Just got this e-mail from Dave Seidman. Being out in the sticks, I doubt I'll have the opportunity to see this film in theaters, but...
"Back in 2003, when one of the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush,
conservatives denounced the Chicks, and radio networks and radio
networks refused to play their records, I think you announced on your
website that you bought a Dixie Chicks CD, just to support their right
to free speech and defy the denouncers.
I just got back from a screening of SHUT UP AND SING, a documentary
about the controversy. The directors (who were at the screening) said
that -- in a replay of 2003's radio blackout -- the film is facing some
of the same resistance that the Dixie Chicks did. For instance, NBC is
refusing to accept or air paid ads for the film.
So I'm passing on a recommendation to you and others to see the film.
I don't think it'll disappoint you. It's an interesting story well
told. Besides, the music's terrific (and I'm not a Dixie Chicks fan)."
A week from today, we'll have a chance to see just how much the rest of the population has caught up with the sentiments the Chicks expressed.
PAD
While I am totally in their court and look forward to the film, I noticed that the Weinstein Company is talking about a possible lawsuit. Is there really a case there? Do broadcasters have NO say in who advertises on their networks?
I think the best part of this film is the title. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, But I'm to the point where I really don't care what actors and musicians have to say.
Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
I can completely understand, if you write a song about a certain topic, explaining it. And if its about politics, so be it. It has merit and justification then, bringing the topic up. Once again, I hold nothing against these women for expressing themselves.
As I have seen on video, and partially stated above...it was a throwaway comment made basically for ego. They got a cheer, had a huge smile/laugh. And it ended up backfiring in the long run.
In the same vein that I do not feel the egotistical desire to share my opinions with 5000 people, and be applauded for it...I don't understand why these people do. I want to hear you sing or I want to watch you in a movie.
You don't see Derek Jeter stop the game in the 5th inning to pronounce who he is voting for, right?
Mike
I support the "Chicks" and their right to say what ever they want to who ever they want. What seems to escape them is that speech may have consequences from those who disagree. I support private radio stations and others who speak out against the Chicks as well or refuse to play or buy their stuff because of what they said. In a recent interview one of the Chicks said "why are people trying to destroy our careers?", well look at your fan base,then look in the mirror, that is who's to blame.
Has anyone ever noticed how professional athletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is accompanied by their statements at the time?
We have Lynn Swann running for Governor here in PA, so athletes aren't immune. As for celebrity causes, I'm of two minds on it. First of all, I think if I had the fame that made people interested in what I felt about certain issues, I would probably attempt to use that fame to heighten awareness of issues I felt were important. For example, how much attention would have been given to the plight of Ethiopia in the 80s without Bob Geldorf? The only problem I have with the situation is when people base their own opinions on the fact that a celebrity is for or against something. In other words, I think celebrity causes should be treated like Wikipedia; their great for getting a feel for something, but use more factual sources to form your thesis.
Having seen the commercial, about 90% of it is a pure anti-bush political spot, with the last couple seconds plugging the movie itself. It's a joke of a spot, and I'm curious if NBC refuses to advertise this movie at all, or just run this specific ad.
There are some issues with running what could be seen as a political ad this close to an election. I mean, 20 seconds of Bush with the word "Liar" flashing on the screen is not a movie commercial, but a political spot.
That being said, I hope this movie does well. I'm all for anything that encourages discourse.
It was part of the "Coming Attractions" for "Running With Scissors" this week.
AFAIK the singer in question was a mother of a young man that had to go to Iraq to fight in a morally questionable war and she expressed her fear and displeasure of The Man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! While it can be argued that music and politics don't mixed, some people forgot about those country lyrics "We'll put a boot in your ass! It's The American Way!"
When musicians spout The Party Line, they're praised! When they don't, they're "boycotted!" These ladies are the ONLY ones who are "playing politics" IMHO!
Mike, I've heard comments like yours before.
The problem is that music, and celebrity, has always been part of the national dialogue. And I do mean, always, long before the Dixie Chicks, since well before the point where Woody Guthrie wrote "This Land Is Your Land" as an angry, despairing response to Kate Smith's "God Bless America." I think it was Leadbelly who did a protest song called "De Titanic," about his refusal to see the sinking as a tragedy, after the White Star Line refused to allow black boxer Jack Johnson a first-class berth.
Complain about celebs offering their opinions on stage, and you go to the next step, complaining about writers offering their opinions on the printed page. Nobody except the most kneejerk of all idiots says that Stephen King's out of line when he composes an op-ed, on the grounds that he's "only" a novelist; why are we then so anxious to complain about those like the Chicks who express themselves via music, rather than prose? And, by and by, who decides what pundits and TV personalities are more qualified to publicly express opinion than any others? Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, on opposite ends of the political spectrum, both started as sportscasters. Would we be justified in telling both, "Shut up and report those scores?" Or are we respecting their right to concoct opinions, off the tops of their heads, because that's their official job description now? What makes them more qualified now than when they were telling us who just scored a touchdown?
My Father-In-Law complains about Hollywood leftists who make movies expressing their opinions. He finds it arrogant and improper. Who complains, though, about those who make movies of conservative bent? (I'm a liberal, and I sure don't. I have my Tivo set for John Wayne.)
The real problem is that, in practice, it's the liberals people say "Shut Up And Sing" to. You don't wanna know how many staunch Reagan admirers of my acquaintance have complained bitterly and without any sense of irony that Alec Baldwin and Tim Robbins and Al Franken are "just actors" and have no business fooling around with politics. The fact that a lot of these people are well-educated, informed folks who come to their positions via activism and direct involvement, and who thus might actually know what they're talking about, is lost. Thus comments (from TV sources!) to the effect that Angelina Jolie started her hunger activism only to distract the press from the Anniston/Pitt mess (a good trick, since she's been working hunger relief causes for years). Or, more recent, and more hateful, commentary to the effect that Michael J. Fox doesn't know what he's talking about when he spreads the word about Parkinson's research. Both arguments are stupid. At a certain point, you have to credit these people with having the same right to speak up that we all do, and understand that using their celebrity to do so is just one of the advantages that comes with the job.
EITHER WAY, the issue here should not be whether you agree with the Dixie Chicks, or respect their music, or think they're a bunch of talentless harridans -- or whether you think it's right, in this country, for radio stations to organize a boycott of their music, that in some places extended all the way up to burning their CDs, because one of them dissed the President on stage.
The alternative is to say: flense your art of all political and societal opinion.
And if you do that, what happens next?
You get the other complaint, which is often spoken at the same time, by the same people who complain when an artist expresses interest in the world.
"It's just vapid and empty-headed and brainless."
You can't win.
Correction: These ladies AREN'T the ONLY ones who are "playing politics" IMHO!
"We have Lynn Swann running for Governor here in PA, so athletes aren't immune"
And I have no issue with that, nor did I have an issue with Bill Bradley being a senator from New Jersey. I didn't mean retired atheletes tho, with political aspirations.
I meant people that are current atheletes are much much quieter on the politial front than musicians and actors.
I'm wondering if the ad is running afoul of McCain-Feingold or another of the so-called "reform" laws...
