Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

[sk8m8]

Re: Clarification

without endorsing or opposing military in Iraq, aren't the reasons we want to disarm Saddam and free the Iraqi people so that they can...

Speak without fear of retribution.

Walk and associate freely without being monitored.


Choose whatever government they wish and disagree with that government if it is not their choice.

Conduct commerce without regard to their believe system and what guides them morally.

In light of all that, isn't American radio being hypocritical. I just think people are mad and want someone to play "whipping boy" or in this case" whipping chick"

 

[Grgranny]

Re: Clarification

I'm really surprised no one has mentioned Jane Fonda. Remember that? I'm not sure Gore would have done much either. I did vote for him. And what do you expect of a gun monger like Ashcroft? That's one of the reasons I changed from Republican. I'm not really either one any more. I dislike a lot of things about both. I would never vote for Clinton no matter what. If they had taken care of things when he was in office we wouldn't be in all this turmoil. I better quit before I get kicked out.

 

[Albert Flasher]

Alfred?!?

Mathman,Joesitz,you're confusing me with Batman's butler.Remember the Burton Cummings hit Albert Flasher?Anyways,Grgranny,I too have noticed Miss Fonda's silence throughout the buildup to war.But perhaps what is not as well known as her antiwar sentiments are her pro-Israeli sentiments.She and then-husband Tom Hayden actually supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

 

[Ladskater]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

I heard something about it on the radio, but not sure what was said. Good grief, our Canadian female politicians have "stuck their foot in their mouths" a couple of times about Bush. I am sure what the Dixie Chicks said could not be that bad.

Ladskater

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

Listen, The Dixie Chics can say whatever they want, but people who disagree with them can also do so, and people are free to spend their money how they wish. Radio programs have freedom of speech too. If people decided they don't want to spend their money on the Dixie Chics, its their choice. If the Dixie Chics want to use their fame as a podium to dish out their political stance, they also need to be able to take the feedback, otherwise they should sing and keep their personal beliefs in their personal life. If you are gonna dish it out you gotta be able to take it.

If the Dixie Chic in question would have stuck to her guns, I would respect her more - but she said one thing to her London fans and then when she found out her US fans were unhappy she backtracked and apologized and admitted what she said was disrespectful. Perhaps she was feeling she needed some love from the London crowd so tried to butter them up, then she needed to butter up her US fans.

I don't know why celebrities' opinions are given so much attention anyway - it's not like they're all rocket scientists.

 

[mathman444]

Re: Alfred?!?

Sorry about that, Albert. For that, you can call me Mushman.

MM

 

[Joesitz]

Re: Alfred?!?

Albert -

The UN did try to pass a reolution condemning Israel for that invasion but the USA vetoed it. hmmm.

One should be careful when talking about vetos.

Joe

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: Alfred?!?

Joe, the UN might as well enforce the need of unanimous vote as the Veto renders resolutions and negotiations useless and completely undermines the existence of the UN. The US has been highly criticized for using its veto power (as it should have been) and that power should not exist.

 

[Joesitz]

Re: Alfred?!?

Jules - All the members of the UN except the Big Five agree with you. 'Get rid of the veto'. But the big five see the power in it, and god knows, no one wants to lose power.

Joe

 

[mathman444]

Re: Alfred?!?

The United Sates has veto power anyway, no matter how the United Nations is structured. We can just say, nuts to you.

MM

 

[Jimmy Hoffa 2]

Re: Alfred?!?

<span style="text-decoration:underline"><strong><em>THE NEW BLACKLIST</em></strong></span>
1. Dixie Chicks

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: Alfred?!?

:rollin:

 

[Joesitz]

Re: Alfred?!?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Black List: Dixie Chicks[/quote]

Hey Jimmy. You can add another 50 or so show biz names to that black list. Hollywood can be difficult in getting work if you don't cow tow to the bosses. They've done it before.

Joe

 

[DORISPULASKI]

Book Burning Next?

So next, why don't the radio stations stage a book burning?

And then we can have a reprise of Kristalnacht, only we can bring and break Chicks CD's.

It's time to remember that the US allows dissent. And if the radio stations want to refute the Dixie Chicks stand, that's fine. And if they want to choose not to play their records that's annoying, but fine. But when they suggest that the Dixie Chicks have no right to have a differing opinion from theirs, then they are getting way too Totalitarian for me,
as in "Anything not forbidden is Compulsory".

