RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


"I think Natalie Maines should be strapped to a bomb(102 posts)

"I think Natalie Maines should be strapped to a bombOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 5:13 AM
and dropped on Baghdad."

I want to see how brutish we've really become in this country. Or at least on this board. The recent hysteria, reminiscent of the Red Scares of the past but in some ways scarier, finds us saying things like the above on radio call-in shows, and hauling 8 year old kids kids down to steet rallies to stomp on CDs, snarling "Take that, take that."

All for daring to utter just the faintest, tiniest criticism of the president. "We're ashamed George Bush is from Texas." This teeny little criticism justifies turning children into Jacobins?

Set aside your argument that "People have a free speech right to boycott entertainers they disagree with by withholding their dollars etc etc." I AGREE with that. Obviously. I would never hold a gun to someone's head and say; "You MUST buy a Dixie Chicks CD." And I think economic protest as a form of political action (boycotts et al) are in the finest American tradition.

But answer me this: Don't you find it a little disturbing that such mildly critical political speech -- 14 pretty wimpy words uttered by an entertainer -- has caused such a ferocious response utterly lacking any sense of reason or proportionality?

It it really a good thing, in your view, to turn children into witch-hunting books burners on the street of America?

Set aside your politics for a moment. I know your deep love for all things Bush will cause your knees to jerk on this. But step back for a second and reflect: Do you really want an America in which you can't criticize a president without fearing for your career, your good name, even your life? At what point do you thinks this hysteria (not just Dixie Chicks, but this equation of support for Bush with 'real Americans') has gone too far? With Robespierre and the guillotine?
As a republicanPaulCL
Apr 25, 2003 5:44 AM
I generally agree that this "Dixie Chicks" thing has been blown out of proportion. But, since they are one of the biggest bands in the world, they get the most attention. Also, country music fans have a tendency to be a little more hard core patriotic - its' part of country music. The band violated a 'pact' with the country music industry not to criticize your country (or President). I saw that on CMT.

The criticism is as much a publicity ploy from country stations across the country as it is a real protest. In six months, all will be forgotten. Lets face it, there are hundreds of other celebrities that spoke out against Bush (not just the war, but the man)...Robbins, Sarandon, Garafaolo (?), Babs, Springsteen, etc.....but can you name one single other country music star??? Nope. Heck, several of the #1 country songs of the last year have been patriotic songs ! These chicks opened a hornet's nest on themselves.

A side note: Natalie Maines is apparently a big mouth. She had a right to say what she wants but her problem was it was a disrespectful criticsm of our President, during a time of war, in a foriegn country. Just bad timing.
As a Republican, does it bother you to see ferociousOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 5:48 AM
children burning books (i.e. stomping CDs) on the streets? Not is it legal, not is it free speech, not does Natalie M have a big mouth -- does that image bother you as a Republican? As a parent? As an American?
Yes, it also bothers me to see children protest the war (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 6:04 AM
bothers me to see children championing the war as well (nm)ColnagoFE
Apr 25, 2003 6:20 AM
Absolutely (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 6:28 AM
With the ONLY exception being those who are supporting a parent who is serving.
It used to be...Matno
Apr 25, 2003 11:00 AM
...that children pretty much just mirrored what their parents think. Sadly, nowadays, you're just as likely to find that they mimic whatever garbage they pick up from school, since many parents either don't care or don't take the time to teach their own children the basics. It's a sign of the times. Around here we have billboards that say "After school programs - ignore them and they'll go away." The same could be said about kids. Ignore them and they'll go away (from you). I think a big step toward parents ignoring kids is sending them to after school programs instead of being with them. Raising kids isn't just a burden to be dealt with, it's a full time job that requires a lot of time.

Speaking of kids protesting, etc., the United Nations frequently uses kids who are obviously spouting out whatever they're told (what kid wouldn't - they're getting a free vacation) in support of "children's rights." It's amazing the depths that some groups will sink to for attention. Anyone who thinks 10 year old kids are mature enough to know what's best for them is delusional.
Say Ed you are way over the top on this oneLive Steam
Apr 25, 2003 6:29 AM
How does this equate with book burning? Not even close. Are these the talking points you received from the DNC? I would think a good ol' Clintonite like yourself would appreciate an All American boycott. The right to disagree and express that. I think your duplicity is showing :O)
Check my posts more closely, old buddy.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 6:32 AM
I stated very explicitly that I approve of boycotts. So no duplicity here, but a lack of reading acuity there!
Yes, but I blame the parentsPaulCL
Apr 25, 2003 9:26 AM
The children have no idea of what's going on. My daughters (ages 8 & 10) love the 'chicks'. My oldest asked about the controversy. I explained that Natalie Maines spewed some negative opinion on the President and people are upset. She shrugged and said "so what does that have to do with their music?" I said 'nothing'. I guess she's been paying attention in social studies.

But let me remind you of something. Those morons who pay good money for CDs then burn/crunch them have a right to their free speech as well. They feel that the 'chicks' said something wrong and are exercising their rights to not listen to their music. The protests with children and record burning etc...were just radio station promotional events.

I won't get upset about it unless I see the government or a national party sponsoring the protestors.

So, OldEd...did it bother you as much to see children protesting against the war?? It was the same thing: extremist parents putting their small children in adult situations. Wrong is wrong.

PS....I still listen to the chicks, I like their music. I like Springsteen too...."Shawshank Redemption" is one of my favorite movies...though I just can't stomach anything with Barbara Streisand - that woman just grates on my nerves.
As I said somewhere below in the blizzard ofOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 9:36 AM
posts, I don't think kids should go to any rally. If push comes to shove, I'd say teaching them to exercise an all-American right to political protest is a tad more acceptable than going a step further and teaching them to burn books, which is unAmerican in the extreme. Either way, I'd leave them home. Regardles of the issue.
Book burning...TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 10:00 AM
I don't think anything inherent in book burning is un-American. Books like Mein Kampf should be burned in the act of political discourse.
As a Republican, does it bother you to see ferociousSteveS
Apr 25, 2003 9:54 AM
I seem to get agitated watching protestors ferociously burning and stomping American flags in the streets. Isn't this a right that liberals sued for as an example of freedom of speech? If so, why is a CD more disturbing to be destroyed as freedom of speech.

