The Dixie Chicks

[Shelby]

I refuse to allow the left to claim Willie. He transcends politics entirely.
​

 

[Mr. Russ]

I would have sex with them all...even the fat one!

 

[invisibleman]

I love it.
So the problem isn't that they expressed themselves, but that they aired the US's dirty laundry in front of the rest of the world?

I know we non-Americans can't blame individual Americans for the administration's policies, but then surely you Americans can allow for a little home-grown dissent, even if it does come from the Dixie Chicks?

I think that it is kinda Matrix-y. People trying to squelch a voice from being heard. Not only that. Punish her for saying what was on her mind. Shit, I'd write a "Stand back, I don't trust you fucker. I ain't ready to be yo' friend either until I'm finished being pissed at you, you flaky ass motherfucker!!!" -type song, too. I may even write other "french" songs as well.

Garth Brooks, a country western singer, had an album about an fictitious artist named Chris Gaines. That album was great. Brooks was also supposed to act in a film based on that Gaines character and that album was going to be the soundtrack for it. I have that album. I thought the songs were great. Apparently, not for "country" music fans. The entire film project folded. Garth Brooks retired a few years later. The album still exists. I have my copy. Fan bases aren't good if an artist wants to do different things. Artists should always take risks. :smile:

 

[Ummagumma]

AboutAverage speculated that this was a publicity stunt to recruit "liberal" fans. He speculated further that liberals "don't like country on principle alone", which is a really ignorant stereotype. Most of us understand that country music has its origins in American folk music: Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, the Weavers, Bob Dylan -- and in bluegrass: Bill Monroe, Lester Flatt, Earl Scruggs. None of these pioneers could hardly be considered 'conservative' by today's standards.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I certainly don't want to start an argument - much of what I said was half joking... but it wasn't 100% joking.

I live in the outskirts of cleveland, a place where many communities (even if not my own) are 'in the blue'... and what I said about people's perceptions, at least in my experiences, holds very true. I love all kinds of music, yet many of my more liberally minded friends (largely ones who went off to/I met in college) have made comments to me in the past about my love of johnny cash, hank williams, willie nelson, and bill monroe and how they think I'm supporting right wing music. An uneducated opinion? Yes. Untrue? Of course. But has such things been said to me? You bey your ass they have.

And lets look at the other side here. I was at a party the other day with a considerably large group of people I went to high school with. I learned that Toby Keith is still real popular around here nowadays (I thought he had faded away by now too ). And when I talked to 3 specific people from my graduating class, I found out that they entered the local police academy together - and as we spoke, all 3 of them professed their love of mr. keith, as he 'speaks the truth'. These same three people were more than outspoken at this party of their hatred of 'african americans' (don't want to use their actual choice of words....) and they had this 'awesome story' of 'knocking some sense' into the one's younger brother whom apparently is confused in his sexuality... These people made it quite clear that listen to country/western music and that music only because (at least in their obviously warped perspective) they think it's the music that supports an ideal. Others I spoke to at the party said "that's why I don't listen to that music". Hence my answer.

Oh, and I still believe it's all one big publicity stunt - there's money to be made off every angle, and don't think for a minute that there aren't any big music executives that know that.

*Waits for hatred*

 

[B_big dirigible]

Thats right, shadow. If the Chicks hadn't said that, the rest of the world would not have noticed that we adopted a pre-emptive war on false pretenses in order to attempt to create a US protectorate out of a country that has the largest untapped oil fields on the planet.

That's it, from now on I'm boycotting JustAsking's CDs.

 

[B_big dirigible]

the difference is that they have done so during the reign of Bush, when the right wing have moved so far to the right that they can no longer tolerate diversity of views.

That's a characteristic of the Right? You don't read much at Daily KOS, I suppose. If not, save the effort - they consider themselves the "true" left, and toleration of diversity of views is not on their list of "things to do today'.

 

[invisibleman]

I only wish the Chicks had said what they did in Texas, Ohio, or California and not out of country. I may have been able to acknowledge presence of huge balls on the bands behalf if they had done so. However, I think that any balls present under the current situation are only huge because they grew them to cover their ass. I don't think it was an *OOPS I said that* accident. I think it was an underestimation on their behalf on the reaction.

Again, I don't care what their opinions are even if I think they are wrong, which in this case I do.

I just wish they would just sing their little songs and take the money to the bank. Hell, give it away to anti-war groups or whatever makes them happy it is no skin off my nose. Save the speeches for interviews after the concert so the public hears what they paid to hear.

Just my .02 for what it is worth.

