SH, rather
> than all the reasons stated).
BTW, there are multiple reason for going to war with Iraq. I could
give you a list. If there were only one single reason, it would not
have happened. BUT this discussion is about Dissent vs Individual
rights, not the pros or cons of the Iraq war. Please stay on focus.
> In other words, they should pander to the lowest common denominator
> prejudices of the 'audience'. As I said before, that's a recipe for dire
> standards of art the world over.
In other words......NO. But when you are an artist you need to think
about your fans first. The fans are the reason you are where you are.
If you want to offend your fans, be prepared for ramifications.
> Meanwhile, huge corporations diddle their workers out of their pensions,
> other companies with close ties to political power destroy the environment.
> If you also hit *them* in their pockets, then bravo. Otherwise, you're being
> both hypocritical and faint-hearted.
This is about free-speech vs free expression. Dont try to change the
subject. Try to focus.
> You are perfectly entitled to your views *and* to express them peaceably. So
> are others.
And if I decide to no longer purchase Dixie Chicks CDs, I get to do
that.
> But if the time ever comes where you will face unemployment for
> doing so (as has already happened to a number of people in your country
> already, even before the 'war'), then you may need to reflect as to whether
> your disc-dissing action was necessarily a good example to set.
Those poor little Dixie Chicks are not going to "face unemployment for
doing so". Perhaps they won't be able to purchase an extra summer
mansion. Their families won't go hungry. You won't see any Dixie
Chicks standing in the unemployment line. The Dixie Chicks won't be
needing food stamps.
Regards,
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> You did not pay for the Dixie Chicks' political opinions. You paid
> for their music.
Bingo! You have made my argument for me. I don't want their political
opinions,
but if they insist on speaking them, then they should be considerate
of their fans when they decide how to express their political
analysis.
> There is a huge and reprehensible leap between (say) refusing to buy
> tickets to a theater's showing of a Michael Moore film, and boycotting
> the theater in retaliation for showing it, or boycotting the films of
> a director who praised Moore's work.
I am not advocating not playing all country artists. I am not
advocating boycotting SONY. My pain, frustation, and now anger is
directed at the Dixie Chicks. Not country music, not SONY, not CMT.
> Freedome of expression protects your right to express and advocate
> totalitarian ideas, but it does not validate them as moral,
> appropriate, or intelligent.
Totalitarian ideas? Is this a red herring? When did I ever suggest
lack of diversity? I suggest responsible dissent. Diversity has made
this country the great nation it is. But for people to show you
respect, you should show them respect. Artists need to understand
that fans have put them where they are. If artist stomp on the fans
feelings, fans will retaliate. Which is entirely right, legal,
appropriate, moral, and intelligent.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> saying ("on my dime") that performers who speak their opinions should
> somehow be at the rein of the paying public.
Absolutely. Artists should understand that their fans have put them
where
they are. They owe it to their fans to show them respect.
> You're right, you can stop
> buying thier product, but it doesn't change "free speech".
You are absolutely right. You make my argument. Artist are still
entitled
to their 'free speech', but it should be exercised wisely. If fans are
from a particular ethnic group, you would expect the artist to be
considerate of uniqueness of their audience. Using the same logic,
Country
Music fans have uniqueness that should be respected. This issue is
not about
Free Speech, but about responsible speech, and the consequences
speech.
> if I'm a plumber and I say Bush sucks ass in Iraq, does that
> mean that everyone whose toilets I unplug gets to somehow tell me what
> to say or not say?
I'll go you one better. What if I walked into a big business meeting
where millions of dollars of business was to occur. A big purchaser
sitting across the boardroom is a wealthy Islamic businessman. Half
way through the business presenation, I start talking about how I
don't like what Muhammed had to say.
What do you think my boss would say about my statements? What might
the wealthy Islamic business man do? My boss would tell me to stick
to our business at hand and leave my 'free speech' at home. He would
say, "You can
speak your mind, but not on my dime".
This is a much better analogy, because the Dixie Chicks get paid alot
more than a plumber.
> I think you're just pissed off because your money (and a lot of others)
> helped create celebrity for the Chicks, and then they have the nerve to
> go and express beliefs contrary to yours.
Wrong. There is a time and a place for all things. Plesas see
example listed above.
"I'll show you my tolerance, if you'll show me yours"
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> There is something deeply disturbing about the notion that destroying
> an artist's work, literally or metaphorically, is an appropriate
> response to a political disagreement with the artist.
The artists work is not destroy. Only copies of their work is
destroyed.
Plus many other copies exist for anyone wanting to make a purchase.
This destruction is the same as burning a flag. It is a public
expression of dissent.
> Nearly as disturbing is the notion that artists should be reduced
> to the status of "entertainers" and measured by the popularity of
> their opinions rather than the quality of their work.
If they don't want their opinions evaluated, then they should be
careful
how loudly they state them. If someone has the right to speak out,
listeners have the right to measure those words.
> And the reference to "more informed decisions" is a painful but
> explicit echo of McCarthyist rhetoric, most likely unintended here but
> raised with full consciousness of its connotations by more experienced
> partisans.
I disagree. If the Dixie Chicks want to express their freedom of
speech,
let them express it the way everyone else must. (Letters to the Edior,
discussion groups on the Internet, phone her neighbors)
This is less about Free Speech than it is about Resposible Speech.
And the recourse that it available to the private individual. Also a
lesson in humility to celebrities.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
David Rintoul
If you defend the right of someone to burn a flag to demonstrate their
views, then surely you
defend (and support) other people when they stomp records.
---------
Defend and support are not the same thing.
I don't think it should be against the law to burn the flag, but I don't
encourage it at demonstrations. It's bad tactics. It's such an extremist
thing to do that people just naturally assume that you're a bunch of bone
heads. So, their minds just aren't open to what you have to say after that.
It's the same thing with smashing people's records. Demonstrators have
every right in the world to do it. But it's going to remind people of the
big book burning parties that the Nazis used to have. That's going to turn
them off to what you're trying to tell them, too. They're going to think
you're a bunch of narrow minded Philistines, whether you are or not.
Besides, it just gives the artist free publicity. As Colonel Tom Parker
told Elvis when people were boycotting him, "Let them say whatever they
want, as long as they spell your name right." I don't think it's a
coincidence that the Dixie Chicks' sales are rising again.
I don't think much of what Cat Stevens has to say lately, but I wouldn't go
around smashing his records. Life is too short for me to deny myself the
pleasure of songs like "Father and Son", "Peace Train", and "Morning Has
Broken". Nothing can change those songs one way or the other. Good songs
have a life of their own.
I don't own any Dixie Chicks records, but I think I'll go out and buy one
today. But I won't be buying a hammer to go with it.
d
> judge_...@hotmail.com (Judge Magney) wrote in message news:<908ab6ee.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > You did not pay for the Dixie Chicks' political opinions. You paid
> > for their music.
>
> Bingo! You have made my argument for me. I don't want their political
> opinions,
> but if they insist on speaking them, then they should be considerate
> of their fans when they decide how to express their political
> analysis.
>
I heard that the fans at the show cheered when Natalie expressed her personal feelings about GWBush. If this is
true, then she was expressing empathy with a sentiment shared by many of her fans at the show that night. If you are
upset at hearing about her political opinions, perhap you should be upset with AP for picking up her statement and
publishing it for all to here ... not her intent. For some reason they deemed it newsworthy.
In addition, while I can understand that you would not want to pay to go hear music and then hear a long winded
commentary by the entertainer about his/her opinions on something ... her statement was short and to the point. It
seems as though she was just a mouthpiece/outlet for a feeling that was pretty widespread in the area in which she
performed.
> Artists need to understand
> that fans have put them where they are. If artist stomp on the fans
> feelings, fans will retaliate. Which is entirely right, legal,
> appropriate, moral, and intelligent.
>
Artists provide a service which the fans pay for ... I really don't believe artists "owe" their fans any more than
this. While I agree that some people do retaliate against people whose opinions they do not share ... I do not
agree that such retaliation is always "right, legal, appropriate, moral, and intelligent." The Dixie Chicks, in
their interview on ABC, said that they and their family were receiving death threats. I hardly consider that
appropriate, moral, or intelligent. Public, organized stompings of their CDs ... I don't consider that right,
appropriate, moral, or intelligent. Banning them from radio stations -- I don't consider that right, appropriate,
moral, or intelligent. and if its legal, I don't think it should be. Also, why is it okay for the media giant to
express its political opinions and not the Dixie Chicks. On the other hand, choosing not to buy an artist's work or
see them perform ... that is appropriate, moral, legal, and intelligent ... if someone feels that strongly about
disagreeing with an entertainer's political stance.
I express my displeasure with legal expression of stuff all the time ... particularly as it relates to commercials
and TV shows. If I find a show or commercial particularly offensive, I simply do not buy that product anymore. I
wish more people did this sort of thing. I wonder what would happen if "liberals" suddenly stopped buying the
products of companies who commercials air during the times that some of these loud-mouthed and offensive commentators
are on .... I wonder how long it would take for them to change their tune ... Hmmmmm.....
David Rintoul
Washington Post. Here's a link to it...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7229-2003Apr21.html
Nigel Stapley
>
> > Fine...except that you had already paid for the albums (I hope). So
you're
> > cutting off your nose to spite your face by cutting them up and mailing
them
> > back to the record company.