Actually, I am ashamed that Manes and Chicks are from Texas and suggest they relocate to Berkley.
Very, very good point on flag burningPaulCL
Apr 25, 2003 10:12 AM
Now (to me) that's unpatriotic and a slap in the face to everyone who has served their country or given up a loved one for their country. IMHO...flag burners should have the sh*t kicked out of them or immediately drafted into the army and send to Afganistan....oops...my intolerance was showing again...sorry....
Yeah, that would be great. I'mOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 10:15 AM
all over it: A pack of hot-eyed 8-year-olds, under the approving gaze of heir parents, posed for the TV cameras, ferocioiusly burning and stomping a big pile of American flags.

Yep, that's what I was talking about.
Saaaaaay!czardonic
Apr 25, 2003 10:34 AM
If they are expatriated to Berkeley, maybe they'll take to strolling down Telegraph wearing that nothing-but-tatoo get up.
and pregnant! (nm)sacheson
Apr 25, 2003 1:59 PM
no you weren'tPaulCL
Apr 25, 2003 10:57 AM
and we all know that.

The children act only on the ideas of their parents. The media eats that stuff up. And yes, if a bunch of crazed 8 years old were burning flags, I'm sure CNN would have it as a lead that night. What they wouldn't show are the beaming parents off camera pulling the emotional strings. In that case, the parents should have their butts kicked. oops...there goes that intolerance thing again.
maines did go to berkleerufus
Apr 25, 2003 3:36 PM
school of music. ;)
I'm ashamed she lived in Boston (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 4:15 PM
Reference: RobespierreOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 5:44 AM
Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people's mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people's cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Source: Robespierre: On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy
Reference: RobespierreJon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:00 AM
Sounds like a hardline rightwing diatribe coming out of the House Un-American Activities Committee, or maybe a Limbaugh apologetic for Bush.
I'm hoping HUAC comes back. Fully expect it.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:04 AM
That would just about seal the deal.
Man talk about paranoia! This stuff is funnier thanLive Steam
Apr 25, 2003 10:19 AM
fiction. A few Hollywood mouth pieces for the DNC get their feathers ruffled and the Left Wing whackos start talking about McCarthyism, book burning, blacklisting and the HUAC. No wonder you guys feel persecuted. You provide the fodder for the criticism. This is just too funny :O)
LOL! You forgot panty wastes! You mentioned whackos, butOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 10:21 AM
your forgot us panty wastes!
Wow ... get that ...sacheson
Apr 25, 2003 2:06 PM
a conservative accusing others about paranoia. You know what they say LiveSteam, 'those in glass houses ...'

Just because the GOP finally managed to weasel someone in the highest office in the nation doesn't mean all of the conspiracy b.s. that surrounded Slick Willy's last campaign isn't forgotten.
Thoughts on the Dixie Chicks,TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 5:45 AM
I saw bits and pieces of the interview last night, and a few things struck me.

1) Celebrity is the quintessential popularity contest. One can not expect to remain a celebrity if they take an opposing position to a widely popular situation.

2) While one might say that a good portion of America agrees with the Dixie Chicks, their core constituency of country music fans is not likely in this category. Bush remains quite popular in Texas. My point is that unless they are complete idiots (which I'm not ruling out) they KNEW that their statement would not be popular with their core constituency. And see #1 on the importance of popularity.

What they've done is effectively alienated their support base -- it would be like Martha Burke suddenly saying: "Hootie Johnson is a model citizen"; her fans probably wouldn't support her anymore either. I see the Dixie Chicks backlash as just deserts for biting the hand that feeds you, if you depend on popularity for your job, you better try to stay popular.

As an aside, unrelated to the Dixie Chicks but related to your post. I believe that children under the age of, say, 15 shouldn't protest anything. Few things pain me more than seeing young (6,7,8 year olds) people protesting against abortion -- the anti-abortion crowd believes that teens aren't old enough to make the abortion choice, but their 6 year old is cogniscent enough to know that abortion is wrong? I'm equally ired by young war protesters (and young tax cut protesters, if there are any), because they are effectively just playing the little puppet of their parents, and their parents are using the cute emotion to their advantage.
AddendaTJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 6:08 AM
One point that I forgot to make, but meant to:

The fact that they did this on a foreign stage, where they were effectively pandering to the crowd, is a bit of an affront to their fan base. The difference is between keeping a disagreement within the family, and making it public to the outside. There's also an element of: "Do the Dixie Chicks just say what the crowd wants to hear? Are all of these songs that seem to have meaning to me (like the hit "Travelin' Soldier") just empty pandering to me, or do they really mean it?" People identified with their music, and then when people realized that they didn't share at least one core value, they began to question the true identity of the music.
Ted, your posts are alwaysOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 6:29 AM
well-reasoned & I enjoy them even when I don't agree with them. In this case though, I'm going to ask that you and others stick to what I consider the real issue. The Dixie Chicks may be morons, for all I know, and I'm really not talking about them.

I'm talking about this feverish 'national security' hysteria that has led otherwise sensible people to make even minor disagreement with the president cause for questioning patriotism (if not labeling as traitors), to the point where they're willing to just crush people for the supposed affront.

