I'm certainly not trying to dictate what albums people buy or which team people root for.
My point is that boycotting a celebrity because their politics aren't in keeping with our own truly is the very definition of specious. It feels good, it feels like the right thing to do, it makes us feel like we're doing our part to be patriotic.
But it doesn't have anything to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with feeling like you're taking action at a time when action is needed.
The underlying issue about whether the US should engage in expeditionary military operations without a broder international consenesus isn't addressed by the boycott. The tough moral questions about justifying the deaths of civilians and the deaths of US soldiers aren't addressed by the boycott.
The boycott makes us feel like we're supporting something, but we're not. We're simply not buying their albums... nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott, or that you need to justify it, I'm just saying that if you are going to boycott, don't do it under the misguided notion that you're expressing patriotism in some way.
Do it because it's a salve that makes you feel good, and makes you feel like you're joining an exciting grass roots movement.
As I understand it, they were boycotted for speaking their minds about the war, which they opposed. I supported the war myself, but the treatment they got was bullshit. Trying to intimidate people into silence is something that should not happen in America. The free and open exchange of ideas and conflicting views is democracy in action. If you disagree with them, say so and debate the issues, but don't try to bully them.
OK, off the soapbox. Stay free.
"Trying to intimidate people into silence is something that should not happen in America"
LOL ... not to be a wise-ass, but it happens routinely on internet message boards!
I think the issue was made more complex by their discussing the situation before a French audience. The move was seen as pandering and their target was directly Bush -- note, not his policies, but the president himself. If they want to bash the president, that's their right (free speech). But, if people want to push back by voicing their opinion, that is also free speech.
Had the Dixie Chicks first spoken against Bush while in the US, this may have played out differently.
-Hoot.
Actually it was in front of an English audience, but I suppose that still doesn't change your point
Correct. It doesn't change my point of view. Thank you for the clarification.
-Hoot.
take away the Dixie Chicks' livelihood, to punish them for speaking out. Those who disagree with the Dixie Chicks should voice their opinions by doing just that, by debating the issues, and not trying to bully people into silence by threatening their livelihood.
How can you agree with the 'Chicks right to speak,
but then disagree when the public and the media use
their rights to show that they didn't appreciate it?
The Dixie Chicks made a choice by speaking their mind,
and they assume the responsibility of those remarks.
The simple fact is, record sales went down drastically
right away. This means fans were voicing their opinion.
As for the media, anyone in the entertainment business
knows well that they live under a microscope, and can
act accordingly if they so choose.
I say hooray for the USA !
First, we do NOT live in a democracy and thank god for that forethought.
When Natalie used a paid commerical event as a platform to voice her personal opinion, she changed the stature of her opinions from personal to commercial. The public has voice their commercial opinion by their spending or not as the case may be.
Actions speak louder than words.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Natalie Maines had voiced her opinion in a "non-commercial" interview in which she made it clear that she was speaking only as a private individual, that the way she was treated would have been any different?
You seem like a thinking person of good conscience - joining the bullies is beneath you.
that if said comments were made in a debat forum, a news or talk show rather that to a crowd of screaming fans, and in an effort to adorn herself to their fancy more, the outcome might well have been different. IMO her comments were made in a commercial environment and for commercial gain. Soon there after her american market spoke!! I do not that as difficult to understand.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 7:47:39 PM
I believe that the outcome would not have been different. Apparently you disagree with me.
Well, at least we're talking and debating, instead of trying to bully each other into silence.
It's hard to say what will happen when a bunch of rednecks get a bug up their ass. Let's just agree to politely disagree and call it a night.......deal!
You are the only one who is allowed to tell others what to do or not do?? Is it a one way street?? Did you complain when the gays organized boycotts to keep Dr. Laura's show off the air?? Did you raise your voice in college when conservative speakers were shouted down?? What do you think of anti abortion activists not being able to protest near abortion clinics?? Intimidating people to silence happens all the time in America. But it usually comes from the left. I'm wearing my asbestos underwear. Flame away.
The Dixie Chicks made the comment which has caused them so much trouble in front of a London audience, it was first reported in a British newspaper and then picked up on by the US Media. And Britain was actually in Iraq fighting alongside the Americans.
Opposing Bush is not the same as opposing the troops in Iraq. I'm British and I don't like British PM Tony Blair but I still wished/wish for a safe return for our soldiers from Iraq.
Not quite the same thing Carrie. Opposing the President or your PM for their views or actions is one thng but publicly insulting them on foreign soil is another.
Would you support any famous British celebrity coming to the US and saying that he was ashamed of the Royal Family and wishes they were not British?
If you have an unpopular opinion, voicing it while far from home is just cowardice. Voice it at home and stand up for yourself and we can at least admire your fortitude if not your opinion.
I guess I fail to see why the -location- has anything to do with the issue... Hell, I think Bush is an ass, a clear and present danger to our constitutional rules of law, and as crooked as they come. Why is it okay to say that here, but not overseas?
My opinions do not change with my locale, neither should my verbalizations of same.
FWIW, I specificly went out and bought one of their CD's after the stink started (and I don't even care for country music)...I consider it my duty to support those who aren't afraid to speak out against the corruption evidenced by this administration.
from foreign democracies (as I do) who say they are ashamed of their country's leaders - of course they are not unpatriotic for doing so. That's how democracy works - you get to criticize your country's leaders, and your right to do so does not change based on your physical location.
The foreign soil comment is along the lines of your point about being open to debate.
If you read the interviews given you will see that Natalie voiced her opinion because it went along with the sentiment of the country and audience, at the time. To insult the President in a country where you know sentiment is going to be strongly your own way but start crying and halfway apologizing the minute other Americans start questioning your act is cowardly.
If Natalie wanted to open a dialogue she could have given an interview or went on a talk show. However she preferred to yell out an insult in a place where she knew she was safe from reprisal and still be able to waffle when she needed. This isn't open debate, it is throwing stones and then running home to mommy.
Your claim that Natalie Maines' did not really believe what she was saying, but was simply trying to please a British audience that she thought wanted to hear it, is interesting. However, her statements since then don't bear out your claim. I have no special reason at this point to believe that she didn't mean what whe said, but I'm open to any evidence to the contrary that you want to provide.
I agree that Natalie Maines was guilty to at least a partial wimpout in her allowing herself to be intimidated by the bullies. Cowardly? A pretty strong word, but perhaps appropriate.
However, the most important issue here isn't Natalie Maines as an individual, or her character. It is the "mob mentality" manner in which she was treated. I'm telling you right now, buddy, if this kind of thing continues, you and I will have our right to openly speak our minds (and yes, criticize the president) threatened. That's why many freedom-loving conservatives are concerned about what's going on lately in this country.
expressed their opinions in the best way that could, by calling radio stations, newspapers, record stores and other media, political, and influential sources that had the clout to hold their feet to the fire for what they said. You seem to forget that the Dixie Chicks had a willing and large audience to address. Most of us don't have access to the large number of willing and approving fans in a concert hall, or the mass influence of the media to make our opinions and voices heard. I find it amusing that the very sources that made them popular, slapped them down when spurred on by popular opinion.
You can spin it any way you want, but mob mentality is a laughable analogy. The bottom line is that when the DC's exercised their Constitutionally guaranteed right to say whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, wherever the hell they want; other Americans exercised THEIR Constitutionally guaranteed right to express their extreme displeasure with their statements by boycotting their albums, and bringing political pressure to bear. In the classic manner of other loudmouths throughout history who lacked the courage of their convictions, the DC’s moved to diffuse the situation and resurrect their lagging popularity and record sales. Then once the situation was diffused, their fans were back on board, and their record sales were on the way back up, they waffled again and said they really did mean what they said. Yup, they’re paragons of virtue and classic examples of someone with the courage to back their convictions.
