»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Dixie Chicks
| The Alley |
|
The Dixie Chicks |
|
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
OK, what exactly are people talking about over in the forum on the US and their foreign policy, with regard to destruction of albums by the Dixie Chicks? Is it really true that someone burned and destroyed albums by a music band? That's wierd... 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 |
||
| © Copyright 2003 fractal007 - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Yes it is true fractal, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines stated in concert "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." their CDs were crushed beneath a 33,000-pound tractor in Louisiana. Radio stations in Texas pulled their music altogether. The South Carolina House of Representatives called for them to apologize. They've also recieved death threats and radio stations in cities hosting their concerts are calling on people to give them the treatment. I couldn't care less about the Dixie Chicks or their music but this is what's happening, so much for freedom of expression. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
ditto what Raph said so much for freedom but this is an example of what happens when you criticize the king |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There is an old adage in show business -- if you get arrested just make sure they spell your name right in the papers. There is already a new verb in America. 'Dixie-Chicked'. Meaning -- the aforementioned treatment of Dixie Chick CD's et al. While my disdain for this president is well documented on these threads and I strongly uphold the Chicks right to free speech -- I think all of this has been blown up to extreme proportions. First, I don't think the Chicks could even name two countries in the middle east let alone understand the politics that are involved. That reason by itself should be enough for the comment to have been ignored. But it wasn't. How do we know about this? Once again -- the press is pulling the strings -- excepting -- I imagine -- the press strings have been pulled by some rather shrewd publisists. Tim Robins, Susan Sarandon, The Chicks and Ms. Maines are now practically household names on the global stage. You can't buy that kind of publicity. On the other hand -- if people don't want to listen to their music -- that's freedom. If they want to buy the CD's and run over them with a steam roller -- that's freedom. If they want to put pressure on radio stations not to play the music -- that's freedom. If radio stations want to cave to that pressure -- that's freedom. Natalie had the right to free speech -- she used it. Other people are using their rights. Right or wrong. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
She said that about Bush when she was in England on tour. With patriotism in full swing and soldiers in harm's way, it's no wonder a fervent group of people took this as unpatriotic. Notice I said 'group'. Not everyone will smash their Dixie Chicks CDs. Not everyone will boycott Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon or Martin Sheen. But those that do, for their own political reasons, have the right to do so. Just as all the aforementioned 'celebrities' have the right to state their opinion against military action in Iraq. When you are in the public eye as these people are, you must expect vilification as well as adulation. If the average Joe Blow down the street yells out that he's embarrassed to be from Texas because that's where the President came from, I don't think you'd see the garbagemen skip his house..or the paperboy throw the paper through his window. Bottom line? If you're gonna stand on the stage and make pronouncements (of any kind) then you better be prepared for the tomatoes as well as the roses. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
fracta, it's not really that weird or unique. I don't know if any of you kids were around in the sixties, but if you were then you heard the sounds of tens of thousands of Beatles albums being burned and steamrollered when Paul was basically misquoted as saying the Beatles were bigger than God. Entertainers or people in the public eye are always susceptible to this happening. It's not a Bush happening nor is it an administrative or denial of freedom of speech happening. It was normal people who found the timing and place of her words to be despicable and they exercised their rights to show their dissatisfaction. Even members of the music industry rose up against her. The Marshall Tucker and Charlie Daniel's bands are honoring all Dixie Chicks concert tickets if the ticketholders will come to their concerts instead and boycott theirs. It's no big thing....to blow it out of proportion or use it in a thread that protests Bush's policies (which you did not do here) is simply silly. It's just people being people - and it happens in many countries in a variety of ways... |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I don’t think they’ve been punished enough, the government should set up a commission to weasel out any singer; actor; writer or director involved in any un-American activity and blacklist the lot of them. It’d never happen though, would it? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Careful Eddie -- you could find yourself elected to the U.S. Senate talking like that. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Yeah Eddie but you'd have to change your name to Joe. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Let's see, the Dixie Chicks in their banishment have been featured in a state of undress on a national magazine, have appeared on national news magazines as featured segments, and have had countless country western stations perform publicity stunts to bring their name before the public. Almost makes me want to go out and buy one of their albums so I can take it down to a publicity stunt at a radio station. From what I know, the Chick, (don't know their names), was telling a poor excuse of a joke and not attempting to make a political statement. Perhaps they could get Toe to write them a humorous poem to present next time to liven up their act. Heck, we could take Toe's poetry then and have Balladeer spray it with bug spray and then Toe could appear semi-naked with the Chick's on a national magazine, kind of a beauty and the beast type shot. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...or we could just have Toe recite poetry. That's not only un-American - that's inhumane!!  (when Toe heard about this whole fiasco, he went out and smashed 2000 dixie cups - he gets confused easily) |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