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with. To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
A similar example would be if PAD were to mock Star Trek and comic book fans as a bunch of social misfits and virgins, and then... um, never mind. He did that, didn't he?
Seriously, the difference is that PAD did it in the context of a comic book, and the affection and respect he has for his fans was evident. Now, if he'd given a talk somewhere and delivered the same kind of message, but without the jocularity and identifying with the audience as he did in that issue of Captain Marvel, saying that Star Trek and comic book fans were all a bunch of fat, stupid losers living in their parents' basements and trying to decide if their Star Fleet uniform clashed with their Batman cape, then a lot of his readers would most likely stop buying his stuff -- myself included. Because separating the creator's BELIEFS from their PRODUCT is one thing; having it shoved in your face that the creator you're supporting has open contempt for the fan and the fan's beliefs, and by buying their product you're supporting that ongoing insult, is something else entirely.
I love PAD's writing, but can't stand his politics. But I don't depend on him for political commentary. Until he starts pushing that into the stuff I do pay for, I'll keep reading and keep being entertained.
J.
Current athletes - such as Cardinals pitcher, Suppan, who recorded the anti-embryonic stem cell ad?
My guess (though it might be unfair) is that the average iq of actors/musicians/writers is higher than the average iq of athletes. And the more intelligent you are, the more you want to participate in the political process.
As someone else mentioned...most people who have a problem with Barbra Steissand/Dixie Chicks/etc don't have a problem with Charlton Heston. And the country music crowd loves the pro-Bush/pro-war music being released. They just don't like it when it comes from the Left.
To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
When you're an artist, your beliefs are part and parcel of your "product".
What are you trying to do? Buck for a job with a movie studio or the RIAA?
"Now, if he'd given a talk somewhere and delivered the same kind of message, but without the jocularity and identifying with the audience as he did in that issue of Captain Marvel, saying that Star Trek and comic book fans were all a bunch of fat, stupid losers living in their parents' basements and trying to decide if their Star Fleet uniform clashed with their Batman cape, then a lot of his readers would most likely stop buying his stuff -- myself included."
Well, that's probably true. Then again, if I felt such detestation for my core audience, then that would probably mean that I feel equal contempt for the subject matter that I'm writing about. In which case that loathing would probably have shown through long ago. Certainly such an anti-fan attitude would damage the work itself, and that alone would be enough reason to cease supporting it.
None of which is analogous to the Dixie Chicks. It's not like they put out a new album called, "My God, If You Like Our Work, You Must Be Stupid." In the concert they insulted Bush, not the intelligence of the voters. (And frankly, considering some of the codswollop GOP politicians and pundits are expecting their supporters to follow without hesitation, I think THEY have been far more insulting of conservatives' intelligence than anyone. And it's starting to show. I think more and more conservatives, rather than wondering just how stupid the Dixie Chicks are, are wondering just how stupid their leadership thinks their supporters are.
As I said, a week from today, we may see the answer.
PAD
Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I'm surprised when people think it's out of line.
Personally, Natalie Maines gets on my nerves, Earl Had to Die being a GREAT song aside.
But hey, more power to her. She can say whatever she wants, but I won't be paying any attention to her.
I suppose I would respect the Dixie Chicks more if the resulting protest had been about their actual work, but they are hardly Dylanesque artists or even in the same camp as Ice T when he recorded "Cop Killer." It seems like Maines made a tossed-off remark -- an insult -- that backfired. The death threats, of course, are inexcusable but she didn't really open the door for civil debate. I don't know -- it just seemed rude, and I'm someone who abhors what Bush has done to this country and the world at large.
Also, given the demographic of Texas, saying publically that you're ashamed that Bush is from Texas is like my saying that I'm ashamed Spike Lee is from Brooklyn. It's sort of a given that I'm going to be in the minority.
The problem is that too many Americans can't tolerate disagreement. I've never liked the Dixie Chicks so it wasn't really an issue with me (c'mon, their band name sends shivers up my spine -- not intentionally, but as a black guy, I don't jump up and down when I hear the word "dixie"). It's ridiculous that people who liked their music would stop buying it or seeing their concerts because of something they said.
That said, free speech rarely is, well, free. The repercussions the Dixie Chicks faced were nothing compared to what might have happened in another country (the death threats aside -- and even I've gotten death threats for things I've written; it's almost part of the process). If your business is the public, you have to accept that there are consequences to potentially alienating them. It looks like that's what the Dixie Chicks learned and in the process managed to go mainstream, for which I say good for them.
I agree with the Chicks, but I don't own any of their albums. I disagree with almost everything Charlton Heston says, but I watch Planet of the Apes several times a year. I think Ezra Pound was one of the scummiest folks still taught in literature, but "In a Station of the Metro" is pure, concentrated genius.
I don't understand how people can't differentiate the work from the worker. Are you going to stop driving you car if you found out one of the assemblers was a skinhead?
Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
Maybe some have forgotten that Reagan was an actor? Or the Governator?
The hypocracy of those in politics to say that actors and musicians shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions is incredible. Just because they're actors doesn't mean that their opinion is any less valid, nor is it automatically invalid just because they have a better platform (ie, because they're famous).
Bono does all sorts of stuff that transcend politics, but maybe it's just the fact he's not an American that people here aren't ripping him for it.
Or maybe it's the ridiculous generalization that the media and Hollywood are liberal.
Posted by Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 10:37 AM
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?
Posted by Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 10:37 AM
To aggravate matters, they made it a major sticking point, and conflated their BELIEFS with their PRODUCT.
Using art as a vehicle for political commentary is in no way a "conflation." Art has been a means for political commentary for as long as both art and politics have existed.
The film is out in NYV and LA. Has anyone here besides me actually seen it yet?
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, But I'm to the point where I really don't care what actors and musicians have to say. Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private? Do actors and musicians just have such big egos, they need the cheer that is acccompanied by their statements at the time?
Mike, forgive me, but when you imply that politically active performers are egotists, you demonstrate that you are merely paying lip service to the idea that "everyone is entitled to an opinion."
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
In the same vein that I do not feel the egotistical desire to share my opinions with 5000 people, and be applauded for it...I don't understand why these people do. I want to hear you sing or I want to watch you in a movie.
Yet here you are, posting your opinions in a very public forum. If you didn't want to share your opinions with "5,000" people or however many people are reading this, why did you not keep them to yourself?
If you can do it, why can't they?
Posted by: michael at October 31, 2006 09:25 AM
You don't see Derek Jeter stop the game in the 5th inning to pronounce who he is voting for, right?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Art has long been used as a vehicle for political commentary. Athletics have been used as a political tool to be sure (like the propaganda value assigned to the Olympics), but sports themselves are not commentary, they're a contest of physical strength, stamina, and skill.
I think Alice Cooper said it best when he questioned why fans wanted to know what he thought about this or that item in politics. "Why do people want to know our opinion on these things? We're not political science majors, we're rock musicians. We beat drums all day for a living. What do we know about politics?"
Dave Seidman. It's an interesting story well told. Besides, the music's terrific (and I'm not a Dixie Chicks fan)."