Portraying the public response to their comments as bullying, unfair, hateful, or whatever other number of ways you wish doesn’t negate the public’s right to their opinion. The DC’s bore the responsibility for their statements and learned a valuable lesson about freedom of speech and the tremendous responsibility one bears when exercising it.
It is in my opinion naive and wholly unrealistic to take the position that people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want without any fear of reprisal. There’s no such thing as a world without consequence. The reality is that there will always be someone who disagrees with you. If you say something controversial, expect to be held accountable, that’s just the way of the world, like it or not.
HPG
I've heard this before, as have those who have successfully fought for change. "It's just human nature - you can't change it, and it's naive to think you can".
In the end, even in those cases where it can't be changed, we still don't have to condone it.
America is changing into a nation with a greater emphasis on "reprisals", and that takes away some of our greatness. But I have a lot of confidence in the American people - in the end, they believe in people being able to speak their minds without having their livelihoods threatened.
and terror. Linking reality to an implied approval of the sometimes horrific things that comprise our current reality is a flawed argument.
You imply that the majority of people who exressed their views by boycotting and urging radio stations not to play their music gave blanket approval to the ugly, hateful and threatening things that were said. I don't think even you beleive that, at least I hope you don't.
As far as a nation changing into emphasising reprisals, I couldn't disagree more. The state of information retrieval and information access has given the average citizen the ability to make their feelings known in a much more rapid and visible manner. Tele-polls, email polls, camera on the street polls are just a few examples of how "Joe Citizen" can make his or her opinions known.
Again, just because someone exercises their freedom of speech, doesn't mean people have to sit on their hands and do nothing if they disagree. We have the right to bring political, economic, and peer pressure to bear if we are capable of marshalling enough support for our cause. If someone says something particularly boneheaded, you can pretty much rest assured that someone will hold your feet to the fire.
HPG
"If someone says something particularly boneheaded, you can pretty much rest assured that someone will hold your feet to the fire."
Exactly. I think that has something to do with accepting responsibility for one's actions. Not everyone gets that -- even in this day and age.
-Hoot.
actions". See my closing thoughts below at the end of the thread.
As I said, I supported the war. But the bumper stickers we had here in America which implied that those Americans who opposed the war were not supportive of the troops were just plain wrong.
It is the freedom of the American CD buying and Concert going public to turn away from what many felt was an extremely unpatriotic comment while out of the country. Not to mention who really gives a rats ass what that bitch is thinking.
I find it interesting that so many of these celebrity morons are complaining about the backlash from the American public to their incessant Bush Bashing. What the fuck do they think, they can slam people but because of their status as celebrities they are immune from retaliation?
Fuck em, I wouldn't do Nancy Maines or either one of the other two with anyone of your dicks! The bitches are sows! Stupid fucking sows at that.
SuperDave, you da man! You nailed it! Now I think I'll go find an old Barbara Striesand vinyl and piss on it!
-- Modified on 5/27/2003 10:19:10 PM
It's that "punishing", mob mentality attitude. People as a group look around and see other people joining in the bullying, so they join in the lynch mob too.
We've seen this before in America, most recently in the early 1950s, but most Americans agree with Republican Senator Collins of Maine who said, upon her committee's recent decision to release the McCarthy transcipts ``We hope that the excesses of McCarthyism will serve as a cautionary tale for future generations''
This Republican may not get her hope if people with your attitude are successful.
Where did you receive your Doctorate in Bovine Scatology from? Where do smucks like you come up with this "Bullying and Lynching", "punishing", "mob mentality attitude" tripe?
Get a motherfucking brain and get the fuck out of the way of my Free Fucking Speech, asshole!
Since you bring up the "excesses of McCarthyism", why don't you list them? You parrot keywords and haven't got the slightest clue as to what they mean.
Bullying and Lynching, go fuck off and buy their CD's and concert tickets, nobody is attemping to stop you.
Tomas Jefferson said, "Every man has the right to swing his fist, right up to the point where it hits my nose."
This is what gives me the right to say you can not impose your views on me. You can debate me (even on this issue), but you can not force me to believe what you believe. That is the foundation of our contry, and our freedom.
BTW, I am ultra liberal (liberal is NOT a dirty word), and the reason I no longer support the ACLU is because they refuse to defend Oliver North's right to free speach. Free speech is for everyone.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Intimidating others into silence is wrong, no matter what side of the political fence it comes from (by the way, I supported the war, as I said in my original post. Perhaps you should not make assumptions about where I stand politically).
Of course I raised my voice in college when conservative speakers were shouted down - shouting anyone down is just plain wrong. That's the point, really - instead of behaving like a mob and shouting people down or trying to bully them into silence by threatening to take away their livelihood if they express their views, we should express our own views in the free and open forum that America should be.
The boycott was the publics way of voicing THEIR opinion of one of the Dixie Chicks voicing a personal opinion about the President while on foreign soil during a concert. The sheer COWARDICE of the move was what upset many of their fans. The statement was NOT about the war but a personal insult to the President. In most parts of the USA they would have at least recieved some booing. In Texas, they would have had a riot.
Natalie has every right to voice her opinion in both public and private. The public has the right to show their opinion by boycotting their products and concerts.
By the way, do you even know what her statement was??? You should really do a little research before offering an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.
I'd like to be there when their train pulls into Dallas!
.....of anybody to speak their mind about our PM or the Royal Family and I don't see what difference it makes 'insulting them' (or voicing an opinion as others might like to put it) on foreign soil to doing it at home. As for the Royal Family, they are an unelected, screwed-up family and unreprestative of the UK, why on earth should anybody British want to stick up for them?!
Don't all the British fellows want to be tampons? (LOL)
You're kidding, right? The British (talking the majority here) love their royalty.
-Hoot.
Of course I knew what her statement was.
The "foreign soil" angle is a false issue, as discussed above.
You make an interesting point, though. Strictly speaking, Natalie Maines' statement was not an opinion about the war, but a simple statement that she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state. However, it was interpreted by most people as a statement about the war, and she has said nothing to dispute that, and so I think that interpretation was correct.
As far as her making a statement that was "a personal insult to the president", I sure as hell hope that remains something we can all do, whether here in America or on foreign soil. If it is not, then we are in deep trouble as a nation and a democracy. One of the hallmarks of a dictatorship is that the people are punished for making personal insults about their leaders.
Your confusion about the difference between truly voicing one's opinion by discussing the issues, and the bullying inherent in using a boycott as a way to intimidate someone into silence by taking away their livelihood, may simply be nonpernicious confusion and nothing more - I believe you are sincere about it, but just haven't thought it through.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 7:49:17 AM
The Dixie Chicks can speak their opinion, and so can I. Far from being bullshit, this is the way I can express my individual freedom of speech. That to me means I can call you an asshole, but I can't stop you from calling me a dickhead. The Dixie Chicks can say they are ashamed that George W. is from Texas, and I can certainly say back, "well, then, I won't ever buy a product you get a nickel from".
everyone in this country has an absolute right to express their opinion. However, those of dissenting opinion have a right to express their view as well.
It seems that everyone has forgotten that while you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to shoot off your mouth in public, you also have to bear the responsibility for what the hell you say.
My personal opinion of the Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen and the rest of those miserable douche bags that get up in front of as many cameras as they can and deride our President and our country is that they have enough money to find another country that is more to their liking and move there to live and work.
I think they’re a bunch of egg-sucking weasels that are so full of themselves that they’ve forgotten that us “common” folks are the ones that have made them rich and famous. It is also us “common” folks who can tell them to shut the fuck up and stick to doing what they do best by boycotting their music, their movies, their products, etc. ad nauseum.