Well, I think that the international community already knew our "dirty laundry" anyway. Natalie Maines wasn't a poster child for "US lip slip ship sinking". A competitive news media takes care of that. Like, the Abu Gharib Prison debacle for example.
Natalie Maines was speaking her mind. Every artist can't be like Britney "Miss Marry a Guy for Two Days and Get Divorced" Spears. Chewing, popping gum. Looking around the room. Looking clueless like a Barbie doll. "Bush is doing a fine job as our President" everytime you yank the cord from her tampons and push a camera and mic in her face. What a blow up doll. Henry Rollins wouldn't give her the scum off his morning woodie because she is so out to lunch that it is breakfast time two days later.:smile:

 

[hottxboi16]

wow im pretty suprised no one has flat out blasted them

 

[Paladin]

Well, I think that the international community already knew our "dirty laundry" anyway. Natalie Maines wasn't a poster child for "US lip slip ship sinking". A competitive news media takes care of that. Like, the Abu Gharib Prison debacle for example.
Natalie Maines was speaking her mind. Every artist can't be like Britney "Miss Marry a Guy for Two Days and Get Divorced" Spears. Chewing, popping gum. Looking around the room. Looking clueless like a Barbie doll. "Bush is doing a fine job as our President" everytime you yank the cord from her tampons and push a camera and mic in her face. What a blow up doll. Henry Rollins wouldn't give her the scum off his morning woodie because she is so out to lunch that it is breakfast time two days later.:smile:

I don't know how Britney Spears and Henry Rollins became involved here but that's okay.

Again, I don't care about their political views. I want to hear how "Earl's got to die" if I pay admission to a concert. Save the rest for the radio interview before or after said show. My gripe is a consumer issue. $$$$ for tunes, not political diatribes.

My whole premise was they did not show huge balls when speaking to an audience who mirrored the view. It was patronizing at least. If you like them, buy their CD's and dance a jig. If you don't like them, Listen to Britney or Rollins. Just call it like it is.

BTW Abu Gharib was not torture. It was demeaning, stupid and immature but it was not torture. I have seen Dave Attel go into places on "Insomniac" on Comedy Central where people pay to be treated the same and worse. There are plenty of places online to watch videos of true torture if anyone needs to compare the two.

The real torture is now, in my mind, I have the image of the crowning of Britney's child in statue form . . . and you added the stunning visual of someone tugging her tampon string. *SHUDDER*

 

[SpeedoGuy]

IBTW Abu Gharib was not torture. It was demeaning, stupid and immature but it was not torture. I have seen Dave Attel go into places on "Insomniac" on Comedy Central where people pay to be treated the same and worse.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

Did the guests at the Abu Ghraib comedy club pay for the privelege of not being tortured?

 

[JustAsking]

That's it, from now on I'm boycotting JustAsking's CDs.

Damn. And you were my only customer.

 

[mindseye]

That's a characteristic of the Right? You don't read much at Daily KOS, I suppose. If not, save the effort - they consider themselves the "true" left, and toleration of diversity of views is not on their list of "things to do today'.

In fact, I used to read and post there regularly under the name 'osterizer'. Real-life responsibilities have limited the time that I spend there these days.

DailyKos is not a general-purpose blog, nor was it ever intended to be one. They remove messages that run counter to their purpose, but that does not imply they are intolerant of those views. As an analogy, I'm tolerant of other people's tastes in music, but I would not permit a student to blast their boombox in my classroom.

On the other hand, Republican legislators have proposed several legislations that would restrict free speech on all public land, censor the internet, and curtail academic inquiry in all public schools. Virginia's republican-led state legislature attempted to enact a statewide dress code in 2005. These actions differ from the actions taken by the administrators of DailyKos, in that they are attempts to enforce a single viewpoint globally.

I'm not surprised that this distinction is lost on you.

 

[Paladin]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

Did the guests at the Abu Ghraib comedy club pay for the privelege of not being tortured?

The photos of Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with regard to the Army are reprehensible in nature and I certainly bow to your statement of the terrorists did not pay to participate in the acts willingly. However, I maintain the photos are not torture. The are demeaning and abusive no doubt. The soldiers should have been punished and were.

It should be noted here that it was the Army who first investigated this matter however and not the media. ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005044 )
The army does conduct themselves according to rules set forth before them.

After queried by the CIA director in 2001, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo ( http://lawofwar.org/Yoo_Delahunty_Memo.htm )in January 2002 that gave a detailed explanation of what torture was. That same memo also explained that the Executive Branch had the authority to use torture, if deemed appropriate.
*note torture is set apart from degradation of prisoners.
** note it does not matter anyway as the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case.

After the response from the DOJ, Director Gonzalez then presented a memorandum for the President. ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/ ) In short, Al Qaeda and terrorist insurgents do not fall with the parameters of POW status. Notice, with that notwithstanding, the Red Cross has been allowed access and Geneva Convention "standards" have been in awarded when merited on a case by case basis to the prisoners.

If not for the tremendous idiocy of a hand full of soldiers, who have been punished, we would not be having this discussion. Granted, it does not fall to the guards at a facility to extract information. Yet they do not have to coddle the enemy and there are unpleasant things they must perform prior to interrogation that may be ordered. Are some procedures harsh? Yes and meant to be so. They, the allowable procedures, are not what are pictured in these photos. The photos we have all seen are of prisoner abuse.