It's a fine line, but they have their license from the FCC, and they need to support the Bill of Rights.

dpp

 

[BronzeisGolden02]

Entertainers and Politics

I fully support freedom of speech and believe it is one of the most important elements of our foundation. You should be able to say what you want and where you want, BUT, personally, I am deeply repulsed by ENTERTAINERS that feel they have to announce their political beliefs (whether it be pro-war or against, pro-Bush or anti) during public performances and award ceremonies. I understand this is their platform for speaking to the world, but, come on, do political statements really belong at the Grammys or the Academy Awards? It tarnishes the whole reason for the event. Entertainers bring enjoyment to people, most often by bringing welcome distractions with their music and performing abilities, and I think that clashes terribly when they begin to become extremely vocal concerning their political beliefs. Thats just a personal thing for me I guess, left wing or right wing, I just don't want to hear it when my main purpose is to be entertained. I'll watch CNN or Fox when I feel the need to soak up some in depth political discussions.
LOL, I think my attitude spurs from that horrid "SUVs support terrorism" campaign. Its really doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not, but certain entertainers endorsed and supported that campaign, and then were found to have SUVs registered to them. A load of self-serving, hypocrytical crap!

So, anyway, do I think the Dixie Chicks were wrong? Yes, in that I'm fairly sure the people they were performing in front of were there to be entertained and not to listen to their grand political dogmas. They certainly had the right to say it, that isn't the point being argued really, but does having the right to do something always make it acceptable? Its all about personal interpretation and belief I guess. For myself, I don't look to the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, or any other entertainers as moral or political compasses. I look to them to entertain me, move me, and sometimes take me away from things I'd like to put on the back burner for a short time.

 

[Kasey]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

I do believe that the wars this country has fought in the past have been to maintain our ideals and liberties, including that of speech. In this country of ours, people have the right to disagree with politicians, including the president, and make those statements. I and many others have risked their lives to protect that freedom. To "boycott" someone simply for exercising their freedoms is stupid in my mind. And really, how important IS this person, in the jist of things?

That said, I find it astonishing and frightening to think that anyone's opinion about something as important as WAR could be influenced by what some singer or actor says. They are people, human beings, like the rest of us. The fact that they make millions of dollars to entertain us (let's face it, it's not brain surgery or finding a cure for cancer) does NOT make them any more intelligent or important in their thoughts or opinions.

Kasey

 

[Aloft02]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

I think Ronald Reagan proved that.

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

I liked Cuba Gooding Junior's answer to this question. He said something like -- If I meet you outside in a bar, I'll give you my opinion (in casual conversation) but here (in celebrity forum) my job is to make you laugh and make you smile. That's his outlook anyway, and I think a smart for someone who's a celebrity and whose "persona" is their bread and butter.

But of course people can voice their beliefs if they want, but people are also allowed to voice their objections. It's give and take. Its not "freedom of speech until you say something I disagree with" or "freedom of speech unless you are objecting to something I said"

the dixie chicks can say one thing and the people can say I agree or I disagree. While I think boycotting their CD's is stupid, ya can't force people to spend their money on something they don't want to spend it on.

As long as the government doesn't ban Dixie Chicks CDS and ban their play on the radio, then their freedoms are not being
taken away from them. People are free to choose: to listen to the Dixie Chicks or not to listen to them -- and to say people are not allowed to voice their objections to the Dixie Chicks is the same thing as saying the Dixie Chicks cannot voice their opinions.

 

[crazy4michelle]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

The only thing I can add to this is that some people have said these people (celebrities) are not rocket scientists, that just because their entertainers does not make them any more intelligent or important in their thoughts or opinions. Well, are any of us different from the celebrities? They are people with their own thoughts and ideals and morals and oppinions. They may have a bigger voice in the public, but in the end, they are just people, like all of us here. There is no shortage of opinions on this forum, whether it be about skating, American Idol, the war, etc. But we are all free to express them.

Should my opinion matter more or less, because I'm not a celebrity (and how do you know I'm not )? What makes this country so great is that we can say things when and where we want to. And we should be punished because we have our own thoughts.

 

[Jules Asner]

Re: Boycotting the Dixie Chicks?

The Dixie Chicks are not being punished for speaking their minds -- the government has not banned their records from being sold or played, they have not been imprisoned. The only thing that happend was that some individual citizens have voiced disagreement to what the Dixie Chick said and have decided they will no longer support their work product and that is also a freedom. If a privately owned radio station's owner decides he doesn't want to play a certain record, that is also his or her right, because they own the station and that is also their right and form of protest. People are allowed to protest the war peacefully and people can also voice support for it - it goes both ways.

Wayne Gretsky is being heavily criticized and badmouthed in Canada for voicing his support of President Bush - do the people who disagree with Gretsky not have a right to disagree with him or say they won't buy his products or go see him play hockey?

What I meant by the rocket scientist comment was that yes, these people are just regular people voicing an opinion -- they are not experts on the subject and are using their celebrity status to voice their personal opinions - that is fine, but unfortunately many people cannot think for themselves and if the Dixie Chicks are their favorite, or if Wayne Gretsky is their favorite celeb they will automatically jump on the Dixie or Gretsky bandwagon.