And I hear as Toe was mashing the cups down he was singing at the top of his lungs, The night they smashed old Dixie down... |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Just to put my couple-a pennies in the wash... I am on this post more times thn I'd like to remember supporting the President, the war-effort, and everything connected with it. I also am severely disappointed that the girl said what she did. I will also fight to the finish her right to have said it, even though I am not a great supporter of the band themselves. Her, and Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon, and even the poets on this site that I have publicly disagreed with- regardless of nationality- hav that right in my eyes. I don't recall getting straight A's in histroy in school, however, I do remember something about the 1st amendment giving a person, or persons, permission to speak their minds without censure, as long as they are not advocating the overthrow of the government, or such as that... which was not what happened. Granted, in the entertainment industry, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and I do feel that they are talented enough, and have a large enough fan base to get through this. Anyways, that's the world according to Ringo. Oh, yeah... one last thing... 'Deer... I believe it was John Lennon who made that statement. The only thing about it, was the fact that it was actually true. They didn't say they were better, but they were, in fact, more popular. When the morning cries and you don't know why... |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
But the government didn't do anything to those who spoke out against the war/president/government. It was ordinary people. Not the government. Not an official. Just ordinary people. Making a statement. Wanting to be heard. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
with the possible exception of the South Carolina legislature's own little publicity stunt |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"In particular was the controversy over John Lennon’s mistaken remark that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. This resulted in some record burning and protests and the Beatles lost some of their sweet, manufactured media image, and began to deal with more serious subjects. " Right you are, Mr. Ringo. At least I got the band's name right!  ....and, yes, it WAS a true statement  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right you are, Rebel....a dumb publicity stunt with no teeth aimed solely to get a headline. Imagine a politician doing that!! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
1. To me, the Dixie Chicks are no big deal...it is amazing what air-brushing and having a make-up artist can do. 2. I couldn't care if they posed nude or not. 3. Before they render their political viewpoints, they should know who their audience is. 4. If they protest the war, so what, they are free to protest the war. If their fans refuse to purchase their material, so what, they are free not to purchase it. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
The Dixie Chicks, Tim Robins, Susan Sarandon and anyone else who spoke out against the war are admirable in having done so. It takes a certain kind of intestinal fortitude to speak out for what you believe in. Thousands of Americans have fought, and died for that right. Speaking of Tim Robins, I never knew much about him before, but having read a speech he made I have a lot of respect for him. I think I will share that speech for those of us who may not have heard it. I challenge anyone to tell me what is unpatriotic about what he said. It's a bit long but worth the read. BTW, The girl from the Dixie Chicks obviously did not think through what she was saying, which make the reactions to it all the more ridiculous. -TIM ROBBINS: Thank you. And thanks for the invitation. I had originally been asked here to talk about the war and our current political situation, but I have instead chosen to hijack this opportunity and talk about baseball and show business. (Laughter.) Just kidding. Sort of. I can't tell you how moved I have been at the overwhelming support I have received from newspapers throughout the country in these past few days. I hold no illusions that all of these journalists agree with me on my views against the war. While the journalists' outrage at the cancellation of our appearance in Cooperstown is not about my views, it is about my right to express these views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights. We need you, the press, now more than ever. This is a crucial moment for all of us. For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it. I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse. I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can't, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn. And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior. In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state. This past weekend, Susan and I and the three kids went to Florida for a family reunion of sorts. Amidst the alcohol and the dancing, sugar-rushing children, there was, of course, talk of the war. And the most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community, in their own life. Keep talking, they said; I haven't been able to open my mouth. A relative tells me that a history teacher tells his 11-year-old son, my nephew, that Susan Sarandon is endangering the troops by her opposition to the war. Another teacher in a different school asks our niece if we are coming to the school play. They're not welcome here, said the molder of young minds. Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer. A teacher in another nephew's school is fired for wearing a T- shirt with a peace sign on it. And a friend of the family tells of listening to the radio down South as the talk radio host calls for the murder of a prominent anti-war activist. Death threats have appeared on other prominent anti-war activists' doorsteps for their views. Relatives of ours have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And my 13-year-old boy, who has done nothing to anybody, has recently been embarrassed and humiliated by a sadistic creep who writes -- or, rather, scratches his column with his fingernails in dirt. Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.) Two weeks ago, the United Way canceled Susan's appearance at a conference on women's leadership. And both of us last week were told that both we and the First Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame. A famous middle-aged rock-and-roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war, only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. "They promote our concert appearances," he said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war." And here in Washington, Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleischer whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention. A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications. Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear. I am sick of hearing about Hollywood being against this war. Hollywood's heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover-of-the- magazine stars, have been largely silent on this issue. But Hollywood, the concept, has always been a popular target. I remember when the Columbine High School shootings happened. President Clinton criticized Hollywood for contributing to this terrible tragedy -- this, as we were dropping bombs over Kosovo. Could the violent actions of our leaders contribute somewhat to the violent fantasies of our teenagers? Or is it all just Hollywood and rock and roll? I remember reading at the time that one of the shooters had tried to enlist to fight the real war a week before he acted out his war in real life at Columbine. I talked about this in the press at the time. And curiously, no one accused me of being unpatriotic for criticizing Clinton. In fact, the same radio patriots that call us traitors today engaged in daily personal attacks on their president during the war in Kosovo. Today, prominent politicians who have decried violence in movies -- the "Blame Hollywooders," if you will -- recently voted to give our current president the power to unleash real violence in our current war. They want us to stop the fictional violence but are okay with the real kind. And these same people that tolerate the real violence of war don't want to see the result of it on the nightly news. Unlike the rest of the world, our news coverage of this war remains sanitized, without a glimpse of the blood and gore inflicted upon our soldiers or the women and children in Iraq. Violence as a concept, an abstraction -- it's very strange. As we applaud the hard-edged realism of the opening battle scene of "Saving Private Ryan," we cringe at the thought of seeing the same on the nightly news. We are told it would be pornographic. We want no part of reality in real life. We demand that war be painstakingly realized on the screen, but that war remain imagined and conceptualized in real life. And in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs? (Laughter.) In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce. And it doesn't take much to shift the tide. My 11-year-old nephew, mentioned earlier, a shy kid who never talks in class, stood up to his history teacher who was questioning Susan's patriotism. "That's my aunt you're talking about. Stop it." And the stunned teacher backtracks and began stammering compliments in embarrassment. Sportswriters across the country reacted with such overwhelming fury at the Hall of Fame that the president of the Hall admitted he made a mistake and Major League Baseball disavowed any connection to the actions of the Hall's president. A bully can be stopped, and so can a mob. It takes one person with the courage and a resolute voice. The journalists in this country can battle back at those who would rewrite our Constitution in Patriot Act II, or "Patriot, The Sequel," as we would call it in Hollywood. We are counting on you to star in that movie. Journalists can insist that they not be used as publicists by this administration. (Applause.) The next White House correspondent to be called on by Ari Fleischer should defer their question to the back of the room, to the banished journalist du jour. (Applause.) And any instance of intimidation to free speech should be battled against. Any acquiescence or intimidation at this point will only lead to more intimidation. You have, whether you like it or not, an awesome responsibility and an awesome power: the fate of discourse, the health of this republic is in your hands, whether you write on the left or the right. This is your time, and the destiny you have chosen. We lay the continuance of our democracy on your desks, and count on your pens to be mightier. Millions are watching and waiting in mute frustration and hope - hoping for someone to defend the spirit and letter of our Constitution, and to defy the intimidation that is visited upon us daily in the name of national security and warped notions of patriotism. Our ability to disagree, and our inherent right to question our leaders and criticize their actions define who we are. To allow those rights to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat. These are challenging times. There is a wave of hate that seeks to divide us -- right and left, pro-war and anti-war. In the name of my 11-year-old nephew, and all the other unreported victims of this hostile and unproductive environment of fear, let us try to find our common ground as a nation. Let us celebrate this grand and glorious experiment that has survived for 227 years. To do so we must honor and fight vigilantly for the things that unite us -- like freedom, the First Amendment and, yes, baseball. (Applause.) |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I challenge anyone to tell me what is unpatriotic about what he said." ~ There is nothing unpatriotic about his speech, but that doesn't mean the opinions given are facts. In fact, I found some of it to be completely nonsensical, while other parts were drenched in hyperbole, politically slanted, biased, unproven, and chockfull of folklore. I have read much better patriotic speeches than this one. Hyperbole in its finest moment. [This message has been edited by Opeth (04-28-2003 02:34 PM).] |
||
|
RSWells Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533 |
Hey! How do I get Dixie-chicked? (I'll settle for getting Jane-Fonda'd) |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Hmmm... Hyperbole; Opinions which are not necessarily facts; folklore etc. etc. If my memory and vocabulary serves me correctly, hyperbole is something which is not to be taken literally. An exaggeration. So I guess Tim Robins was stretching the truth (exaggerating) and should really not be taken seriously. And apparently most of what he had to say were merely opinions. Could someone please tell me if all I have read about Patriot Act 1 and Patriot act 2 are exaggerations....and if they are not to be taken literally? Because if what I have read is true, then Tim Robins is to be taken as seriously as a heart attack. But what do I know? I guess the guy was just trying to get publicity... or just trying to be a rabble rouser. Call it hyperbole, call it whatever. It sounded to me like the musings of a guy who loves his country and hates to see what is happening to it. To scoff at what he said because it doesn't fall in line with your point of view is shameful. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
morefiah, please take a look at some of the things said in Mr. Robbin's speech... In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided A chill wind is blowing in this nation Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear. these same people that tolerate the real violence of war don't want to see the result of it on the nightly news. Unlike the rest of the world, our news coverage of this war remains sanitized, We need leaders who can understand the Constitution In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. Millions are watching and waiting in mute frustration and hope - hoping for someone to defend the spirit and letter of our Constitution, and to defy the intimidation that is visited upon us daily in the name of national security and warped notions of patriotism. There is a wave of hate that seeks to divide us My God, man, do you expect this not to be scoffed at? This is an actor doing what he does best....nothing more. It would be interesting to know all you have read about Patriot Act 2 or Patriot: The Sequel..they don't exist. That was a joke he was cracking to make a point. The