Dixie Chicks etc...

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:45 am

What is your opinion on the whole Dixie chick thing.

A month ago or so I read an article in the Washington Post about the Dixie
Chicks and some protest against them for saying they were ashamed that bush came
from Texas. At the time I didn�t think much of it since I was quite ashamed that
bush was human (I am no longer ashamed as I have concluded that I am not human).

Then I read in the Guardian that they are still boycotted by some 1500 radio
stations.

More alarmingly "the American Red Cross turned down the group's offer of a $1m
donation from the tour proceeds because Bush is one of its patrons."

After reading on a few American sites I am surprised at the anger of some these
people has towards the 'Dixie Traitors'.

Actually while I'm at it what do you think about the anti-French attitude that
has become so accepted - talk show hosts and others are openly racists (albeit
thinly disguised by humor)?

What do you think of this trend in American society? Do you think something new?

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:15 am

Originally posted by Tom
What do you think of this trend in American society? Do you think something new?

I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from a population still smarting from the blow they’ve received on September 11, 2001. This was sort of a second Pearl Harbor for many Americans and it really galvanized the population. Americans tend to rally around their president in times of conflict and become very sensitive when they see people behaving in a manner that they view as unpatriotic. I think a lot of anti-war protesters saw the Iraq conflict as a new Vietnam and hoped to rally the people against it as they did in the 60’s. However, most Americans were already in the World War 2 mindset (i.e. “we’ve been the victim of a cowardly attack and now it’s time to get some payback”) so the whole anti-war effort blew up in their faces. How dare the Dixie Chicks bash the President while he’s leading a crusade to get back at those that attacked us? (Sad to say, but to many Americans the Middle East is one big backwater faction that universally supported the 9/11 attack) The title of traitor doesn’t wash off easily, and I think the Dixie Chicks are going to be paying for their comments for a very long time to come.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:14 am

It also doesn't help that the primary audience of the Dixie Chicks is the conservative country music crowd who is prone to blind obedience and supporting fellow rednecks (like Dubya). Other bands, such as Indigo Girls, have criticised the Dubya and the war, but have experienced no such backlash (partly because their audience is politically center-left and partly because they aren't played on mainstream radio very much).

Jotun · Post by **Jotun** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:20 pm

any who deem the Chics to be "unamerican" is the true unamerican. They were expressing their opinions (freedom of speech), however rude and wrongly it was at the time.

the audience has a right to be upset about their opinions, and maybe they could call them dumb and stupid for such comments, but they do not deserve to call them "unamerican" because thats what our country is founded on, the freedom of speech.

now what really gets on my nerve...well I didnt care much about this earlier fiasco, but there is a continuation to this fiasco. Another one of the country singers, dont know his name, who sings "Angry American", also posted on the net a picture of one of the Chics with Saddam. Now that was just more wrong than the Chics could ever do, and yet this other country singer is still played on radio, just cause of his brainwashed support.

And then at some Awards show, the Chics show up, and one of them has a T-shirt with the initials FUTC (I think TC is the initials of that country singer in the above paragraph), so everyone takes it the wrong way (yet I think TC deserves it), and the ban on the Chics continues, when it was about to be uplifted.

oh well, life continues.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:57 pm

Originally posted by Tom
What do you think of this trend in American society? Do you think something new?

No, it's not new - this kind of thing happened during WWII. I find it very disturbing - I think it'll get much worse.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:47 pm

I find their nasal whining annoying and could give a rat's butt about their being banned by CM stations. I don't listen to CM anyway

I still wouldn't listen to CM but would have a completely different opinion if they had stood by their original remarks and therein lies the heart of the matter IMO.

They made the "embarrassed Bush came from Texas" comment in the UK then tried to retract the comment when they started taking heat on it back in the US. Had they stood by their comments I would be entirely sympathetic to their cause (free speech and all whether I did or did not agree). Then there would be some outrage for Instituitional (Radio station) enforced censorship which curently seems to be entirely lacking as of now. As it is, they are simply trying to "fit in" and cater to a subset of public opinion rather than being original themselves. And have been exposed as the superficial morons they are. Know and understand your audience...

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:49 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It also doesn't help that the primary audience of the Dixie Chicks is the conservative country music crowd who is prone to blind obedience and supporting fellow rednecks (like Dubya). ......

