<p>The Dixie Chicks Sing “I Will Never Apologize”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy_YrUP2NQ0[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy_YrUP2NQ0</a></p>
<p>A classic!</p>
<p>“I am angry and important”</p>
<p>perfect.</p>
<p>It is a funny bit. But guess what? I still support what she said and her right to say it. The man’s place in history is being written right now and it won’t be pretty. 20 years from now will you still support him? I wonder. The experiment is over.</p>
<p>Shut Up and Sing.</p>
<p>Me too. I thought the brouhaha was silly. It made dh go out and buy their record even though he doesn’t like country music!</p>
<p>PS. I thought the video was hysterical anyway. :)</p>
<p>I am sure that everyone supports their right to say whatever they please, just like anyone here is entitled to say whatever they please, informed or otherwise. I don’t suppose anyone is actually advocating they be made into political prisoners, sent to the Gulag or Bob Jones University.</p>
<p>As in the video, the question is: having had their say, will everyone be obliged to pay her (them) for it. Free speech, yes; but I do not believe they are guaranteed CD and ticket sales under the constitution. </p>
<p>Not even when they are judged to have been right in the objective eyes of history. Somehow, I suspect history will not reflect back on our era and defer to the judgments of “The Dixie Chicks”. </p>
<p>I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I recommend this timeless wisdom:
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Play-Yer-Guitar/dp/B0000009T2[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Play-Yer-Guitar/dp/B0000009T2</a></p>
<p>And who can ever forget…“going to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon”. They just don’t write lyrics like that anymore.</p>
<p>The Mad Tv clip is funny but I agree with Opie that what GWB has wrought on the country is going to be judged by history to be far more damaging than anything the Dixie Chicks or any of his millions of other detractors could express in a few words. The Dixie Chicks were not, and are not, alone in their thoughts about the President. As unfortunate as some lower ticket and cd sales might be, the death threats made against them were a much more obvious, and despicable, result of their exercising their rights to freedom of speech. The news clips of people burning their cds, in my opinion, said much more about those individuals themselves than they did about the Dixie Chicks. They were reminiscent of book burnings. In any case, the five Grammy nominations they earned today have put a smile on the many faces of their fans and supporters.</p>
<p>^#7–or titles such as “Poofter’s Froth, Wyoming Plans Ahead”</p>
<p>I don’t think that the Dixie Chicks did anything to damage the country (nor do I think that we know yet whether or not GWB has wrought such–historical perspective takes time to develop), and I actually like their music. Speaking of historical perspective, tho, which book burnings did you have in mind as being similar to offended individuals burning their own personal copies of Dixie Chick CDs? I think bra burning would be a more apt comparison.</p>
<p>whatsa, it wasn’t any particular book burning. It was the atmosphere exhibited. These weren’t individual events. They were organized group events encouraging participation, along with much flag and placard waving. The feelings and thoughts of those involved, and those who frequented talk radio during the hullabaloo, exuded a moral and patriotic superiority to anyone who didn’t agree with them. Much has changed since 2003 and I’m doubtful that if it had happened in 2006 that the reaction would have been the same. Bush’s popularity has plummeted and many people who supported him, often blindly, in 2003, no longer do so. I’m all for individuals being able to speak their minds but the nastiness that was spewed and the death threats that were made were unfathomable.</p>
<p>Around the time of the Dixie Chick’s comments many loyal Americans (me included) who love the US and care deeply about our troops felt a huge sense of frustration, anger, and sadness about being labeled “unpatriotic” for questionning the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, as well as having some concerns about the intelligence that was the basis of that decision. I think that being essentially shut down and labeled as unAmerican had a lot to do with her motivation for speaking out. The prevailing steamrolling “we know best” attitude also shut down some important congressional debate that in hindsight may have been valuable. </p>
<p>By the way, I wasn’t very comfortable/happy with her speaking out like that, but understand where her need to vent came from, and support her right to do so.</p>
<p>Hey, why aren’t the people who agree with the “Little One with the Big Mouth” lining up to buy the records or concert tickets? </p>
<p>In the past, many people liked their “cute” music enough to propel the group onto the top of the charts, and even liked the vocalists as long as they … sang. Now, isn’t poetic justice that the Chicks seek the support of “fans” who have no lost love for the musical genre nor … the dumb red state rednecks who listen to that type of music. </p>
<p>The Chicks need a lot more than tight wallets and the pretension of intellectual superiority!</p>
<p>That’s a very funny video. I haven’t seen the documentary that the video spoofs but apparently Ms. Maines does not come across very well at all in “Shut up and sing” - smug, arrogant, and really, really whiny. Let’s face it too, she’s obviously not very smart. Why would you want to alienate your fan base by making an insulting comment about the President? Their fan base isn’t Whoopi Goldberg’s. Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and it’s cost them millions.</p>
<p>
You’ve pretty much described every organized protest, haven’t you? I’ll bet even the bra-burnings of the 60s and 70s weren’t events of spontaneous combustion :)</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi, tho, they offended a lot of fans beyond Bush supporters by making rude comments about Texans and country music fans–their base (and the president’s). btw, freedom of speech just means you can’t be arrested for making your statements. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to face the social consequences of rudeness or presumptuousness with your fellow citizens/peers.</p>
<p>“it’s cost them millions.”</p>
<p>That’s OK, they probably ALREADY have millions anyway…</p>
<p>I don’t think they’ll starve anytime soon. </p>
<p>Basically everyone is right. Freedom of speech is fine, ecomonic consquences for that freedom are also fine. It’s a choice one has to make. It’s easier to make that choice when the bank account is full, investments going well and no real risk of loss occurs. </p>
