Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dixie Chicks Get Nixed?

Dixie Chicks War Protesters Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#61 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:44 AM

Quote

But, if radio stations take the DC off the air, there is no alternative available to you. There are only so many stations on the dial and they're not playing the DC. There's simply no way you can listen to DC music. Period.

There's some very good reasons that this concern is not really valid.

A) There are already thousands of groups that I have never, nor probably will never hear on the radio.  For thousands of indie listeners, there already is no alternative.  That is due, in part, the huge companies like CC having centralized control, but also because radio stations are limited by the available radio frequencies and so making there a limited number of stations.  For people who could care less whether they have a Dixie Chicks "alternative" this is not really going to be a selling point.  It also seems to me that the only reason the DC are an alternative to anything is because of one or two comments that really don't appear in the music all that much.  With them going pseudo-pop anyway, their music is actually becoming much more like everything else instead of an alternative sound anyhow.

B) There is no dearth of groups and songs available that are against war.  Perhaps not this war, but against war in general.  Certainly if you listened to a number of radio stations you will never lack for finding the alternate viewpoint expressed in some way.  Certainly some people's dislike for the administration is not a secret.  If you think that what an artist believes personally is just as important as what you actually hear out of the speakers, then there is no lack of alternatives.

C) There is no constitutional right to get radio air time or star in a TV commercial.  Just because they were being played on the radio and were pulled is no reason for them to be considered to be somehow losing their right to free expression.  There's quite a few 80's hair bands out there that had air time and now can't be heard anywhere, but no one is screaming about that.  If there was a ban on the Chicks being able to play or perform, that would be different, but as long as no one is preventing them from performing it's not an issue.  Remember, Clear Channel didn't just up and ban then unilaterally, there were many many calls into stations to do so.  There is a definite case to be made for simple economics pushing this.  

D)  I presume you are aware of the existence of CDs and tapes and the Internet.  You certainly can hear the Dixie Chicks as much as you want to in that way.  No one has banned them from store shelves, people just aren't buying them as much any more.  You don't need radio to listen to them.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 20 April 2003 - 06:46 AM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#62 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:45 AM

AleisterCrowley, on Apr 20 2003, 02:52 AM, said:

Banapis thank you for your warm welcome!
You're most welcome.  We're always happy to see new members join our community.

Quote

In truth, the concerts may ultimately mean nothing.  I presented them in line with this argument:  if the south is to be considered a bigger market for country music, then we should see some difference in ticket sales for the upcoming DC tour.  Now, we can't judge ticket sales from this list, obviously, but we can see where the biggest bulk of the "soldout" shows are and draw a hypothesis

I see.  However, I still have my concerns as to whether this data will ever give us the answer to the question at hand.  Assuming arguendo that the statistics will eventually show sales to be less in the traditional C&W States of the South, does that prove that C&W listeners don’t want to listen to the DC because of Ms Raines’ pointed remarks concerning President Bush?

MegL, who seems rather familiar with C&W music scene in general, and with the DC in particular, has thoughtfully provided us with some insight into the DC’s place in the traditional C&W market.  Of greatest concern to me is this observation of her’s: “the Dixie Chicks started out as a acoustic, ultra traditional, Bluegrass quartet and have ended up being a C&W/Pop cross over trio. That's a huge shift in music, fan base, and overall public persona.”

This observation seems to be further reinforced by the BBC Editorialist’s observation: “their music is limp, middle of the road country.”

If the DC themselves are making a “huge shift” away from the traditional C&W music favored by the Southern States you list, and toward a new fan base, then it follows their sales will drop in those traditional C&W markets purely for reasons of musical taste.

Therefore, I don’t think the lack of sellouts can offer conclusive proof as to the impact of Ms. Raines’ comments.

Banapis

#63 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:48 AM

AleisterCrowley, on Apr 19 2003, 09:37 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 20 2003, 02:28 AM, said:

Quote

Iraq, on the other hand, is a confirmed training ground for the same jolly crew who destroyed two large buildings. Subtle difference, to be sure, but there nonetheless.