Since most of us cannot get media coverage to express our distaste with everything we don’t like about our President and our foreign policy, our best way of letting those who do know we think they’re wrong, is to hit them in the pocket book.
The most irritating thing is to watch these greedy bastards roll over like beached whales and recant when they find out they’re losing money because what they said backfired on them. OK, nuff said.
HPG
...and I don't get why people can't understand that. Word have consequences. People are free to buy or not buy based on whatever reasons they have. We aren't running a Communist-based (planned market) society in our country.
-Hoot.
Let's put this all in a little perspective. Just recently when the Chicks had a homecoming concert down South somewhere they had all of one protester demonstrating against them. I think our democracy is strong enough to withstand the opinion of one willfull young woman. To be honest, I didn't even even know Natalie Maines' name before all of this happened.
She may have been guilty of some poor taste or at the very least a poor choice of venue but lets get real.
the media-exploitative queen-bitch-of-the-universe MADONNA!
did anyone notice how quickly she backpedalled on her "controversial" anti-war video as soon as she saw what happened to the dixie-chicks' record sales?
to quote Dennis Miller (on the war, incidentally): "Why did we bother to learn to walk upright, if we're not going to show some backbone?"
freedom-of-speech is one thing, but IMHO hypocrisy should erase that individual's right completely forever after (or at least shatter their credibility)
at least a partial wimpout. But read their statements in full and you'll see that it wasn't a total wimpout.
All flaming and counter-flaming aside, I'm glad to see someone else identify the treatment of the Dixie Chicks as a problem. This kind of ultimatum--"you're either in favor of war or you're guilty of treason" is sinister. It is no different when applied today--not one bit different from the McCarthyism that represents one of the darkest eras in American history.
I absolutely support (and have forcefully supported) the rights of others to respond as they please to Natalie's remarks. I have no issue with individuals boycotting the Chicks as a matter of personal principle. But this widespread, herd-mentality hatred that's leveled towards anyone who speaks out against their country's policies has taken on an eerie new level of instensity during the Rumsfeld Administration.
Washington didn't go along with his governement's existing policies. Nor did Lincoln, or Mandela, or countless others. It seems to me that if we want to be the land of liberty, people who speak out shouldn't just be tolerated, they should be cherished.
All issues of liberty aside (and there are many) the real reason I agree their treatment was bullshit is more practical. Don't any of you fool yourselves into thinking that your reasons for boycotting the Chicks or speaking out against them has anything to do with standing up for what's right. It has everything to do with the need to feel like a participant--the same kind of mob mentality that starts riots or looting, and nothing to do with morals. "I saw another guy back his car over his Dixie Chick albums, he seems cool, so I'll do it too."
The sheer hypocrisy of it all... Rest assured that every one of us has has at least one CD in our cases right now that was written, produced, or performed by somebody whose views we would find horribly offensive if revealed. The idea that we can apply some kind of moral code to celebrities at the ticket office is silly, because we can only apply it to those rare few that make the mistake of revealing their views to us. The sicko freak that keeps a low profile sells albums while the upstanding Texas girl gets boycotted. That's just madness taken to the next level and you can't justify participating in that madness by pretending it's patriotic.
You should buy CDs, or sporting tickets, or whatever in support of talent, performance, and entertainment value, not based on some misguided notion that you're shaping the moral fabric of the country. For all I know Michael Jordan could be a devil worshiper, or Faith Hill could be the head of some covert white-supremacy group.
And quite often, we KNOW the evil exists, so we can't even plead ignorance. Every year we buy tens of millions of CDs from rap artists that advocate violence. "Dixie Chicks bad, Pop a Cap in My Ho's Ass good." There's a new moral code we can all get on board with. One of the biggest selling artists of all times publicly paid $20 million to a family in return for dropping child molestation charges.
All I ask is that if you feel the need to bash or boycott one artist because you can't live with their politics, go ahead. But then do some homework and commit yourself to applying similar standards in all your celebrity choices rather than just singling out whatever's popular to protest about this week. Otherwise you can't claim it's about right or wrong, it's about mob dynamics and the need to feel part of a popular groundswell.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 12:07:52 AM
Chicks was all about a "mob" mentality. We are seeing more and more of this "group bullying" behavior in America. Some will be intimidated, as the bullies want, many will not.
"I shoot anyone that disagree's with me." Seems as though everyone has an opinion, but I think the reason most people were pissed was because the comments were directed to a foreign audience. If you have something to say, like Baldwin or Streisand, say it to the people you'd like to influence to affect the change you desire, not someone two thousand miles away. Just my opinion.
But the question is, would you say the same about Jane Fonda? My sentiments are posted above.
I agree with the point that what makes America great is we have differing viewpoints and that all points are valid to be discussed. We should and usually do cherish to one extent or another those who are dedicated speakers for unpopular views, although not necessarily by all.
However comparing the Dixie Chicks story to the Mc Carthy trials shows either a lack of understanding about the era or is just insulting. As far as I know no one has been imprisoned, fired, tortured, forced to move out of the country, been deported, had their children removed from their custody, had their citizenship revoked or committed suicide because of one statement by a singer; all of those and much worse happened due to the Hearings.
Your point about most going along because it was popular, is a valid point. However their are many that hold heartfelt opinions against those with antiamerican, antiwar and antiBush opinions. It is not valid to discount their opinions just because it was briefly popular to bash the Chicks. Those that stand by their antiChicks stance are just as entitled as Natalie to her opinion.
Yes there are many if not most celebrities that hold view points that are unpopular, weird and maybe criminal. If they bring those opinions public then they should expect feedback. Since a celebrity has nearly unlimited access to free media coverage and the general public has nearly none, people vote with their money. If they were elected officials they would use thier votes, since they are commercial people they use their money. This has been a standard tactic to voice the public's opinion against any commercial enterprise as far back as money has been used. Just because we are dealing with individuals as opposed to corporations doesn't change that fact that it is a valid and effective way of voicing an opinion.
"However their are many that hold heartfelt opinions against those with antiamerican, antiwar and antiBush opinions."
This really gets to the heart of my point. The reason I do equate this situation to McCarthyism, and fairly so, is because of this sentence.
The terms "anti-American", "anti-war", and "anti-Bush" are used interchangeably as if they are a single thought, and they are not.
You can be "anti-war" and still be pro-American. You can be "anti-Bush" and still be pro-American. The notion that being an American includes "going along" with whatever Bush and Rumsfeld come up with, and if you disagree you are therefore "anti-American"... This is truly the essence of McCarthyism in it's most purest form.
That's what I was trying to illuminate in my initial post, that there's been a recent swing back to this divisive "tow the company line or get out" mentality, and that mentality is becoming popular rather than isolated.
You come out of the gate and state:
"I'm glad to see someone else identify the treatment of the Dixie Chicks as a problem. This kind of ultimatum--"you're either in favor of war or you're guilty of treason" is sinister. It is no different when applied today--not one bit different from the McCarthyism that represents one of the darkest eras in American history."
Horse Hockey! You're attempting to invalidate the people’s opinions that just plain didn't like what these three idiots said. You draw a line from their opinions to that of a political zealot (conducting a congressional hearing mind you) who ran a state sanctioned modern day inquisition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please tell me how I missed the TV coverage of anyone in the Senate or House grilling these three individuals.
The outrage at what the "Truculent Trio" said was expressed initially by a simple grass roots campaign of phone calls to radio stations, music stores, newspapers, etc. telling them that they didn't like what was said, and they didn't want to hear their music, and wouldn't buy their records. You attempt to link simple outrage and naked disrespect for your President and your Country, to a modern day witch-hunt because they do not agree with your position.