>
> Of course I paid for the CDs. Do you think that flag burners bought
> the flags they burn? Of course they did. When they burn flags that
> they purchased, are they "cutting off their nose to spite their faces"
> ? HELLO, its called political expression.
>
> > Besides which, what has the content of their CDs got to do with an
> > expression of political belief? I've never heard their stuff - is their
any
> > political content in their music? If not, then you've been doubly
fatuous.
>
> When a demonstrator burns a flag, are you concerned about the
> workmanship of the flag? Of course not. Once again, its called
> political expression. Is a flag burner doubly or triply "fatuous" when
> he burns a perfectly good flag?
My point in all this is that it's a pretty petty way to behave. And (as
David Rintoul has pointed out in his reply), it's tactically inept because
it raises the image of some rather unfortunate historical parallels. On the
flag issue, far better to do what some anti-war demonstrators actually
*did*, which is to fly the flag *upside-down* (the international distress
signal).
If you've bought their CDs, but take against the performers for some reason,
then either don't play them any more or sell them / give them away. Trashing
them is a futile gesture which, while it may make you feel good for a few
days, has the danger of making you look either intolerant or inarticulate.
(Note : I'm not saying that you are either of these things, just that that
is the way it will look).
>
> > BTW, interesting to see that the war *was* about getting rid of SH,
rather
> > than all the reasons stated).
>
> BTW, there are multiple reason for going to war with Iraq. I could
> give you a list. If there were only one single reason, it would not
> have happened. BUT this discussion is about Dissent vs Individual
> rights, not the pros or cons of the Iraq war. Please stay on focus.
>
Yes, there was a list : and it changed every couple of days. However, as you
say, we digress.
> > In other words, they should pander to the lowest common denominator
> > prejudices of the 'audience'. As I said before, that's a recipe for dire
> > standards of art the world over.
>
> In other words......NO. But when you are an artist you need to think
> about your fans first. The fans are the reason you are where you are.
> If you want to offend your fans, be prepared for ramifications.
Certainly an artist's 'fans' should be considered, but they should not
determine the outcome of artistic endeavours. If that happens, then the
performer is not an 'artist', just an 'entertainer'. I can think of many
artists in the fields of folk, pop, rock and jazz who, if they had used your
rule of thumb, would have stagnated at a very early stage. The long-lasting
artists (Dylan, Bowie, Davis, to name but three examples) tend to be those
who follow their own thoughts.
Equally certainly, such artists should be aware of the possible consequences
of them adopting a certain artistic style or political / ethical position :
but that should not stop them from going ahead and doing so.
Unfortunately, artists (however you care to define the term) can no more
choose their fans than any of us can choose whose sons or daughters we are.
If the Dixie Chicks have now discovered that a proportion of the fans are
people who resort to disc-stomping when they are displeased, then they may
find that information useful, if worrying.
>
> > Meanwhile, huge corporations diddle their workers out of their pensions,
> > other companies with close ties to political power destroy the
environment.
> > If you also hit *them* in their pockets, then bravo. Otherwise, you're
being
> > both hypocritical and faint-hearted.
>
> This is about free-speech vs free expression. Dont try to change the
> subject. Try to focus.
I'm perfectly well focussed, thank you Karl. My point is that if you express
your anger or annoyance in such a way when a pop group expresses an opinion
you don't like, what do you do when faced with the *real* injustices of the
world? Do you merely acquiesce in a sort of 'can't fight city hall' way ; or
do you take whatever action you are able to take (boycotts, leafletting,
etc.) against those injustices? If the latter, then again, bravo - you are
being consistent in your position. If the former, then you are wasting the
energy of your annoyance on very trivial matters.
>
> > You are perfectly entitled to your views *and* to express them
peaceably. So
> > are others.
>
> And if I decide to no longer purchase Dixie Chicks CDs, I get to do
> that.
I've no issue with you on that. The question was the appropriateness of the
action you took regarding the ones you had already bought.
>
> > But if the time ever comes where you will face unemployment for
> > doing so (as has already happened to a number of people in your country
> > already, even before the 'war'), then you may need to reflect as to
whether
> > your disc-dissing action was necessarily a good example to set.
>
> Those poor little Dixie Chicks are not going to "face unemployment for
> doing so". Perhaps they won't be able to purchase an extra summer
> mansion. Their families won't go hungry. You won't see any Dixie
> Chicks standing in the unemployment line. The Dixie Chicks won't be
> needing food stamps.
I was making a general statement. There are people in the US who *have* lost
their jobs or been subject to harrassment as a consequence of peacefully
expressing an honest opinion. These are 'little people' as often as not, and
they are being shafted for what are still (just about)
constitutionally-protected actions.
The same principle applies all the way up - otherwise, it isn't a principle.
I do not take the view that someone's celebrity / fame / wealth / prominence
either precludes them from being able to voice their honest views without
being the victims of orchestrated campaigns (by the likes of Clear Channel,
to give just one example) to try to wreck their livelihoods, or that their
views must be held to be suspect by virtue of their status alone. I hold
that principle to apply equally to the Dixie Chicks and to hard-line
Republicans like Schwarzenegger.
Karl Fisher
> it raises the image of some rather unfortunate historical parallels. On the
> flag issue, far better to do what some anti-war demonstrators actually
> *did*, which is to fly the flag *upside-down* (the international distress
> signal).
Just because some people see actions through eyes of imagery rather
than the underlying reasons, should not stop your actions. Should the
Catholic church abandon the cross, just because Nazi Germany had a
pseudo-cross (swaztika) as their emblem, and ignorant people might say
that the cross "raises the image of some rather unfortunate historical
parallels? Of course not. Be aware of imagery yes, but run from it,
no.
If you prefer some other form of political expression, then I support
that. That is what diversity is all about. Why not support my
differing methodology? Diversity is what makes this county great. We
don't have to all alike. We should however encourage tolerance.
> Certainly an artist's 'fans' should be considered, but they should not
> determine the outcome of artistic endeavours.
I will repeat. If you want financial support from your fans, you need
to be
sensitive to their views. Country music fans generally (as a group)
have certain views and beliefs. If an artist is not sensitive to
those views,
financial ramifications will occur. So if the artist doesn't care then
they
should whine about the lack of financial support. Do what you're
going to
do, but don't whine about having to lie in your bed once you have made
it
yourself.
You can't have it both ways. Either you care about financial support,
or
you don't. Don't go down one path and complain when you find you're
not
going down the other.
> Equally certainly, such artists should be aware of the possible consequences
> of them adopting a certain artistic style or political / ethical position :
> but that should not stop them from going ahead and doing so.
Well okay, but don't complain if your previous fans no longer support
you.
> Unfortunately, artists (however you care to define the term) can no more
> choose their fans than any of us can choose whose sons or daughters we are.
> If the Dixie Chicks have now discovered that a proportion of the fans are
> people who resort to disc-stomping when they are displeased, then they may
> find that information useful, if worrying.
Wrong. Dixie Chicks started in country music. They orginally
targeted country music fans. It was a conscious effort on their part.
I could give you example
after example of what they did early in their career to get played on
Country
music radio stations. Now once they are being accepted into Pop music
as well, I contend that they have forgotten where the base of the fan
support comes
from.
> Do you merely acquiesce in a sort of 'can't fight city hall' way ; or
> do you take whatever action you are able to take (boycotts, leafletting,
> etc.) against those injustices?
Of course not. I apply thd same verosity to issues I deem as
important. But I dont think that this is a trivial issue. The issues
of "Freedom of Speech", "Tolerance", "Idividual Rights", and
"Diversity" are important. I believe that this situation has opened
up all these issues for pubic discussion. This supposedly "trivial"
situation uncovers much larger issues and beliefs.
> I was making a general statement. There are people in the US who *have* lost
> their jobs or been subject to harrassment as a consequence of peacefully
> expressing an honest opinion. These are 'little people' as often as not, and
> they are being shafted for what are still (just about)
> constitutionally-protected actions.
>
> The same principle applies all the way up - otherwise, it isn't a principle.
I think that other "principles" are in effect here. You see it
primarily as the Dixie Chicks' right to dissent. I (and others like
me) see it also as consumers right to make their political voices
heard. Yes the Dixie Chicks get to have "freedom of speech", but it is
never "free" if someone else is paying for it. The person paying for
your opinions always has the right to stop paying for your opinion.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Kamm2MacD
>about your fans first.
When you are a human being, you need to think about your own integrity, your
convictions first, otherwise - if you're an artistic human being - you're
giving nothing but falsity and pablum to your fans. If you offend your fans,
yes, be prepared for ramifications. It's really their loss for being close
minded to who the artist really is. Offense is no reason to stifle dissent or
censor oneself.
Hooray for the Dixie Chicks... it takes courage to speak one's mind, especially
is it differs from the status quo, in this age of frothing, rabid 'love it or
leave it', 'if you're not with us, you're with them' mindsets... shades of
McCarthyism.
Eleanore
RB
> politics? freee speech/expression?
> as fat freddy asked the librarian at state college, "where's the fuck
> books?"
Man, are you missing the point or what?
Two possibilities here (maybe both are true)
1. The DC's have a VERY good publicist, who recognizes that "there's no
such thing as bad press"
2. As above, said publicist has used the combined images of sexuality
and the "political messages" to (hopefully) make people realize how
complex (and at times, IMO, ridiculous) this whole issue has become.
I wonder what Gilbert Shelton would say?