rest of it is basically nonsense. Come on up to the states and see our country "compromised by fear and hatred, bitterly divided in a climate of fear." Don't be surprised or disappointed if you don't see it. Do you understand what the whole Tim Robbins deal was about? He had been asked to appear based on the anniversary of a baseball movie's release in which he starred. He was told that it was a purely baseball celebration, not a platform for political or war-related rhetoric. Would he honor that? He declined to answer. After what had happened at the Oscar presentations, Cooperstown was not willing to take the chance that he would abuse the ceremony to push his own agenda. His appearance wans cancelled. That's it. In his wounded fit of pique, he has responded by claiming the Constitution has been trashed, America is ruled by fear, hatred and the gestapo, that neighbor is pitted against neighbor in a country-wide atmosphere of terror and mistrust....all because his appearance was cancelled. And our point of view is shameful if we scoff at it? So be it. He is willing to trash the government and stir up as much controversy as possible for having an appearance cancelled and we are the ones who should feel ashamed...I do so happily. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Much of Robins speech posted above is accurate. Much of it is not. I'm not going to go through and point out which is which because this is not the speech that got him in trouble. Besides, there is a much more notable point: quote:--morefiah [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-28-2003 11:57 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
On another note -- if I was dubya I'd invite the Chicks to the White House, have them put on a show and shake their hands afterwards for a big photo op and have the First Lady smiling and telling Natalie how much she loves their music. As it stands right now the appearance is Big Powerful President vs. Little Weak Girl Singer. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um.. Richard? You want to get run over by a steam roller??  |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
I'm glad to see that the other side of the issue didn't get lost in this argument. I participate in a current events forum, and you can't seem to make those people see that expressing distaste for the Dixie Chicks after their remark, boycotting and not buying their CD's, or buying them and then steam rolling them, is NO DIFFERENT than what they themselves did. It's all expressing an opinion, and we aren't being cowardly about it by waiting until we are on foreign shores to do so. These people must afford us the same rights they so brazenly took advantage of, and I find it insulting that they now take offense at the backlash. I'm not sure what getting naked was supposed to do for the Dixie Chicks. I suppose it will garner some of the male support back, but I'm not sure what effect it was supposed to have on the female audience who didn't wish to listen to them anymore (with their clothes on). This issue has been debated to death all over the internet, and the general consensus is always, "They had the right to say what they did". Yes, they did, and now, they also have the right to put up with the backlash, and they ought to just grin and bear it. Life goes on. That's my 2 cents. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 10:06 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Whiterose, I see you your two cents and add my own 2 cents. Well put. But as Stephen Wright once asked, "How come it's a penny for your thoughts, but you put your two cents in? Someone is making a penny." |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
Thank you Opeth. And that's a good question, where does that other penny go? Maybe we are just being vain in saying "our 2 cents", since a penny is really all our opinion is really worth.  On another note -- if I was dubya I'd invite the Chicks to the White House, have them put on a show and shake their hands afterwards for a big photo op and have the First Lady smiling and telling Natalie how much she loves their music. I wanted to answer to this comment. Cause I enjoy putting my penny in from time to time. Perhaps if the Dixie Chicks do get invited to the White House, when the photo op arises, Bush should shed his clothes and have the Dixie Chick remark spray painted on his body. Hey, what's good for one is good for another, right?  Somehow I don't expect to see this happening anytime soon. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Sorry but I don't see the "big powerful president" opposing those poor little girls. Instead I see the big powerful public exercising its own right to free speach. And all I can say about Tim Robbins' babbling is, an empty wagon always rattles. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Balladeere, please do not patronize me. It is insulting. I have read the Patriot Act, all 300 odd pages of it. Have you? I have also read a number of analyses of it from respected people in America. Have you? Maybe I should tell you: I try never to talk about something without researching it. The Patriot Act is quite a fearsome document. Maybe YOU should take the time to read it. I am willing to concede that Robins, actor that he is, might have employed a bit of drama in his speech, but tell me who doesn't. He (actor that he is) may do it more than the average speaker. My opinion of him remains the same. No one has given me sufficient reason to change that. Even empty carts have an important role to play in life: they sometimes carry very important items which otherwise, could not carry themselves. The point is that the cart/wagon is not only of importance when it is being used as a transport. [This message has been edited by morefiah (04-29-2003 01:45 PM).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Hi. I'm an American and I am about to exercise my right to free speech: I support our President. I support our Nation's decision to go to war with Iraq. I support our military and our government and feel they did the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons. Okay, I'm done - Now you guys who applauded the Chick, Tim Robbins, et al for exercising their right to free speech had darn well better stand up and applaud me for doing it as well. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