----------------
You go on to state:
"It seems to me that if we want to be the land of liberty, people who speak out shouldn't just be tolerated, they should be cherished."
People have an absolute right to disagree and take action to mobilize political pressure, peer pressure, financial pressure and any other kind of legal means to show their disagreement and outrage at what these three losers had to say. Again, you try to make those who disagree with what was said sound like they have no right to disagree; and should tolerate and cherish other peoples opinions even if they don't agree or feel they were appropriate. Sorry, I have to call bullshit!
--------------
Another statement:
"Don't any of you fool yourselves into thinking that your reasons for boycotting the Chicks or speaking out against them has anything to do with standing up for what's right. It has everything to do with the need to feel like a participant--the same kind of mob mentality that starts riots or looting, and nothing to do with morals. "I saw another guy back his car over his Dixie Chick albums, he seems cool, so I'll do it too."
So now you can read minds, you can look into the psyche and intent of everyone who disagrees with what those women said? GONG! Please play again!
-----------------
Another statement:
"The sheer hypocrisy of it all... Rest assured that every one of us has at least one CD in our cases right now that was written, produced, or performed by somebody whose views we would find horribly offensive if revealed. The idea that we can apply some kind of moral code to celebrities at the ticket office is silly, because we can only apply it to those rare few that make the mistake of revealing their views to us. The sick-o freak that keeps a low profile sells albums while the upstanding Texas girl gets boycotted. That's just madness taken to the next level and you can't justify participating in that madness by pretending it's patriotic."
You make a blanket statement that is staggering. You claim to know that everyone has in their collection of CD's something by someone horrible, with horrible ideas or someone that is a sick-o freak. Again, you draw a non-existent line to try and invalidate dissenting opinions by implying that everyone has CD's by a sick-o instead of those fine upstanding Texas Girls. You state this with emphatic certainty. Now you are not only psychic, but also omniscient! Please tell me where I can get both of those qualities.
-------------------
Here's a real winner:
"You should buy CDs, or sporting tickets, or whatever in support of talent, performance, and entertainment value, not based on some misguided notion that you're shaping the moral fabric of the country. For all I know Michael Jordan could be a devil worshiper, or Faith Hill could be the head of some covert white-supremacy group."
Here's someone telling me how I should buy music, or attend sporting events, go to movies or any other entertainment I seek. This is from the same guy who believes in freedom of speech and cherishing other people’s opinions. OH PUH-LEEZE!
--------------
More rhetoric:
"And quite often, we KNOW the evil exists, so we can't even plead ignorance. Every year we buy tens of millions of CDs from rap artists that advocate violence. "Dixie Chicks bad, Pop a Cap in My Ho's Ass good." There's a new moral code we can all get on board with. One of the biggest selling artists of all times publicly paid $20 million to a family in return for dropping child molestation charges."
Perhaps because you are omniscient you can't plead ignorance. Unfortunately most of the other people on the planet along with me are ignorant of a great many things. Ignorance is a mere lack of information, which seems to fly in the face of what you are saying. That is; “we can't plead ignorance because we KNOW that evil exists”. OK, if evil truly exists could you please articulate all of it's forms, manifestations, machinations, minions and the like so we can recognize it more easily?
--------------
Here's the kicker:
"All I ask is that if you feel the need to bash or boycott one artist because you can't live with their politics go ahead. But then do some homework and commit yourself to applying similar standards in all your celebrity choices rather than just singling out whatever's popular to protest about this week. Otherwise you can't claim it's about right or wrong, it's about mob dynamics and the need to feel part of a popular groundswell."
Sage advice, I suggest you do the same!
HPG
I'm certainly not trying to dictate what albums people buy or which team people root for.
My point is that boycotting a celebrity because their politics aren't in keeping with our own truly is the very definition of specious. It feels good, it feels like the right thing to do, it makes us feel like we're doing our part to be patriotic.
But it doesn't have anything to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with feeling like you're taking action at a time when action is needed.
The underlying issue about whether the US should engage in expeditionary military operations without a broder international consenesus isn't addressed by the boycott. The tough moral questions about justifying the deaths of civilians and the deaths of US soldiers aren't addressed by the boycott.
The boycott makes us feel like we're supporting something, but we're not. We're simply not buying their albums... nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott, or that you need to justify it, I'm just saying that if you are going to boycott, don't do it under the misguided notion that you're expressing patriotism in some way.
Do it because it's a salve that makes you feel good, and makes you feel like you're joining an exciting grass roots movement.
absolute right to boycott anyone I please. Period. I don't even need a reason to do so. Neither you or anyone else can tell me how I should or shouldn't go about doing it.
You have an annoying habit of acting like you actually know what other people are thinking, and what they really are trying to say. I say you are mistaken in your assesments, misguided in your analysis of the boycott, and mistaken about what "we" as you like to say feel like when we're supporting something.
Your premise is flawed as is your logic when you base it on what everyone is feeling when you couldn't possibly know.
Try speaking for yourself instead of everyone else and your argument will be credible.
Nuff said,
HPG
I accept your criticism that my style may be a bit brash. (Rest assured I have other annoying qualities as well.)
I am not mistaken in my assessments, however. My assessment is that boycotting the Dixie Chicks is a largely feel-good endeavor that has no bearing on any issue surrounding the moral issues of the war, the morale of soldiers, or any other patriotic issue.
Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott, if you so choose. I have, and will continue to fight and make ANY sacrifice for your right to do so. You can spin their CD on your crank if you like, I'm all for it. (Mine unfortunately fits.)
I just get horribly frustrated with the wide-spread belief that the boycott in some way makes a patriotic contribution beyond simply feeling good about boycotting (i.e. for self-entertainment purposes.)
If you don't agree with my assessment, feel free to propose arguments about how the boycott did produce some beneficial outcome. No doubt it hurt the Chicks. No doubt it hurt the label. But if you belive that the boycott produced some greater benefit for the advancement of American values, I welcome an open debate about that benefit.
The whole point of the boycott was not about patriotism from my point of view. The media are the ones who started to bring the whole issue of Political Statements by a boycott into the fray. The people who were calling in to tell stations they wouldn't listen to the DCs music were just plain pissed at what these idiots said, and were excercising their right to put pressure on the group by boycotting their music.
The advancement of American values is simple. It is the affirmation that we have the freedom to express ourselves indivdually or collectively via a boycott. It seems pretty basic to me.
Questions like, should we or shouldn't we, was it right or wrong, did they really apologize or didn't they, what was the effect on their sales and popluarity are all ancillary issues to the center point. The right of the people to boycott something or someone they don't agree with. Those on the receiving end of the boycott and their supporters will bluster, cajole and froth at the mouth to trivialize the reasons for the boycott.
Fact is, there was enough opposing opinion on one side of the issue to effect a boycott. That in itself is an affirmation of our political process in this day and age of 30% voter turnout, and incumbents being re-elected over and over again.
HPG
I have to say that it bothers me to be lumped in with the idiots who were burning Dixie Chicks albums in the midwest... or wherever they were/are, I really didn't pay them much attention. It sorta bothers me that you are making the assumption here that no one on these boards has the brain capacity to make a decision for themselves, vs. falling into mob mentality and "going along."
Sheeeesh, and I don't even have TV.
FWIW, I actually heard about the Dixie Chicks hoopla here on these boards... and wound up going off online to find out what it was all about and making my own mind up. My own, not a mobs.
Personally, I think that Natalie was guilty of *bad behavior*. On foreign soil talking trash about her president while her country was at war... it DOES seem illoyal. Now I think George W. is a complete and total nincompoop... but I wouldn't say it as a representative of my country on foreign soil WHILE we are at war. Too many factors going in there to just making it inappropriate. Not worthy of being burned at the stake, to my mind... just a bad judgement call.