RB
Well this one just keeps going round in circles (but with some good
asides thrown in) so I've had enough.
I'm glad the Dixie Chicks are embarassed to be from the same
ethnocentric state (Texas) as Kaiser George, and that they said so.
Other Texans may not concur, and that's fine too.
And I'm really glad that they are selling lots of records, though I
don't much care for their tunes myself.
And I'm very pleased to see that the Dixie Chicks, like the Beatles, are
more popular than Jesus.
Gotta go wash the sarcasm off, it's starting to drip....
Tom from Texas
Arnold Schwartenegger movies. I agree artists should not express political or
religious opinions so no more "Star-Spangled Banner", no more prayer in public
by any celebrity and especially sportsplayers.
No more CSI or Law and Order programs. No more Fox News. Down with expressing
any public opinions if yall intend to sell anything.
Tom (ashamed of Bush, too) from Texas
ps Think his daughters could go buy me six pack?
Dan Goodman
it's a reference to their Entertainment Today cover?
Karl Fisher
> If you are upset at hearing about her political opinions,
> perhap you should be upset with AP for picking up her
> statement and publishing it for all to here ... not her
> intent.
It is the same thing as Louis Farrakhan making one set of
comments to an audience of mostly muslims, and then making
a much different set of comments when on TV. Trying to
appeal to one groups' prejudices and then not making those
same statements to a larger public.
Do you think the Dixie Chicks would have made those comments
here in Texas, where her "ashamed to be from Texas" comment
would have been much more pertinent and germaine?
Do you think they would have made those comments if they
thought it was going to be broadcast back home? Or rather
do they say one thing to one audience and hope another
audience never finds out what was said?
Why blame AP for reporting what the Dixie Chicks said? Are you
suggesting censorship? Why should the AP cover up the
story? Open it up for all the world to see and make up
their own minds. I say no to censorship.
> It seems as though she was just a mouthpiece/outlet for
> a feeling that was pretty widespread in the area in which
> she performed.
She was being a mouthpiece for Non-Americans, criticizing
American policy on the eave of war. That might be okay for
you, but many country music fans believe that is reckless,
and inapropriate speech. And even if she wanted to criticize
the President while in a foreign country, there are ways to
respectfully express dissent. Hers was not respectful.
> Artists provide a service which the fans pay for ...
> I really don't believe artists "owe" their fans any more than
> this.
You and I vastly disagree on this one.
> While I agree that some people do retaliate against people
> whose opinions they do not share ... I do not
> agree that such retaliation is always "right, legal, appropriate,
> moral, and intelligent."
Would that go for people who tried to stop the free speech
of Dr. Laura, Robert Bork, and John Rocker?
> The Dixie Chicks, in their interview on ABC, said that they
> and their family were receiving death threats. I hardly consider
> that appropriate, moral, or intelligent.
This is ridiculous. Public figures get death threats all the time. I
am sorry that it happens, but it is the price of fame. There is
always some crazy looking to do something crazy.
I am sure this isn't the first time the Dixie Chicks have received a
death threat.
But they are publicizing this death threat to make us feel sorry for
the poor little old Dixie Chicks. They are victims.
This is not about being sorry. This is about economics. Dixie
Chicks don't care that they upset their fans, they are just upset that
we are not spending our money as quickly as we once did. These are
millionares that won't be making as many millions as they thought they
were.
> Public, organized stompings of their CDs ... I don't consider that
> right, appropriate, moral, or intelligent.
Would you support someone burning a flag as a form of public dissent?
Publically destroying CDs is the same thing. Do you support Diversity?
Do you support my right to political expression? Where is your
tolerance now?
> why is it okay for the media giant to
> express its political opinions and not the Dixie Chicks.
Any organization has the right to express themselves, and then you have
the right to respond by either supporting them or not with your dollars.
I choose not to support the Dixie Chicks. If you want to no longer
support a "media giant" go right ahead. I'll support your rights if
you support mine.
> If I find a show or commercial particularly offensive, I simply do
> not buy that product anymore. I wish more people did this sort
> of thing. I wonder what would happen if "liberals" suddenly
> stopped buying the products of companies who commercials air during
> the times that some of these loud-mouthed and offensive commentators
> are on
There you go, now you're expressing your opinions. Hurray! I'll support
your freedom of expression if you'll support mine. Who says we have
to agree. Diversity! That is what makes America great!
Karl Fisher
> Turn off FoxTV and get the facts. The Dixiechicks CD is STILL #1 on the
> Country Bilboard charts and it has NEVER wavered.
Wrong. Why don't you take your own advice and check the facts. I'll make
it easy for you. Here's a link.
http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/country.jsp
Number 3 on country charts and dropping like a rock. Even with all
SONY's power behind them.
http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/bb200.jsp
And 34(and dropping) on the Pop Charts where they have been #1.
So here are my facts, where are yours?
> No matter what the
> Bushie lemmings spew out about their disgust in free speech, the
> Dixiechicks statements got postitive reactions from real Americans.
> THINK FOR YOURSELF!!
Oh I see, you are a "real American". Does that make the rest of us
fake, or non-Americans? Who is 'spewing' lack of tolerance now?
Nigel Stapley
"Tom from Texas" <tris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030427145710...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Yeah, but they'd have drunk them all before they got back to you.... :-)
NJ Arvay
wrote:
>
>> It seems as though she was just a mouthpiece/outlet for
>> a feeling that was pretty widespread in the area in which
>> she performed.
>
>She was being a mouthpiece for Non-Americans, criticizing
>American policy on the eave of war. That might be okay for
>you, but many country music fans believe that is reckless,
>and inapropriate speech.
Natalie Maines made the statement to an audience of country music fans
in England, an ally of the United States in the campaign against Iraq.
She was speaking as a Texan about another Texan, and her remarks were
well received by the audience, which included a fair number of
Americans.
All clear now?
> And even if she wanted to criticize
>the President while in a foreign country, there are ways to
>respectfully express dissent. Hers was not respectful.
What she said -- in essence -- is that she felt Bush did not exemplify
what she believed to be the best Texas had to offer. Fighting words
in Texas, perhaps -- or at least among Republicans -- but the rest of
the world takes a milder (saner) view of it.
>> The Dixie Chicks, in their interview on ABC, said that they
>> and their family were receiving death threats. I hardly consider
>> that appropriate, moral, or intelligent.
>
>This is ridiculous. Public figures get death threats all the time. I
>am sorry that it happens, but it is the price of fame. There is
>always some crazy looking to do something crazy.
>
>I am sure this isn't the first time the Dixie Chicks have received a
>death threat.
>
>But they are publicizing this death threat to make us feel sorry for
>the poor little old Dixie Chicks. They are victims.
The law certainly sees it that way. Making a death threat is a
criminal offense. Expressed a certain way, it's also a terrorist act
under U.S. law. And if expressed with the intent to silence political
speech, it's a civil rights violation that carries a hefty sentence
upon conviction. That's the law, even in Texas.
Destroy your CDs if you like. Send them back to the company that
released them with the message that unless the artists conform their
views to yours, you'll take your business elsewhere. It's graceless
and it suggests you're a bit less in favor of diversity than you
suggest, but it's certainly your right. While you're at it, though,
you might want to thumb through your collection and dispense with CDs
by Springsteen and a host of others who've spoken up to defend Natalie
Maines and her right to speak her mind, wherever and whenever she
pleases, on her terms, not yours. For some reason, they seem to think
that's the American way.
JesiAna
Depends on what your aim as an artist is. If it is to make money then you will
be very careful not to offend your fan base. However, if you are in it to put
across a message, as many artists are, some people may be offended. If you are
an artist, you must be prepared for that. Can you imagine Pete Seeger or Holly
Near worrying that someone might not like them opposing war, or standing
against corporate bosses?
<< Hooray for the Dixie Chicks... it takes courage to speak one's mind,
especially
is it differs from the status quo, in this age of frothing, rabid 'love it or
leave it', 'if you're not with us, you're with them' mindsets... shades of
McCarthyism. >>
Couldn't agree with you more!
Karl Fisher
> I want all the money back that I spent on John Wayne and Charlton Heston and
> Arnold Schwartenegger movies.
Did you keep your receipts?
> I agree artists should not express political or
> religious opinions so no more "Star-Spangled Banner", no more prayer in public
> by any celebrity and especially sportsplayers.
Every celebrity and sportsplayer chooses what he does in public. And
he should be man (or woman) enough when people react to what he has
said. Stop all this wimpy stuff, "Tell those Country Music fans to
keep spending their money even though I have walk on their feelings"
You get to say what you want. And if you step on my beliefs, I get to
exercise my freedom of expression. That is called freedom, individual
rights, and personal responsibility. Foundation stones of a our
democracy.
> No more CSI or Law and Order programs. No more Fox News. Down with
> expressing any public opinions if yall intend to sell anything.
Do what you want, but stop whining about what I'm doing? You get to
decide
how to spend your time and money. I get to decide how I spend mine.
Its called diversity. Individual freedom and responsibility.
> Tom (ashamed of Bush, too) from Texas
> ps Think his daughters could go buy me six pack?
wow! no comment on that.
I'll show you my tolerance, if you'll show me yours.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Oldfrat
checked my e-mail and found some messages of support about my original
posting on this topic and some incredible hate mail accusing me of coming
out from under a rock and exposing my Nazi tendencies. Heck, one guy even
insulted me in Latin -- a totally new experience for me as I didn't attend a
parochial school. Some of the posters here seem to also feel that I'm a
Nazi, small minded, etc., etc. Only Karl seems to have grasped my point.