Luigi Novi: What really pisses me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hell. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush, thinking that the type of moviegoers who watch political documentaries all the time (One of the places I tried recruiting as was the Angelika), would flock to it. Instead, I got more than one reaction along the lines of, "I'm not into country music," or "I'm not into the Dixie Chicks." Whether this was sheer ignorance of the points I had tried to make about the film, or a the dismissive reaction that what happened to the Chicks wasn't important because they weren't "fans" of them, I'm not sure. Either one is frustrating.
Jay Tea: I love PAD's writing, but can't stand his politics. But I don't depend on him for political commentary. Until he starts pushing that into the stuff I do pay for, I'll keep reading and keep being entertained.
Luigi Novi: Guess you didn't read Captain Marvel. :-)
1I agree with their position and their politics (and I'm even a registered Republican!) and I even like their music . . . but boy, I can't STAND that loudmouthed Natalie Maines. Drives me INSANE. I've passed on opportunities to see them live simply because I don't want to listen to her between-song prattle. Ugh.
Anyway . . . other than that, rock on, Chicks.
As you were.
Not all of the antipathy toward the Dixie Chicks is their politics--they have also actively dissed their old audience: ""I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do." Martie Maguire,
I've already said all I had to on the Chicks (here) but that's not why I'll be missing their film. I just don't get out to theaters very often. I probably will, however, review it once it comes to DVD.
R.J. (in my Green Lantern costume today)
Know why the politicians don't like artists speaking out? Especially if they disagree with the politicians?
Art.
Makes.
People.
Think.
Now, if the politicians can use it to fire up their base, I'm sure they ADORE the artists. But, if the artist(gasp!) DISagrees with their positions, which, as we all know, are handed to the politicians on plates of beaten gold from on high, well, they're two steps over from Satan.
Do I like my artists to shut up and do...whatever they do? No. Do I support every cause they espouse? No. But that's kind of getting away from the point. The thing that seperates any celebrity's opinion on anything from all of us lowly masses below them(relax, I'm being sarcastic)is the fact that they're RECOGNIZED. That's why endorsements can make people so much money. You could have the worst product in history, but shove Celebrity X next to it spouting how great it is, people will buy it.
Actually, I would LOVE to see someone put out an album called "If you buy this, you're stupid." Surely it would be a comedy album, or a recording of Rush Limbaugh. Either way it'd be pretty funny.
The Dixie Chicks kind of remind me of the Beatles. Before all you music afficianadoes out there come to my door like the peasants in Frankenstein, let me explain. There was a big backlash against the Beatles because of the "bigger than Jesus" comment. Someone I know had all of her Beatle records smashed in the street 32 seconds after that comment was heard. The context of the comment was irrelevant. The fact that the person was just speaking their mind was irrelevant. Most people like to feel that the artists they like are like them, and anything that shows differently is anathema.
From Rich Drees:
I have, but then I'm the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
If you haven't watched the movie, then you and your nerves ain't seen nothin' yet. Ms. Maines is even more outspoken in the movie than she was onstage in 2003.
David Seidman
From Rich Drees:
I have, but then I'm the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
If you haven't watched the movie, then you and your nerves ain't seen nothin' yet. Ms. Maines is even more outspoken in the movie than she was onstage in 2003.
David Seidman
From Rich Drees:
I have, but then I'm the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
If you haven't watched the movie, then you and your nerves ain't seen nothin' yet. Ms. Maines is even more outspoken in the movie than she was onstage in 2003.
David Seidman
Double hell. Not only did my post get posted twice, but the quotes that I dropped into it didn't appear in it. Let me try again:
From Rich Drees:
Yep, me, the guy who recommended it.
Side note to Zeek, who wrote:
Ms. Maines is, as I said, even more outspoken in the movie than on stage.
David Seidman
That's it. I give up. Silly machine won't print what I write. Reminds me of some of my editors.
David Seidman
There have been lots of interesting comments about the accepting the ramifications of free speech. "If you say something people don't like, people have the right not to buy your music." OK. I accept that.
But what bothered me, to the point that I stopped listening to my local country music station, is that they were BANNED. A ban is a great tool to get someone to do something. You ban grapes until the farmers pay the pickers a better wage. Farmers do that and you start buying grapes again.
But (if I remember correctly) the Chicks apologized for the way they presented their opinion, not the sentiment behind it. So when they were banned, after their apology, I got the sense that country music stations were saying, "Change your political opinions and we'll start playing you again." And that is not free speech.
Jester
This situation is just nuts. That's the only way it can be summed up.
Regardless of their viewpoints, I just found that they (especially the lead, Natalie), came across as obnoxious. I won't be paying to see it.
Being a regular poster on several car-related message boards, I occasionally see people say things like "Harrison Ford's a hypocrite because he's always acting in action movies and in real life he's anti-gun!" and "Who does [insert name of liberal-identified celebrity] think he/she is, saying things like that? He/she ought to be charged with treason and deported!!"
My reaction to the first is usually, "It's called 'acting,' dimwit." To the second, I'd say, "Maybe he/she thinks he/she's an American citizen who votes and pays taxes, just like you do, freely expressing his/her opinion, just like you are."
By the way, the Harrison Ford thing was real. Paraphrased because I didn't have the exact quote handy, but the gist is there.
Jerry C, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
On the one hand, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." (emphasis mine). So, from a strictly legal perspective, media outlets are well within their rights to ban an entertainer because they don't like their political views.
This may be within the letter of the law but it sure as hell violates its spirit. Moreover, it is hypocritical for us as a nation to declare that we are fighting here, there, and everywhere for "freedom" when so many of us don't embody those values in our daily lives.
On "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," George interviewed Michael J. Fox about his recent advocacy efforts for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research. He asked Fox how he would respond to those who believe that Fox's view is wrong because embryoes represent a human life. Fox said he would "go to war" for their right to say that, and simply asked that they respect that he and others with his view have also thought and prayed long and hard about it.
God forbid that we follow Fox's example of passionately disagreeing while respecting the rights of those with whom we disagree.
It's not that she's outspoken- kudos to her for being strong our little sisters need to know it's ok for them to speak up.
I just personally feel that the other two chix are better musicians, and Natalie's a glory hog. But I suppose all front men (or women as it were) have that in them.
(ok yeah, them dissing their fans kind of irked me. As much as I find the hags on The View annoying, I think their being insulted by The Dixie Chicks comments in the Time magazine interview was a correct reaction. The View was one of the first ones to pimp them- slapping them in the face the way they did was a bit arrogant.)
A little humility would make her words easier to swallow. Just sayin.
Speaking of Michael J Fox ... THAT'S humility and THAT'S why people are hearing what he has to say.
//Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I'm surprised when people think it's out of line.//
I remember seeing another "Coming Attractions" for a documentary (or retrospective) that will be coming out next year about The Life of John Lennon. According to some of the clips, a branch of the government were considering having Lennon deported after one of his public appearances. Urban legend or untold story about an even more controversial performer than Ms. Maines? We'll find out when that film is released.
Well, musicians and actors have been doing this for a great deal longer than these chix have been alive (John Lennon anyone?) So I'm surprised when people think it's out of line.