Is this hysteria OK with you (general you, not just you, Ted)? Does 'national security' justify it? Is Robespierre (see quote above) correct in his assessment of threat and response?
I think there's a key difference between private and public...TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 6:38 AM
I fully support people's right to castigate the Dixie Chicks, or any public figure for a public stand that they take. If the hysteria boiled to a point where, say, I were fired from my job for making private comments against the President - that is an issue. If I were fired from my job for prostlitizing, and handing out literature in my office and on the street outside, in other words becoming a recognized public face of the anti-Bush movement, I might be O.K. with that. I fully respect peoples rights to hold their own beliefs, however misguided they may be. I also respect that making these beliefs public carries a risk. If we turn the table around completely, because it makes the discussion interesting, I fully respect the right for somebody to be racist and a member of the KKK. If they really believe that, it's unfortunate, but their right to believe it. However, if they show up at work in a white robe, or start spouting their racist garbage in public, I have an issue with that. I respect their right to say these things in public - but I also have the right to speak out against them. I don't see the difference between anti-racism hysteria (which, I would argue exists very strongly) and anti-anti-war hysteria.
I see. So basically if you're a public figure andOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 6:50 AM
crticize the president, mildly, you should just expect to get what you have coming?

Why should expressing a political opinion publicly carry any risk at all? Not sure I understand that.
You should have some expectations...TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 7:01 AM
Saying that you're ashamed of somebody is not really criticism - it's an insult. I'm willing to bet that if Natalie Maines had rephrased her statement, it would have been much less fractious. Had she said: "we really have reservations about the coming war in Iraq too" would probably not have caused the backlash that her statement did.

If you are in the political spectrum, i.e. people listen to you for political analysis, say, you're Bill O'Reilly, or Ariana Huffington, political opinions should carry no risk at all - you have probably already alienated the group of people who would be offended anyway.

In politics, the President is the closest thing we have to a king. He's our man, and throwing insults at him won't change that; but it is an affront to the people who voted for him. Saying that Bush is an idiot, by proxy, says that people who voted for Bush are idiots; and those people are likely to be insulted by that.

To completely muddle this post with randomness, some constituencies want a political opinion - those of politicians. From musicians, we want music, not politics. And, as I wrote in another post, if you identify with music, but suddenly have reason to believe that the music is not what you thought it was, it's fair to feel cheated and reject it.

Should Trent Lott expressing his opinion that the world would have been better off with Strom Thurmond have carried the risk it did?
How does this differ...TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 7:09 AM
Just out of curiosity, how does this differ from expressing not-politically correct positions? Do you believe that, for example, Charlton Heston should see no backlash for his NRA support?
Clearly, I'm just not getting my message across.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:28 AM
The current situation -- NOT JUST DIXIE CHICKS, PLEASE! -- in the country in inflamed and ... different.

We've always had political disputes, people pissed off, boycotts etc etc. That's normal American political discourse. But now we're just completely brittle. I do not recall a time when criticism of ANY president, by anyone for any reason caused this hugely outside reaction. I'm talking about the reaction and the mood of the country. Three American girls say something, and a sizeable portion of the country reacts like they're foreign terrorists, not just three American girls speaking their (possibly feeble, but who cares?) mind.

Americans are accusing other Americans of being UN-American for taking anti-GOVERNMENT stands. What the hell is THAT?

What has happened to us? We used to be able to absorb all kinds of stuff.
Amnesia of some kind?TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 7:38 AM
Were anti-Vietnam protesters not branded un-American, particularly in the early days of the movement? I can't think of a fractious time in any country's history where being anti-government was not equated (by the "loyalist" side) as being anti-country. I see no evidence that the country is any more brittle than it has ever been in times of crisis. You could argue, fairly, that this is not a time of crisis - but that's a tough row to hoe.

I would say that it is un-American to insult (not criticize, but insult) your President, to an international audience (not your domestic audience, which I think is more normal discourse). I wish we could take the Dixie Chicks entirely out of the discussion, but they've made such a great example of themselves. Could you give a better example of somebody being anti-Government who is labeled un-American?

I think in the Dixie Chicks example, and in so many others, we (I) view it as un-American to insult your elected leaders. Not to criticize them - that is completely American - but to insult them. That's not political speech.
Why would you be embarrassed thatOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:50 AM
George Bush wi from Texas if not for political reasons? It's not for his hygiene.

And what in God's name is this distinction people make about WHERE you say something? I've never understood this 'on foreign soil' business. Unless you're saying "I prefer this foreign soil to American soil, and renounce my citizenship' or something, what conceivable difference does it make?
On foreign soil...TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 7:56 AM
1) You should not be ashamed of a person, you should be ashamed of a policy.

2) As for "on foreign soil"; it is considered bad manners by many in America to make private arguments public. The "American Way" is generally to put on a tough exterior and deal with your problems internally. Broadcasting internal dissent externally is seen by many as poor form.
On foreign soil...OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:07 AM
1) Clearly she was ashamed of the person because of the policy. What else could it be for? It's not like he's Bill Clinton, where we can have a sort of general ashamedness that covers just about everything.

2) Just don't buy it. We disagree.
I don't even think that you believe that she would have madeLive Steam
Apr 25, 2003 8:28 AM
that statement were they in the US much less on Texas soil, and I'll say you are not just fooling yourself if you were to say so. Clinton and Jimmy Carter have done the same during the past few months. They visit foreign lands and trash Bush, his policies and the US. How low can they go? You should really get over this. The Dixie Chics do not represent the last bastion of Democracy. This is a futile argument. An I must say it is rather unfortunate that the Left belies that they own some preordained right to public protest and dissent. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, or just shut up! That last part was directed at the DC, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, the rest of the Hollywood elite and anyone else that believes we all have the right to remain silent!
Amnesia of some kind?Jon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:10 AM
As I recall, the red scare of the fifties was similar to, if not worse than, now. Peoples' careers were completely destroyed for life. In the part of the country that I grew up in at the time public opinion was so strait-jacketed and hysterical that hardly anyone even thought of making critical remarks. Being "un-American" was a sin more egregious than adultery or murder for crying out loud. So in a sense highly intolerant attitudes during times of stress or crisis is as American as apple pie. Sad in a country that authored the most progressive political document in human history, called the Bill of Rights.
Why this is scarier:OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:17 AM
During the Red Scare, people were branded traitors and pilloried for supposedly working with the Reds (i.e. the Soviet Union) to overthrow America lock stock and barrel, replacing it with a Stalinist state. A nutty fear, but a huge 'outside' threat to our very democratic institutions if you happened to believe it.