FWIW, I was camping out in a $50 tent, didn't have any guns with me and wore
no uniforms or badges of insignia. PETA members may be offended to know I
was there for the purpose of catching trout on my fly rod but, at least will
be slightly reassured to learn that I quickly released them all back into
the river as gently as possible and with a prayer for their continuing good
life.
Am I small minded? I don't think so. But I suspect that some who have
attacked me here may have their own problems with tunnel vision of the
brain.
My original post was to the effect that the Dixie Chicks are not the victims
of some conspiracy by Clear Channel or any other organization. They are
experiencing a backlash of individuals that they offended when they decided
to stop simply trying to entertain and to use the bully pulpit their
celebrity gives them to start voicing political opinions. When they do this
they should recognize that they are going to get reactions from offended
former fans, as my wife and I were in their case. We don't have a bully
pulpit to reach the masses, unless you consider this board to be one, so we
simply react as individuals -- deciding we will no longer support the group
financially and won't even listen to the CDs we bought before as it now
reminds us of somthing that makes us angry as opposed to entertaining us.
I wasn't trying to incite anyone else to a boycott or CD burning. I wasn't
trying to scare off artists from voicing their opinions. Heck, I have a lot
of respect for many artists who have deliberately chosen to use their
audience to spread their message. But I was taught by my parents, and tried
to teach my sons, that actions and decisions have consequences. Any artist
who voices a message like the Dixie Chicks did should not blame the
consequences on anybody else.
The Dixie Chicks are free to voice any message they want. As others have
pointed out, if they own a flag, they are free to burn it. Along the same
lines, I am free to display the flag I bought and the yellow ribbons
currently on our front tree --and my wife was free to take a hammer to her
DC CDs. Does that make me a better American than they are? I don't argue
this. I only argue that, when they decided to make a comment in public that
offended me, they deservedly lost me as a fan.
The blacklisting that Pete Seeger, Paul Robeson and many other artists that
I enjoy (and still have recordings and videos of) was a terrible thing. It
was an organized political effort to destroy the careers of artists who fell
afoul of the cancerous McCarthy programs. What the Chicks are experiencing
from people like us is totally different. They offended us to a degree that
they are no longer welcome in our home. If that makes me a small minded
Nazi --OK, I'm a small minded Nazi --by your definition, at least.
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.0304...@posting.google.com...
Oldfrat
feel better, great! I'm glad that you felt better by getting something off
your chest.
But if you think you are convincing me or intimidating me by this, forget
it! It just shows me that you don't have the balls to expose your views
here in a public forum where others can judge the quality of your thinking
and your abilities to persuade.
Don't know how others feel about this, but I consider it a form of slimy
cowardice. Don't expect to reply in a private e-mail. You are not worth my
time.
"Oldfrat" <old...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8i933$t1d$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <b8ieqe$349$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Oldfrat"
<old...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oh, yeah, and let me add this. If sending me personal e-hate-mail makes you
> feel better, great! I'm glad that you felt better by getting something off
> your chest.
>
> But if you think you are convincing me or intimidating me by this, forget
> it! It just shows me that you don't have the balls to expose your views
> here in a public forum where others can judge the quality of your thinking
> and your abilities to persuade.
Dammit-- When trying to post this originally I hit "reply" Instead of "reply
to group". I guess now I'm supposed to prove to the sensitive Mr. Oldfart
that I am sufficiently gonadically endowed by his standards by posting this
to the NG, as originally intended. Here goes. Incidentally, I suspect the
level of hatred expressed in any mail OF may have recently received pales in
comparison to some of that directed at the D-Chicks in recent weeks.
Original post:
"Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people".
...Heirich Heine, 1820
And by extension, smashing CDs. In any case, I'll be damned if I'll stand
idly by while little tin fascists like you are lighting your torches. Ever
been to the memorial site in the Babelplatz in Berlin, just off Unter den
Linden, where the Nazi party staged their book burnings in 1933? I have. And
the lesson I learned there can be summed up in two words: "Never again!!"
Do us all a favor and crawl back under your rock. Please.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <b8i933$t1d$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Oldfrat"
<old...@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
> My original post was to the effect that the Dixie Chicks are not the victims
> of some conspiracy by Clear Channel or any other organization. They are
> experiencing a backlash of individuals that they offended when they decided
> to stop simply trying to entertain and to use the bully pulpit their
> celebrity gives them to start voicing political opinions. When they do this
> they should recognize that they are going to get reactions from offended
> former fans, as my wife and I were in their case. We don't have a bully
> pulpit to reach the masses, unless you consider this board to be one, so we
> simply react as individuals -- deciding we will no longer support the group
> financially and won't even listen to the CDs we bought before as it now
> reminds us of somthing that makes us angry as opposed to entertaining us.
>
(snip)
This is naive horseshit. Most of the CD-burnings and so forth that were
organized all across the South and wherever else were directly organized
*by* Clear Channel, an organization that obviously places no value
whatsoever on free speeech, at least not for anyone of even vaguely liberal
persuasion. Their role in this was hardly "conspiritorial", tho they weren't
exactly loudly promoting their involvement, preferring that the events
appear "spontaneous" for the simple-minded likes of Oldfart, in order that
it look more convincing to the kneejerk media. I haven't the exact citations
at hand, but five minutes' search of various news sites will turn up plenty
of evidence of CC's role in this appalling censor-fest.
Pro-censorship, pro-war "patriots" like Oldfart who complain about the "lack
of a bully pulpit" are liars and hypocrites. The American Right loves to
spread the myth of a liberal-dominated media. It serves their purpose to
look like victims of a vast liberal/left conspiracy. The truth is that true
liberalism in American media is rapidly being stamped out of existence in
the media-aided rush to support the Bushites' push to global
military/political domination. As for the few remaining genuine
leftist/dissenting journalists in America, the way things are going it's
probably only a matter of time until the order is given to round them up and
take them to the reeducation camps. Goebbels-like figures like Rush
Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, and god knows how many others daily spew their
hatemongering bile in print, on TV and on-line, or publish or broadcast
those who do, to an eager audeince of scores of millions. Check FoxNews'
rabidly pro-war coverage of the Iraq invasion. This is the most
widely-viewed TV news organization in America, folks.
Oldfart whines that the likes of him "don't have a bully pulpit"?? I don't
know whether to laugh or cry. Who's "bullying" who here? You might start by
asking the Dixie Chicks.
Steve and Trish
i was trying to point out how bullshit the situation has become when we
frame a national debate over free speech and expression with the meaningless
actions of tits and ass entertainment biz celebs and no-minds who smash
CDs...you'll recall the librarian told fat freddy, "there'll never be fuck
books in this library", and ff started (accidentally) a campus riot....you
also will recall that fat freddy is a moronic slob, who's cat is smarter
than him....
GS (as freewhheelin franklin watches teevee) said, who's side CAN YOU BE
ON...
"RB" <vw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<vwram-027EBC....@news.telus.net>...
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://steventrish.home.mindspring.com/webpage_files/start.html
"RB" <vw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vwram-027EBC....@news.telus.net...
RB
"Steve and Trish" <steve...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> i'm missing the point?
My apologies... I didn't read "deep enough" into your context, esp. the
Freak Bros. reference.... ah yes the riot that FF started... it's all
starting to come back now....
Yes, I agree -- it is indeed asinine (the whole Dixie Chicks situation),
but it is still important as a measure of the direction that America is
turning ( citizens paranoid, blind belief in a powerful and totally
corrupt government)
Excuse me, as I was about to put on my stereo headphones.....
AGGGHHHH.... the cat did it again....
Stephen L. Suffet
> [snip]
>
> An entertainer's job is to entertain. It is certainly their right to express
> their personal beliefs as part of this, be they political, philosophical, or
> whatever. The more they stray from simply entertaining the masses, though,
> the more they limit their audiences .It is a free choice on their part.
>
> My sense is that the Dixie Chicks didn't realize the consequences of their
> decision. That's too bad. I hope entertainers will learn from this and
> make more informed decisions in the future. If their informed decisons
> causes us to hammer more CDs, that's OK. Just want them to realize that
> there are consequences of stepping out of the pure entertainer role.
>
Yup. But why stop with the Dixie Chicks? It's time we taught that Will Geer
feller a lesson, too. And while we're at, we better do somethin' about that no
good Pete Seeger. He goes around pretendin' like he's a real American, but all
the while he's puttin' commie ideas in peoples' heads. And above all, we gotta
do somethin' to stop that sonofabitch Paul Robeson, like maybe ..... well, you
know what I mean. After all, don't they all know the only thing they're spozed
to be doin' is ENTERTAININ' us?
:-)
Karl Fisher
> If you offend your fans,
> yes, be prepared for ramifications. It's really their loss for being close
> minded to who the artist really is.
> Offense is no reason to stifle dissent or censor oneself.
> Hooray for the Dixie Chicks... it takes courage to speak one's mind,
Obviously the Dixie Chicks are not as courageous as you give them
credit
for. They have backed up numberous times. So much so that they have
stumbled all over themselves. At one point she said she was just
joking, it was simply a joke.
This is not about Freedom of Speech. This is about economics. A few
millionares are not going to make as many millions as they once were.
