Tears On Tv: Dixie Chicks Explain Bush Bashing

[Kilmer17]

Why does she feel the need to make the remark in the first place?

Why do you care about my protest enough to post about it?

It's all about personal choices and beliefs.

I wont stop watching The West Wing because of Martin Sheen. I wont stop listening to bands like Rage Against the Machine. I find Maines comments to be based on shock value and deliberate to play to the crowd.

The left has owned the PC director position for years without a peep, now all of a sudden middle america says "Enough is enough" and the left reacts with opened jaw disbelief.

She can say whatever she wants, but she shouldn't expect to be free of consequences.

[codeorama]

I agree with Mark P's sentiment in regards to "artists" benefiting from controversy like Michael Moore or Marilyn Manson. When ever somone makes a big deal out of something rather than ignoring it, the "artist" benefits, Marilyn Manson would be a nobody if it were not for the Christian Right.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I wont stop watching The West Wing because of Martin Sheen. I wont stop listening to bands like Rage Against the Machine.

Stop it, Kilmer. You're ruining my image of you.

The left has owned the PC director position for years without a peep, now all of a sudden middle america says "Enough is enough" and the left reacts with opened jaw disbelief.

Actually, its becoming clearer as time goes on that Political Correctness is as strong or stronger than ever. Its simply dominated by the Right as opposed to the Left. No other difference.

[Kilmer17]

Hardly dominated. But I would say that instead of owning 100% of the PC police, the left now ony controls 90 percent of it.

[fansince62]

Jimbo/MarkP....crocadile tears........you are now living with the consequences of events put in motion long ago.........

MarkP....predictable response......discussing a discrete event while ignoring the larger principle. as you well know, since you seem to be a bright fellow...I could easily have substituted some other favored slogan with greater political intonations to pass your litmus test and the argument would have stood........the particular phrase was used for shock value and hyperbole.....free speech has been mollified for years now for any number of PC reasons - that is the point........I suffer no compunction whatsoever in appliing the same techniques.......

that boycotts offer more publicity is almost certain......irrelevant...but certain...what isn't certain...btw....is how the publicity works for or against the artist

while we're at it.......the celebs were horribly uninformed...as most of the left was......about the true conditions in Iraq...while averrring all along that they had "done their homework"....how come no one in the media has followed up on this and analyzed why it is that the celebs/left were so far off in their assessment?

- ignorance?

- intellectual dishonesty?

- simple mindedness?

or could it be that political preconceptions and self-interest motivated them from the outset to ignore the evidence from government institutions and, more importantly, the Iraqi defectors/refugees who have been reporting on events in Iraq for years?

or could it be that they just don't care?

or...how about this...I have myself never been a diehard Bush supporter...yet...could it be......that the celebs/left in their deep hatred for Bush......were willing to turn their backs on the very Iraqi children they pine so tearfully for and their mutilated/tortured/murdered parents? cuz that's sure what it looks to be..........and that is why they are to be accorded no standing in the argument......the war was very illuminating from many aspects.....

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The part that the left misses is that this is not the Govt or some public entity protesting them or boycotting them. It is private people and companies.

Actually, reading more into the story - its mainly one culprit who is keeping the Chicks off the airwaves, Clean Channel Communications - who now owns 1200 radio stations.

They have pressured their radio stations to drop the Chicks music - being hell bent to make them pay for their stupid comments. The effect is a reduced play time on the radio, and thus, a drop in their sales.

And check this little nugget out about Clear Channel.... It turns out that most of the pro-war rallies have been organized by and sponsored by Clear Channel Entertainment, under the name of "Rally for America," in a faux-grassroots campaign known as "astroturfing."

The Chicago Tribune says, "The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news." "I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia. "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news."

Not even FoxNews stoops that low.

By the way fansince62...I have always...wondered...why...do...you...write...your....comments....like....this...?

[The Evil Genius]

Does anyone think that its disturbing that protest songs that became very popular in the 60's and 70's (think CCR) could never become popular today?

It does speak to the state of our society now I guess.

I wonder even if Springsteen's anti-war "Born in the USA" would have survived now. Nothing more comical about the 80's than Reagan's adopting that song as his campaign song - and not understanding that it was anti-war. :laugh:

[codeorama]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Nothing more comical about the 80's than Reagan's adopting that song as his campaign song - and not understanding that it was anti-war. :laugh:

That was pretty freakin funny..:laugh:

It is scary to think that there is a conscious effort going around to punish those who do not think the same way as the dubya party... what does that remind you of???