 I didn't applaud them, but I will applaud you. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 08:24 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Morefiah, I have no desire or even time to waste patronizing or insulting you. It's regrettable you took it that way. Yes, I am familiar with Patriot Act....and there is no Patriot Act II or Patriot: The Sequel, which is what I said. There IS a Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 which is still being drafted but at this point it is nothing more than a proposal. Your research should verify that.. ...and no, I don't think anyone will be able to give you sufficient reason to change your mind because those are your views, which is of course your right. I, for one, would not think of calling them "shameful". |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I suspect they took their clothes off because they look good naked. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...not to mention how much they probably got paid for doing so. Is that Hef on the line? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well hey, I'm with Richard. And I wouldn't mind being Susan Sarandoned either! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"I suspect they took their clothes off because they look good naked." ~ They don't do nothing for me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well since you put that in the double negative I'll assume that your DNA is functioning normally. I just bought every one of their CD's.... heh.. http://www.ew.com/ew/covergallery/0,12924,326612,00.html |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I really hadn't paid much attention to this issue, I don't really known the Dixie chicks and what I did know then and do know now doesn't strike me as my glass of mint julip. But the BBC ran a quick excerpt from, I don't know, one of those faceless morning American shows (can't tell which is which since Bryan left the Today show), but the excerpt was, not about free speech, but about an apology and not just about an apology, but about the sincerity of the apology. I think it's very clear that for many "media citizens" a certain responsibility is in order and that has been made very clear here. Say what you want about Michael Moore, but his publicity stunt made the headlines and most likely will make him more money. The Dixie Chicks were doing the same thing. But, if the damage is done, why worry so much about an apology, or the sincerity of an apology, why push the issue like that except to show (it was Diane or one of those Marie Stewart look alikes) . . .what, that the president shouldn't be criticized, that it was a mistake to criticize the president, that it was an aberrant statement and now the Dixie Chicks are on the path of righteousness? Without attempting or alluding to any type of moral equivalence here (though no doubt I'll be chastized for doing just that), there is a logic behind Stalinist show trials, Chinese confessions, and Mel Gibson's torture at the end of Braveheart. If one believes they are following the true path, if doubt by it's very nature is not permissible, it becomes absolutely necessary to stamp out all doubt, it must be shown that your enemies see the light as well as you do. It is the ultimate power trip for O'Brian to see Winston finally feel the words, "I love Big Brother." Okay, so protest away, crush the CD's, talk about responsibility, but don't push someone and question their sincerity. There's just something dirty about that. Ha, that was fun to write. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"there is a logic behind Stalinist show trials, Chinese confessions, and Mel Gibson's torture at the end of Braveheart. If one believes they are following the true path, if doubt by it's very nature is not permissible, it becomes absolutely necessary to stamp out all doubt, it must be shown that your enemies see the light as well as you do. " Yep, I think what you are referring to is what your good friend Ayn Rand refers to as a "moral sanction". It's why captors torture prisoners of war to get them to sign phoney confessions to be shown to people who should know that they were phoney and signed under torture. The procedure is stupid - and very effective. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I doubt the Dixie Chicks would know a political statement if it were painted on their...whooops.. been there, done that.. |
||
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I noticed this topic and thought I could add my two cents and also introduce a whole different facet of this discussion as this is something I feel strongly about, being a friend of freedom of speech! First of all, I highly respect Natalie Maines for what she said, and doing so in London doesn't change a thing. Let's take a look at some of the comments she made with the Chicks on Primetime, shall we? "At that moment, on the eve of war, I had a lot of questions that I felt were unanswered. I think the way I said it was disrespectful. The wording I used, the way I said it, that was disrespectful. I feel regret for, you know, the choice of words. Am I sorry that I asked questions and that I don’t just follow? No." For many, it would be ridiculous to not have questions before this war. Even if her comment was incoherent or ineffective, there is simply so much speechlessness on the eve of chaos. If you can't have someone who asks all the questions, there certainly isn't enough time to answer all those millions of questions, but if this is how we tolerate the criticisms, that certainly isn't freedom. "No, I’m not truly embarrassed that, you know, President Bush is from my state, that’s not really what I care about. I felt like there was a lack of compassion every time I saw Bush talking about this. I honestly felt a lack of compassion for people that are questioning this (war), for the people that are about to die for this on both sides." First of all, let me just say I was heavily against this war from the start, as I fear war will only create more balkanization and unrest in the world in every circumstance, and yes, as inconceivable as it may seem to many, I believe in peace and will stick firmly to that belief as irrational as it may sound to some. And to be honest, I too felt Bush was being quite insensitive to both those who didn't value war and to the troops who possibly would have died in battle, and to their families, many of whom didn't want this war either. Indeed Bush could say the same thing about the Dixie Chicks, ashamed they come from his state, and as ignorant as that remark may sound to some people, it is utterly harmless. It's just like a child's frustration, when an older brother gives a younger brother a hard time growing up and the young brother says to himself, "I wish he was never born!" only to later regret it. And we have witnessed the same effect with Natalie, she regrets how she said what she said but still won't back down in following and being ashamed of what has been done, like a younger and older brother will always disagree with each other on some ters but will settle differences unviolently. Then you have bandmate Martie Maguire who said she understood why some fans would be upset by the remark but found much of the reaction to be ridiculous: "It’s the people who have gone overboard, and done such irrational things that take you back to the days of book burning, 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?" Voltaire used to say "Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare The truth thou hast, that all may share; Be bold, proclaim it everywhere: They only live who dare." So many believed once in America that there were never be any such book burnings in the land of freedom and opportunity, and, well, look what we got here. Reminds me of something Eddie Vedder said in the Pearl Jam concert that opened up the Riot Act tour, "We have something called freedom of speech