Nowadays, you're branded a traitor and pilloried if you criticize (or INSULT) the President. Matter of fact, all you got to be is 'ashamed' about where he's from.
Why this is scarier:Jon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:23 AM
I thoroughly understand your point. But my recollection of growing up in the fifties was that the blanket of social conformity was so oppressive that virtually no one even THOUGHT of raising their voices in criticism.

Since the sixties the "dissent genie" is out of the bottle. Now the neo-fascists would dearly love to cram it back in and, as you say, we're seeing this top-down campaign to discredit and stigmatize dissent. BTW, I think the Dixie Chicks are morons, but who really cares? They can sing pretty well too:)-
Why this is scarier: Because there is a Republican in office?Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 8:32 AM
nm
Hell yes! nmOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:46 AM
Why this is scarier: Because there is a Republican in office?Jon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:55 AM
Steam,

Are you capable of reading or do you need pictures? I experienced the fifties political environment in a family and a community which was somewhat to the right of you---if that is possible. Were you around in the fifties? I think not! If you had read one of my other posts you would have noted that I pointed out that I probably would have voted for Dubya in the last election. He has since reversed himself on most of his foreign policy pronouncements and used the trauma of 9/11 to ramrod a fearsomely aggressive neocon foreign policy that is totally contemptuous of the interests of other nations who might not totally support U.S. behaviour.

For most of my life--until the past year and a half as a matter of fact--I considered myself as a moderate conservative, whatever the hell THAT means. In Canada I have consistently voted conservative and even supported a Western federal party that on most issues would warm the hearts of Washington's neocons. So please drop your Democrat/Republican labelling fetish. There are some people who truly are not locked into these oversimplified polarities.
Oh, Steam's like a Greek chorus. I sort ofOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 9:07 AM
expect to hear him in the background, offering his views on the unfolding action. It's kind of comforting, in a way. He doesn't mean any harm.
Ed I am so happy I can keep you amused :O)Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 10:00 AM
Too bad Jon didn't realize that my reply wasn't directed at him. He could have then saved the nasty response for a more appropriate time.

Who cares if Jon would or would not have voted for Bush. That is like saying I wouldn't have voted for that communist Chretien. I have no vote in Canada, and thus have no relevant voice there. As for whether Bush has reversed his stance on foreign policy as a result of the tragedy of 9/11, well I believe it is totally understandable and warranted. The World has never before witnessed an act of depravity such as 9/11. Therefore the response to it cannot be measured against any historical incident other than maybe Pearl Harbor.

Furthermore, Jon's beloved Canadian government has put us all at risk. Their open door policy to anyone with money, without concern for security, is dangerous and abhorrent. They care little that many who they allow to enter into Canada, are really interested in wreaking havoc here in the US.

If you want to voice your opinions, I would suggest that you start with your own government. Tell them they should not provide a conduit for terrorism to the US. Yes as you can see by all of the "Greenbacks" they are recovering in Iraq, it is the US that matters most. They are not hoarding Canadian play money. So if the US takes a stance that is in the interests of the US and the US alone, I have no problem with it. However, there is a coalition of many countries that supported the war. So no matter that Canada and a few other irrelevant countries didn't support it and so no matter how many times you say it, the US did not act alone. Just because your overlord France didn't approve, does not mean that the remainder of the World should acquiesce. I know everyone in France and Eastern Canada believe that the World revolves around Paris, but that is simply not the case.
Holy mother of ... do you really believe any of this??Charlie Amerique
Apr 25, 2003 10:56 AM
I may be new to this board, and I have spent some time "lurking" here to see what's what, but you cannot really believe what you said here, can you?? I assume the little "smiley face" was meant to make this a bit of a joke, but seriously??

" The World has never before witnessed an act of depravity such as 9/11." Why? Because the "world" is the United States? Buddy, tens of thousands have died because of the act of a single man in many, many cases in the world and throughout history. You are living in a self-aggrandizing ego-driven world of your very own if you think the deaths of a couple of thousand Americans (as well as over a thousand "foreigners") measures up in any way to the over one hundred thousand who dies in Japan at the end of WWII, or the millions who dies under Nazi rule during WWI, or the tens of thousands who died as a result of Hannibal's crusades, or... I could go on and on.

Bush didn't reverse a damn thing, he did what every other politician has done in any office over dogcatcher in the past 30 years, he lies to get into office and then does what his financial backers tell him to do. What happened to the investigation into the Energy Policy fiasco? Disappeared right after 9/11. What happened to the congressional subpoena for VP Cheney? Put on indefinite hold after 9/11. My guess, they'll never be revived given the seal the Bush pushed through that allows for all those records and any others he wants locked up to be out of the hands of, well, everyone.

The Canadian government puts everyone at risk how exactly? By not being as ardent in their security as the U.S.?? You are a joke. The levels of security at Dorval Airport in Montreal have been and still are significantly higher than ANY airport in the U.S. (I speak from authority here). The boarder crossings between the U.S. and Canada are better patrolled and controlled than the ones between the U.S. and Mexico.
Who has crossed over from Canada to the U.S. and done harm? Nobody you can name, but if I wanted to come over from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. and had the money to buy my way into, say.. The University of North Carolina or a flight school in Florida, then NO PROBLEM! Hell, I'll even let the U.S. INS do a background check on me and clear me for school 3 months after I fly a plane into the World Trade Center buildings! That's security for you, brother!