Ahem. Swift. A Modest Proposal.
And I'd add the Gershwins, Strike Up the Band. Always wondered why there hasn't been a revival of it lately....
"And I'd add the Gershwins, Strike Up the Band. Always wondered why there hasn't been a revival of it lately...."
Isn't it amazing how every generation thinks they've done it first? And wouldn't you think we'd learn from history? I guess we are indeed doomed to repeat it.
Michael wrote:
Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?
Oh, sure. But just try to get them to shut up about jesus whenever they score a goddamn touchdown.
Religion is opinion, too.
Bill, I have to disagree with you on one thing. When you said "it sure as hell violates its spirit" I'm not sure that's true. Freedom of speech also includes freedom of silence. There's nothing that says a certain station has to play Dixie Chicks songs. Although, if I were a PD, I wouldn't make a big stink about it. You're bound to lose listeners either way, so if you just keep your mouth shut, you're not seen as this opinionated loudmouth trying to impose YOUR ideas on the listening public. (BTW, that's different from artists being percieved as opinionated loudmouths. Stations are just the messengers.)
Bill, I have to disagree with you on one thing. When you said "it sure as hell violates its spirit" I'm not sure that's true. Freedom of speech also includes freedom of silence.
Huh????
Don't see that at all. Not when the freedom lies in someone else's hands, not your own.
I see the marketplace of ideas. Those who would act as gatekeepers should tread very carefully.
Sean, Roger Tang took the words right out of my mouth. It's one thing to silence yourself -- it's quite another to silence someone else.
The courts have upheld the idea that freedom of speech includes the freedom NOT to say something. And certainly that includes the freedom for a newspaper not to print a letter to the editor, or for a radio station not to play a song.
I fully support, for example, those newspapers that have refused to run ads that claim the holocaust was a myth. That is intellectually dishonest claptrap. But I don't think the Dixie Chicks come anywhere near that kind of extreme.
"ok yeah, them dissing their fans kind of irked me."
That would actually be funny if it were true. Still, I'll give you that it is a POV thing.
My POV:
They said something at a concert about Bush. This got picked up and spun around the media by the dim bulbs of Fox and talk radio as an attack on America and an outrage in a time of war. A number of the chicks' "fans" began to write newspapers, call radio stations, call talk radio and get on "man on the street" blips on TV news talking about how the Chicks said bad things about "America" in a time of war, were Saddam's little angels, supported the terrorists and so on. They then went on to trash their Chicks collections at home (if you can take their word for it) or in public displays that showed that some people ain't that far removed from the trees.
Then the Chicks had a few words about the stations, the companies that owned them, the dim bulbs of Fox and talk radio...
...and the people who used to listen to them and were now trashing them and their CDs.
Those people who, by my POV, stopped being fans the second the claimed the Chicks attacked America, demanded they be banned from airplay, threw out their Chicks stuff and swore that they would never buy another Chicks related item in their lives.
I don't know. Maybe that's still a fan by your POV. it's not by mine and I'll wager it's not by theirs.
The first word of the First Amendment is often ignored, but is extremely important. "Congress" as in "Congress Shall Make No Law"
Private businesses (radio stations, newspapers, magazines) have every right to decide what they promote. As long as Congress doesn't step in, no rights have been violated. Not even the spirit.
The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it.
Of course, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton taught us that. If a radio station decides to play controversial artist X, or decides not to play controversial artist Y, there is likely to be a response from listeners. They have a decision to make. But it is their decision to make.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, nor freedom from rebuttal. It simply means that the government cannot stifle you.
The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hell they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad. But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
The way they handled the matter also stunk to high heaven. As others noted, they dismissed a large chunk of their upset fans, saying they'd prefer "quality" over "quantity." So they were taken at their word, and the quantity plummeted.
Then they had a chance to either put it all behind them or try to shape it into something more palatable. Instead, they kept up the defiant, in-your-face attitude with their last single, "Not Ready To Make Nice."
I loathe country music as a rule, but I actually watched -- and loved -- their video for "Goodbye Earl." (My fondness for NYPD Blue got me to see it, and Dennis Franz was PERFECT in it. I cheered when he got it, and I thought it was a pretty good song.)
But every step of the way, the choice has been theirs (well, apparently Natalie's). Others have made similar statements and taken similar positions, and avoided alienating their base.
Their audience is considerably smaller now. I hope that means it's also "better," by their definition.
J.
Au contraire.
"I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it," says Maguire, "who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."
Some fans were not burning their cds and issuing threats, but liked what the Dixie Chicks used to do and still liked Toby Keith and Reba. They just dissed them with that statement (along with Reba and TK- though TK did deserve it! hee!).
They also snubbed the average American woman who watchs The View ...
"They'll tour starting in July and flog the record on a few select talk shows. "Natalie's new motto is, 'What would Bruce Springsteen do?'" says Robison, laughing. "Not that we're of that caliber, but 'Would Bruce Springsteen do The View?'" They're not doing The View."
Sorry, the "au contraire" was to Jerry C ... you guys jumped in ahead of me.
btw, I'm not a Reba/TK/Country music fan, but I understand how those that are might have felt. (And again not the maniacs issuing threats- the "normal" country music fan.)
I honestly do believe she can say whatever she wants. And that's all I have to say about that.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
The first word of the First Amendment is often ignored, but is extremely important. "Congress" as in "Congress Shall Make No Law"
Yes, I know. I beat you to the punch on that one.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
Private businesses (radio stations, newspapers, magazines) have every right to decide what they promote.
Again, that point's already been made.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
As long as Congress doesn't step in, no rights have been violated. Not even the spirit.
Untrue. If someone is silenced, they're silenced, whether the government does it or private industry.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it.
No, they are not required to publish it. As I said, that point has already been made.
Your analogy nevertheless fails because Highlights wouldn't be censoring political speech but merely sticking with their core competency: wholesome children's material. Nothing would stop a would-be porn writer from submitting to magazines that feature porn.
The radio stations that boycotted the Dixie Chicks were country stations -- featuring just the sort of music that the Dixie Chicks played.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2006 04:54 PM
Of course, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton taught us that. If a radio station decides to play controversial artist X, or decides not to play controversial artist Y, there is likely to be a response from listeners. They have a decision to make. But it is their decision to make.
Yes, that point has already been made. But just because you can do something doesn't mean it is wise. Stifling political speech also has consequences, regardless of whether it is done by the government or corporate America. In the latter case, it may be legal, but it still has the same effect: limiting the public dialog.
They may have the right, but that doesn't mean it is right. And it doesn't preclude my right to criticize them for it.
Nothing on the free marketplace of ideas?
Well, now we know who's been paying attention in class....The basis of free speech is not for governments only...
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, nor freedom from rebuttal.
I never said that it was.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
It simply means that the government cannot stifle you.
Yes, I already made that point.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hell they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad.
Agreed.
Posted by: Jay Tea at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM
But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
No one said they did. But there are two separate issues that you are conflating. The First Amendment merely protects us (or is supposed to protect us, at any rate) from government interference with our right to free speech. But free speech is a much bigger concept than the wording of the First Amendment. It's about the public discourse, and having access to a free marketplace of ideas.