Had she chosen to say something like "I disagree with the war the united states is engaging," the response would've been different... probably still some boycotts, but not the frenzied response to expressing shame in her president.
Did she have the right to do it? Absolutely! Was it a bad choice? I think so! Do Americans have the right to respond to her however they choose? DEFINITELY.
Hugs*
Nicole
Liberalism and country music are about as compatible as oil and water. While I found the Chicks's statement to be neither seditious nor incendiary, it reeked of "career suicide" when you consider that their core audience consists primarily of those who consider a gun rack to be standard on their vehicles.
I am disgusted that the country music industry has bent over backward to heap laurels at the feet of artists (Toby Keith, Darryl Worley, ad nauseam), who have capitalized on recent tragic events, while turning its back on one of its very own. The message here is simple--it is preferable to exploit tragedy rather than to dissent.
I, for one, will be happy if I never live to see another war, 9/11, or space shuttle disaster. Even more so, I hope that I never have to listen to another witless, jingoistic country song that would inevitably follow.
Its the America way! LOL
Shaye
It's her American right to voice that opinion, and God knows how many of us have spilled our blood in the past 227 years to defend that right. It's the singlemost important basis of our freedom.
And it's our right just the same to tell her what we think in words, or actions like boycotting their albums.
The one I still cannot get over is Jane Fonda, and if you think poor Natalie did something unpatriotic, at least she didn't get away with an act of treason. Natalie was being an American, no matter how misplaced you, or I believe her words were.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 6:06:49 AM
but part of what this country is about is being able to speak your mind and what so many of out soldiers that we remembered this past Memorial Day died for. Our freedom to voice our opinions.
I did not agree with the antiwar sentiment either, but do respect their right to voice that opinion. What is frightening is the actions that were taken against those that opposed the war. Not only the Dixie Chicks, but Martin Sheen's commercials were pulled because of his views, Susan Sarandon also wasn't allowed to speak at a function because of her views. While so many musicians recorded songs that expressed their views, only those in support of the war made their way to the airwaves. Artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Lenny Kravitz, and John Cougar Mellancamp with anti war songs were banned from the airways and only were able to get their music out thru this wonderful medium of the internet.
That IMHO opinion is wrong, no matter what your view point is. They did not deserve to have their livelyhood threatened in anyway whatsoever because of their opposing views and is an insult to the memory of those soldiers that died for our right to express those views.
They deserved equal amount of airtime. We individuals have the right to support them or not just by the simple act of changing the station or overlooking their CD's when shopping. Media corporations have a fine line to walk, for when they boycott in such a manner, what they are ultimately doing is treading on everyone's freedom to choose and is not unlike the organizations that fought to have Harry Potter books pulled because of their religious views.
Lauren
Personally, I go see a movie because I will enjoy the movie. I will go see an actor because I enjoy their acting. I will purchase a cd because I like their music. I will do all of this regardless of what the actor is doing or saying. For I don't think of it as providing or not providing them income. I think of it in purely selfish terms and that is that their talent brings me pleasure. Apparently, ticket sales of the Dixie Chicks concerts were not affected due to the same reasons.
"Not only the Dixie Chicks, but Martin Sheen's commercials were pulled because of his views, ÊSusan Sarandon also wasn't allowed to speak at a function because of her views. ÊWhile so many musicians recorded songs that expressed their views, only those in support of the war made their way to the airwaves. ÊArtists such as Bruce Springsteen, Lenny Kravitz, and John Cougar Mellancamp with anti war songs were banned from the airways and only were able to get their music out through this wonderful medium of the internet."
--Lauren
I also disagree with the above statement. I don't think that these artists were pulled because the corporations, such as television studios, recording companies and radio stations don't agree with their views. I think it had EVERYTHING to do with MONEY, for they thought, I believe, incorrectly, that the buying public would look unfavorably at those companies if they continued to support those artists. It was a major error on their part. I think, as an example, a radio station would have been put up on a pedestal if they came out publicly and said, "Even though many of us may disagree with the statements made by Lenny Kravitz, we, as a radio station will continue to play his music, for we find his music worthy of being played. Period! "
What's really interesting about all this, is that this war could very well have turned out another way. We could have gone in there and it could have been a major slaughter. We could have lost hundreds of thousands of American lives and left a country in ruin with nothing gained. It could have happened that way. And if it did, how then, would these artists been looked upon. If memory serves me correctly, all this hubbub over these outspoken actors and singers happened only AFTER we felt that we were gonna win this thing, and that some of the Iraqi people began to welcome us with open arms. It was only when we KNEW that they were wrong, that we began to throw the dirt.........I could be wrong on the timing of some this, however, and would welcome a correction.
One more thought. This whole McCarthyism argument doesn't hold water. That was a government sponsored witch hunt, not a private or public enterprise demonstration.
Bottom line here is free speech. And that also includes the freedom to demonstrate and boycott. It's all the same thing... It's not an either/or. Natalie had every right to say what it is she said, and radio stations have every right to not play her music.........BOTH misguided in my humble opinion.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 9:55:27 AM
The antiwar rhetoric and armchair generals were quite boisterous and prevalent on the outset of the war, but became quite more hushed AFTER the video of Iraqi people welcoming the U.S. came out. Uncanny the about face many made after that fact, including France and Germany. It is now a lot of pussyfooting around to save face (and get contracts)is the bottom line and a new wave of unfavorable critics are on the rise on the rebuilding of Iraq.
As to your disagreement with my statement. Of course it was about about money for the corporations. I never stated what their motivation was for their pulling adds and the like off the air, although I do think it is a little more deep seeded than that in some cases. But the outcome of their actions, no matter what their motivations, resulted in censorship which broke the fundamental rights of all Americans. That is what is wrong. The media has to hold itself up to a higher standard because of this.
I agree that a simple statement letting listeners and viewers know that the views portrayed by these individuals didn't necessarily reflect the views of the stations, would have been the right way to go and would have probably been more advantageous to their bottom line in the long run, for it gains the publics trust.
You say;
"Personally, I go see a movie because I will enjoy the movie. I will go see an actor because I enjoy their acting. I will purchase a cd because I like their music. I will do all of this regardless of what the actor is doing or saying. For I don't think of it as providing or not providing them income. I think of it in purely selfish terms and that is that their talent brings me pleasure. Apparently, ticket sales of the Dixie Chicks concerts were not affected due to the same reasons."
Isn't it great that you have that choice, just as someone else has the choice to support an artist or not based on their political views. Wouldn't it be sad to learn that the opinions and choices made by others, robbed you of your right to purchase a movie, song, etc. for the pure entertainment value because someone else thought differently.
If you were a great fan of Harry Potter Books, wouldn't it bother you that you were unable to purchase the book or see the movie just because someone decided that it was unchristian and morally unfit for the public. Wouldn't that be robbing you of great entertainment pleasure and your fundamental rights? Isn't that censorship?
Did you know, (as read in a Netscape/CNN article yesterday) that there are a group of people that want to ban Nicole Kidman and other various actors movies for the sheer fact that they were caught out in public smoking a cigarette and photographed by the media. According to the anti smoking groups it shows bad influence on the public and promotes unhealthy behavior, especially from a high profile individual. What the !@#$!
IMHO antiwar rhetoric and the end effect on them isn't any different from the other scenarios described. Don't like it, fine, don't watch and support them, that is your right, but do not take my right away to watch or support them. It isn't your decision to make, especially from the media.
Lauren
You're talking about censorship within the private or public sector. They have a right to do that. It is a constitutional right.