As for voicing my opinions about ANY government, what gives you the right to claim that the government in Iraq is corrupt, but that Jon hasn't the right to claim the same about the U.S.?? Hypocrisy??

And by your own admission, it's U.S. dollars that are being recovered in Iraq, not Canadian dollars. Where are they getting them? Buying them from Poor Canadians down on their luck, no doubt.

I see you, like Bush, are still pissed that Canada didn't kiss his ass and do what he said. My guess for this would be that Bush's excuses for starting the war were, on the face of them, bull$hit.
"Iraq has ignored the will of the U.N."
So the U.S. ignores the will of the U.N. and attacks. Makes sense.
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Still haven't found a single one, and doesn't the U.S. have a few WMD lying around as well?? Not that the U.S. would use them on anyone... LOL!
"Saddam is a bad guy and doesn't listen to the will of the people."
Yeah, well Bush shouldn't live in glass houses himself.

As finally, Canada is irrelevant, eh? I think then the U.S. should do what members of congress have proposed and stop buying anything and everything from Canada.
Start with the electricity it gets from those French-loving eastern canucks! I'm sure the Atlantic seaboard can get by without the 46% of the electricity that Edison buys from Quebec.
Stop getting all that oil from Alberta! Who needs it? Certainly not the Midwest and Western U.S. that rely on it for over 50% of their oil imports.
And to hell with all that natural gas! It's only used by the western
Ed I am so happy I can keep you amused :O)Duane Gran
Apr 28, 2003 9:01 AM
The World has never before witnessed an act of depravity such as 9/11.

I don't think that is a very defensible statement. As an American the 9/11 incident is right at the top of the list for me, but I have to to place it below many other attrocities. I would put the holocaust, Stalin's purge, Mao's revolution and possibly the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as more depraved acts than 9/11.
Maybe THAT's just how conservatives protest.128
Apr 25, 2003 8:03 AM
"That's anti-American!" Whatever that means. Now liberals on the other hand rally for race equality, civil rights, labor conditions, sufferage, women's rights...Sort of 'American' notions if ya think about it. So no more lynchings sounded ok, no book burning there.


But, this is situation is different, maybe. I think the THAT is also about these particular circumstances, people are scared, the country is deeply traumatized, even if 'sub-consciously' so. Such trauma easily manifests into macho displays of solidarity around the great chief. And I agree with some of that, there's some business going down around the world. It changes people. So, THAT is fear, in a word. Not sure how that differs too much from the McCarthy red scare, The Beatles Jesus-scare, pro-Vietnam sentiments, there must be other examples. So maybe I don't see this as out so of the ordinary for how conservatives protest. As for making voices heard: where the hell are the elected Democrats?
I think you are right. "Patriotism" is a handy weapon. . .czardonic
Apr 25, 2003 10:48 AM
. . .with which to simultaneously bash others and shield yourself.

I don't see anything American about the kind of lockstep Executive Office worship that passes for "patriotism" these days. I see a lot of nationalists squatting on the term and befouling it with their narrow mindedness.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,Charlie Amerique
Apr 26, 2003 9:56 AM
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (1918) -- Theodore Roosevelt.
What you refer to as hysteria is viewed as ...Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 6:52 AM
a rational response to what many perceived as poor judgment at best and pandering for profit at worst. They said this before a decidedly liberal audience. I view the idiot celebrities that took their protests so fervently to the street, as hysterical. I am completely dumbfounded as to why they are so surprised by the reaction they received from the conservative base. Are you surprised that the "silent majority" weighed in as vocally as they did? Has their silence imbued with so much confidence that you can say what you wish without any repercussions from a conservative voice? To dissent is the right of all, not just commie, panty waist liberals :O)
Panty waste, you mean. nmOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:11 AM
Who the hell is Martha Burke?Sintesi
Apr 25, 2003 6:20 PM
And Hootie Johnson?

Dixie Chicks? Christ who cares? Have they received enough atttention already? One of them said something something that pissed off a bunch of people and they got vocal. Welcome to America. Fluh.

Can we move on?
I think she needs a good bottom spanking :O)Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 6:20 AM
Listen she had every right to say what she did, however it wasn't profound nor was it of any value. It was pandering to a crowd. A foreign crowd at that. I would like to know if she would have said the same thing had the concert been in Texas. This is what made it more reprehensible. She did it on foreign soil ALA Hanoi Jane. She made a bad choice and now must live with the consequences. No backsies if ya' know what I mean. I am sure the response they received at the time was somewhat of an ovation, but that was obviously short sited. She wasn't thinking that here words would travel a few thousand miles back to the good ol' US of A and to here home state. I'm not losing any sleep over it :O)
and take her free speech nonesense with you and don't come back128
Apr 25, 2003 6:21 AM
Answer: It bothers me in a non-partisan way.
What bothers me is that such acts reveal the jingoism of the nonthinking class -"wholly unencumbered by the thought process" - yeah yeah, I believe the same thing about a lot of left wing nut protesters too. I'll take TJ's under 14 rule and analysis. Spot on. Watching wild eyed adults program wide eyed children turns my hands to fists.
But who can resist a rally!? :)

Reference:10cc

I Wanna Rule the World
I wanna be the biggest boss
that ever bossed the world around

How you gonna do it
Little by little, bit by bit

To our rally come along
Come along to our rally
Come along to our rally come along

A Brave new world will rise from the ashes!
And there upon a rock titanic, I'll cast a giant
Shadow on the face of the deep
And never again will they dare to call me
A freckled, spotty, specky, four eyed
Weedy little creep!