here. Seems we haven't evolved at all in the last 20 years." I think the Dixie Chicks are true American heroes, and I'll tell you why. It seems so many forgot of exactly how valuable freedom of speech is and they have reminded us all, regardless of who thinks it is dangerous. Take for instance what Bruce Springsteen said in defense. "The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home." If you ask me, there may be huge success in Iraq right now, but here, it is a whole different war altogether. ---------------------------------------------------- Ohhhhhhhhhh...by the way, there is one other facet of this discussion not yet presented, regarding connections to the radio. More specifically...Clear Channel Communications As some of you may have heard, it was Louisiana's KRMT-FM that organized the public destruction of the Dixie Chicks CD by a 33,000 lb. tractor, one of 42 stations owned by Cumulus Media. Cumulus Media is also known for organizing "Rally For America", fighting against what they believe is "un-American" and pushing away journalists who question their concerns. Then Clear Channel Communications was questioned, and at first they denied they made word of any massive campaign in stopping the Chicks. But Clear Channel has long been hated for its dominance and in this article, there is mighty curious connections, as said by Paul Krugman from his article: Clear Channel Has Ties to Bush Paul Krugman: Behind pro-war protests, a company with ties to Bush Wednesday, March 26, 2003 Channels of influence NEW YORK: By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as anti-war rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President George W. Bush: A crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a tractor smash Dixie Chicks CDs, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century history it seemed eerily reminiscent of ... But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here. Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry - with close links to the Bush administration. The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the United States have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in Texas that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. The company says the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: According to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in the online magazine Salon, the company is notorious - and widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control. Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the United States. Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry favor with the governing party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: It is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television. Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks. When Bush was governor of Texas, Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Co., called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Bush a multimillionaire. There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big 'us.'" On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees ... now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: If politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf? What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on? I'd also like to add that it is a fact that Clear Channel, on September 20, 2001 after 9/11, composed a list of 150 songs they wished not to be played on any of their stations, which many are still not getting played, including John Lennon's "Imagine" and Cat Stevens "Peace Train" Drowning Pool "Bodies" Mudvayne "Death Blooms" Megadeth "Dread and the Fugitive" Megadeth "Sweating Bullets" Saliva "Click Click Boom" P.O.D. "Boom" Metallica "Seek and Destroy" Metallica "Harvester or Sorrow" Metallica "Enter Sandman" Metallica "Fade to Black" All Rage Against The Machine songs Nine Inch Nails "Head Like a Hole" Godsmack "Bad Religion" Tool "Intolerance" Soundgarden "Blow Up the Outside World" AC/DC "Shot Down in Flames" AC/DC "Shoot to Thrill" AC/DC "Dirty Deeds" AC/DC "Highway to Hell" AC/DC "Safe in New York City" AC/DC "TNT" AC/DC "Hell's Bells" Black Sabbath "War Pigs" Black Sabbath "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" Black Sabbath "Suicide Solution" Dio "Holy Diver" Steve Miller "Jet Airliner" Van Halen "Jump" Queen "Another One Bites the Dust" Queen "Killer Queen" Pat Benatar "Hit Me with Your Best Shot" Pat Benatar "Love is a Battlefield" Oingo Boingo "Dead Man's Party" REM "It's the End of the World as We Know It" Talking Heads "Burning Down the House" Judas Priest "Some Heads Are Gonna Roll" Pink Floyd "Run Like Hell" Pink Floyd "Mother" Savage Garden "Crash and Burn" Dave Matthews Band "Crash Into Me" Bangles "Walk Like an Egyptian" Pretenders "My City Was Gone" Alanis Morissette "Ironic" Barenaked Ladies "Falling for the First Time" Fuel "Bad Day" John Parr "St. Elmo's Fire" Peter Gabriel "When You're Falling" Kansas "Dust in the Wind" Led Zeppelin "Stairway to Heaven" The Beatles "A Day in the Life" The Beatles "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" The Beatles "Ticket To Ride" The Beatles "Obla Di, Obla Da" Bob Dylan/Guns N Roses "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" Arthur Brown "Fire" Blue Oyster Cult "Burnin' For You" Paul McCartney and Wings "Live and Let Die" Jimmy Hendrix "Hey Joe" Jackson Brown "Doctor My Eyes" John Mellencamp "Crumbling Down" John Mellencamp "I'm On Fire" U2 "Sunday Bloody Sunday" Boston "Smokin" Billy Joel "Only the Good Die Young" Barry McGuire "Eve of Destruction" Steam "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey" Drifters "On Broadway" Shelly Fabares "Johnny Angel" Los Bravos "Black is Black" Peter and Gordon "I Go To Pieces" Peter and Gordon "A World Without Love" Elvis "(You're the) Devil in Disguise" Zombies "She's Not There" Elton John "Benny & The Jets" Elton John "Daniel" Elton John "Rocket Man" Jerry Lee Lewis "Great Balls of Fire" Santana "Evil Ways" Louis Armstrong "What A Wonderful World" Youngbloods "Get Together" Ad Libs "The Boy from New York City" Peter Paul and Mary "Blowin' in the Wind" Peter Paul and Mary "Leavin' on a Jet Plane" Rolling Stones "Ruby Tuesday" Simon And Garfunkel "Bridge Over Troubled Water" Happenings "See You in Septemeber" Carole King "I Feel the Earth Move" Yager and Evans "In the Year 2525" Norman Greenbaum "Spirit in the Sky" Brooklyn Bridge "Worst That Could Happen" Three Degrees "When Will I See You Again" Cat Stevens "Peace Train" Cat Stevens "Morning Has Broken" Jan and Dean "Dead Man's Curve" Martha & the Vandellas "Nowhere to Run" Martha and the Vandellas/Van Halen "Dancing in the Streets" Hollies "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" San Cooke Herman Hermits, "Wonder World" Petula Clark "A Sign of the Times" Don McLean "American Pie" J. Frank Wilson "Last Kiss" Buddy Holly and the Crickets "That'll Be the Day" John Lennon "Imagine" Bobby Darin "Mack the Knife" The Clash "Rock the Casbah" Surfaris "Wipeout" Blood Sweat and Tears "And When I Die" Dave Clark Five "Bits and Pieces" Tramps "Disco Inferno" Paper Lace "The Night