Do you have an article or something to back that up? I haven't seen any conformation, but the news gets so much wrong I don't turn it on often.
Give me time for research, but I recall two distinct things:

1) Iraq has consistently served as a training area for Al-Qaida recruits while not officially condoning their actions.  I believe even Hussein issued a formal statement condemning the 9/11 attacks.

2) Al-Qaida cells moved into Iraq about a month before the war began to help "defend" the nation.  Good job, fellows.  Iraq's official position: we didn't ask for it, but if they want to help...

Again, it will take some digging for legitimate online proof, and I'll return either carrying my shield or carried on it.
Not a biggy. If you run into them, I'd like to see one. I know there were a lot of non iraqis, I just hadn't heard Al-Qada mention specificly. I do know thatn they said quite a few Syrians were involved.











:nervousninja:  :Oo: < I gotta bad felin about this!  :tribble:  :tribble:  :tribble:  :tribble:  :tribble:
Can't Touch This!!

#64 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 06:49 AM

Banapis, on Apr 19 2003, 09:50 PM, said:

Some initial confusion here.  I don't equate Lipton's concerns with the Radio Corporations actions.  The 2 are worlds apart in my view.

I repeat:  I’m not faulting Lipton here.

It’s well within their rights to not air an ad if they think it would be detrimental.  In fact, if I were running Lipton I probably wouldn’t air the Dixie Chicks ad. 
Simple reason it doesn't work the other way around:  radio stations are government licensed monopolies.

The government may liscence them, but it doesn't dictate who is or is not included on their play lists.

Quote

If the Dixie Chicks (DC) so enrage you that you can't listen to that particular station anymore, you can change the dial whenever a DC song comes on, and then tune back when it's over.  Perhaps, when you come back a song by pro-war Toby Keith will be airing. 

But, if radio stations take the DC off the air, there is no alternative available to you.  There are only so many stations on the dial and they're not playing the DC.  There's simply no way you can listen to DC music.  Period.  Wheresas in your case you retain the power to tune the DC off and come back later, in this case someone else has taken your right to change the dial away from you.

What about tapes and CD's or even the internet? Saying that if a group isn't played on the radio, a person has no way of listening to them is incorrect.

Quote

They are imposing their choice on you.

Incorrect. They have the right to organize their playlists however they see fit. Just as networks have the right to change or cancel our favorite shows. We can protest if we like. If there are DC fans who are upset that they aren't being played on their local station, then they should make their displeasure known. In the end though, the radio stations, just like the networks, have the right to broadcast what they see fit.

Quote

The more apt qustion to ask is this:  if the radio station ceased playing Toby Keith out of anti-war sentiment, would I think that wrong too?

I'd say, "Hell, yes!"  For the exact same reasons

Banapis
See above.

Bossy

Edited by Bossy, 20 April 2003 - 07:22 AM.


#65 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:00 AM

Actually, while it may be difficult to tell if Iraq was a bigger terrorism supporter than say, Syria or Iran, they definitely had terrorist camps and groups in the country.  I mean, after all, we did arrest Abu Abbas there and Saddam Hussein was already well-known for cutting checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

As far as al-Queda goes, I think that the only established link was actually with a Kurdish group that operated out of the Northern Kurd autonomous region.  If you recall, that was one of the first attacks that was made by the Kurds in the north during the war.  Something like 40 villages were controlled by this group.  Obviously, this is no link to Saddam, but al-Queda was definitely in Iraq and would have had little trouble working with Saddam from that location.  

I also recall from a news story about something else which mentioned offhandedly that an Army unit was making its headquarters in what appeared to be an abandoned terrorist camp.  Of course, what is a terrorist camp but a group of barracks and some targets, monkey bars and maybe a training building or two anyway?  For all we know, they were all Fedayeen training camps or the camps we believe were Fedayeen camps were actually terrorist camps.  I would not be surprised to hear that they could all be dual-use installations.  

In the end, though, I don't think there is a doubt that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, what is at question is to what extent were they in this business and if they happened to be participating with knowledge of certain specific groups like al-Queda or of attacks like 9/11.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#66 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:04 AM

Banapis, on Apr 20 2003, 03:29 AM, said:

I see.  However, I still have my concerns as to whether this data will ever give us the answer to the question at hand.  Assuming arguendo that the statistics will eventually show sales to be less in the traditional C&W States of the South, does that prove that C&W listeners don’t want to listen to the DC because of Ms Raines’ pointed remarks concerning President Bush?