Some rather harsh generalizations about country music fans here.

I for one began listening to Country music after 9/11 because I found solace in listing to the words of writers who so well expressed what I was already feeling. Other venues just didnt give me that at the time.

I think it is just as likely that other Country fans listen for the same reason......the music speaks to them, touching something they all feel in common...just as any music speaks to its audience.

This commonality is no different than the fans of metal, punk, or classical.

I hardly think I am part of a fanbase that is prone to blind obedience, nor do I consider myself a 'Redneck". Isnt it possible that these people actually agree with one another based on their own independant values. Would it be correct to say that most people on GB are liberal politically because they are following the lead?

I also listen to rock, metal, jazz, and my favorite is the blues. But I listen to country because it touches something basic and familiar. If that is violated, I no longer care to listen.

As far as the Dixie Chick go, I liken it to someone who disses their family to their friends. It's just not done. At least not in my book. It was in poor taste. They do have every right to express their opinions, and in the right venue, perhaps a political rally here at home, I would not have flinched, but in this case I think they were showing of to the europeans showing how 'cool' they were to recognize Bush as the ass he has been prtraid as. Hey, I couldn't stand Clinton, but I would not have stood on a stage and told several thousand people over seas that I was ashamed he is an American. It's just tacky.

Oh well....that's my two cents

nael · Post by **nael** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:27 pm

I listen to country music because I enjoy songs that have actual meaning and havre substance to their lyrics. there's some real crap out there these days on the country stations which sounds like 80's pop music, but it is hard to beat traditional country when it comes to soul. the dixie chick held a lot of that traditional feel in their music and as such drew a more traditional fan base- red blooded, hard working, beer drinking blue collared Americans.
I think people have mre of a problem with stupid people speakign out then someone expressing a thought out informed opinion.
Natalie Maines is not going to be nominated for a Nobel prize anytime soon, nor are any of the whiny actors who b!tch.

And the other big thing about what the dixie chicks said- they NEVER should have claimed to be speakign for Texans

as for france- I think the majority of America doesn't understand why france has such anti-american views. for the most part, Americans don't even think about france until we hear how we're being bashed over there. A very common phrase you'll hear when Americans are talking about the french- "they'd all be speaking German now if it wasn't for us". and if france hadn't been such babies about gettign the crap beat out of them in WWI, WWII may not have started. but france was set on makign Germany destitute...
I personally hold the common view here- France is just an ungrateful bitter hasbeen b!tch of a country.
remember, on our media and on our streets, we don't attack the laws, customs, or traditions of the people or country, we just react to being bashed by them. we despise that they hold that view, we don't attack them personally, why do they come after us??

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 7:03 pm

Originally posted by Tom
More alarmingly "the American Red Cross turned down the group's offer of a $1m
donation from the tour proceeds because Bush is one of its patrons."

Perhaps you should mail them and suggest they send the money to Medicines sans frontiers instead.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:57 pm

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Tom Hicks and Clear Channel in this context. To make a long story short, Tom Hicks and George W. Bush have been doing each other favors for years. For example, Hicks bought a baseball team from Bush for about twice what it was worth right before Bush became Governor of Texas. Bush then put Hicks in charge of a huge public investment fund that doesn't require any disclosures to the public about where the money is invested (probably in companies that are owned by friends of Hicks and Bush). Now Bush is the President of the United States (after receiving huge campaign contributions from people like Hicks and the aforementioned friends), and Hicks is Vice Chairman of Clear Channel. Clear Channel owns over 1200 radio stations across the U.S., and to put it mildly, they are quite supportive of Bush and his policies.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that Hicks ordered his radio stations to ban the Dixie Chicks' music. Fortunately for Bush, it doesn't have to work that way. What the radio stations did was to encourage their listeners to protest the Dixie Chicks and write letters to the station managers demanding that the Dixie Chicks be banned. That's pretty much what happened, and that's why the Dixie Chicks were banned on many stations. "Tell the people what they want, then give them what they want." It's really pretty beautiful when you think about it. Remember when some of those radio stations sponsored big rallies where people could watch big tractors and monster trucks crush CDs in the name of "freedom"? Who needs censorship when the public eats out of your hand like that? God, I love this country.