Corporations are well within their legal rights to silence political opinions. I never said otherwise. So, rather than arguing with a straw man of your own creation, I'd rather you engage the argument I'm actually making:
When corporate America silences political speech, we are the poorer for it -- regardless of the letter of the law.
(By the way, Jay, I really am happy to engage anyone in debate. You seem like an intelligent fellow and, while I am a liberal, I recognize the value in the conservative ideology. And frankly, I'm sure there is a logical counter-argument to the position I've advanced. It's just that I believe the counter-argument you've offered thus far is a counter to an argument I actually haven't made.)
Posted by: roger tang at October 31, 2006 05:09 PM
Nothing on the free marketplace of ideas?
There is now. You must've posted that while I was still writing my last post.
Patience, my young Jedi... :-)
"Some fans were not burning their cds and issuing threats, but liked what the Dixie Chicks used to do and still liked Toby Keith and Reba."
1) I always took that as more of a swipe at Keith and continuing their public spitting contest. POV.
2) Still came well after the blow up. They could feel that they have very few fans left that fall into that group. There was also a bit more to that interview then what the Chicks' detractors pointed out with that quote. I read it online when it came out and went away thinking that the quote had been pulled more then just a wee bit out of context.
"The example I enjoy using is if someone sends a pornographic short story to Highlights Magazine for Children they are not required by law to publish it."
Hmmmmm... I don't know if that really fits here though. To work, the Chicks would have to be out there claiming that they were being treated unfairly because the Metal stations refuse to play their country songs along with Ace of Spades, Hunter Killer and Dark Wings, Dark Words. not what they're doing.
This is closer to a best selling writer with a good sales record in childrens stories submitting a fantastic story to Highlights Magazine that fits their target demo 100% and being refused because he or she stumped for a local Pol that the owner of the mag doesn't like.
The Chicks didn't change their music, they didn't write a song like The Burning Bush (Flogging Molly) and they didn't even throw a few cute refs in their work about Bush sucking and got caught after the fact. They spoke their minds outside of their recorded work.
And the result was that they got all their songs, even long time faves from well before the comment's uttering, pulled from the air and they had some really dishonest attacks (par for the course for the media conservatives) thrown at them.
Bill, I'd return your kind words, but I suspect we'd get a chorus of "get a room, you two!" Rather, let's just say they're reciprocated -- and then some.
In fact, consider yourself invited to come on over to Wizbang and kick around whatever you like. We tend to be a bit more politically oriented than PAD's pad.
(I'm very curious to hear his take on last night's Heroes, and the latest word on the next New Frontiers novel -- all of which I own.)
I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don't think it applies here. I didn't follow it too closely, but it seemed to me that the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was, largely, a "grass roots" thing. Radio stations -- even giant conglomerates -- don't, as a rule, start such movements, they simply try to stay ahead of them. Their ideology is purely financial; if they thought they could make more money by playing the DCs rather than not, they'd put 'em on 24/7.
I still think it boils down to this: the DCs (well, Natalie Maines) said some things in a concert appearance. The fact that she personalized the insult to Bush, chose a concert venue to make it, and did it outside the country (quite a few people still think that "politics should end at the water's edge") as something they found morally repugnant, and decided they no longer wanted to subsidize such things.
(If I'm wrong, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. As I said, I didn't follow it too closely at the time, and still find it a trifle dull.)
By the way, "Shut Up And Sing" was the title of a book by conservative author and talk-show host Laura Ingraham, and the Dixie Chicks were, I believe, among the entertainers she discussed. I wonder if she's getting any royalties, or at least rates a thank-you in the liner notes?
J.
"'That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.'
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?"
YES. absolutely yes. People should only say popular things.
Alright.. my last one was just a stupid joke... but this is serious - - >
Luigi Novi: "What really pisses me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hell. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush"
PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution? They're still country music singers! They're still three fems who do nothing but sing for a farking living! Wait! Wait! No. I get it. Let's compare it to stuff in real history that could actually count as a persecution and see if the haranguing that these three fems that make more-than-a-healthy-living-out-of-simply-performing-and-recording-music actually counts as persecution!
"Suffered"!? Let's pick new words. You knowk, if what they have gotten counts as suffering, I want a piece of that.
I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don't think it applies here. I didn't follow it too closely, but it seemed to me that the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was, largely, a "grass roots" thing.
I'd be more amenable to that if it had ocurred over a period of a month or a month and a half. Even in these days of the internet, it usually takes that long for commercial trends to get traction and penetrate the noggins of corporate bean counters.
However, my recollection was that the Dixie Chicks got yanked off the air within a week. That points to me a lot more of corporate fear of a backlash, rather than a backlash itself. It's not clear the negative sentiment (which truly existed) was substantial or just from a loud, small minority. (Though i could be proven wrong on that)
"I agree with you about the corporate censorship, but I don't think it applies here."
Really?
Cumulus Media, America's second-largest broadcasting company, helped set up some of the CD bulldozing events and reportedly sent out an order that banned the group on all of its stations' playlists. There were reports around here that the Clear Channel country stations were getting tons of calls to PLAY the Chicks stuff but told callers they wouldn't because of word from higher up the food chain.
NBC and CW are doing it now. They've run ads for films of all types of late. Why not this? Corporate censorship reasons. Weinstein has sent out copies of clearance reports from NBC's standards and practices department with handwritten notations stating the ads were deemed unacceptable because "they are disparaging of President Bush." That's the only reason. It's not nice to Bush.
We can't have a negative opinion of Bush on their nets, but gross out stuff (that I love by the way) like ads for Saw III, Hostel and Chainsaw DVDs and Turistas in the family hour is just fine? I hope they get jammed up hard by Weinstein.
"However, my recollection was that the Dixie Chicks got yanked off the air within a week."
Hell, it took less then a week around here.
I should point out that the above was meant to be, "We can't have ads with a negative opinion of Bush on their nets,..."
I meant ads there. Nothing on their nets like that and Leno is in the soup line.
That being said, the Chicks deliberately chose to take a stand that a huge portion of their fan base disagrees with.
***************
So, what, then? Should performers only take political stands that are popular?
**************
SER: This just poppped into my head -- if Jay-Z or Kanye West or any other rapper had said that they were ashamed Jesse Jackson came from South Carolina or (insert black leader and place of origin here), there would be some fall-out. Heck, look at how Jesse Jackson went after BARBERSHOP because of some jokes about Rosa Parks and MLK.
This isn't so much of an "is it fair or not" argument but more about putting things into perspective. A "hardcore" rapper saying he's pro-Bush would have about as much backlash with his base as it did for the Dixie Chicks when they bashed Bush.
In many ways, the music business is politics. Public Enemy never realistically expected mainstream, conservative whites to buy their albums or go to their shows (though the kids of mainstream, conservative whites certainly did). However, I bet they were still aware of their audience and would have thought twice of dissing, say, Farrakhan in public.
"Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?"