Now, has the CIA killed persons who have come into their hands? I would not say no. I would lean to yes and it is a definite probably. As stated above, the executive branch can authorize torture if it is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate but 100% legal and the CIA are the dudes that would do it in my estimation.

Now, memorandums are not as graphic as photographs of exploded heads, blood stained tiles, and ACLU subpoenas but the content is just as stirring when read. The necessity may be what is as graphically vivid when one realizes, even tonight, I read in the headlines that a Gas attack was planned for New York’s subway system. Would not torture be warranted if it were possible to stop such an attack?

Oh . . . and the Dixie Chicks blah blah blah (just so to stay on topic)

 

[SpeedoGuy]

That same memo also explained that the Executive Branch had the authority to use torture, if deemed appropriate.
*note torture is set apart from degradation of prisoners.
** note it does not matter anyway as the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case.

I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that stern memos from Army bureaucrats or legal advisories from Alberto Gonzalez and his lawyers will help differentiate between "prisoner degradation" and torture.

And I find it curious that many of the "terrorists" held in Abu Ghraib were suddenly released after the scandal broke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9487452/

 

[Paladin]

I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that stern memos from Army bureaucrats or legal advisories from Alberto Gonzalez and his lawyers will help differentiate between "prisoner degradation" and torture.

And I find it curious that many of the "terrorists" held in Abu Ghraib were suddenly released after the scandal broke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9487452/

All I can do is provide the documents my friend. You make of them what you will.

I just wanted to state we do not have a need to know for context or situation awareness in accusations of torture and/or proported death of detainees.

The "scandal" broke in January 2004 with the Army review. Months later the media jumped into the frey. Then congress pounced. During this the Iraqi's chimed up that Ramadan was coming up and they wished to release inmates.

Abu Ghraib was a prison and contained prisoners as well as terrorists. None of the Terrorists were released. Inmates were released under guidelines, kind of a pardon of sorts. It was a request per the Iraqi government and the release date was in late september 2005. That is not exactly a turnaround time frame for pacification.

OH . . . right after that was a big constitution referendum vote. Also, an aside . . . elections and purple fingers rock.

 

[ClaireTalon]

A typical overreaction. I can't even remember correctly how it started, but if they're asked for their opinion, they're free to tell it. First Amendment, isn't it? However, they were publishing their opinion first in a place that's deeply red on the political map, and so they were an easy target. However, the reactions were totally overdrawn and hysteric, such as threatening them, or bellowing for a ban to broadcast their songs. I think the debate ran out of the rudder too fast, and after all, without reason.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Interesting how some people get so caught up in words, labels, and descriptions. If a person voices negative opinion about the current administration, the "red-staters" call it whining and traitorous. If the similar comments had been made, 7 years ago, with "Clinton administration" substituted for "Bush administration," the "red-staters" would no doubt call it "heroic patriotism." Voicing opposition to the policies of one's governmental policies, especially right now, is a civic duty for true patriots. We'll leave the whining to Fox News Channel and their golden children, Bill & Ann. Wait, they don't whine, they rant & foam-at-the-mouth. Anyway, I think it's beyond silly and childish for someone to say "I used to love your music, but you said a naughty, so I'm going to send you to your room without supper - or a CD purchase." It's way beyond that silliness, even, to try to enlist others to boycott a band because a political comment gets the pantaloons in a wad. Reminds me of a chant I heard back in my early childhood: "Ban the Beatles!" Anyone else remember that one?

 

[invisibleman]

Anyway, I think it's beyond silly and childish for someone to say "I used to love your music, but you said a naughty, so I'm going to send you to your room without supper - or a CD purchase."

Yeah, how inspiring to be a songwriter in these times. Hehehe. :smile: Punish me. The price I pay for my freedoms. There will always be another fan.

 

[shadow28]

Thats right, shadow. If the Chicks hadn't said that, the rest of the world would not have noticed that we adopted a pre-emptive war on false pretenses in order to attempt to create a US protectorate out of a country that has the largest untapped oil fields on the planet. Damn, those Chicks spilled the beans.

I hope the Chicks don't go ahead and leak the fact that we failed in our mission. That would be really embarassing.

I think you're being sarcastic, and very wise and funny at the same time, but I'm not 100 % sure. Damn this email and its lack of tone of voice! You never can tell...

The Dixie Chicks' "Not Ready to Make Nice" was still a perfectly-written response to the stupid media-hyped controversy in which they found themselves. Like, PERFECTLY written.

BTW the rest of the world realized the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, *before* the invasion even happened. I remember demonstrating against it on the Halifax Commons in February 2003, all the while thinking "does the idiot President not realize what he is getting into? We, here in a field, realize what he is getting into and it's an incredible blunder, so why doesn't he get it?" What is the White House staff paid for, exactly?

 

[Mr. Snakey]

I never cared for them They get on my nerves. Im not a country music fan at all.