But make no mistake about it, they will not be standing in line for
food stamps. If they are don't care about the views of their fans,
let them at least be consitant with their defiance.
I love all this judgementalism (..frothing...rabid...close-minded
McCarthyism) from people demanding tolerance of their views. If you
want tolerance, maybe you show show some.
Oldfrat
current risk of our ire. :)
I've never heard you perform so don't have a clue what your songs or patter
are like. If you have chosen to turn your performances into strong
expressions of your politics and philosophy, be they right or left, you've
made a decision to limit your audience. That's fine with me and I respect
you for it. Entertainers who are in it for the money know, or are guided,
to stay apolitical in public so that they will appeal to the broadest
possible audience. Some people will go to a performance because they want
to hear a political message that resonates with them. Most people go to a
performance to be entertained.
From your history of posts on this board, I know you are intelligent and
extremely knowledgeable about folk music and its history. I therefore doubt
that you would blame the public response to any political messages you chose
to deliver in your performances to a conspiracy by Clear Channel, the
Neo-Nazis or any other group.
I don't think the Chicks were as smart. They were enjoying huge success as
a mass act. They introduced a political message -- a strong one at a
particularly sensitive time and place -- and they lost a measurable part of
their mass audience as a result. Their follow up comments make them sound
shocked, surprised, offended and trying to find "weasel words" that will
extricate them. Totally unlike, Paul, Pete and Will who said, "that's my
story and I'm sticking to it".
Pete, Paul and Will have my respect and I still have their records, CDs,
Laser Disks and DVDs. The Chicks will never feel the impact of my personal
hammer on their CDs, but they are clearly feeling the impact of a lot of
people's hammers --put into play by individual choices, not a conspiracy.
"Stephen L. Suffet" <Suf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3EADB4F4...@worldnet.att.net...
Martin Grossman
Brittles
drones...
<< ...This is not about Freedom of Speech. This is about economics... >>
<< ...If you want tolerance, maybe you show show some.>>
<<I'll show you my tolerance, if you'll show me yours. >>
Sure Karl-
But how much is gonna cost me, to see yours?
Every posting you make is a restatement of your bottom-line orientation toward
economic-Darwinism. Get your head out of your wallet for a couple minutes, and
take a breath. You've made your simplistic point about 8 times, so far. Now,
you're simply badgering.
Unfortunately, not EVERYTHING in life is for sale. (Although the Bush Leaguers
certainly operate under that cynical assumption...) And spare me the GB Shaw
quip.
Do you have anything INTERESTING to discuss about folk music? Your postings
seem rather vaugue in that area. It happens to the subject of this group.
(Unless you're cross-posting from alt.limbaugh.tolerence.baiting... you
certainly have his debating style down pat.)
I've enjoyed OldFrat's postings over the years - even though I don't personally
agree with his position on this issue. I can be tolerant of his differing view
- because I know from his past postings, that we share areas of common
interest. Therefore, actual communication CAN take place.
The Dixie Chicks crossed OldFrat's line. You crossed mine.
Yes, you are correct. MOST people will eventually become intolerant of others
who *persistently* act like asses. (Which was sorta the reason for Maine's
original comment...)
So... what's your OTHER point?
Best-
Ed Britt
Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me.
Jeff
>|Clear Channel must be broken up.
Buy them.
J
--
If we treat every drop of water as drinking water we'll start making the right decisions for our communities and our futures. [www.planputnam.org]
David Rintoul
Pete, Paul and Will have my respect and I still have their records, CDs,
Laser Disks and DVDs.
-------
Now, I'm confused. At just about the same time as Nathalie Maines made her
remark, Pete Seeger took part in anti-war rallies in Dutchess County NY
(where he lives) and Manhattan. He was quoted as saying, "Draw on the most
wonderful tradition that we have in America: speaking your mind in public -
even if some people disagree with you. I'm telling everybody, 'Don't be
silent now.'"
Why is that okay?
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
Tony Wesley
> JR <no...@all.edu> wrote
> > Turn off FoxTV and get the facts. The Dixiechicks CD is STILL #1 on the
> > Country Bilboard charts and it has NEVER wavered.
>
> Wrong. Why don't you take your own advice and check the facts. I'll make
> it easy for you. Here's a link.
>
> http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/country.jsp
>
> Number 3 on country charts and dropping like a rock. Even with all
> SONY's power behind them.
"Dropping like a rock"?
More than a month after the remarks were made, the album finally
slides from #1 to #3 -- and one notch is due to Darryl Worley
coming out at #1.
The same week the Dixis Chicks fell from #1 to #3, Shania Twain
fell from #4 to #9.
Oldfrat
I don't come to this board seeking political debate; I come because I truly
enjoy folk music and learn a lot from the other posters. I've found new
artists and recordings. I've "met" people I consider to be good friends,
even though we've never met in person. Total strangers have helped me and
answered my questions, and I've tried to do that for other strangers. I
suspect some of the friends I've made are people I would have avoided, and
vice versa, if we had passed on the street. On the Net, physical appearance
becomes a non-issue and the pure personality comes shining through.
The response to my postings on this thread has amazed me cuz I didn't, and
still don't, consider them to be controversial. I suspect some people are
reacting kind of knee jerk to the subject, not to the actual words and the
message I was trying to communicate.
A wise mentor once taught me about learning to disagree without being
disagreeable. Overall and over time, this board gets a "B" grade in that
regards --helped a lot by people like you whose "A's" bring up the average.
Steve and Trish
> do somethin' to stop that sonofabitch Paul Robeson,
he's dead
this is what it's all about
tit$ and a$$
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/ny-dixie0424,0,1572
019.photo?coll=sfla-entertainment-headlines
--
______________________________________
Steve Senderoff & Trish Vierling
"...Ya run your E string down oh, I don't know, about three frets...anyway,
it corresponds to the third note on the A string...here's ya tuning..."
.........Tommy Jarrell
http://steventrish.home.mindspring.com/webpage_files/start.html
"Stephen L. Suffet" <Suf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3EADB4F4...@worldnet.att.net...
> Oldfrat wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > An entertainer's job is to entertain. It is certainly their right to
express
> > their personal beliefs as part of this, be they political,
philosophical, or
> > whatever. The more they stray from simply entertaining the masses,
though,
> > the more they limit their audiences .It is a free choice on their part.
> >
> > My sense is that the Dixie Chicks didn't realize the consequences of
their
> > decision. That's too bad. I hope entertainers will learn from this and
> > make more informed decisions in the future. If their informed decisons
> > causes us to hammer more CDs, that's OK. Just want them to realize that
> > there are consequences of stepping out of the pure entertainer role.
> >
>
> Yup. But why stop with the Dixie Chicks? It's time we taught that Will
Geer
> feller a lesson, too. And while we're at, we better do somethin' about
that no
> good Pete Seeger. He goes around pretendin' like he's a real American, but
all
> the while he's puttin' commie ideas in peoples' heads. like maybe .....
RB
"Tony Wesley" <tonyn...@tonywesley.com> wrote:
> Shania Twain
> fell from #4 to #9.
That's all because of her commie rantings about, about, ah, er, about...
Oh never mind.
Karl Fisher
> slides from #1 to #3 -- and one notch is due to Darryl Worley
> coming out at #1.
>
> The same week the Dixis Chicks fell from #1 to #3, Shania Twain
> fell from #4 to #9.
What is more dramatic is the drop from #1 on the POP charts to 33.
http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/bb200.jsp
That is a little blip.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> <<I'll show you my tolerance, if you'll show me yours. >>
> Sure Karl-
> But how much is gonna cost me, to see yours?
The price for tolerance is tolerance. Can you afford that?
> Every posting you make is a restatement of your bottom-line orientation toward
> economic-Darwinism. Get your head out of your wallet for a couple minutes,
> and take a breath.
Are you willing to pay the price of tolerance? If you will open up you
tolerance quotient just a bit and re-read my posts you will see that I
don't
promote bottom-line economics. I cynically accuse the Dixie Chicks of
being more money motivated than cause motivated. I am criticizing
them for that
motivation and therefore am holding economics up as a negative trait.
> You've made your simplistic point about 8 times, so far.
> Now,you're simply badgering.
In most cases, I have merely responded to people who have taken issue
with what I have said. Not once have I double responded to the same
message. That would be badgering.
> Unfortunately, not EVERYTHING in life is for sale. (Although the Bush
> Leaguers certainly operate under that cynical assumption...) And spare me
> the GB Shaw quip.
Who are you arguing with? Surely not me. I have never said that
"EVERYTHING in life is for sale". I challenge you to quote me saying
that or inferring that. Show me your facts. Why do you insist on
lumping me in with a whole group of people?
It must be easier to make assumptions about people if you assume that
they belong to a group. That is called prejudism. Prejudging someone.
That is what bigoted whites did in the early 60s in Alabama (and still
do today in some places). It sure makes it easy to group people into
huge groups and deal with them as stereotypes, but it is wrong. Always
has been, always will be.
> Do you have anything INTERESTING to discuss about folk music? Your postings
> seem rather vaugue in that area. It happens to the subject of this group.
> (Unless you're cross-posting from alt.limbaugh.tolerence.baiting... you
> certainly have his debating style down pat.)
Wow, you said a mouthful. If you don't care about what is written,
ignore the thread. The subject line clearly states the subject of the
discussion. If you will read more closely, you will see that I posted
in rec.music.folk in response to something someone else posted. I did
not start the thread, I merely responded to it. Do you allow me to
respond? Where is your tolerance, now?