<p>One door closed and another opened for them. </p>
<p>Personally I like the Bare Naked Ladies. They’re Canadian and as they told the audience at last weeks show. “We Canadians celebrate Christmas a month earlier than you American’s do…That means we love Jesus one more month than you do. And our bible is twice as big (french/english) and we have 20 commandments in french and english.”" </p>
<p>I won’t burn their records but I’ll enjoy Kraft Dinner with my Dijion Ketchup.</p>
<p>xiggi, people are buying concert tickets and also cds. Maybe not in the numbers they did before but, you know what?, that’s their prerogative. Each individual must make that decision for him/herself. I don’t think anyone is denying that. I happen to like their music, and think that they’re wonderfully talented musicians. I also happen to agree with them about the war in Iraq, as do millions of others. The whole idea that questioning your President makes you unpatriotic is nonsense, and as I said, there are a lot more people who agree with them now than did in 2003. They stated their opinions and, yes, they’ve suffered financially but their success has them pretty much set for life anyway. They were the most successful female band in U.S. history for years.</p>
<p>browninfall, I’d recommend that you see Shut Up and Sing. It’s an interesting look at the issue and certainly doesn’t sugarcoat what has happened to those three, their families, their musicians and everyone involved with their tour. </p>
<p>whatsa, perhaps those sentences you’ve quoted do describe many protests. However, what you’ve forgotten to include was the following sentence in that post: “The feelings and thoughts of those involved, and those who frequented talk radio during the hullabaloo, exuded a moral and patriotic superiority to anyone who didn’t agree with them.” That, and the death threats, which I see none of you commenting on, were unacceptable, and do not, in my opinion, reflect any similar protests. What was their comment about country music fans? I don’t recall that. I didn’t say that they didn’t have to face the consequences, did I? My point is that the response from those who were offended was over the top.</p>
<p>Opie, I, too love the BNL. I actually saw Steven Page on the street a few weeks ago. They are irreverent and talented and wonderful and everyone loves them. I do recall many years ago, though, when they were very early in their career, being asked to sing at Toronto City Hall at the annual New Years Eve bash and there being an uproar because their name was so inappropriate and offensive. They were uninvited. The resultant publicity probably propelled their career further than their publicist could have dreamed. BNL and Dixie Chicks would make an excellent double bill.</p>
<p>
Always: I think you can find exudations of superiority among the attendees of just about any protest rally. That’s just human nature–isn’t the whole point to support what one feels is a morally superior position? In fact, I think I even see a few hints of superiority exudations in this very thread. If you don’t believe that, try visiting the daily kos or huffington posts sometimes, where you can also find all manner of death wishes, if not direct threats, toward those who disagree with the posters. Death threats are certainly unacceptable if unfortunately common things for many public figures, but absent any exhortations by the talk show hosts to go forth and kill, I can’t see how they are any more blameworthy than, say, Arianna or Markos, for the incendiary things that they permit on their sites, and I think your transparent attempt to characterize the annoyed Dixie Chick fans as brownshirts is unfair.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, when you throw books or records on a fire, you kind of invite that comparison. I don’t care for Loretta Lynn’s politics, but she’s a great musician. Even if she took a position that I felt was so poisonous that I couldn’t enjoy her music any more – if she came out in favor of lynching or something – I wouldn’t burn her CDs. To do so over a statement that the artist is ashamed of the president…well, it’s fans’ right to burn the CDs, and my right to call it an overreaction, and one that suggests a troubling expectation that Americans should march in lockstep behind our leader.</p>
<p>This happened in a context where the patriotism of political dissenters all over the country was being ground in the dirt. The Dixie Chicks’ situation struck me, and still does, as part of that phenomenon, which is why it bothered me a lot more than the typical event where an artist does something offensive and loses some fans. I mean, if people stop buying Janet Jackson records after seeing her naked breast, that doesn’t worry me, because it’s not part of a general nationwide movement to punish and ostracize nudists.</p>
<p>
One of the more popular methods of destroying Dixie Chicks CDs was industrial shredders, a reference to one of Saddam’s execution methods. In any event, they were destroying their own property as a group demonstration. There were no gangs of thugs coming in to take their property and do it for them. Perhaps we should tack a rider onto the next anti-flag-burning amendment–no destruction of Dixie Chicks stuff.</p>
<p>I support their right to destroy their own property in protest just as I support your right to engage in nude anti-war protests, although I wouldn’t choose to engage in either activity, myself.</p>
<p>Whatsa, Hanna’s right, they did invite that comparison. It is irrelevant that they were burning only their own possessions. As I said earlier, it was an air of outright nastiness in all of those reports that I saw. The death threats were real. One of the individuals was identified and arrested. The entire brouhaha over this was out of all proportion to the deed itself, and, frankly, I find that kind of behavior much more worrisome than someone expressing a negative opinion about the President. </p>
<p>Your comment about the anti-flag burning amendment is a little silly, don’t you think? It’s every individual’s personal decision about what businesses, causes, performers, etc. to support, and whether or not to allow political leanings to enter into the equation. It’s not an important issue to everyone to know who their favorite actor, singer, sports figure supports in the political arena. For those to whom it is, they can decide to handle it in many ways. When I found out that Matt LeBlanc was a big Bush supporter in the last election, I was disappointed and stopped watching his show. I didn’t, however, burn all of my Friends’ dvds, nor write letters of protest, etc. That was my point with all of this, the reactions were out of all proportion to the supposed ‘crime’.</p>