Let's use the Lenny Kravitz example. You're right. I would be pretty upset if I couldn't see him in concert because the promoter pulled out, or that I couldn't buy his CD's because the recording company dropped him from their roster. But that's their right. Lenny would have the right to find another promoter or find another recording company. And I'd have to wait to hear him. That's the price I pay for freedom. For freedom doesn't only pertain to MY freedoms. It also pertains to the freedoms of privately and publicly held companies to do what they feel is right for their company under the law, as misguided as it may be. I wouldn't view it as censorship, for Lenny would have the freedom to find other means of displaying his artistic talent.
Regarding your Harry Potter example....If the government banned it because they felt that it was promoting unchristian -like ethics, yes, I would have a major problem with that, and would consider that censorship. But if the publisher decided, no matter how much I may disagree, that they felt it was unchristian-like and they were not going to publish this book anymore, yes, I'd be upset. It would be a major hassle to find the book, but that would be their right to do so. Just another price to pay for freedom.
There will always be those nuts out there, like those people that want to censor Nicole Kidman. So what. Would it not be a real constitutional danger to ban them for stating these views.
And regarding the news media being held to a higher standard, well I agree with you. They should be and will be. They also have the freedom, being that they are not a government run news agency, to report the news as they see fit, and they DO have the freedom to make the decisions on what they do or do not report.
The American public is pretty savvy. We will end up supporting those news stations, radio stations, etc, etc that meet those standards that we measure them by.
We pay for our freedoms in many ways. We pay for it in lost lives and in blood but we also pay for it by having to deal with the freedoms of others......
Larry
in our opinion. It is the right, of even those anti smokers to voice their opinion on Nicole Kidman and if they feel strongly about it, not see any of her films. It is not their right to have her films pulled from the rest of the public. And so it is with every other example including those that opposed the war.
The media is in the hands of the private sector to ensure that our rights are upheld. The media itself touts itself as being fair, unbiased in their reporting and publicly holds itself to the higher standard that you and I agree that they should hold themselves up too.
They have dropped the ball in pulling those artists off the air because of their view on the war. They have tramped upon our rights and outright lied with their advertising as being unbiased.
I guess we will just agree to disagree.....
Lauren
...cause I think we will have both beaten this horse into a dead skeleton......
"ÊIt is not their right to have her films pulled from the rest of the public."
--Lauren
Sure it is. They have a right to state that they want her films pulled. Although I disaree with it, there is nothing unlawful about them stating their desires. Let's take it a step further and say that they were successful and the studio that made her movie decided to pull her films. They have a RIGHT to do that. They own the film (in this example) and they can do whatever they damn well please. I would strongly disagree with their decision, but they have the RIGHT.
"The media is in the hands of the private sector to ensure that our rights are upheld. ÊThe media itself touts itself as being fair, unbiased in their reporting and publicly holds itself to the higher standard that you and I agree that they should hold themselves up too
They have dropped the ball in pulling those artists off the air because of their view on the war. ÊThey have tramped upon our rights and outright lied with their advertising as being unbiased. "
--Lauren
I agree that they have dropped the ball, and lied with their advertising as being unbiased (although there a very, very few that are unbiased, if any), but I don't feel that they have trampled on anyones rights. We have the right to watch and listen or buy another newspaper or watch another tv broadcast, or not watch ANY broadcast . That is OUR right.
And just as the buying public had the right to publically boycott the Dixie Chicks, we would, if we choose, have the right to publicaly boycott a news station or newspaper or movie studio, if we were so inclined.
“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this, your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and ... give ammunition to American’s enemies.”
-- John Ashcroft, US Attorney General
"Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's second-in-command
By the way, given current statements, it seems it's T-minus a year and counting until war against Iran. Two wars in as many years in his administration and he's gearing up for a third.
I think you may be on the right track. It does sounds as though the Bushies have studied at the knee of Reichmarshal Goering. Possibly George W. is planning a visit to Bitburg in the near future.
On your second point, Richard Perle, one of the most famous of the neoconservatives, said several years ago... "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, it's the real men who want to go to Tehran."
And what's the pretext for taking on Iran? Oh yes, those mythic weapons of mass destruction that must have been moved to Iran, because we can't find them in Iraq. Or is it the Al Qaeda that must be hiding out only in Iran, because we surely know there's none of those bad guys in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan.
Still, if we can just get in one more "good" war before November, 2004, maybe throw in some of those strategic nukes, we can get everyone to forget that the economy has turned to shit, their 401K's are now more like 201K's, the dollar is plunging on world currency markets, and the deficit (oh yeah, that must be somebody else's deficit) spinning out of control.
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 3:59:11 PM
OK, so it's a spoof. But damn funny anyway.
Anyone is free to say whatever the hell they like, & on the other side of that coin is the fact that anyone else is free to react in whatever way they like.
The fact is that for everyone of us there are people who might react to what we say or do, whether positively or negatively. Begin an unnecessary discussion, about say politics or some other potentially volitile subject, with an important business client & you may suffer financially for it if you have differing opinions. Isn't that to a great degree what happened with the Dixie Chicks?
That's the price of fame, but it's that same celebrity that gave her remarks the public exposure to begin with. Without that celebrity no one would have paid much attention to her remarks in the first place. This gal, or any other celebrity, should know that before they voice their opinions that some backlash is a possibility. In many if not most cases, I doubt that they're any more 'qualified' to know what they're talking about than any of the rest of us.
No treason was commited by the statements, but no one was imprisioned by them either. Sure, the 'boycott' may hurt them somewhat financially, but they're not exactly being driven into poverty by it either. And are those who jumped on the boycott bandwagon really any different than others who decide to march to a certain drum in support of what a celebrity has said? Either way, it's an exercise in freedom of expression. What's OK for one must also be OK for the other.
Personally I'm not a country music fan so I wouldn't have purchased one of their CDs or a ticket to a concert anyway, but if I wouldn't do so becase I didn't like the statements, it's my damn right..just as it would be to suddenly become a fan if I liked what was said.
But I frankly fail to see why anyone would want to get their drawers in a wad because of what any celebrity thinks...I'll save that energy for when I disagree with someone who actually has something to do with running this country.
Although I understand the effort being made to defend the Dixie Chicks right to act the way they did I don't really think we should be viewing them as victimized in this context. At the end of the day America is much more about exactly this type of debate that were all having here right now than it is about any any type of public or private censorship. If anything, the Dixie Chicks catapulted themselves even deeper into the popular conciousness with all of this hubbub and I'm SURE their career "in the long run" will only benefit from it.
That's the weird irony of it. Didn't anybody see that they were on the cover of Entertainment Weekly (butt naked no less) just a month or so after all this happened. They have now gained a true rock-n-roll notoriety that they did not have before. It all goes back to the First Commandmant of Capitalism: "There is No Such Thing as Bad Press".
As far as I can tell, the people that are bashing them have a lot of free time on their hands that could be better spent because, in the end, the are only HELPING add to the Chick's "Rebellious Cool" image.
"But I frankly fail to see why anyone would want to get their drawers in a wad because of what any celebrity thinks...I'll save that energy for when I disagree with someone who actually has something to do with running this country."
I don't mean to co-opt every good sentence in this debate as being in support of my earlier post, but...
This is perfectly stated. My point was that a boycott that cannot effect the outcome of the issue (war with Iraq) is a feel-good endeavor. Claiming it to be a gesture of patriotism or some show of support for our troops, may make the endeavor feel even "more gooder" but it just doesn't make any difference. It's a boycott for entertainment purposes only.