> I've enjoyed OldFrat's postings over the years - even though I don't
> personally agree with his position on this issue. I can be tolerant
> of his differing view - because I know from his past postings, that
> we share areas of common interest. Therefore, actual communication CAN
> take place.
Okay let me see if I understand you correctly....Since you share areas
of common interest.......you can actually communicate. Does that
mean that if you don't have areas of common interest that you must
become intolerant and begin making wild accusations?
> The Dixie Chicks crossed OldFrat's line. You crossed mine.
>
> Yes, you are correct. MOST people will eventually become intolerant of others
> who *persistently* act like asses. (Which was sorta the reason for Maine's
> original comment...)
I am correct? Are you trying to quote me? I never said, "MOST people
will eventually become intolerant..." Have you truly read my posts? Or
are you looking for someone to go off on? Please accurately quote me
before you begin your scolding of me.
> So... what's your OTHER point?
Huh? What other point are you talking about?
> Best-
> Ed Britt
Best what?....
"Well so much for tolerance......."
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
David Rintoul
Apology from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks
As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my
remark was disrespectful. I now realize that whoever holds that office
should be treated with the utmost respect.
I hope everyone understands, I'm just a young girl who grew up in Texas. As
far back as I can remember, I heard people say they were ashamed of
President Clinton. I saw bumper stickers calling him everything from a
pothead to a murderer. I heard people on the radio and TV like Rush
Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott bad mouthing the
President and ridiculing his wife and daughter at every opportunity.
I heard LOTS of people disrespecting the President. So I guess I just
assumed it was acceptable behavior.
But now, thanks to the thousands of angry people who want radio stations to
boycott our music because criticizing the President is unpatriotic, I
realize it's wrong to have a liberal opinion if you're a country music
artist. I guess I should have thought about that before deciding to play
music that attracts hypocritical red necks.
I also realize now that I'm supposed to just sing and look cute so our fans
won't have anything to upset them while they're cheating on their wives or
getting in drunken bar fights or driving around in their pickup trucks
shooting highway signs and small animals.
And most important of all, I realize that it's wrong for a celebrity to
voice a political opinion, unless they're Charlie Daniels, Clint Black,
Merle Haggard, Barbara Mandrell, Loretta Lynn, Ricky Skaggs, Travis Tritt,
Hank Williams Jr, Amy Grant, Larry Gatlin, Crystal Gayle, Reba McEntire, Lee
Greenwood, Lorrie Morgan, Anita Bryant, Mike Oldfield, Ted Nugent, Wayne
Newton, Dick Clark, Jay Leno, Drew Carey, Dixie Carter, Victoria Jackson,
Charleton Heston, Fred Thompson, Ben Stein, Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner,
Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bo Derek, Rick Schroeder, George Will, Pat Buchanan,
Bill O'Reilly, Joe Rogan, Delta Burke, Robert Conrad or Jesse Ventura.
God Bless America,
Natalie
--
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03042...@posting.google.com...
Loki
wrote:
>"Tony Wesley" <tonyn...@tonywesley.com> wrote
>> More than a month after the remarks were made, the album finally
>> slides from #1 to #3 -- and one notch is due to Darryl Worley
>> coming out at #1.
>>
>> The same week the Dixis Chicks fell from #1 to #3, Shania Twain
>> fell from #4 to #9.
>
>What is more dramatic is the drop from #1 on the POP charts to 33.
>
>http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/bb200.jsp
According to the source you cited, they did not go from #1 to # 33,
but rather from # 30 to # 33.
In addition the week after the incident, they went from number 2 to
number 1 on the country charts and the week you cited they went from
#1 to #3 on the country charts.
http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/country.jsp
There was never a drop of 33 places in one week on any Billboard
chart.
Loki
Matt Griffin
Karl Fisher wrote:
>
>
> Do you think the Dixie Chicks would have made those comments
> here in Texas, where her "ashamed to be from Texas" comment
> would have been much more pertinent and germaine?
1.) Maines never said she was ashamed to be from Texas. She said she was
ashamed that W was from Texas. Natalie's always been proud to be Texan.
2.) Since she has apologised for disrespecting the President, clearly and
unequivocally, might we not assume that you're really just pissed that she
holds an opinion you don't like?
3.) Thanks for continuing to promote the Dicie Chicks, one of my favorite
country acts, all over the world wide web. What a fan.
Tom Traubert
Let's not forget Jonny Cash while we're at it, or have you never
listened to "Singing in Vietnam Talking Blues "?
--
Tom
Killy
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
David,
I do think it is the one she should have made. I get a real kick when
people talk about entertainers plying their trade and keeping their
opinions to themselves. It has never happened with either side of an
issue. The Right certainly did beat the crap out of Clinton during his
term, long before the issue of Monica came up. But other Presidents have
had their share of criticisms from those who did like what they were
doing, entertainers, politicians, and Joe Average. Why should GWB be any
different?
What I am interested in though, is the entire statement, made by Maines,
that started this whole thing. Did she say she was embarrassed by Bush
because of the war? All I've heard is that she was embarrassed by Bush
because he was from Texas. If that is all she said, and did not mention
the war, it could have been a number of reasons. I am embarrassed
because he seems to have a rough time making a complete sentence and
repeats himself, often three or four times.
Now for a real can of worms being opened. All the talk about one's lack
of support of the war keeping the troops moral low has me wondering
about something. This will be unpopular I realize, but do we have the
wrong people in the military if a star's opinion of a war being right or
wrong bothers them that much? Do we really want people who are affected
by some turmoil back home doing a job where it *will* happen? I was in
Nam from 1970 to 1971 and I was not negatively affected by the antiwar
demonstrators. Most of the other people I served with didn't either. We
spent most of our time just making it through each day, so we could get
our time in and go home. It's my personal contention that many of the
folks, who suffered mentally or got hooked on drugs from serving in
wartime, would have had the same issues in life just the same. (Please
notice I said "many", not "all".)
Killy
Oldfrat
I don't recall seeing any other posts from you (my fault), but if they are
all like this, keep 'em coming!
"Killy" <Kil...@nopam.net> wrote in message
news:Kiljoy-00BAFA....@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Karl Fisher
> According to the source you cited, they did not go from #1 to # 33,
> but rather from # 30 to # 33.
You have obviously mis-read what I wrote. I said that have dropped
from 1 to 33. I didn't say that drop occurred in merely one week.
But this controversy has not been going for merely a week.
Their album was at the #1 spot when this controversy started. Their
album is now at 33. That is my statement.
> There was never a drop of 33 places in one week on any Billboard
> chart.
That statement is not germaine to this discussion. No one has ever
claimed that that drop occurred in a one week time fram.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> level of hatred expressed in any mail OF may have recently received pales in
> comparison to some of that directed at the D-Chicks in recent weeks.
"But mommy all the other boys are doing it......" That didn't fly
with my parents.
> ...I'll be damned if I'll stand
> idly by while little tin fascists like you are lighting your torches.
Wow! Nobody is lightly any torches. And why all of this name-calling?
Can't you present your position without attacking someone else who is
legitimately presenting theirs? TOLERANCE.
> Do us all a favor and crawl back under your rock. Please.
Is this how you deal with people with whom your disagree? Wow!
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
David Rintoul
The all time record for the group album with the most weeks at number one is
30 weeks. That was the Beatles.
You can't expect any album to stay at the top of the charts for very long.
There's just too much competition. For example, lately there have been
heavily promoted new releases from Kelly Clarkson (the girl who won American
Idol), Fleetwood Mac, Darryl Worley, and Jimmie Buffett.
The Dixie Chicks' album has already gone platinum six times. That's over
six million copies. And they're still in the top three on the country
charts after 34 weeks. How much more can anybody expect them to sell?
The boycott may have had some effect. It may have hurt their sales, or it
may have been free publicity. I think it was the latter, but who can say?
If anybody could predict how much an album would sell, and where it would be
on the charts in advance, they wouldn't be wasting their time around here.
Time will tell.
Karl Fisher
> 1.) Maines never said she was ashamed to be from Texas. She said she was
> ashamed that W was from Texas. Natalie's always been proud to be Texan.
You are correct, I stand corrected. I did indeed misquote her, but my
question remains valid and still unanswered. Do you think she will be
making the "ashamed" remark when she is in Texas?
> 2.) Since she has apologised for disrespecting the President, clearly and
> unequivocally, might we not assume that you're really just pissed that she
> holds an opinion you don't like?
You can assume whatever you wish, but if you want to be no my
feelings, why not ask me? Pissed? I wouldn't use that word to describe
my feelings. And as to her holding a different opinion than I do, I
challenge you to re-read any of my posts. I promote tolerance. I
respect the opinions she has. I am just concerned the manner, method,
and timing that she chose to express those views.
> 3.) Thanks for continuing to promote the Dicie Chicks, one of my favorite
> country acts, all over the world wide web. What a fan.
Oh no, thank you for your dripping sarcasm.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Loki
wrote:
>Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> According to the source you cited, they did not go from #1 to # 33,
>> but rather from # 30 to # 33.
>
>You have obviously mis-read what I wrote. I said that have dropped
>from 1 to 33. I didn't say that drop occurred in merely one week.
>But this controversy has not been going for merely a week.
>
>Their album was at the #1 spot when this controversy started. Their
>album is now at 33. That is my statement.