As for what the Dixie Chicks did, I have to admit that I don't have a clear opinion on the subject. On the one hand, I think it's ridiculous for entertainers who don't have any political material in their acts to use the stage to make a controversial political statement. It's not relevant, and it's not what people paid to see. I for one don't care what entertainers have to say about politics; I only listen to their music. It's also important to remember that the people who supported the Dixie Chicks--country and western fans, that is--tend to be a conservative, patriotic bunch (at least on the surface), and after putting the Dixie Chicks on a pedestal for "representing country western music", they had a right to expect some amount of compliance from the Dixie Chicks, and that trust was broken to some extent. But obviously, since the Dixie Chicks are selling as many CDs as they ever have, they evidently did not offend ALL of their fans. But does that make using the stage to make political statements appropriate? I don't think so. By the same token, I think it's just as silly for entertainers who never say anything about politics in their music to gush patriotically at their concerts and say they support the President. That's not what their music is about, and that's not what people paid to hear.

On the other hand, the Dixie Chicks cannot be faulted for thinking that, as celebrities, they "represent the country". That's because their fans certainly think they do, so it must be true. Hypothetically, if the Dixie Chicks had a really good reason for speaking out politically (despite the fact that the music that made them famous has nothing to do with politics), then I don't think I'd hold it against them. If the people want to be represented by celebrities, then give the people what they want and let celebrities represent them. I think that wanting to be represented by a celebrity is a bit foolish, but who can argue with the amount of money that celebrities make?

Part of me suspects that the Dixie Chicks were pandering to their audience in the U.K. Personally, while I wouldn't call that admirable, I don't think it's any worse than the pandering that's done by anyone anywhere else. For example, a lot of country western singers owe part of their success to the patriotic blather they spout on a regular basis because it appeals to their audience. Personally, I think that patriotic blather doesn't belong in music any more than criticism of the government belongs in music. All I want from musicians is music, not political tripe, whether it's pro-government or anti-government.

That brings me to my final point. (Did I just hear applause?)

Why do some people think it's acceptable for singers to support the government but unacceptable for singers to criticize the government? I think it comes down to political preferences. The "anti-free-speech" crowd doesn't limit their disapproval to singers who criticize the government; they don't want anyone to criticize the government, period. This puts them in conflict with people who support everyone's right to criticize the government. Some people like music that's explicitly anti-establishment (think of the 1960's), and they think it's important for singers to exercise free speech. That's why some people respect what the Dixie Chicks did. I suppose there are people who don't care either way, but I think the conflict between people who oppose criticism of the government and those who support criticism of the government is what this issue is all about.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:42 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
It's also important to remember that the people who supported the Dixie Chicks--country and western fans, that is--tend to be a conservative, patriotic bunch (at least on the surface), and after putting the Dixie Chicks on a pedestal for "representing country western music", they had a right to expect some amount of compliance from the Dixie Chicks, and that trust was broken to some extent.

That's like stating that country music consists only of conservative, patriotic music, which suggests it has fallen in a rut and is a far cry from its folk music origins, some of which was protest music.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:00 am

I have always been the controversial opinion poster on this forum, so i am gonna stick to that. The Dixie Chics are being targetted, because the american people feel weak and afraid. Hold on before you kill me. We have all heard how you guys won the second world war, kicked butt all over the world during the cold war. You survived compared to the USSR.

Sept 11th was not a pearl harbor. It was much more. America is not fortress USA as it has been said. It is not immune to violence, and honestly there are a great many out there who hate the living daylights out of the US. You guys just realised on Sept 11th, that the governments actions will have consequences for you at home.

Its not that they hate what you stand for or what your principles are. Rather it is how you apply them selectively and treat the world with utter dis-respect and distain. Like it was the front porch of the house you own.

Some use action, some use words. In the UN system there are very few who think of the people in the american govt as humans. Here in Europe switzerland esp, there was support after sept 11th and now there is nothing. I actually got insulted by a swiss on the train because me and a friend were discussing Afghanistan and how the US was totally wrong.

What support was there has eroded. Thus leaving americans on their own. Hollywood and american mentality protrays that and in many ways adds to the idea that the US or americans are on their own and will always be and thus are better, because we dont need anybodies help.

Now the problem is that the community itself is divided and dont know what to think. It is the american thing to back the President at this time when "the US is under attack". But when you have opinions that dissent they need to be silenced quickly.