No more tremblin' and quakin' in the gym
No more come on fellas, let's get him!
Everyone's going to be free
But they'll have to agree to be free
They'll have to agree to be less free than me
'Cos I rule the world you see

So wait for the army of kiddy-winkies
And terrible tiny tots
In armoured school buses
Firing poison pea-shooters
And sinking their milk teeth into your thighs
Delapsus resurgam! when I fall I shall rise!
What about dragging kids to an Anti-War Rally?Alpedhuez55
Apr 25, 2003 6:38 AM
Ed, are you going to complain about the people taking their 8 year old children to an anti-war rally too? THere is a lot of anti-american and bad languarge at those too. I am sure they are exposed to a lot worse language and imagery like burning flags or effigies than at an Anti-War Rally than at some radio station promotion running a steam roller over some Dixie Chicks CDs.

The Dixie Chicks just angered their fan base, most of whom are proud of the President. They also said it abroad which makes it seem cowardly. If you try to use your celebrity to make political stands then it very well may effect your career. THat is how things work sometimes. If she was a bubble gum star like Brittany Spears then she could have probably got away with it. With their fanbase, the comments are going to hurt them.

THis is also hardly a whitch hunt or book burning. THe government is not doing this. It is the consumers saying they do not want to listen to, buy CDs or go to Dixie Chicks concerts. THis is much closer the Disco Demolition Day Promotion the White Sox held years ago to a witch hunt or book burning.

If Bob Dylan had started to sing pro-vietnam war songs in the 60's would people have been upset with him? If he were to play a campaign fundraiser concert for Nixon would some people stop listening to his records?

If someone is going to use their celebrity to promote a contriversial issue, then it may effect their career. Maybe the Dixie Chicks will recover better than Shinhead O'Connor, time will tell. As people have mentioned on many other threads, there are consiquences to free speech. Natalie Maines is learning that lesson now.

Personally I do not care much for economic boycotts. I even bought some French made Michelins for my car the other day. The Dixie Chicks backlash is an economic boycott, not a witch hunt. I think your reaction is a little Knee Jerk on this one Ed.

Mike Y.
I don't think kids should be at any rallyOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 6:57 AM
but I'd say teaching them to exercise an all-American right to political protest is a tad more acceptable than teaching them to burn books, which is unAmerican in the extreme. Either way, I'd leave them home.

I keep trying to get this point across: This just takes off from the goddamn Dixie Chicks, it's not ABOUT the Dixie Chicks. It's not about celebrity, much as you all love to get into that. It's about what we're becoming as a nation in the current national security hysteria.

Should Americans trash other Americans over political opinions? Are we losing our own core values to Fear?
I don't think kids should be at any rallyAlpedhuez55
Apr 25, 2003 7:55 AM
"Should Americans trash other Americans over political opinions?"

I think we have the right to do so. What may not be offensive to you is offensive to others. You seem to like to trash me when I express disgust for Bill Clinton's practices. So you should defend people who want to trash the Dixie Chicks. If they really got death threats and had their property vandalized, then the authorities shoud go after the people who did that.

"Are we losing our own core values to Fear?"

Maybe some celebrities wil be afraid to speak out on certain things, but that will not ruin their values. THey can hold their beliefs, donate money to politicians and speak their mind. The just may turn off some people. If they want to take that risk they can. I thiung the same holds true for all people.

I also have to stress this is nothing like a book burning. It is an economic protest. I think you are overstating the cultural and educational value of Dixie Chicks Music when you call this a book burning. If they burn all copies of Huck Finn or Wuthering Heights it is a book burning. You are totally overteacting to that.

Mike Y.
It's only bad to burn GOOD books? nmOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:58 AM
And trashing your political ideas verballyOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:00 AM
in an open debate like this is fine. That's why we do it. If I tried to ruin your life because of them, I'd be over the line. Americans are supposed to go home at the end of the day, when the bell rings.
Since when is a country Music CD a book?Alpedhuez55
Apr 25, 2003 8:23 AM
You are tying to put literary value on the Dixie Chicks. THis is not a government or church doing this. It is radio stations doing so. It is a promotional event for the station. The CDs are ones that people buy.

And if you look at the picture below, the Dixie Chicks are trying to capitalize on the contriversy themselves.

People are turning in their CDs to be destroyed, selling or not using concert tickets. That is as much a demonstration of free speech as Natalie Maines' statements.

As I said in my original reply, this is closer to Disco Demolition Day where a radio station burned disco records between games a double header than it is too a book burning. I think you are trying to turn mole hill into a mountain.

Mike Y.
It's a book when it's burned toOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:35 AM
suppress unpopular political expression.

Book burning has never been illegal. But it has been a clearly fascist (yes, fascist) tactic for stifling dissent, and it certainly has unpleasant Jacobin overtones
It's a book when it's burned toAlpedhuez55
Apr 25, 2003 9:11 AM
Well, I still think you are overstating these statements. The government and church are not coming to people's houses and removing Dixie Chicks CDs from their collection. They are doing it on their own will.

I understand why you could see "Jacobian Overtones' in it, but I think you are reading way too much into this.

Mike Y.
Okay, I missed somethingKristin
Apr 25, 2003 6:43 AM
Admittedly, I'm media deprived; but what do children have to do with the Dixie Chicks statement??
Kids at rallies, stompingOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:02 AM
and breaking their CDs, saying "Take that, take that!" with fierce eyes and steely little True Believer voices.
There is a bright sidecarnageasada
Apr 25, 2003 7:15 AM
Anything that leads to mass stompings of modern country music can't be all bad. Post Cash and Nelson of course.
HmmmmKristin
Apr 25, 2003 7:40 AM
Well, its no surprise that there is some really poor parenting going on in the US right now. That children could be in this frame of mind and that their parents are encouraging it, is certainly a sign of poor parenting. However, its not different than the book burnings that occurred in the 50's and 60's, the witch trials in the 1800's, or the KKK protests that still occur today. Messed up hateful parents can't help but teach those values to their kids. In the end, the kids will go off to college and eventually evaluate and embrace or reject their parents values. Hopefully, they will improve upon any of their parents poor methods/values.
you mean the whole "you're either with us or...rufus
Apr 25, 2003 7:39 AM
against us" mentality in the country today. it's impossible to say anything crityical about this administration without being equated a traitor who sides with hussein and other terrorists. that's a horrible precedent to be setting, and simply a way for this administration to stifle criticism.