MegL, who seems rather familiar with C&W music scene in general, and with the DC in particular, has thoughtfully provided us with some insight into the DC’s place in the traditional C&W market.  Of greatest concern to me is this observation of her’s: “the Dixie Chicks started out as a acoustic, ultra traditional, Bluegrass quartet and have ended up being a C&W/Pop cross over trio. That's a huge shift in music, fan base, and overall public persona.”

This observation seems to be further reinforced by the BBC Editorialist’s observation: “their music is limp, middle of the road country.”

If the DC themselves are making a “huge shift” away from the traditional C&W music favored by the Southern States you list, and toward a new fan base, then it follows their sales will drop in those traditional C&W markets purely for reasons of musical taste.

Therefore, I don’t think the lack of sellouts can offer conclusive proof as to the impact of Ms. Raines’ comments.
Conclusive?  No. Indicative?  Perhaps.  However, are they being played on non-C&W stations?  I ask because I honestly don't know.  If they are, then I would buy your argument, otherwise...they're being marketed to the C&W listeners.

Edited to add: I personally interpreted the BBC observation as meaning their music was nothing special in the way of C&W style.  I wonder what he really meant by that statement.

Edited by AleisterCrowley, 20 April 2003 - 07:08 AM.


#67 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:13 AM

G1223, on Apr 19 2003, 11:34 PM, said:

I just want to make sure I understand this. It's Ok to say what you want about the president. But not OK to be critical of those who do so.
Of course it's okay to criticize people who criticize the President. Please quote the passage(s) that led you to believe otherwise.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#68 RommieSG

RommieSG

    Heir to the Empire

  • Islander
  • 17,188 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 07:18 AM

Maybe I should have written in 'Hot Topic' when I did this. ;)

Rommie :cylon:
Posted Image

#69 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:09 AM

Uncle Sid, on Apr 20 2003, 03:28 AM, said:

There's some very good reasons that this concern is not really valid.

A) There are already thousands of groups that I have never, nor probably will never hear on the radio.  For thousands of indie listeners, there already is no alternative. 
As you note, Indie music isn’t on the air.  C&W, however, is on the air.  “Pseudo-pop,” as you term, it is also on the air.   And the DC, in particular, were most certainly on the air before Ms. Maines’ comments.  So comparing the two doesn’t make sense.  We’re talking about music that already was on the air – now gone.

And the linked to sales stats show the DC are still getting sellouts, so listeners apparently do want to hear their music.  However, certain radio broadcasters have taken it upon themselves to interfere with providing the listening public what it wants on the basis of their political views.  Corporations, like those controlled by Tom Hicks, have opted to take them off the air because of Ms. Maines’ comments about President Bush.

Quote

B) There is no dearth of groups and songs available that are against war.

Perhaps not, but we’re talking about the DC being singled out and taken off the air.  

There’s a word for singling out certain people:  discrimination.   It tends to get people in trouble.

Quote

C) There is no constitutional right to get radio air time or star in a TV commercial. Just because they were being played on the radio and were pulled is no reason for them to be considered to be somehow losing their right to free expression.

No, I haven’t claimed they’ve lost their right to “free expression.”  And as I told Rov, I consider the TV ad issue to be wholly independent of the radio station ban.

What I’m saying is they’ve been discriminated against on the basis of their political views – not because the content of their music is inappropriate or people aren’t interested in hearing it.   The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against people on the basis of their political views.  

The Government has exercised control over the airwaves.  The government then licenses this scarce resource to individual stations.  The government is responsible for regulating the conduct of the radio stations via the FCC.  And if the station’s right to broadcast derives from the government, and if the government couldn’t do what these stations are doing, then the stations can’t do what they’re doing because their powers as licensees can’t exceed those possessed by the licensor.

Quote

D) I presume you are aware of the existence of CDs and tapes and the Internet.

I presume you are aware not all Americans are online.