[Burgold]

McCarthyism. I'm slowly getting the feeling that what some are advocating on this board and perhaps are reflecting from the Conservative ideology is a new wave of McCarthyism. If you support something I don't you will be blacklisted. If you attend the wrong rally and mingle with the wrong groups you are unamerican. They will make certain the offender will not work, will not be allowed to attend functions, their products will be banned. Heck, by calling them unamerican and then doing this we are a mere step away from the Committee on Unamerican Activities. The only real step missing, though it is implied at various points in this thread and other threads is... if you don't support my anti-american stance on this person or group then you are unamerican yourself.

[codeorama]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that if someone says something stupid and it offends someone, the person who said it should expect what ever the consequences are... but I'm just amazed that there is a planned effort to punish those who don't feel the same way. I am starting to sense it not just on this board, but in the news as well. I don't understand why anyone cares what a celeb thinks...

You will never quote me justifying my position by using a celeb's point of view.:doh:

[Burgold]

The reason I brought up McCarthyism is not only does there seem to be a movement to call people who in the moment state a different point of view, "unamerican," but there seems to be this thought that these different thinkers are organized and plotting a conspiracy to overthrow the country because they hate the government and America. I don't know if this is just hyperbole, but some of the rhetoric is worrisome.

[OrangeSkin]

There is some definite airbrushing going on there. No way Natalie Maines is that hot.

[fansince62]

no Burgold.....it runs deeper than that....there is a significant element in this country that opposed the war because of their overt hatred for President Bush. The decision process was predicated entirely upon distrust and emotional detachment from the empowered branches of the federal government. night after night, even thread after thread on this board, we witnessed every imaginable ad hominem argument and wild assertions about intentions/motives that sought to impugn the veracity of information and the character of the person/agency delivering the information. ordinarily, this has been tolerated as the expression of dissent democracies serve to protect. however, there was a difference in this instance: this was about viscereal issues of security, life and death. the "loyal" opposition demonstrated that not only was it horribly uninformed, but it was also morally bankrupt. it had no solutions and it was willing to sustain an international scoflaw and murderer for the sake of procedural proprieties. there is an effort to shift the current focus from an analysis of how the debate unfolded over the last several months, who the advocacy groups were and what their true roles were to issues over freedom of speech. freedom of speech isn't the issue at all......this is an effort to mask assigning responsibility and calling out leadership to hold it accountable. play the McCarthy card if you like. others are going to keep marching along - you have no idea how deep the anger, resentment and contempt runs among large segments of the population. this is going to have consequences for years to come in ways that haven't even begun to find expression.

[JimboDaMan]

I think somebody needs a time out.

[Burgold]

The arguments do stink of cynisism, paranoia and McCarthyism. There is no stretching and even you don't deny it. It basically looks like this- a group descents to government philosophy... they are declared unamerican and an attempt to blacklist and shun that group is summarily begun. Moreover, it is not the individual who spoke the inflamatory remarks who are castigated and shunned alone, but all those who have appeared with them. In your specific case, you lump the entire "Hollywood Elite," as unamerican, uninformed, and biligerant towards our president and the overall safety of the nation. Do you really mean this? Have I read hyperbole and taken it too literally? Are 90% (you said large majority) of those who had concerns about the war part of an anti-Bush conspiracy who don't give a damn about the country, our safety, the people of the world if by opposing they will counter Bush's agenda? Reread your posts on an objective level, Fan. There is a rage in your words and a global willingness to condemn. There's truth and logic in your posts at points as well, but so much poison to any who oppose the ideology that you are representing.

To your other point:

There were and are legitimate questions about the immediacy of the threat Iraq posed to the United States. The government has changed how it has described the purpose of the war several times itself. First, it was a war to rid the nation of weapons of mass destruction. Then, it became a war for liberation. Could the war have been about both? Was it about both? Probably, but once the war was engaged the public was told a completely different story about the purpose and design of the war than we were beforehand. Was that done solely for world PR purposes? It may have been an attempt to mollify those who feared US imperialism, but there are other possible reasons too.

There is no questions that Sadam posed a threat to his people and probably no one really doubted that he had been developing and has developed and hidden biological and chemical weapons. There was questioning whether there should be a smoking gun before engaging in a preemptive war. A few denied the existence of these weapons altogether on the basis of the UN failure to find anything. I believe those people were either nieve, hoping too hard, or perhaps actually do fall into the intentional blindness/malice that you are talking about.