Chicago Died" Frank Sinatra "New York, New York" Creedence Clearwater Revival "Travelin' Band" The Gap Band "You Dropped a Bomb On Me" Alien Ant Farm "Smooth Criminal" 3 Doors Down "Duck and Run" The Doors "The End" Third Eye Blind "Jumper" Neil Diamond "America" Lenny Kravitz "Fly Away" Tom Petty "Free Fallin'" Bruce Springsteen "I'm On Fire" Bruce Springsteen "Goin' Down" Phil Collins "In the Air Tonight" Alice in Chains "Rooster" Alice in Chains "Sea of Sorrow" Alice in Chains "Down in a Hole" Alice in Chains "Them Bone" Beastie Boys "Sure Shot" Beastie Boys "Sabotage" The Cult "Fire Woman" Everclear "Santa Monica" Filter "Hey Man, Nice Shot" Foo Fighters "Learn to Fly" Korn "Falling Away From Me" Red Hot Chili Peppers "Aeroplane" Red Hot Chili Peppers "Under the Bridge" Smashing Pumpkins "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" System of a Down "Chop Suey!" Skeeter Davis "End of the World" Rickey Nelson "Travelin' Man" Chi-Lites "Have You Seen Her" Animals "We Gotta Get Out of This Place" Fontella Bass "Rescue Me" Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels "Devil with the Blue Dress" James Taylor "Fire and Rain" Edwin Starr/Bruce Springstein "War" Lynyrd Skynyrd "Tuesday's Gone" Limp Bizkit "Break Stuff" Green Day "Brain Stew" Temple of the Dog "Say Hello to Heaven" Sugar Ray "Fly" Local H "Bound for the Floor" Slipknot "Left Behind, Wait and Bleed" Bush "Speed Kills" 311 "Down" Stone Temple Pilots "Big Bang Baby," Dead and Bloated" Soundgarden "Fell on Black Days," Black Hole Sun" Nina "99 Luft Balloons/99 Red Balloons" That just makes me angry seeing this burgeoning list! How about that, a radio free of "Imagine" but songs like "The Thong Song" and "Hot in Herre" being favorites! Makes me want to scream! And here we have Tom petty, Jackson Browne, and many more trying to stop the FCC from further deregulating radio but it is all going the opposite direction, and before you know it, we are all one...huge...oligarchy! I'll leave now by quoting Edward R. Murrow: "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Sincerely, Noah Eaton Underneath your clothes, there's an endless story ***Shakira*** [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (05-21-2003 03:27 AM).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
So the Chicks are hero's for exercising thier right to free speech, but those who disagree with what they said are wrong for expressing thier displeasure? Does not the right to free speech apply to them or Clear Channel Comm? They own the radio stations, their right to free speech should include their right to ban whatever they want to on their stations shouldn't it? I'm getting so confused these days. Who has a right to say what they want to say? Who should be ashamed for what they say? Who should be supported and who should be condemned for saying what they want to say? Somebody clue me in becasue this is way to deep for me... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The KISS philosophy works well here... 1. A Dixie Chick makes derogatory comments about her president while overseas during a wartime environment. 2. The people who purchase Dixie Chick music and some of the radio stations (owned by people who can also express their freedom) decide to boycott the chicks. 3. In an attempt to boister their suddenly half-full money pockets....The Chicks scramble for publicity and try to "untarnish" their image as viewed by their fan-base. Now, I ask.... What the hell does all this have to do with not having the right to freedom of speech? Not a damn thing. KISS. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-21-2003 07:36 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes, the detractors too have a right to say what they say, but there is one huge noticeable contrast: Natalie Maines was able to get a hold of herself and only state her opinion as harsh as it may have sounded to some, and those who detracted her got violent and smashed her property, threatened to tie Natalie to a rocket and drop her over Baghdad, threw trash on Emily's property who didn't even say anything, etc. Unless I am unaware that "freedom of action" is also written in the constitution, this is very depressing, and if we do have freedom that is capable of such violence, then no one will ever be safe. And I think you are failing to understand Clear Channel is not owned by a whole bunch of people, it is operated by a few people, such as Tom Hicks and Lowry Mays, who have long been incorporated with the Bush administration. Sure, if Clear Channel's individual station owners got to decide what they wanted to play, that is fine with me and I wouldn't be bothered if they didn't play the Chicks, John Lennon, Cat Stevens, etc. But the fact is, Clear Channel's homebase in Austin, Texas decides what it wants all 1,200 of its stations to play, and they penalize stations they own who do not follow the guidelines. Tell me, is that freedom? And you call Natalie Maine's choice of words derogatory? Tell me, if what she said was disparaging to you then why did the controversy spread like brushfire? When all a sudden is the standard or expectation the uniform way to go? That's a question I have! As for the Chicks attempting to "untarnish" their image, I think that is the only mistake they have made. I wouldn't care less about their cover of Entertainment Weekly or their promoting to improve sales dips, but I didn't think they had any reason for apologize! That has nothing to do with freedom of speech there, but the issue is tattooed at the heart of the matter! Oh, by the way, let me say long before the controversy, I owned the Marshall Tucker Band's greatest hits CD. When I heard they were headlining the anti-Chicks concert in Athens, Georgia, I did a humane thing and instead of crushing their CD I sold it and with the money bought a Dixie Chicks CD in return! Sincerely, Noah Eaton Underneath your clothes, there's an endless story ***Shakira*** [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (05-21-2003 12:08 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Yes, the detractors too have a right to say what they say, but there is one huge noticeable contrast: Natalie Maines was able to get a hold of herself and only state her opinion as harsh as it may have sounded to some, and those who detracted her got violent and smashed her property, threatened to tie Natalie to a rocket and drop her over Baghdad, threw trash on Emily's property who didn't even say anything, etc." ~ An all too common mistake - mixing of issues. I don't believe every person who disagreed with Natalie smashed her property and threatened her, which of course is a different issue and is, of course, wrong. But if you are to "take this path" I could easily provide examples of smashing and threatening of others by those who are anti-Bush. " And I think you are failing to understand Clear Channel is not owned by a whole bunch of people, it is operated by a few people, such as Tom Hicks and Lowry Mays, who have long been incorporated with the Bush administration." ~ Those people who own Clear Channel have every right not to play what they don't want to play. If the people who