Mike Sweeney (KC Royals), Jeff Suppan (StL Cardinals), and Kurt Warner (AZ Cardinals, formerly StL Rams) are all currently appearing in a campaign ad with Patricia Heaton, aimed at Missouri, quoting bad and pseudo-science, trying to defeat a state amendment that would protect and promote stem-cell research.
Curt Schilling all but dedicated his part in the Boston Red Sox 2004 World Series Championship to Bush.
I couldn't disagree more with their positions, but I don't respect them any less. I'll remain a fan of Sweeney forever, unless he pulls a Kenny Rogers and attacks someone.
High profile athletes and entertainers have as much right as anyone else to speak up and speak out, and I don't feel they should be punished or even specially rewarded for doing so.
Wildcat
"It seems like Maines made a tossed-off remark -- an insult -- that backfired."
She made her statement during a concert in the UK (I think) on their European tour. She made it in the spirit of "we're Texans, and we're Americans, and not *all* of us agree with our President." Obviously not her exact words. She was speaking to *that* audience, and not necessarily calling out Bush.
The "outrage" stemmed from pundits *here* saying it was "unpatriotic" for the band to say such things in foreign countries. As if their freedom of speech should no longer apply once they leave the US. And it wasn't a "grassroots" backlash, as the storm was whipped up almost entirely by the radio whack-jobs and the corporate owners of those stations that blacklisted their albums.
When they returned to tour in the US, they continued to play to sold-out crowds, so it's not as if the *fans* were insulted. That's not to say some weren't of course, but for the most part, those would seem to have been in the minority.
Wildcat
1i brought my wife to see it this past weekend. it was very well done.
Ugh, I heard a story on NPR this morning about Bush speaking in Sugarland (near Houston). They interviewed a few of the supporters there, and sure enough, one of them mentions the Dixie Chicks. Something about how he was ashamed they were from Texas. What that had to do with the mid-term elections is beyond my ken.
That kind of crap just irritates the heck out of me. Sure, on the surface he's really only confirming that he's an idiot, obsessing over a way overblown incident that happened three years ago. But he's also helping confirm that all the rest of us Texans are idiots, too. And I'm sure I don't have to mention the hypocrisy inherent in the fabricated controversy.
I'm not really a fan, per se, (though my wife is) but I'll try to catch the film.
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry's comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry's comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Of course, that's not what Kerry said.
Kerry was referring to the Bush Administration's idiocy and lack of intelligence.
That much was evident by listening/reading to the ENTIRE section of his comments, rather than the single one that that damned liberal media is going to single out (ie, the part the right-wing attack machine went after today).
Unfortunately, in spectacularly Kerry fashion, he mucked it up.
Kerry, the gift that keeps on giving...to Karl Rove.
I doubt this will stop the Democrats from winning the house but it will hopefully slow whatever tiny momentum kerry may have in getting another shot at the nomination so in that way the party--and all of us--win.
Someone upthread mentioned the US considering deporting John Lennon for speaking out - in the late 40s/50s, the great black actor/singer Paul Robeson's passport was pulled because he refused to sign an agreement saying that he wouldn't talk about the US civil rights situation while abroad.
They even pulled out a wartime "emergency" regulation and forbade him going to Canada to perform.
So, in 1952, his supporters set up a stage on a flatbed truck just this side of the Canadian border, and he played to a crowd variously estimated as twenty to forty thousand.
(I have a blog post that talks a litle about this, as well as other tings, at http://mog.com/fairportfan/blog_post/20972)
but it will hopefully slow whatever tiny momentum kerry may have in getting another shot at the nomination so in that way the party--and all of us--win.
The funny (or sad, depending on your POV) part is when Kerry got all fired up when respond to what the White House said.
Only 2 years too late...
Kerry's a buffoon. I know he wasn't really insulting the troops. But what a buffoon, to once again, put something out there that the opposition can easily twist and run with. He's seen their strategy, and you'd think he'd be a little more careful now. I remember during the last election, the Democrats worried his wife's mouth would be a liability. They should've been more worried about his. Dumbass. Now he gets fired-up, as a last-ditch effort at damage control. Good luck, John.
Jay Tea: The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever the hell they please. That includes making cheap personal attacks on the president while abroad. But they have no Constitutional right to demand radio stations play their songs, stores to stock their CDs, and people to listen to them.
Luigi Novi: No, but they have a right to be free from death threats, the right to say whatever the hell they please publicly (as opposed to the gentleman in the film who stated that “Free speech is fine as long as you don’t do it publicly”), and the right to demand that they not be persecuted by communications monopolies beholden to the Bush administration, which are the actual points made in the film.
Luigi Novi: What really pisses me off about this movie si that the market research company I work for had a free screening of it this past August in Manhattan, and recruiting for it was hell. I tried to emphasize to all the people I could that it was not a documentary about their music, but a political documentary about the censorship and persecution they suffered after they criticized Bush…
Blue Spider: PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution?
Luigi Novi: The death threats. The accusation that they were “traitors”. The assertion that their right to free speech was only acceptable if they didn’t “do it publicly.” The fact that public perception, the media and radio stations were manipulated by a concerted effort by the right-wing group Free Republic, as if the public was somehow incapable of making up its own mind about them. That sorta thing.
Next question.
Blue Spider: They're still country music singers! They're still three fems who do nothing but sing for a farking living! Wait! Wait! No. I get it. Let's compare it to stuff in real history that could actually count as a persecution and see if the haranguing that these three fems that make more-than-a-healthy-living-out-of-simply-performing-and-recording-music actually counts as persecution!
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure why you use the qualifiers “nothing but” and “simply” when referring to their chosen vocation, as if that’s somehow not a legitimate occupation, nor do I see why the fact that they’re “fems” is any way relevant to this, but if you believe that this mitigates the fact that they were threatened, had their patriotism challenged and had their free speech rights questioned, then I respectfully disagree.
Jay Tea: Then they had a chance to either put it all behind them or try to shape it into something more palatable. Instead, they kept up the defiant, in-your-face attitude with their last single, "Not Ready To Make Nice."
Luigi Novi: Really? Hmmm......let's look at some of the lyrics of that song:
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go 'round and 'round and 'round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
Hmm. They're still mad at the way they were treated? They don't think they should do what others think they should? Well, that's pretty unreasonable.
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge that they’d write me a letter sayin’ that I better shut up and sing or my life will be over
Whoa. They're mad at the death threats? Geez, what a trio of bitches.
Now for some sane analysis.
The song is not "in your face", at least no more than any other song written by someone with a strong, powerful message to say, someone who's rightfully angry at an injustice. If it is in your face, then I'd say more power to them. Perhaps you should go elsewhere for music that's lukewarm, milquetoast, ambiguous, and devoid of personal vision and experience.
Palatable? I LOVED this song. I just downloaded it, and it was the first song by them that I ever heard entirely. I heard it in the trailer, but only when I connected the title that you indicatd, "Not Ready to Make Nice", did I realize that it was that song, because I remembered that lyric in the trailer. And I loved it. It was the purest form of art: An artist talking about the pain of something they've endured in their life, in this case, having their very lives threatened simply for voicing their beliefs. it's a beautiful song, and it's the first song by them that I've placed on my iTunes player.