Preemptive war is a Pandora's box. It is terribly easy to justify and at the same time terribly difficult to justify. I still contend that North Korea was at least an equivelant and more than likely a more serious threat. Which country treats its people worse? Who is preparing to sell nuclear weapons? Who is thumbing their nose at us, treaties, the UN etc. Pre-emptive war really should have a very, very high threshhold. As a people, we have the right to question whether a millitary action meets that threshhold. The simple act of raising concerns does not make the majority of those who speak unamerican or anti-american. Pre-emptive war when done by us is scary enough, but what about when others start to take that approach?

[Kilmer17]

Is it also possible that we had more than one reason to go to war? That point has been discussed and argued ad nauseum here and everywhere. We went for ALL of those reasons. The fact that one or two were metntioned seperate of the others does not diminish the others importance.

McCarthyism would be the GOVT restricting and blacklisting people. Clear Channel is not the Govt.

Furthermore, Maines words were not anti-war, they were very clearly and precisely anti-Bush.

Why is the left so quick to try and deny me and other private companies and individuals the right to protest? You complain that these people are being called anti-american (I for one have not, and I haven't heard a GOP politico call her that) while at the same time accuse me/us of McCarthyism. Do you not see the hypocrisy? I dont want her or Moore or Sarando to shut up. I simply want them to stop acting like the victim when people hold them responsible for their actions and words.

[Henry]

Nah, this isn't McCarthyism Part Deux. Plenty of anti-war artists continue to sell their products to the American public without so much as a spank me bum.

What makes the Dixie Chicks situation somewhat unique is that they were on foreign soil criticizing our foreign policy on the eve of war. Not only that, it appears they did so to ellicit a cheap rise from the crowd. Sarandon, Robbins, Vedder, the Alternate Universe Rush Limbaugh also known as Michael Moore, and whoever else had adopted peace at all cost stances long before Bush took office. They were simply consistantly stating their continuing beliefs. Maines comment smacks more of an opportunisitc betrayal rather than a continuation of a lifetime commitment.

For that, I think a little backlash is certainly justified. My personal feeling, however, is that at some point enough is enough, and lifetime boycotts is excessive and unnecessary. I think the DCs get the point, and any punishment beyond that simply crosses over to self-serving vindictive.

In my opinion.

[Kilmer17]

Unfortunately, all of the press now isnt about Maines and her comment, but rather about the reaction to it.

[MarkPSkins]

For one they are not "acting" like victims, they are victims. Victims of blacklisting, victims of a nationwide campaign to punish them for voicing their beliefs. And what exactly are they responsible for? Voicing thier opinions? Being Anti-war? Being concerned for innocent lives being lost over, what they thought in their hearts and minds, right or wrong, was something that didn't quite make sense to them?

Simply put they are being punished for not having the same opinion as you. An opinion that you should really care little to nothing about. Because regardless of what she said, she was not speaking for the world or America. It was a statement made from her own heart on her own beliefs that will forever be etched in the minds of people as anti-American and unpatriotic. She did not say, "America is against the President on this", she said "We" meaning, her and her band even though she probably didn't run it by them first. It was blown out of proportion, probably taken out of context of the moment and construed into this huge Conservative launching pad to make the outspoken liberals pay for not jumping on the war bandwagon.

Sure, she said what she said, and because you do have the right to not agree and to take what ever action you seem necessary is not the issue. The issue, or my issue, is why do you feel it necessary to take any action at all?

[fansince62]

the information was always there......for political reasons the left never made an effort to converse with expatriot Iraqis and they never went to Iraq to verify independently their "factual" understanding of the situation. given that the left is predisposed not to participate in the institutions that defend this country, they are even more removed from first hand data and actual experience. any three ways you cut it - they got it wrong. they did not know what was going on. they did not have any alternatives; they were prepared to settle for retaining a criminal in power regardless of the consequences to his people and regardless of the threat to us. if these folks felt the government was lieing to them - essentially what is being claimed - then they should have gone out and uncovered the "facts" themselves. they didn't do that. and in the process they were willing to risk my life and the life of my family.

nonsense on the conflation you are claiming. i recall more often than not hearing administration representatives on the weekend talk shows addressing the moral dimensions to the war. the claim was that ridding the Middle East of a rogue regime supporting terrrorist activities of WMDs was the primary rationale for engaging in this war - not the only one.

there was no question of a smoking gun...the doubters elected not to listen to Iraqi defectors/ex-pats and to ignore the obvious and documented evidence of weapons that existed previously and were not accounted for. they chose to ignore the evidence of previously developed weapons plans. they chose to ignore the support provided to terrorist organizations such as Hamas/Hezbollah. they chose to ignore the history of previous use of WMDs. they chose to ignore the tortures visited upon Kuwaiti citizens and Iraqi citizens. in short, there is nothing noble, principled or rational in the positions adopted by the left other than those who opposed war out of hand as a method for solving disputes. they were wedded from the begining to the notion that this was an unjust, immoral and unacceptable war that had to be rejected out of hand. they were knotted in their distrust and hatred for a President they felt was elected illigitimately and which represents, to them, every recidivist political impulse in this country.