I also presume you read my earlier posts in which I pointed out CD sales would drop if the music isn’t played on the radio because less people will hear the song and then go buy the CD. People aren’t usually motivated to buy CDs containing songs they haven’t heard.

More fundamentally though, the examples you cite are not adequate substitutes fro the loss of radio broadcast music.  Both examples you cite require paying for the music.  Internet music requires payment for internet access and ownership of a computer.  By contrast, receiving radio signals doesn’t cost a penny and you can’t seriously compare the cost of a computer to that of acquiring a radio.  

Again CDs, cost money. An average of $15 apiece.  Tapes, less so, but they still require an out of pocket expenditure.  Also, the tape selection provided by the music stores I commonly frequent pales in comparison to the extent of their CD offerings.

Because of the monetary expenditures required for both internet music and CDs/tapes, neither are fair substitutes for loss of radio broadcast music.

Banapis

#70 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:24 AM

Point of order: Tom Hicks is a Vice-Chairman of CC.  He does not control it, unless you know something about their inner workings the rest of us don't.

Also, the FCC derives its authority from Congress.  If CCs stations are truly discriminating against DC, then the DC have a right to sue.  The fact that Raines backed down so quickly after the ensuing uproar is very telling.

Edited by AleisterCrowley, 20 April 2003 - 08:27 AM.


#71 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:26 AM

AleisterCrowley, on Apr 20 2003, 03:48 AM, said:

Indicative?  Perhaps.  However, are they being played on non-C&W stations?  I ask because I honestly don't know.  If they are, then I would buy your argument, otherwise...they're being marketed to the C&W listeners.
I can't attest to a nationwide policy, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence from here in Michigan.  "Variety" stations here, such as "The New Mix 100.5," have played the Dixie Chicks, Shania, and Faith Hill along with their more mainstream music.

Quote

Edited to add: I personally interpreted the BBC observation as meaning their music was nothing special in the way of C&W style.  I wonder what he really meant by that statement.

I agree, that's a reasonable interpretation of the comment as well.

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 20 April 2003 - 08:53 AM.


#72 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:47 AM

AleisterCrowley, on Apr 20 2003, 05:08 AM, said:

Point of order: Tom Hicks is a Vice-Chairman of CC.  He does not control it, unless you know something about their inner workings the rest of us don't.
Fair enough.

The relevant thing to me is that the corporation in which he holds the position of Vice-Chairman has adopted a blanket nationwide policy against the Dixie Chicks in the wake of their comments.

I've posted alot on the issue, so I think it's about time I should wrap-up.  The big problem with me is I don't feel its fair for radio stations to silence musicians because they said a particular action of a particular President "embarassed" them.  If this comment makes the musician offensive to a particular listener, then it should be the individual's choice to turn the dial.  I don't particulary care for other people making choices for me, but admit that others might not feel the same way.

The comments made by Ms. Maines' don't strike me as all that unusual, or so beyond the norm, that such draconian measures are in order.  I found Bill Clinton's shameful conduct in the Oval Office "embarassing" and I've said so using that exact word.  If I were a musician should I reasonably expect this will result in getting me banned from the airwaves?  I would certainly hope not.

Banapis

#73 UoR11

UoR11
  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:50 AM

Well, here's my take on the whole thing. Lipton's doing the sensible thing here, given that at this point running an ad with the Dixie chicks would only hurt their sales. People react much more severely against people they opposse than in support of people they favor when buying things as a general rule. On the other hand, I am upset with Clear Channel, largly because they have a virtual monopoly in many places, whereas if you had competing stations, some would pull the band and some would leave them on, and if either decision caused outrage with listeners in thier area, it'd become obvious. Also, it's not like there were any totally insane or hypocritical statements involved. It's not like Raines claimed she had some great insight about internation relations by virtue of being a celebraty. She made one little comment. Similarly, I think the Baseball Hall of Fame's being totally idiotic. It'd be one thing if they told Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon that they wanted to keep the event about baseball and Bull Durham, which apparently was what Robbins was going to do all along anyways. Robbins and Sarandon have been much more outspoken, but at least they're informed, so that's perfectly reasonable. The celebraties I have a problem with are the ones who respond to every complaint by saying people are denying thier right to free speech, which, in thier minds, apparently includes other people not having the freedom to critize them for thier posistion.
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#74 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 09:15 AM

Banapis, on Apr 19 2003, 08:53 PM, said:

The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against people on the basis of their political views.