Defiant? Yeah, they are defiant. Because they have a right to be. Who you think they are to act as if they do not have a right to be defiant about being mistreated the way they were, I don't know. Nor do I know why you speak as if you somehow decide, with wording that comes off as factual, what is "palatable".
But hey, let's hope you don't ever have someone threaten you for voicing that opinion. If it makes you upset, some might accuse you of being "defiant". And that would not be "palatable."
Craig said:
Was really hoping to read what you thought about Kerry's comments(ie=only dropouts/idiots serve in the military)
Of course, that's not what Kerry said.
Well, Craig quoted the first, said the second, but I don't know how to do the layered thing.
Craig, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. That's exactly what Kerry said.
I don't believe that's what he MEANT, though, so I partially agree with you. But instead of apologizing for a verbal slip and moving on, he's standing firmly, saying that we should have KNOWN he meant to say, and taking him at his actual words is a partisan cheap trick.
It's pride, it's petulance, it's arrogance, and it's extremely insightful into his character.
J.
I can't find the quote anywhere online. Anyone have a link to reference?
Media Matters for America has the Kerry quote plus good background on it in several items on their site now. Here's a key passage from one of the MMFA items on this:
... Kerry said "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." According to Kerry, he was referring to President Bush's poor preparation for the war, not the lack of education of members of the U.S. military. Kerry said he botched a joke, and according to CNN, a Kerry aide said Kerry was supposed to have said: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
In the context of Kerry's speech, in which he was criticizing Bush, the explanation that he intended the line to be another jab at Bush and bungled the wording slightly seems quite reasonable to me, and much more plausible than that he meant it as a jab at the troops in Iraq.
From way back at the top of the page, Mike posted:
"Has anyone ever noticed how professional atheletes, 99% of the time, keep their opinion private?"
No, I haven't. I'm not much of a sports fan, but even so I have noted on many occasions professional athletes using their fame in order to express their personal opinions to the public. People who are actually sports fans, and who watch sports regularly, should be even more aware of these incidents than I am.
One notable example is religious belief. A number of players use the spotlight they get during professional sports in order to make a public profession of their faith in God.
Another notable example: many athletes over the years have expressed their opinion on the abortion issue in an effort to influence their fans to support the same side they do in this matter. There is a group, "Athletes For Life", which has been active for about 20 years in opposing abortion and promoting abstinence.
And when I lived in Pennsylvania I recall Joe Paterno, a famous football coach, being a featured speaker at a GOP convention. That's quite a while back; I'm pretty sure I've heard of similar incidents in more recent years, of notable sports figures campaigning for politicians they support, but as I said at the beginning I'm not a big sports fan so the names don't mean much to me and the stories don't impress myself in my memory.
If even I am aware of these incidents, then those of you who are bigger sports fans should also be aware of them. And yet, I can't recall any major controversies -- certainly not on a par with the treatment of the Dixie Chicks -- surrounding these incidents. Nor do I recall hearing politicians blasting professional athletes for using their fame this way, even though blasting actors for doing it something of a cliche by now. (The comic strip Mallard Fillmore, for example, has used that as their joke a fairly large number of the times I've seen the strip.)
Interestingly, most of the Hollywood celebrities who get blasted for expressing their views publicly are expressing liberal views, and most of the athletes who do not get blasted for expressing their views publicly are expressing conservative views. That may or may not have any bearing on the matter. But to believe that athletes don't express their opinions publicly seems to me to be clearly wrong.
It's pride, it's petulance, it's arrogance, and it's extremely insightful into his character.
Everything we needed to know about Kerry came up early, when he fell snowbarding and blamed the secret security guy. "I don't fall down," the "son of a bitch knocked me over." At the time it was just worth an eye roll, now it seems like a revealing peek into his mindset.
He makes mistakes--as do we all. He blames everyone else for them--which you might be able to get away with but is a pretty dumb characteristic for soemone trying to get elected.
Now he wants to get a do-over for the 2004 election. Earth to Kerry--you lost. You will never beat George Bush. It's over. You had your shot. He beat you. Move on, nothing to see here.
Gore is obviously the smarter man. After a period of bitterness he reinvented himself and is now worth a second look. Kerry? Never.
Thinking it over, at first I thought that Hillary Clinton had to be thrilled at the sight of a rival acting like a dumbass but now I wonder. If kerry ceases to be a viable candidate it removes a rival she can easily--easily!--beat. Democrats are notoriously hard on front runners, often turning to the alternative just as victory is in the former leader's grasp (Howard dean being the obvious example). Having that alternate be someone as gaffe prone and tone deaf as Kerry would be a blessing.
Earlier, in response toa comment by Luigi Nova about the persecution the Dixie Chicks have suffered, Blue Spider wrote:
"PERSECUTION!? what the heck kind of perspective are we taking here!? What the frell was it that these singer took as persecution?...
"'Suffered'!? Let's pick new words. You know, if what they have gotten counts as suffering, I want a piece of that."
I'd just like to note that, when radio talk show host Dr. Landers was facing a somewhat comparable situation -- listeners upset with some of her expressed views were trying to get her program taken off the air -- she responded with much more exaggerated language. I recall her at one point saying that such efforts were the eqivalent of "ethnic cleansing"!
Folks who turn off the Dixie Chicks, or want to start campaigns against Clint Eastwood because he cast Tim Robbins and Sean Penn in a movie (this happened), just because one of them expressed a dissenting opinion -- and not for any other
aesthetic reason -- strike me as childish and dangerous; they're the compilers of enemies lists, who want the public square occupied ONLY by those who agree with them. This ESPECIALLY goes for artwork produced before the offending statement.
The folks who burned Dixie Chicks CDs burned CDS that existed long before Natalie Maines said what she did, as if the music, once loved, is now forever tainted.
Seriously, this is bullshit. I dunno if I will ever be able to bring myself to pay money for a Mel Gibson movie again, after his anti-semitic rants of this past summer, but that's my choice. It's not a "boycott," it's not sending hate mail and burning his films in the public square, and I can't see my current distaste for the man changing my positive opinions of GALLIPOLI, THE ROAD WARRIOR, and even LETHAL WEAPON 2. Those are completed works, and sealed units. Gibson's input
on them, and my own opinion of same, are already formed.
By contrast, burning the past works of the Dixie Chicks, because of something one of them said, is Nazi behavior, in that it seeks not only to punish them for their supposed transgression, but also to obliterate their work.
Craig, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. That's exactly what Kerry said.
I know exactly what Kerry said, and I know that it had nothing to do with the troops.
The troops were not mentioned anywhere near that comment, so the only way you could come up with that is if you intentionally twist his words to come up with the worst result possible.
He was talking about Bush. Anybody who actually gets more than a five-second sound byte out of that knows it.
Bill, Roger, you both said exactly what I was trying to say, but me trying to be clever just fouled everything up. Either that a I should've rothought it a few times to make sure it actually made sense.