Its happened in all the major civilizations. Usually it just lies dormant for a couple of decades and then as history has it the civilization falls.

Now one thing i want to point out. When i say americans or you, i dont directly mean you or the posters here. I am speaking generally of those americans who support bush and implement this ban on the chics. I dont not wish to flame or insult anybody.

If i have i apologise, but this is how i see things.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:53 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
That's like stating that country music consists only of conservative, patriotic music, which suggests it has fallen in a rut and is a far cry from its folk music origins, some of which was protest music.

Evidently, in the opinion of many country music fans, country music "icons" are not supposed to speak out against the President of the United States (unless he's Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or any other Democrat, but that's beside the point). That's why I would characterize those particular fans as conservative and patriotic (at least on the surface).

But you're right: country music has so many sources and influences, it's not wise to generalize about it. What I should have said is that country music stations in the United States tend to be conservative and patriotic (at least on the surface), and I suppose you could say the same thing about a large part of their audience. I don't hear much protest/folk music on the radio (but then, it's not like I'm trying to find any to listen to).

In any case, you won't find any music like that on the 1200 stations owned by Clear Channel.

There's a lot of pressure on musicians to conform if they want to get recording contracts. The episode with the Dixie Chicks made that quite clear. I don't see that as either a good thing or a bad thing. Big time stars and the people who promote them are in business to make money, and personally, I don't look to the entertainment industry for moral inspiration. Furthermore, I don't think it's even possible for them to take uncompromising political positions if they want to remain in the business.

But having said all that, I know from personal experience that the things that people enjoy in life are very special to them (such as their favorite music). To really enjoy something, you need to dedicate yourself to it and hold it close to your heart to some degree. That's quite an investment, and that's why fans have certain expectations of the artists they admire, and I would hate to think that it's entirely one-sided. If it's not one-sided, then the people who are put on pedestals by their fans do owe something to their fans. So I don't think it was wrong for some of the Dixie Chicks' fans to feel let down when the Dixie Chicks did not live up to their expectations. I don't put all the blame on the Dixie Chicks, though. I think it goes to show that just because the Dixie Chicks are country music stars, a lot of people expected them to be conservative and patriotic (through and through), whether that has any connection to reality or not.

I don't think that most of the Dixie Chicks' fans really know what they stand for. The fans like their music, and the music means something special to each of them individually, but do they really know the artists who created it? I don't think they need to in order to appreciate the music, and I don't think they do. They're familiar with a commercial product as it was packaged, marketed, and promoted, and any other content they impute to it comes from their own projections (which is essential to artistic appreciation, in my opinion). They might think they "know" the Dixie Chicks, but everything they "know" has been through a bunch of filters that create impressions that may or may not be accurate. Natalie's comment to the U.K. audience apparently came as a shock to many of her fans, which proves my point.

By the way, when I said that country music fans "tend to be" such-and-such (not to argue the point), there was no implication on my part that country music fans "can only be" such-and-such. There's a difference.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:13 am

Originally posted by CM
Sept 11th was not a pearl harbor. It was much more. America is not fortress USA as it has been said. It is not immune to violence...

On September 11, we were as defenseless as a Third World country. We didn't have a single bit of ammunition ready to fire at an attacker. Our fighter jets were carrying nothing they could use to shoot down enemy planes (or planes of our own that were turned against us). If Canada or Mexico had wanted to invade us, we couldn't have stopped them before they made it halfway across the country. Even Iraq had better defenses than that, and we were surprised by how easy it was to invade them. We've spent trillions of dollars on defense over the last few decades and we're supposed to be the most powerful nation on earth, but we were totally defenseless. Something is really wrong with this picture.

To make ourselves safe, we need to invade Iraq immediately. --Oh, wait, we already did that. We must be safe now.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:10 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
On September 11, we were as defenseless as a Third World country. We didn't have a single bit of ammunition ready to fire at an attacker. Our fighter jets were carrying nothing they could use to shoot down enemy planes (or planes of our own that were turned against us). If Canada or Mexico had wanted to invade us, we couldn't have stopped them before they made it halfway across the country. Even Iraq had better defenses than that, and we were surprised by how easy it was to invade them. We've spent trillions of dollars on defense over the last few decades and we're supposed to be the most powerful nation on earth, but we were totally defenseless. Something is really wrong with this picture.