I fail to see that anything in what I posted involved any sentiment regarding the issue of the war in Iraq, support of the troops engaged there, or a question of patriotism. I will grant that the statements made by the Dixie Chicks were made regarding those issues, but my feelings on those issues are ones I've posted elsewhere & what I've posted in this thread was intended to deal with the specific original subject...certainly not to expand on broader issues. Opinions on those would likely be redundant as there have been many previous thread covering them.
This topic wasn't about the effect of the so-called boycott on anything else, but whether those who disapproved of the young gal's statements had the right to express their feelings in the manner they did (& I'm certainly not speaking of the threats of bodily harm that have been mentioned) or whether that amounted to censorship or a mob mentality. I made no statement or claim otherwise & frankly can't understand how you drew some other inference from my words, yet it appears you have. Nor did I respond to any post you made in this thread...so again I'm at a loss to understand how you feel the last paragraph of this particular post is applicable to what I've said.
So please, if you choose to disagree with me, as is your right & is the right of others I'm sure who do, may we keep it to the subject at hand & to what I've actually said in that regard? Anything else is a separate issue. And I'd also ask that you not read something else into my words as you have apparently done...I'm usually capable of saying fairly clearly what I mean to say.
I was replying in agreement, not in disagreement to your post. You made a great point in your closing sentence and worded it in an eloquent way.
I hope you did not feel like I was trying to twist your words--your sentence simply made a great point, and illustrated a point I was trying to make. I couldn't come up with better way to say it, so I stole your sentence, attributed it properly, and used it as the starting point for something I was trying to say.
I took the sentence to mean that you felt your time would be better spent influencing decision makers on real issues rather than trying to make a point with the music industry.
I appreciate your clarification. It was the last paragraph of your reply to my post that led me to think otherwise. I have no problem speaking my mind, but I do have a problem if I feel anyone puts a 'spin' on what I've said or otherwise distorts my meaning. And your interpretation of the last sentence of my original post was 100% correct...our energies can much better be directed than being so concerned with what this young gal said, where she was when she said it, or the reaction of some to it.
I notice that when someone assumes a position that might be considered strongly conservative, as supportive of some of the Patriot Act, or even offering praise of Rumsfield or Ashcroft, the TER "mob" jumps into the fray.
There are many on TER who have a higher level of education than I, and you may be better informed (assuming you gather information firsthand, not from ANY major news source), however,I wonder how many of the TER posters can come forward and say they know for FACT, from DIRECT EXPERIENCE, about the decisions made by the government leadership.
How many of you have a direct line to the White House and can call the president and ask for more info? How many of you have inside access to the CIA, the FBI and local LE?
Yes, you can listen to the soundbytes on the radio and TV, you can read to biased reporting from any newspaper (and I mean it's all biased, unless it's a direct transcript, be the news conservative or liberal). But in realiyt, until you walk the walk, you're offering nothing more than an opinion.
I don't expect any of this to change, but next time you read a post you feel so strongly about, ask yourself - are you joining the mob, or trying to start the stampede?
Sorry matey, but taking the piss of anyone in power in the UK is one of the mainstays of british humor...and before you go slagging that off I would peruse one of your TV guides...you lot buy a lot of it off us. Political satire is one of the most popular forms of humour over here in Blighty....and one we actively export. Like Carrie I despise royalty for the sponging unelected inbreeds they are, and would happily kick Blair to death just to see if he kept that stupid grin on his face, despite being fooled into voting for him last time round...not a mistake I will repeat.
Like Carrie I was against this war from the start...not because I am a pacifist, but because it was all bullshit. I am also an ex intelligence analyst, and could smell the crap piling up well before the so called war kicked off. WMD...Weapons of Mass Distraction. Read the justification for a permanant state of war in Orwell's 1984...take a look around yourselves...looking familiar? Look at the state of your economy for gods sake...wonder how that one slipped by the public attention.
The History Channel ran an ad that had footage of TweedleBush and TweedleBlair being their jingoistic new world order selves with a voiceover talking about how in times of war it was so much easier to impose controls on the people that would otherwise be decried as oppressive, and to engineer through public opinion a virtual one party state. It fitted recent events perfectly. At the end of the ad the speech maker was credited...Goebbels to the Nazi Party circa 1937. Scared the shite out of me!
Face it, the neo-conservatives that have taken over the roost are turning your country into a virtual police state, where any deviation from the party line is punished, be it through public means like motivating the nation into blind patriotism, promulgating propoganda like the WMD crap (now where did they get to?), or detaining so called terrorists like old men and 14 year old boys in a concentration camp. And as for your foriegn policy...well, ever seen the big stupid kid in the schoolyard picking on those smaller and cleverer than him?
I saw footage of the record smashing parties after the Dixie Chicks thing, and it made me uncomfortable because the scenes were so like those of footage of the Nazi fanatics burning books. Also smacked uncomfortably of those islamic fanatics burning flags dont you think? Mob hysteria is scary no matter what colour it comes in. Personally I loathe the Chicks for the hick rednecks they are, and their music makes me puke....but it is their right to say what the hell they want, and I'll defend that in the face of facism no matter what flag it hides behind. F'christs sake you have a constitution you should be proud of, not letting some redneck dimwit who chokes on a pretzel piss on from a great hight with the rest of his rich stupid white mates!
So dont waste all that great anger on some bunch of poobums from hicksville - or pick on providers who have the balls to voice business threatening opinions here - take a look at Lady Liberty lying bleeding and get angry at the men that have stabbed her in the back. Come on USA - make yourselves a nation that the world look up to again!
Editing only because I hit the wrong button before typing what I wanted to say. So on to my thoughts.
You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else is. But it stikes me that regardless of which side of the fence people sit on the subject (which really is much more than the Dixie Chicks), you're the first to make a post with such 'ungentlemanly' language. If in doing so you're trying to make the point that you're the only one with balls enough to speak bluntly, then I'll say bluntly to you...you've got your head up your ass if that's the way you think!
I'm not about to go into a long tirade about this country, or about Great Britain for that matter. It's fankly damn pointless. But I will make this one suggestion to you...you might find your words regarding the Dixie Chicks & the Statue of Liberty to carry slightly more creditbility if you first solved the problems in Northern Ireland. Then tell us of the grand success you've had there & perhaps some of us might be willing to listen a bit more objectively.
Meanwhile spare us your righteous damn name-calling & say hello to Bono for me...he seems perfectly willing to make millions in this country & being the all-knowing sage that he certainly must be because so many buy his music, to tell us not only what the hell is wrong here but how we should spend our tax-payers' money. BTW...How many people were murdered in Belfast last month? And who won...Catholics or Protestants?
-- Modified on 5/28/2003 5:31:47 PM
Bono is not British (he's Irish) and bringing him into this discussion is bizarre as the Irish problems you refer to (greywolf) take place mostly in Northern Ireland - which is part of the British Isles.
The situation in Northern Ireland is, still, a sickening one. The religious hatred, violence, murders and bigotry there are a blight on Britian as well as the majority of people living there. I should know, I'm from the west of Scotland which also has the same bigotry (but, thankfully, much less of the violence).
The fact the IRA (one of the main protaganists of the violence) is largely financed from the USA is accepted fact in the UK.
To suggest that Brits have no right to comment on events in other countries because of the situation in NI stange indeed - we don't create the situation or contribute to it any more than most Americans as individuals did to the Dixie Chicks controversy.
Pardon me Carrie, but what I think Greywolf was saying is please don't hold up the United Kingdom as some type of virtuous society! You know, "take the log out of your own eye ..."!
I welcome your comments on this or any other topic of interest, but your countryman EagleRay2003 comments were condescending at best.
BTW the majority of the support of the IRA comes from Massachusetts! You know that bastion of conservative thinking with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Franks, etc.