Here's something to consider. Now, with opinions on the war changing, if the Dixie Chicks had said what they did rather than back then, do you think there would've been as large a backlash?
but me trying to be clever just fouled everything up
Quit taking after John Kerry, and everything will be fine. ;)
Trust me, Craig, Kerry isn't someone that I'd try to emulate. I don't have the "I'm right and you're goofy!" element in my personality that politicians seem to need. I'm occasionally TOO willing to see the other person's POV. And not only that, I write my own jokes, which are usually SPECTACULARLY funny in my head, but when said aloud all one hears is the cricket concerto.
Adam raises a good point. If most people are so offended by something the Celebrity Z says(just because X is SO overused, not trying to single out people with Zs in their name) do they suddenly stop liking something they previously liked?
Jay Tea: Craig, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. That's exactly what Kerry said.
Luigi Novi: And if the full quote provided by Nova Land via CNN was correct (and indeed, Craig did point out that the full quote was quite different from the one Dave W. referenced above), then what he said was clearly directed at Bush
Jay Tea: I don't believe that's what he MEANT, though, so I partially agree with you. But instead of apologizing for a verbal slip and moving on, he's standing firmly, saying that we should have KNOWN he meant to say, and taking him at his actual words is a partisan cheap trick.
Luigi Novi: And he’s right. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know better than to think that Kerry was criticizing a line of work that he himself was once in.
Jay Tea: It's pride, it's petulance, it's arrogance, and it's extremely insightful into his character.
Luigi Novi: Which, given the refusal on your part to acknowledge the obviousness meaning of what he said, is just another way of saying that you don’t like Kerry because he’s on the other side of the political aisle, and has nothing to do with any objective assessment of him or his words. It’s little different than when people accuse Hilary Clinton of being “ambitious” (as if you can get ahead in politics by being wishy washy), or the Dixie Chicks of being “in your face” or “defiant”. It’s the sort of thing that is only bad because someone you’re predisposed to disliking is exhibiting it.
Bill Mulligan: Everything we needed to know about Kerry came up early, when he fell snowbarding and blamed the secret security guy. "I don't fall down," the "son of a bitch knocked me over." At the time it was just worth an eye roll, now it seems like a revealing peek into his mindset….Now he wants to get a do-over for the 2004 election.
Luigi Novi: This is no more revealing of his mindset than the mindset of anyone else who gets into an accident. When someone knocks another person over, the other person typically blames the first person for doing so. And in what way does this have to do with the 2004 election?
This is no more revealing of his mindset than the mindset of anyone else who gets into an accident. When someone knocks another person over, the other person typically blames the first person for doing so. And in what way does this have to do with the 2004 election?
I've been in the exact same position and it would never occur to me to snap at the other guy...especially if said guy was there to protect my stupid life.
I think these unguarded moments show us for what we are. But your mileage may vary.
My point about the 2004 election is that Kerry's angry response is a function of him wishing he'd showed some spine at his supposed bad treatment by the Swiftboat Vets. Pointless, of course. It does him no good and, as we have seen, has caused trouble for his party right before an important election.
I just saw the movie. Pretty good insight into what happened three years ago from the inside.
(sarcasm on)
She wants to be angry at people who've dared make death threats against her? The insolence of the woman!!!
(sarcasm off)
I think I'm gonna start buying their albums.
I'm just sorry I missed out on their Ottawa tour dates. :-(
"...20 seconds of Bush with the word "Liar" flashing on the screen is not a movie commercial, but a political spot."
No, it's not a political ad, it's the truth.
("I never said stay the course.")
Yes. And he never said it. at last count, around 31 or so times.
I'll just bet that some people thought,
"How dare them wimmens speak up, them uppity bitches."
The radio frequencies belong to the people of this country.
The radio stations lease the frequencies from the government, which acts as an agent of the people.
An individual station has the right to stop playing Dixie Chicks music as the program director directs.
This was not the case here. Cumulus and Clear Channel gave direct orders to their stations to discontinue playing Dixie Chicks music and they furthermore made sure that it was publicly proclaimed as often as possible.
This was a corporate action using the public airwaves; this was corporate censorship, and was allowed by the governmental agency that controls the airwaves; the FCC did not step in; therefore, many people may feel that it is thus censorship -by-proxy by the Federal Government.
--------------
Evil triumphs when good men fail to step in and stop it.
My favorite celebrity story probably isn't true and it's about someone I rather like, Nevertheless it's too funny not to repeat:
Bono is at a U2 concert in Ireland when he asks the audience for some quiet. Then in the silence, he starts to slowly clap his hands.
Holding the audience in total silence, he says into the microphone..."Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies."
A voice from near the front of the audience pierces the silence..."Fookin stop doing it then!"
I think my issue with the Chicks and their supporters is this: They didn't offer a criticism of Bush or his policies. They didn't stand up, say that Bush was wrong, and then offer reasons and evidence to support such a statement. Instead, they simply insulted the President. Now, let's suppose that the Chicks had done what I suggested, the rational arguments, supported with evidence, and that Bush had then stood up at a fund raiser and said "I'm ashamed to come from the same state as the Chicks." What would their reaction have been to that? They'd have been outraged, and so would the press and everyone else. So, why are they surprised that so many people are ticked off at them?
OMG BILL! The Bono thing? Hadn't heard that before, but that's funniest damn thing I've read in quite some time! :D
Me:"I think my issue with the Chicks and their supporters is this: They didn't offer a criticism of Bush or his policies."
The Dixie Chicks aren't politicians. They're entertainers. A concert, no matter which continent it's on, is not the proper venue for the discourse that would've been excusable to you. The fact that they were in Europe at the time they made their statements only adds to the innapropriateness of turning a concert into a political discussion. I'd imagine there weren't too many American policy makers in this European audience. Personally, I'm embarassed to come from the same country as either Bush OR the Dixie Chicks. Give me a nice metal or Goth band any day.
Give me a . . . . Goth band any day.
Edited and quoted for truth.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 8, 2006 04:32 PM
The Dixie Chicks aren't politicians. They're entertainers. A concert, no matter which continent it's on, is not the proper venue for the discourse that would've been excusable to you.
Why not? As I've mentioned in a prior post, using art as a vehicle for political commentary is nothing new. It's not "inappropriate."
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 8, 2006 04:32 PM
The fact that they were in Europe at the time they made their statements only adds to the innapropriateness of turning a concert into a political discussion.
I disagree. They were criticizing their government, not giving away state secrets. Why should a U.S. citizen's right to free speech end at our borders?
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 8, 2006 04:32 PM
I'd imagine there weren't too many American policy makers in this European audience.
Maybe the Dixie Chicks felt it important to get the message across that not all U.S. citizens support George W. Bush's abysmal foreign policy. Maybe you find that distasteful. That's your right. But that doesn't mean they did anything wrong.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 8, 2006 04:32 PM
Personally, I'm embarassed to come from the same country as either Bush OR the Dixie Chicks.
I am not proud of everything our country does, but on the balance I am proud of our country. One band, or even one president, is not enough to make me embarrassed.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 8, 2006 04:32 PM
Give me a nice metal or Goth band any day.
If you're talking Metallica or Nickelback, I'm there.
But Goth? Ugh.
Anyway, while I love the U.S., it was Canada that produced what is indisputably the best rock band ever: RUSH!