So what? Their CD was peaking when they made the comment. It is common
for CDs to slide down the charts after they peak. At no time did the
disc fall any further than any other disc that peaks.
>> There was never a drop of 33 places in one week on any Billboard
>> chart.
>
>That statement is not germaine to this discussion. No one has ever
>claimed that that drop occurred in a one week time fram.
It has been claimed in many other places, typically on conservative
talk radio. I apologize if you took offense. However, there is nothing
notable about the decline on the pop charts. As was pointed out in the
rest of my post (which you edited out of your response) the CD did go
from number 2 to number 1 on the country charts AFTER the comment, and
only this week fell from 1 to 3.
Loki
Tony Wesley
> You have obviously mis-read what I wrote. I said that have dropped
> from 1 to 33. I didn't say that drop occurred in merely one week.
> But this controversy has not been going for merely a week.
>
> Their album was at the #1 spot when this controversy started. Their
> album is now at 33. That is my statement.
Your statement is incorrect. Norah Jones was #1 on March 3. Home fell
off the #1 spot back in September, being knocked out of #1 by Disturbed.
> > There was never a drop of 33 places in one week on any Billboard
> > chart.
>
> That statement is not germaine to this discussion. No one has ever
> claimed that that drop occurred in a one week time frame.
But you have falsely claimed that drop since the March 10 remarks.
Oldfrat
property and never OK to write letters threatening death or injury.
It is perfectly OK to trash your own property, such as a CD, and to write
letters informing a celebrity that you will never again support them
financially by purchasing their works as a consequence of their actions.
It is even OK to call somebody a Nazi for doing this --but it is inaccurate,
ill mannered, childish and a poor display of intelligence.
Hope we can agree on those guidelines.
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:KZOra.4349$Jy3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "The response to my postings on this thread has amazed me cuz I didn't,
and
> still don't, consider them to be controversial. I suspect some people are
> reacting kind of knee jerk to the subject, not to the actual words and the
> message I was trying to communicate."
>
> Oldfrat
>
> "It's the people who have gone overboard, and done such irrational
> things...that is a concern for me. We know some of our fans were shocked
> and upset. I totally understand it. My problem is, when does it cross the
> line? When is trashing Emily's property OK? When is writing a threatening
> letter OK?"
>
> Martie Maguire of the Dixie Chicks
Rongrittz
legitimately presenting theirs? TOLERANCE. <<
Did you not -- and have you not DAILY continued to -- attack the position of
someone (namely, Natalie Maines) with whom you disagreed? Where was your
tolerance as far as her opinion was concerened?
RG
David Rintoul
All I said was that big public demonstrations where people smash artist's
records are going to backfire because they well remind people of Nazi
tactics. That wasn't directed at anybody in particular.
I realize that you didn't take part in any such event and I never meant to
imply otherwise. Nor would taking part in such an event make anybody a
Nazi.
I apologize if I've upset you in any way as part of this debate.
--
David Rintoul
----------
Also rebounding this week is the Dixie Chicks' "Home" (Monument/Columbia),
which climbs 33-23. The country trio embarked on a publicity campaign last
week to regain favor with fans who were upset after negative comments about
U.S. President George Bush made by singer Natalie Maines in London. In
addition to sitting down for an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, the
Chicks posed nude for the cover of "Entertainment Weekly."
Oldfrat
the impression that my Nazi comment was directed at you. I NEVER
interpreted your message to mean that. My comments were directed at the
people who directly called me a Nazi on this board, and much worse in
e-mails to me, certainly not at you!
Hell, you and I might be able to make mega-bucks by being the next
point/counterpoint team. We certainly disagree in our politics, but we
debate with civility and good humor. I can just see us duking it out with
wit and intelligence (at least as much of those as I can muster on my end),
then going out for a beer and jamming on some old Weavers tunes. Yup, I
like and play Weavers' tunes, hard as that will be for some on this board to
believe. :)
Best regards!
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0_Zra.5071$fg3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
David Rintoul
after Mike Godwin. You can learn more about Godwin's Law here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
But just to summarize, it goes something like this.
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. In
other words, somebody's eventually going to say something about the Nazis in
any thread that lasts very long. When it happens, the thread is going to
start either degenerating into a long flamewar over Nazi Germany or about
Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread is effectively over, and you can
safely killfile the thread and move on."
I'm thinking maybe it's time to invoke Godwin's Law on this one.
Oldfrat
again? I can't do it in hockey, but maybe you can figure out something where
we are on more equal footing. :)
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:yu0sa.5218$fg3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Karl Fisher
> someone (namely, Natalie Maines) with whom you disagreed? Where was your
> tolerance as far as her opinion was concerened?
>
> RG
I have continued to explain my strong disagreement with Natalie
Maines' statements and the timing. When posters take exception to my
postings, I defend what I have posted. Is that how you define your
use of the word 'attack'? Please use specific examples of how you
believe I have 'attack'ed someone.
I use the word 'attack' to describe name-calling, verbal putdowns,
stereotyping of someone's position, assignment of ulterior motives.
Now I am not pretending to say I am perfect, but I have attempted to
present my position without doing 'attack'ing in these ways. Once
again please use specific examples of how you believe I have
'attack'ed someone.
Surely we can present our individual points of views in this forum
without attacking each other. Just because we strongly disagree,
doesn't mean we can't show respect for others and the positions they
hold. We should be able to state our opposition strongly but still
with respect for others. That is what I suggest that Natalie Maines
did NOT do.
Now if you want me to pay you to present your views, we'll have to see
about that one.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Tony Wesley
> This is from the early press release on next week's Billboard Charts.
> ----------
> Also rebounding this week is the Dixie Chicks' "Home" (Monument/Columbia),
> which climbs 33-23. The country trio embarked on a publicity campaign last
> week to regain favor with fans who were upset after negative comments about
> U.S. President George Bush made by singer Natalie Maines in London. In
> addition to sitting down for an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, the
> Chicks posed nude for the cover of "Entertainment Weekly."
> --
It's also moved up one spot on the country charts, to #2.
In the Pop Catalog charts, the Dixie Chicks' "Wide Open Spaces" moved
up from #22 to #11.
I just checked amazon.com - Home is the #12 seller there.
Matt Griffin
Karl Fisher wrote:
> Matt Griffin <deed...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > 1.) Maines never said she was ashamed to be from Texas. She said she was
> > ashamed that W was from Texas. Natalie's always been proud to be Texan.
>
> You are correct, I stand corrected. I did indeed misquote her, but my
> question remains valid and still unanswered. Do you think she will be
> making the "ashamed" remark when she is in Texas?
>
In the Entertainment Weekly interview she said that the only relevant
commentary she expects to make are along the lines of "thanks for coming to the
show". At this point, what she said in London is well known in TX, so
repeating it (esp. after having apologized for it) would be rather pointless,
wouldn't it?
The point here is that the apology has been given, explained, elaborated upon,
and wrapped up with a nice little bow and placed on newsstands all over
America. What exactly are you looking for? Human sacrifice?
>
> > 2.) Since she has apologised for disrespecting the President, clearly and
> > unequivocally, might we not assume that you're really just pissed that she
> > holds an opinion you don't like?
>
> You can assume whatever you wish, but if you want to be no my
> feelings, why not ask me? Pissed? I wouldn't use that word to describe
> my feelings. And as to her holding a different opinion than I do, I
> challenge you to re-read any of my posts. I promote tolerance. I
> respect the opinions she has. I am just concerned the manner, method,
> and timing that she chose to express those views.
So you say, but you keep hammering home the same point repeatedly, and after so
much effort and time invested, it really does begin to seem like there's more
motivation here than you say. Manner, method and timing have been addressed ad
infinitum. Maines has addressed the points you raise in print, and has tried to
set the record straight. I believe her. You don't. OK, now what? Where's
the way forward from here, Karl? I think I be no your feelings by now.
>> 3.) Thanks for continuing to promote the Dicie Chicks, one of my favorite
> > country acts, all over the world wide web. What a fan.
>
> Oh no, thank you for your dripping sarcasm.
I was only being about 1/2 sarcastic. See above. I'm thinkin' you gots some
unresolved issues here.
Rongrittz
so much effort and time invested, it really does begin to seem like there's
more motivation here than you say. <<
The more I think about it, I actually have no problem if he continues his
anti-Chicks tirade. He keeps their name on this list each and every day. Hey,
as a big Dixie Chicks fan -- who would love their music and buy their CDs even
if Natalie Maines is somewhat of a jerk from time to time -- I'd actually like
to thank Karl for his actions. He and others like him have helped give the
Chicks more publicity than they'd ever have gotten otherwise. Gotten them on
TV talking to Diane Sawyer. Gotten them on the cover of Entertainment Weekly.
And after a brief dip in sales, will eventually have gotten people who never
knew who the Dixie Chicks were the incentive to go and check them out, only to
discover that they make damn fine music.
If at least one of his objectives was to "hit the millionaires in their
wallet," he's done a piss-poor job. Better he should have just shut up and
stopped buying their product. Which is the way *I* protest against any
marketer whose product or advertising I dislike.
RG
Karl Fisher
> The point here is that the apology has been given, explained, elaborated upon,
> and wrapped up with a nice little bow and placed on newsstands all over
> America. What exactly are you looking for? Human sacrifice?