owned Clear Channel were pro-Clinton and ant-war - they could choose not to play the opposite song listing of what you gave. This is America. This is an example of exercising freedom. If you had the money to start your own Radio Broadcasting company, then you would have every right to play or not play what you desire. So, to answer your question - Yes, it is freedom. " And you call Natalie Maine's choice of words derogatory?" ~ No. I don't. Her fan-base and others who believe differently call what she has said, "derogatory." "Tell me, if what she said was disparaging to you then why did the controversy spread like brushfire? When all a sudden is the standard or expectation the uniform way to go? That's a question I have!" ~ I have no idea what you mean here. "...but I didn't think they had any reason for apologize!" ~ Obviously, they did. I believe is it called, knowing who puts money in your pockets. "Oh, by the way, let me say long before the controversy, I owned the Marshall Tucker Band's greatest hits CD. When I heard they were headlining the anti-Chicks concert in Athens, Georgia, I did a humane thing and instead of crushing their CD I sold it and with the money bought a Dixie Chicks CD in return!" ~ Well...there you go, Noah. You exercised your freedom with that action, just as others have also exercised...be it small or large. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-21-2003 12:32 PM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Thanks for your response Opeth, I appreciate your feedback! This is indeed a very interesting discussion and I certainly others respond too! Love, Noah Eaton Underneath your clothes, there's an endless story |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
All I have to say is: The world is getting real scary.... bad grammar I know but it works. I have been having a sense of impending doom since 9/11 and all that has happened since then has only served to heighten it. These days, I just watch world/US events with a growing sense of horror at the slide that we all seem to be on, into a pit of chaos. Regardless of which side one is on, there needs to be some cool heads who have an interest in turning away from what we seem to be becoming. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough of those around with the clout required. God, it is depressing! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Regardless of which side one is on, there needs to be some cool heads who have an interest in turning away from what we seem to be becoming." ~ What do you think we are becoming? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
btw, you are welcome, Noah. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Opeth~ Is "intolerant" becoming the right answer? regards sudhir |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I don't get your question. Are you saying that if people don't buy D-Chicks music because of their politics that that makes those not buying intolerable? |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
no, my question is an answer in form of a question to your previous question to morefiah (response 49 to the thread)... regards sudhir [This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (05-23-2003 04:42 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I see. I think Morefiah would have to answer that question of what we are becoming. [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-23-2003 07:23 AM).] |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
ok. but, i would have thought if you only wanted morefiah to answer that question, an e-mail would have been a better way to obtain his answer; or am i mistaken? maybe it is best that i should learn and respect silence because words/thoughts might not be tolerated... why cook someone else's food? oops got a metaphor wrong again... oops i did it again ... yikes!regards sudhir |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Sorry about the mix-up. You can answer the question for Morefiah, no problem...but you answered it in a question directed at me, and I don't think we are becoming anything. Do you think we, as a nation, are becoming intolerable? [This message has been edited by Opeth (05-23-2003 07:49 AM).] |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
regards sudhir [This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (05-23-2003 08:35 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Why did you remove your written opinion? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Opeth, actually, I think Sudhir said 'intolerant' not 'intolerable.' Might shift the context of the discussion just a tad? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
For sure, there is a difference. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Noah -- point of order first -- could you please (pretty please) just use normal text and quit the centering -- it might be pretty for poetry -- but in essays it's just hard to read and doesn't help you communicate your ideas -- and -- your ideas are important! If you need to emphasize -- use bold, caps, or quotes ! I think that your concerns (and Morphy's) about where society is going post 9/11 are valid. You just haven't picked the best issue around to voice them. Remember -- in Germany -- it was Hitler who organized (make that mandated) the book burnings. Once you buy a CD it is YOUR property -- it didn't belong to anyone but you and it's disposition was entirely up to you. If you want to organize a rally against Clear Channell -- you are free to do that -- you're free to say what you want, buy what you want, and do what you want -- unless it's something that hurts someone else or infringes on their rights. Your intentions are good and I'd encourage you to learn more about this great experiment in democracy. DeToqueville might be a good place to start. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-24-2003 03:58 PM).] |
||
|
Magicmystery Senior Member
since 2002-02-13
Posts 821Windsor, Ontario, Canada |
Hmmm, I think I might play my Dixie Chicks cds a little more often and a little louder too. Sherry |
||
|
Wind
since 2002-10-12
Posts 2981 |
Looking at noah's list, I have a strange mixture of wanting to laugh hystericaly and cry. How the heck are "I feel the earth move" and "Dust in the wind" about war? And I like the dixie chicks. I listen to music if I like it, regardless of who sings it. And I like a lot of the songs mentioned. So are we hypocrits for saying that we offer free speech? Not completely. We still give a lot more freedom than many other nations. But I still don't think that radio stations have the right to ban songs that protest war. Half of those songs are songs that I really like. And they didn't get all of the anti war songs, so is that fair to the ones that made 'the list?' I agree with Noah about this topic. When we get to the point where people want to trash people's houses, and threaten people against war, it gets scary. I said I'm going to buy a gun and start a war, If you can tell me something worth fighting for -coldplay [This message has been edited by Wind (07-04-2003 01:54 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