Absolutely. The Government. Privately owned radio stations are exempt from this...

Quote

The Government has exercised control over the airwaves.  The government then licenses this scarce resource to individual stations.

Correct. The FCC gets its authority from the Communications Act of 1934, and later from the International Telecommunications Union which allocates frequencies and sets standards on an international basis.

Quote

And if the station’s right to broadcast derives from the government, and if the government couldn’t do what these stations are doing, then the stations can’t do what they’re doing because their powers as licensees can’t exceed those possessed by the licensor.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "right" but rather a privilege that can be revoked.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. The government is licensing radio stations, yes. The government licenses automobiles, too. If a privately owned taxi company refused to put Dixie Chicks advertisements, because of their percieved loss of revenue on their cabs, would that be a violation of the First Amendment? By your argument, it would be, because the privilege to drive (and the privilege to operate a taxi service) is granted by the government.

Let's make no mistake here. Radio broadcasting stations are privately owned, ad-revenue supported businesses. Without the ad revenue, radio stations would quickly go broke. It costs a *lot* of money to run a station, and they're dependent on their advertisers and ultimately their listeners to pay the bills.

As an aside, after about an hour of searching the FCC rules, the closest thing I could find was a Supreme Court ruling that said that "Neither the Communications Act nor the First Amendment requires broadcasters to accept paid editorial advertisements."  (412 U.S. 94

BTW... LoP? You're not the only one to listen to C&W stations on this board... But the station I listen to plays music so old that the Dixie Chicks don't even show up. ;) ;)

Edited by jon3831, 20 April 2003 - 09:15 AM.

"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#75 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 09:33 AM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 20 2003, 03:57 AM, said:

G1223, on Apr 19 2003, 11:34 PM, said:

I just want to make sure I understand this. It's Ok to say what you want about the president. But not OK to be critical of those who do so.
Of course it's okay to criticize people who criticize the President. Please quote the passage(s) that led you to believe otherwise.
I take the tone of the posting to indecate that disagreeing with those who dislike the current administration are somehow in the wrong. I do not see any word directly stating it but Alister is seeing the same thing.  

I guess we must both be mistaken.But somehow I do not think so.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#76 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 09:49 AM

Kevin Street, on Apr 19 2003, 08:36 AM, said:

First off - welcome to the Isle, Mr. Crowley! It's nice to see someone with your peculiar... experience, in our community. One never knows when a magician might come in handy. ;)
I'm sorry, sir.  I did not see this post the first time around.  My apologies, and thank you for the warm welcome.

#77 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 09:55 AM

G1223, on Apr 20 2003, 06:17 AM, said:

QuantumFlux, on Apr 20 2003, 03:57 AM, said:

G1223, on Apr 19 2003, 11:34 PM, said:

I just want to make sure I understand this. It's Ok to say what you want about the president. But not OK to be critical of those who do so.
Of course it's okay to criticize people who criticize the President. Please quote the passage(s) that led you to believe otherwise.
I take the tone of the posting to indecate that disagreeing with those who dislike the current administration are somehow in the wrong. I do not see any word directly stating it but Alister is seeing the same thing.  

I guess we must both be mistaken.But somehow I do not think so.
More to the point, many people...not necessarily here, but everywhere...are upset because those expressing views contradictory to theirs often have the power to enforce it.  There lies the source of irritation: a sense of powerlessness.

One of my old professors, now long dead, told our class once: "If you ever want an argument for ownership of guns, think on this.  Despite a lack of tradition concerning possession of weapons in middle class Europe, if the Jews of Germany had been armed and starting shooting anything in a German uniform, the Holocaust would have ended in 6 months."   I feel that if those honestly disagreeing with the war, as opposed to disagreeing with Bush, had understood that peace protests do little good these days and protested with their pocketbooks instead... things might have turned out differently.  

But it's simply easier to sit and pontificate.

#78 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 10:13 AM

Protested with their pocketbooks how, exactly? Don't let Haliburton put out our oil well fires? Refuse to buy missles from Raytheon? Boycott American products?