"this would be much easier if i were a dictator"-george w. bush.
Exactly. This is a top-down phenomenon.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 7:57 AM
And a sizeable portion of the country is buying it.

I again cite Robespierre above. He instituted the Reign of Terror in France to rid it of its domestic 'enemies.' (No, it wasn't called the PATRIOT Act). But if you take time to read the Robespierre quote I posted, I could have stuck Dick Cheney's name at the bottom of it and no one would have been any wiser.
Old Ed, you're wasting your breath.Jon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:19 AM
So many people are so paralyzed by fear that they're obviously impervious to any rational discussion of political tolerance. In times of "war" we MUST support the Feuhrer. Not to do so is unpatriotic and oh-so-un-American.
I agree,TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 8:23 AM
I agree that this is a complete waste of time. I'm not even sure what this discussion is about. It seems like this is some kind of trumped up debate - I may be totally disconnected from reality, but I don't see any crisis. In my community, it's quite common to dissent from the current government, and only the truely obnoxious (flag burners, et al.) are criticized. A large number of people question the Government and aren't being branded anti-American.

I just don't see the hysteria that Old Ed is talking about.
I agree,Jon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:28 AM
I think it depends on what part of the country you're from. For instance, some of my wife's relatives are from Texas and she has received some truly vicious e-mails from one of them. He's obviously the type who would be out smashing CDs and worse.
That's what I love about AmericaTJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 8:33 AM
One good thing that I can say about this country is that its diversity of character and opinion is unrivaled. The World is really going to have to learn that there is no sterotypical "American". The country is just too damn big to have real common threads and experiences. Except obesity - we do have that going for us.
Come on down South, boy.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 9:16 AM
Git away from them fancy investment bankers you hang around with and breathe in the fumes of the Folks. Listen to you some country music radio. Then sort of check out what them boys up in Washington keeps sayin about how much more security we need, and how you're either with us or agin us.

The discussion may be a total waste of time, and incoherent to boot, but I suspect we'll be revisiting it as the months and years of our 'War on Terrorism and Anyone in the World or At Home Who Disagrees With Us' unfolds.
Are we not Americans?TJeanloz
Apr 25, 2003 9:57 AM
Are we fancy investment bankers not Americans? And aren't we the ones who you liberals are always accusing of buying elections, and being disproportionatly represented? FWIW country music is all I listen to (though I wasn't a Dixie Chicks fan before or after their comments). I'm confident in the checks and balances of our system. And that we northerners have disproportionate electoral power.
Just suggesting where you could seeOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 10:04 AM
the hysteria and nuttiness you say you don't see, in your bastion of good sense & toleration up there.

As that odd amalgam -- a Southerner and a liberal -- maybe I'm getting a skewed perspective, eh?
Forget it Ed, it's Chinatown. (nm)czardonic
Apr 25, 2003 10:53 AM
Fatal to apply reason to unreasonable circumstrances.128
Apr 25, 2003 8:27 AM
It's people not politics.
True nmJon Billheimer
Apr 25, 2003 8:33 AM
I guess you bought into the whole ....Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 8:41 AM
Right Wing Conspiracy thing did ya'? Where did you ever get this "from the top down" stuff? I guess you got your morning communiqué form the local DNC chapter.
Buddy, I WRITE those communiques.OldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 8:44 AM
Obviously. Why else do you think the Democratic message is so resonant?
:O) I knew it! I just knew it! Tell Hillary I said hello!Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 8:57 AM
That's "resonant" as in "echoing in hollow chambers"...Matno
Apr 25, 2003 11:03 AM
between their ears that is...
Yep. That's what's calledOldEdScott
Apr 25, 2003 11:07 AM
an open mind.
Ha Ha! If my mind were any more open...Matno
Apr 25, 2003 11:58 AM
...my brain would fall out...
a fair observationStarliner
Apr 25, 2003 9:13 AM
I agree with your concern about criticism without fear. As someone who is not publicly exposing myself and my views to the world, it's easy for me to simply write it off as something that happens, so just deal with it and learn from it. There's nothing new about what you've observed, as many who've taken unpopular positions before have experienced. I'll bet if you'd paint your house purple and pink with flourescent orange roof tiles, you might find doors closing in front of you as you make your way around your community.

I guess the point where hysteria goes too far would be if and when laws are broken in the attempts to penalize you or to shut you up.
Isn't she the fat one? nmIFTreedog
Apr 25, 2003 9:39 AM
Here' s a little link to help you out Ed.bnlkid
Apr 25, 2003 10:09 AM
http://www.acousticmusic.com/channels.htm

The reason this issue should concern many people is that the Dixie Chicks are not being boycotted by individual fans, although some of that does exist, but rather by Clear Channel Communications. This is an organized boycott organized by Clear Channel whose owner is from Texas and a strong Bush supporter. In addition, the Dixie Chicks are receiving death threats. Does this sound like free speach to anyone? As Ed pointed out, all that was said is they were ashamed. I remember people calling Clinton much worse.

By the way, the comment was not said in a time of war. It was said on what turned out to be the evening before we went to war.
Here' s a little link to help you out Ed.Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 10:43 AM
"By the way, the comment was not said in a time of war. It was said on what turned out to be the evening before we went to war."

Gee willikers the entire World was aware that the War would start the next day. However if you want to split hairs on this, I guess you are correct. I still find it duplicitous that the Left cannot accept any dissent with their views. They demonize any opinion that does not agree with their own. I guess they became too accustomed to the silence from the Right.