I hope you didn't poke your tongue entirely through your cheek on that last statement. I'm going to be laughing over that one for days!
I was certainly not holding up the UK as some type of virtuous society and if that's how it sounded then I didn't express myself clearly enough! There are many and varied faults with UK society and government, just as there are with US society and government. It's a sign of maturity and confidence to be able to acknowledge weakness and accept criticism. The over reaction to the Dixie Chicks comments shows a lack of both, IMHO.
Carrie, I wasn't asserting that you were holding the UK up as a bastion of virtue. It was a defense of Greywolfs comments to EagleRay2003, which you seemed to take exception to.
His comments that the "neo-conservatives that have taken over the roost are turning your country into a virtual police state" is stupid and of course a lie!
I beleive you are visiting us here in Los Angeles right now, tell us, other than increased airport security, have you noticed this "virtual police state" during your visit?
I do hope you are enjoying your visit to our city, you certainly brought some nice weather with you.
I'm aware of the geography of the British Isles. I'm aware that Bono is Irish. I'm also aware that Bono's various statements in the past were heard only because of his celebrity, & that beyond that he has no connection with the subject being discussed in this thread. I interjected it in direct response to what I consider some of the bizarre statements made by EagleRay, hopefully to illustrate how bizarre those were without going through the whole laundry list. Perhaps my way of going about that was a bit obscure to some.
My reference to the problems in Northern Ireland were made only to illustrate that before one starts throwing stones, which EagleRay did by his somewhat obscure critisms, one should be aware that they may be living in a glass house themselves. It was not an attack against Britain, a country BTW that I consider has been for many years as strong an ally to the US as any other.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest that Brits had no right to an opinion or no right to voice it. If you gained that impression from my words, you've read something between the lines & done so incorrectly. I simply responded to EagleRay in a manner I considered consistent with the tenor of his post.
Iraq. You didn't pay attention to the description and the video of how people were tortured under order of Uday.
Maybe you're so poisoned by the bias coverage of BBC, you are those who believed the rescue of PFC Jessica are "staged" with "blank" bullets. (BBC has to backtrack on that point).
Your paranoia about 1984 and the tough measures (they are tough indeed but they won't be there permanently) adopt by congress to protect US from terrorist reminded me of those wolf-cries from Robert Scheer of LA times who always blamed US first. Do you know that George Orwell was one of those lonely voices in the 30s that advocated against the then popular view of appeasement?
Well, it's fairly easy to understand if you think about it. It has to do with knowing your demographics. Country music and Flag waving tend to be tightly coupled. They're making money off of the folks who buy and listen to their music. She had every right to say what she believes. The consumers have every right to patronize, or in this case not patronize, the providers of consumables provided.
In any market, if you go and piss off or alienate your consumers, you're likely to find your self OUT of a market. Put more simply, "Piss me off, pay the consequences"
She chose to express her opinion, and her fans/consumers chose to express theirs. Just because one has an opinion doesn't necessarily mean that opinion should be expressed. And if one does choose to express it, then they should be willing to face the reactions/consequences of that expression.
*stepping off soapbox*
Boycotting is worlds apart from engaging in a political discussion. Boycotting is a bullying tactic which makes no statement at all, other than to say "I don't agree with you".
I don't care if the boycotting was by Martin Luther King himself, it's a wrongheaded tactic which is all about reprisals instead of true discussions.
The stuff about how the Dixie Chicks had access to the media which the boycotters didn't is whining, but beyond that it misses the point. Having discussions with your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the issues is what this is all about. When a public figure makes a comment that I disagree with, I sure as hell don't go into "reprisal mode" and try to personally punish them for making the comment. I take what they said as a starting point for discussing the issues with the other people in my life.
The intent of the boycotting in this case (the intent, I believe of the majority of the boycotters, but not all of them)was to send the Dixie Chicks a message that they should shut up and stop expressing their views. It didn't say "you know, you are wrong about your views, and here is why", it just said "I disagree with you, so shut up".
Saying "Fuck you, shut up" is not engaging in a discussion, it is an attempt to end a discussion. On this board, if people would move out of "reprisal mode" and instead try to have reasoned discussions, we would have a better board. And actually, for the most part, this thread has been one of the better ones in this regard, and that was a good thing.
Nancy Maines said it, I can only assume she meant it, or would you have us believe that she is a dunderhead, (of course those are not mutually exclusive) mindless bimbo who doesn't think. Her comments angered her base and you think "the base" is wrong for turning their backs on the DC's. Your thinking is irrational, feel good tripe. She has to take responsibility for using the forum of a country music concert to make her statement.
Since President Bush was elected twice as Governor of Texas, won the Presidential election in a landslide vote in Texas and currently enjoys over 80% approval in Texas, wouldn't it have made more sense if Nancy Maines would have said that SHE WAS ASHAMED TO BE FROM TEXAS? Of course the obvious consequences of that statement would have been apparent even to this thick headed nag.
It would seem that the good people of Texas have far more pride in their President that in three singers.
In my 29 years as a business owner, if any of my employees would have made such a statement about any President, even Clinton, they would have been gone faster than a brides nightie. And don't think for a moment that I have only hired individuals with my own mindset, I haven't. I have many political conversations and debates with my employees, all private, they have no place in the lobby or on a sales call.
Your posts continue your theme of NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY, and that is one of the most destructive things happening in/to America.
I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you are a trial lawyer.
I previously asked about personal responsibility and jackvance's response intimated I am a bully. (Msg --> http://theeroticreview.com/MsgBoard/ViewMsgBody.asp?BoardID=12&Page=1&Messageid=48272 )
Apparently it's free speech when someone says something you agree with, "bullying" when you dissent. I would say jackvance is somewhat of a bully himself by taking this tactic.
-Hoot.
Did you notice all the keywords in his posts? Repeatedly used! Remember the word of the week used against Bush in the last election? Remember "Gravitas" (sp)?
He's right out of the playbook!
As Joe Consumer, the boycott is the only EFFECTIVE business communications medium available to express disapproval to commercial enterprises.
Send a letter, they read it (maybe) and promptly file it in the circular file. Send an email, it may get read, probably sent into the deleted items folder. Make a phone call, some flunky will take your information and proceed to ignore you.
Get real. Even if your name is Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, or Brent Bozell - your only power lies in your ability to rally people to large scale boycotts of products.
You can try and twist the meaning around any way you want to, but ultimately a boycott is choice. I CHOOSE to purchase/use your goods and services--for my own reasons, be they the quality of your product to your religious views or your politics. It's my choice. Make your product appealing to me and I'll purchase it. I'll even feed you another PC point....a boycott is.......DISCRIMINATION.......(oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh).....
Yep, discrimination......"To make sensible decisions; judge wisely"....hmmmmm....any time you make a choice, heavens forbid, you discriminate. Every time you choose between Kraft and Best Foods mayonaise (Or Helman' for you easterners), you discriminate. Do you buy generic or store brands instead of the name brands? Why? Hey, aren't you boycotting one over the other. You didn't buy it because YOU HAD A REASON.....maybe economic, maybe some other agenda.
It's all about choice. Boycott's are choice.
It pisses me off when I spend a whole page making a point, and then you come along and make a more concise argument with half the syllables. :^)
When someone makes a political statement, and someone else chooses to boycott instead of countering their arguments with reasoned arguments of their own, they are choosing to stifle the other person's view with an action that has no content other than "fuck you, I disagree with you". No point, counterpoint (as we are doing now), no reasoned discussion.
When we disagree with someone, we shouldn't say "shut up", we should say "speak up", and encourage them to speak their views, so that we can counter them with our own views. Boycotts don't do that. Is it really that tough to understand?