the geopolitical situation in North Korea is different. a policy of preemption is not mind numbingly as simplistic as you suggest. common sense dictates that you pick and chose when the appropriate circumstances dictate appliing the policy. diplomacy had been tried with Iraq for 12 years - and failed. diplomacy has a ways to go with North Korea. If it fails, preemptive strike remains on the table as an option. the world now knows this.

Jimbo...no time out needed....the folks who want to put the rest of us at risk need to table the rhetoric for a while and assess what their role is in all of this. when push comes to shove - their role has been essentially negative. they have contributed nothing to the common defense. they have contributed nothing, absolutely nothing, to the welfare of the Iraqi citizens they care so deeply about. they have done next to nothing to promote the very freedoms around the world they so lecture the rest of us on. there are a few who are politically to the left that I do respect - such as Doctors without Borders or Bono pushing for Aids relief - who are out there doing something to ameliorate these problems. in short, placing themselves at risk in service of the causes they espouse. the rest are just grandstanders without a personal stake who enjoy the pleasure of pontificating and directing their bile at an adminstration they detest.

they got it wrong and no amount of equivocating is going to change that *amning fact.

[Kilmer17]

I feel the need for the exact same reason she felt the need.

Her statement was NOT anti-war. It was anti-Bush. For that I think she deserves to be punished. Not by the Govt, but by the private companies and people that create her popularity and wealth.

She deserves every bit of it.

You claim she is being punished for her views. Well isnt that the EXACT same thing she was doing to Bush?

She makes her living off of sales of records, merchandise, and airplay. Bush makes his off of polls and elections. Doesnt her speech impede his ability?

And once again, if you question why I feel it necessary to protest her, why do you feel the need to argue with me? Arent we all entitled to the right to protest and dissent? Not just from Govt, but for the people that oppose them.

[MarkPSkins]

Like I said, I do not question your right to take action. Would you question or wonder why if people were jeopardizing your livelyhood because you are "pro-Bush". If a group of liberals decided to gang up on you for that very reason would it seem like the "American" thing to do. Would it be right? Would it be justified? Doesn't she have the right to be "Anti-Bush" without the fear of punishment, persecution and slander. Yes she is being slandered because regardless of what she said, so many people, private industries etc are saying things about her statement that may or may not be true based on the actual statement.

In this country, or so I thought, we have the right to believe what we want to believe without fear of persecution. Or so I thought.

[Kilmer17]

That right is freedom from persecution BY THE GOVT. Im not the Govt (not yet anyway).

And what are you talking about slander? Cmon. Slander , by definition, is a false or malicious statement about someone. Can you give me an example of slander against her?

We have the right to freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to freedom of speech wqithout consequenses. IF I decide to open a restaurant and post a sign that says "We hate _____" (fill in whatever word you want) I would expect that some people would not support my restaurant. The same theory applies. Why should I have to continue to support her if she makes statements that I disagree with?

[MarkPSkins]

Yes Slander. Calling her unpatriotic, unAmerican, Anti-war...all of this was assumed by the press and people. How about the pictures of her with Saddam? Whether any or all is true? I don't know, but it was stated of Natalie Maines.

I'm not talking about Constitutional rights, I'm talking about basic human decency, yes morality.

Answer this question.

Do you feel it is right, not legal, not constiutional, not Governmental, just plain o'le morally "right" if a gang of liberals decided to gang up on you just because you are pro-Bush. Is it right if they had the ability to cut of your livelyhood and paint you this evil picture and make you life a living hell just because you are pro-Bush? Is it right?

That gang would have every Legal Right to do so, but does that make it right?

[Kilmer17]

Yes they would be right. If I did something that so enraged a group of people large enough to affect my ability to make a living, that's MY fault. It's also MY responsibilty to make sure I dont put myself in that situation. Further, It would be my responsibilty to deal with the repurcussions and accept the blame rather than blaming it on some vast left wing conspiracy.

Do you think that we should not judge people at all?

Would you buy an album from an artist that proclaimed in a concert "I hate ni@#ers"? I wknow I would immediately stop buying that persons record and would protest them to the same extent I am protesting the Chicks. Why should we let her or anyone say whatever they want with no repercussions?

BTW, Calling someone names or voicing an opinion of someone is not slander.