Let's see, what was Clinton called - an adulterer, a liar? Did I miss anything? Did these not apply? As for the death threats, I do not believe that anyone should be afraid to express their opinions, especially a Republican :O)
I think you missed my point.bnlkid
Apr 25, 2003 10:58 AM
Sure Clinton was called many names....scumbag, liar, adulterer, worthless and on and on. My point is, those that made those statements about Clinton did not receive the backlash the Dixie Chicks are receiving. Those were personal attacks against Clinton, while the comment Natalie made was more about policy. All she said was she was "ashamed". This isn't about the left or the right. This is about being able to make a critical comment without fearing for your life. Free speech is about debate, not attack. The Dixie Chicks made a statement and are standing by it. The would love to debate the issue, but instead they are being attacked by a corporation that has very close ties to Bush. That alone, should suggest that this top-down administration is not something to be taken lightly.
Let me help you out, Steam.Charlie Amerique
Apr 25, 2003 11:03 AM
Hmm.. maybe my memory is faulty, or maybe yours but as I recall Ari F. claimed that the President had "...no clear timeline..." when the actions would begin the day before the troops moved into Iraq. Yes, the fencing between Kuwait and Iraq had been cut down to allow tanks to move through, but that had been done 10 days before the first battle equipment moved. And as I recall, aircraft began the bombing that next day and ground forces moved 1 day after that. Maybe the entire world wasn't aware of when "the war" actually started... including yourself.

Not being a member of "the left" myself, I cannot speak for them, but I will claim to be offended by a position taken by anyone who does not have any facts to back up their position.
Let me help you out, Steam.Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 12:09 PM
I guess we should have sent them a telegraph warning that bombs were about to fall. There was no surprise here. Anyone who didn't believe that the minute the deadline was crossed that bombs wouldn't start to fall, must have had their head in the sand. It took 12 years to get to that point. I for one didn't think that another minute was going to pass without taking action. The whole episode was ready for filming for goodness sakes. CNN had the cameras in place and on queue. So if the DC said it just prior rather than after the start of the war, I really don't see a difference. I also don't give a rat's ass about what they have to say. I just have difficulty with the way this is being portrayed by the Left. If anyone is looking to stifle free speech it is the DNC. I have never heard them express concern about freedom of speech when conservative issues were being attacked. The only positive I see in this is that the Democratic party is in disarray and is desperate to find something negative to pin on this administration. They can only go so far with this because a very vocal and powerful base in the Democratic party supported the war - reference Joe Lieberman and Harvey Weinstein.
How dare you criticize our President!!!czardonic
Apr 25, 2003 12:22 PM
The Administration repeatedly stated that it should not be assumed that war would start as soon as the deadline passed. Are you suggesting that not only were they lying, but that their attempts to sell these lies were inept and transparent? You should thank your lucky stars that there are liberals out there to protect you from the right-wing muzzle brigades!
I think she should be strapped to my bedpurplepaul
Apr 25, 2003 10:45 AM
Just wanted to get your attention.

Anyway, I have no problem with any of the protests against the DC, including smashing their CD's. What I find of great concern is this label, "Un-American." That, to me, equates to traitorous behavior that needs to be snuffed out. We should reserve that for only the most heinous crimes against our country like giving nuclear secrets to the Chinese and so forth. Otherwise, it's just too easy to stifle the free speech that elevates us above all those countries we'll probably end up invading :) Hey, that's my first happy face ever! I'm no longer a virgin. Again.
"like giving nuclear secrets to the Chinese"Live Steam
Apr 25, 2003 10:48 AM
Now stop that Clinton bashing, even if it is true! :O)
LOL nmpurplepaul
Apr 25, 2003 10:56 AM
W. offends me more every day than Maines could if she....cory
Apr 25, 2003 8:17 PM
...talked nonstop for 12 years, and I don't want to strap HIM to a bomb.
Rummie, though...he's a different kettle of psychopaths.
No...butdasho
Apr 26, 2003 4:05 PM
The only people I am upset with are the ones that threaten the DC's lives or property etc. But I don't see anything wrong with groups of people getting together and smashing CD's or boycotting their concerts. They are expressing their freedom of speech just as the DCs did. I personally wouldn't stomp on CDs but maybe that is their way of venting out frustration.

After watching the DC's interview the other night, I wondered why they even bothered if they were trying to win back fans. On the one hand she asks for forgiveness, and on the other she says the show isn't long enough to tell Bush what she thinks of him. She obviously meant what she said and it took courage but now she seems wishy washy.

I just saw a picture of Ms. Maines with the words Free Speech written on her forearm. She must be confused about free speech. She exercised free speech and wasn't killed or put in prison as she would have if she lived under Hussein's regime. She should have realized free speech doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you and there can be negative consequences especially if you are a celebrity and the media pounces on your every word.. I still don't understand why they did the semi nude photo.
Zeez Ed; you started a big one....KeeponTrekkin
Apr 26, 2003 7:00 PM
Natalie lost her head and spoke out of turn. If she'd used a few spare brain cells (assuming she has some), she'd have known better. Now, the group is trying to make lemonade out of her lemon remark.

This kind of cxxp blows over with time.

It's also amazing how seriously people take entertainers... like they actually know something!

How stupid are we... after all, we elected one to be our president....
getting in late hereDougSloan
Apr 28, 2003 9:22 AM
I think the media has blown this one out of proportion, no doubt about it.

I think it was ripe for hysteria because I'd imagine the Dixie Chicks former audience was full of Bush supporters, patriots, Texans, etc., and many of them felt betrayed.

In all fairness, everyone does the hysteria thing. What about throwing paint on women wearing fur, things like that?

It is a little strange having children involved, except maybe if they were big Dixie Chicks fans; then at least it sort of makes sense.

Doug