Why must you ask some ridiculous question? Are you really looking for
a dialog or are you looking to belittle someone else. Legitimate
concerns have been expressed about what, how, and when, Natalie Maines
made statements about the President of the US while she was in a
foreign country. I accept the apology she has offerred, but I will
continue to defend my original concerns. When posts are made that
attempt to ridicule, or misrepresent my position, I repost. People who
can't respect that, will have difficulty respecting other things as
well. That was my original issue with Natalie Maines. There is a
proper and respectfull way to express dissent and disagreement.
Resorting to name-calling, misrepresentations, and assignment of
ulterior motives are not what most consider respect for dissent.
> So you say, but you keep hammering home the same point repeatedly, and after > so much effort and time invested, it really does begin to seem like there's
> more motivation here than you say.
If you have an issue with something that has been said, let's talk
about it. If you want to do a psychoanalysis of my inner-being, let's
not. Unless you have a degree in pyschology and I visit your office
please keep it to yourself. And any way, is it really germaine to this
discussion? Please stick to the issue being discussed. Focus.
> Manner, method and timing have been addressed ad infinitum.
If you are tired of the discussion, then move on. Stop the insults,
putdowns and ridiculous questions and simply move on. The subject of
each thread is clearly marked at the top. Allow other people to
discuss if they want. Why must you insult others? You ask others
exhibit a little tolerance and that is the exact thing that you are
not exhibiting. Please let's not be hypocritical.
> I was only being about 1/2 sarcastic. See above. I'm thinkin' you gots some
> unresolved issues here.
Once again (see above) I challenge you to stop the arm chair
psychological analysis and focus on the subject of this discussion
thread. Take you issue with what has been said, and then be
responsible and respectfull with your dissent.
That is exactly what I wanted Natalie Maines to do.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas.
P.S. If you want to continue the personal putdowns, insults, and
psychological analysis, shoot me a personal email. There is no room
for that kind of discussion on this board.
David Rintoul
do is stop digging."
David Rintoul
----------
Dixie Chicks Fans Cheer At Tour Opener
A sold-out crowd cheered, danced, and sang along during the Dixie Chicks'
North American tour kick-off concert in Greenville, S.C., last night (May
1). Fans showed little concern for the controversy that has surrounded the
band since lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush over the war
with Iraq.
The show marked the first time the group had performed in the U.S. since
Maines told a London audience on March 10: "Just so you know, we're ashamed
the president of the United States is from Texas." The comment was made as
war was looming with Iraq, and Maines later apologized. But her remark
brought the group a flood of criticism and media attention.
Last night, the Dixie Chicks quickly realized their fans still loved them as
about 15,000 packed the Bi-Lo Center for the sold-out concert. If there was
a boo as the band appeared on stage, few could hear it. "I think it's a good
idea if we start every single tour right here," Maines said. "Y'all have
been an awesome crowd."
Maines didn't wait long to address the problems that have arisen from her
comments. "We have a plan for this," Maines said. "If you're here to boo, we
welcome that. We're going to give you 15 seconds to do that." And when
Maines counted to three, the sold-out crowd erupted in cheers and the Chicks
broke into "Long Time Gone."
Although Maines apologized for her remarks, sales of the latest Dixie
Chicks' album "Home" (Monument/Columbia) dropped sharply after the incident
and many country radio stations pulled their music from their playlists. In
recent interviews, the trio has said their lives, and the lives of their
families, have been threatened.
But last night seemed to be nothing but fun. "They said you might not come,
but we knew you would," said Maines, as fans whistled and pounded the backs
of their seats. "I loved it," said Leigh Anne Stephens, 23, of Charlotte,
N.C., decked out in a cowboy hat and a Dixie Chicks T-shirt.
Maines mentioned Bush just once, right before the band started its encore.
"They just told me that the president has announced that the war is over,"
said Maines, referring to his speech aboard an aircraft carrier earlier in
the night.
Before the concert, about 15 protesters milled outside the arena, carrying
sings saying "The three French hens" and "Nothing Dixie about these Chicks."
But it's possible that most of the anti-Dixie Chicks crowd was at the
Marshall Tucker Band show, an alternative concert held 30 miles away in
Spartanburg.
The 59-date Dixie Chicks tour continues tomorrow in Orlando, Fla.
-------------
David Rintoul
david....@sympatico.ca
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.rintoul
"In prosperity, our friends know us. In adversity, we know our friends."
J. Churton Collins
"David Rintoul" <david....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5xysa.640$S%.88164@news20.bellglobal.com...
Kamm2MacD
>proper and respectfull way to express dissent and >disagreement.
Why should dissent be 'proper and respectful' when our present administration
has done nothing but lie to the American public about reasons for going to war
in Iraq (WMDs? Did they have anything to do with 9-11?? Where's Saddam??
While we're at it, where's Osama?????), acted unilaterally and without the
support of the UN, has ruined our relationship with our world community, has
reamed Veteran's benefits (as of day 1 of this war) - yeah, they support our
troops, eh?- killed countless innocent Iraqi civilians, watched as Hospitals
and Civilization's History were looted and burned and has blown Iraq and it's
priceless culture and people back into the Flintstone era just so US
Corporations can benefit by building it back up, to US specs; has left Iraq in
a desperate humanitarian condition at present - has wrecked our economy and has
left the US in an unprecedented deficit, has iviscerated education, blocked our
contribution and support of the Kyoto Accord and other very important
environmental works in progress, has lowered EPA standards so that Big Industry
can continue to pollute and poison - all while they spend outrageous amounts of
our tax dollars on not-so-precision weaponry when the cost of just one F-16
could feed countless of our own hungry while another could house countless of
our own homeless and another could bolster our pathetic job market and....
and... and...
I, personally, don't feel that any of that deserves an iota of respect when I
voice my right to dissent.
Karl Fisher
> safely killfile the thread and move on."
I agree. I think you should take your own advice.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Tom Traubert
karlf...@yahoo.com (Karl Fisher) wrote:
> Matt Griffin <deed...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > The point here is that the apology has been given, explained, elaborated
> > upon,
> > and wrapped up with a nice little bow and placed on newsstands all over
> > America. What exactly are you looking for? Human sacrifice?
>
> Why must you ask some ridiculous question? Are you really looking for
> a dialog or are you looking to belittle someone else. Legitimate
> concerns have been expressed about what, how, and when, Natalie Maines
> made statements about the President of the US while she was in a
> foreign country.
You misstate the case: Ms. Maines did not make a staement about the
President, but rather about *her* (or their) feelings about the
President ("we're ashamed the President of the United States is from
Texas").
--
Tom
Karl Fisher
> > concerns have been expressed about what, how, and when, Natalie Maines
> > made statements about the President of the US while she was in a
> > foreign country.
>
> You misstate the case: Ms. Maines did not make a staement about the
> President, but rather about *her* (or their) feelings about the
> President ("we're ashamed the President of the United States is from
> Texas").
I disagree. She was doing both. Not only was she expressing her
feelings about the president, but her statement was a put down of the
job the President had done up till that time. She indicated that "we"
are "ashamed" to be from the same state as the President. Many people
see that as not only an expression of her feelings, but also a
criticism or the President.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> >There is a
> >proper and respectfull way to express dissent and >disagreement.
>
> Why should dissent be 'proper and respectful' when our present administration
> I, personally, don't feel that any of that deserves an iota of respect when I
> voice my right to dissent.
I could attempt to counter each one of your criticisms of this
administration, but it would not be in keeping with the subject of
this thread.
As American citizens, we should voice our publc dissent when we
disagree with the direction we are heading. But there must be an
acceptable way to express that dissent. Saying, "the other guy
started it, and I am not as bad as him" never worked when I was
growing up and it is not an acceptable excuse today. We must hold
ourselves to an standard of behavior independant of what the
opposition does.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Kirsten Chevalier
> Saying, "the other guy started it, and I am not as bad as him" never worked
> when I was growing up and it is not an acceptable excuse today.
Unless you're George W. Bush, that is.
Kirsten, who previously abhorred the Dixie Chicks but, as a direct result of
this thread, intends to purchase at least one of their CDs
--
Kirsten Chevalier * Often in error, never in doubt
"I'm getting further from the things I thought I knew, but I'm getting closer
to the truth."--Trout Fishing in America
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~krc/
Paul Burke
>
> As American citizens, we should voice our publc dissent when we
> disagree with the direction we are heading. But there must be an
> acceptable way to express that dissent.
And saying Bush is a shitbag is a TOTALLY acceptable way of expressing
the contempt due to the lying bastard. If you think it's acceptable for
America to swagger about the world picking fights, you must also accept
that it's acceptable for others to disagree with you equally violently.
And that includes bombing you on suspicion.
Sauce for thye goose. If it's OK to detain foreigners without trial (for
behaving according to what was the law in their country) it's OK for
others to detain Americans without trial.
If you think that possession of WDMs is a reason to invade a country,
why shouldn't other countries invade the USA?
If you think defiance of international law is justified for the USA, you
must accept it's justified for other countries.
I personally DON'T think that's an acceptable way of behaving, either
for Al Quaida or for the USA. The USA must grow up, stop feeling sorry
for itself, and learn to behave.
Paul Burke
David Rintoul
questions about our national character. We must begin to ask, 'Why are
there ten million poor people in a nation overflowing with such unbelievable
affluence? Why has our nation placed itself in the position of being God's
military agent on earth? Why have we substituted the arrogant undertaking
of policing the whole world for the high task of putting our own house in
order?'"
Martin Luther King