The problem with that is - the Americans own the world, and we only live in it. Try to go for a day without using anything manufactured, harvested, mined or built in the USA and you'll see what I mean. It's pretty much impossible if you don't live in a cave.

The Dixie Chicks are vulnerable to market pressures, but changing American Foreign policy through sanctions is difficult to impossible, because they make up such a huge segment of the global economy.

Reason is our only effective weapon. And in the end, I think it's reason and logic that will defeat the Pax America Hawks. Their position is untenable, and will only become more so with time.
Per aspera ad astra

#79 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 10:20 AM

I missed this one as well. Again, forgive me.

Quote from Lil

Quote

I'll double the b*llsh*t ante.

Backstocked on it, are we?  I may have to fold, as I don't deal in b*llsh*t much anymore.  Victory by attrition on your part.


Quote

Spin it how you want, the fact is that she's being punished for not supporting Dubbya's War.

Actually, your spin is wearing thin.  Despite all the posts in this thread,  a firm link has yet to be established between CC and the White House showing that CC could care less about DCs political views...only how they appear to the consumers.  Oh, we've seen that someone named Hicks warms a seat at CC and he has ties to the Bush brood, but that's hardly concrete evidence...as you should know.  CC is dropping the Dixie Chicks because they are, in the vernacular, "bad mojo."  It's rather obvious, really.

Quote

But, I will also say that if she hadn't been so quick to back-pedal this might have worked out differently.

...and file a lawsuit perhaps.  Would you take the case for them?  It could make your career.

Quote

Doesn't do a THING to alleviate my disgust for the continuing trend in this supposed bastion of democracy's (the cornerstone of which is loyal opposition) tendency to behave like BULLIES toward anyone who has the unmitigated gall to disagree with Dubbaya's War.

I find the low voter turn-out in this nation disgusting.  Incidentally, this isn't the first time a faction in America has bullied it's way around.  Examine the practices of the Republicans after the American Civil War...and they were the radicals of their time!  Incidentally, "loyal opposition" implies that, despite disagreeing with the prevailing trend of politics in every way, one must support one's government because it is one's civilizing agent.

Quote

This is the kind of thing that makes a person question whether there is actually any pride in being American.

Belaboring an old saw:  I understand there is room to let in Iraq these days.

Quote

Anyways I hope they kick ass in the next round of awards shows and that the red neck consituency has to choke on it.

"Red neck constituency."  Dear old me, what a discriminatory choice of words.  Your psyche is showing, Lillian, your psyche is showing....

Edited by AleisterCrowley, 20 April 2003 - 10:42 AM.


#80 Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest

Guest-AleisterCrowley-Guest
  • Guest

Posted 20 April 2003 - 10:25 AM

Kevin Street, on Apr 20 2003, 06:57 AM, said:

Protested with their pocketbooks how, exactly? Don't let Haliburton put out our oil well fires? Refuse to buy missles from Raytheon? Boycott American products?

The problem with that is - the Americans own the world, and we only live in it. Try to go for a day without using anything manufactured, harvested, mined or built in the USA and you'll see what I mean. It's pretty much impossible if you don't live in a cave.

The Dixie Chicks are vulnerable to market pressures, but changing American Foreign policy through sanctions is difficult to impossible, because they make up such a huge segment of the global economy.

Reason is our only effective weapon. And in the end, I think it's reason and logic that will defeat the Pax America Hawks. Their position is untenable, and will only become more so with time.
Reason is an extremely effective weapon, but not the only one.  Furthermore, it must be backed up with action or it's only so much smoke, as we've seen.

An American adage:  "Money talks, b*llsh*t walks."  If one is disgusted with the antics of CC then let them know.  Don't listen to their stations.  Throw money at the DCs in support.  Encourage others.  Give DC some idea that they have supporters.  All the while, make it abundantly clear to CC that their actions will have consequences.

Done on a large enough scale, it will send a message.  As I've said repeatedly, the consumers have a say.  If some are screaming for three heads, then scream louder.

In truth, though, I understand that organizing anything more complicated than a pizza party in America is a herculean task.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Dixie Chicks, War Protesters, Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users