The US did and still has contingency plans for handling foreign aircraft invading our space - however, the flights on Sep. 11 were domestic. It should be noted the US also had contingency plans for intercepting planes that might have been taken over by hostile forces - remember that before Sep. 11, terrorists taking over planes was NOT an unheard-of occurrance.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:47 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
The US did and still has contingency plans for handling foreign aircraft invading our space - however, the flights on Sep. 11 were domestic. It should be noted the US also had contingency plans for intercepting planes that might have been taken over by hostile forces - remember that before Sep. 11, terrorists taking over planes was NOT an unheard-of occurrance.

Well, sure, we all heard about terrorists taking over planes before, but we didn't have any reason to pay any attention to it, did we?

In any case, if the U.S. had contingency plans for dealing with enemy aircraft on 9/11, I guess we figured most of them would be coming from Iraq, because we were more concerned about guarding Iraqi airspace than anything else at the time (and still are, for that matter). We only had 14 planes guarding the entire U.S. mainland, including 4 that were guarding the East Coast. I remember reading several news articles about it a year or so ago, but this is the only link I could find. Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of the North East Defense Sector, ordered unarmed planes into the air on 9/11 because we didn't have time to arm them. Apparently, the rest of our contingency plans involved crashing unarmed fighter jets into enemy aircraft to knock them out of the sky, since that's all that was available that day.

But seriously, I think the problem was that we relied too heavily on early warning systems against remote threats and took domestic security for granted. We failed to heed intelligence reports that indicated we might be attacked with our own aircraft here at home. Terrorists weren't considered a big threat prior to 9/11 despite several previous attacks, but the attacks on 9/11 made us change our basic assumptions, and that's when we realized that we needed to invade Iraq to keep their weapons off of U.S. soil. As a result, our borders, ports, airports, skyscrapers, national monuments, energy plants, water supplies, etc. are so much safer now.

Back to the original topic (the Dixie Chicks), there are two things that I would like to add to my previous comments. First of all, even though I don't think it's appropriate for entertainers to make political statements while they're on stage (unless political statements are a regular part of their act), I do think it's fair, appropriate, and "American" for everyone, including entertainers, to voice their opinions about our government in the right place at the right time. For example, if Natalie wanted to tell us what she thought of President Bush during a TV or magazine interview, where the whole purpose is to find out more about her and what she has done in life and what she thinks, then there's no reason on Earth to slam her for speaking her mind, not even if you disagree with her opinions. So please don't think that I was saying that entertainers should never talk about politics even when they're not on stage. I probably won't listen to them, but they can talk all they want.

The second point I would like to add is that if an individual reacted negatively to the Dixie Chicks and refused to listen to their music ever again, I don't object to that. I support that individual's "right" to stop buying the Dixie Chicks' CDs for any reason whatsoever. Individuals are entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I made it clear before, but what disturbs is that letting people think for themselves isn't good enough for the people at Clear Channel and other media outlets. Instead of letting people make private decisions about whether they would continue to support the Dixie Chicks or rail against the Dixie Chicks, a bunch of self-appointed opinion-makers decided to fan the flames and organize rallies and essentially tell their audience what to think. "We all need to support our President and stop listening to the Dixie Chicks." If you play on people's raw emotions, you can influence the way they think. Now, if you're honest about what you're "selling" or if you just want to convince other people to share your ideas, that's fine. But when people hide their real motives and try to promote a hidden political agenda by playing on people's emotions to produce a desired outcome, that's different. It's manipulative, and it's just one step away from mind control. Who needs censorship if you can convince people to stop listening to an artist voluntarily? If the goal is to turn people into mindless zombies, or if the goal is to stifle other voices by manipulating the public and convincing them the other side is always wrong (or "unpatriotic"), then it's not an honest form of debate, and it's a threat to free speech.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:10 am

Running faster than a Frenchman from a pop-gun ...

Originally posted by Tom
...Actually while I'm at it what do you think about the anti-French attitude that
has become so accepted - talk show hosts and others are openly racists (albeit
thinly disguised by humor)?

What do you think of this trend in American society? Do you think something new?

Being German, I find the racist attitude of our anti-French talk-show hosts absolutely hilarious.

Peace.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:28 am

Originally posted by Tom
What is your opinion on the whole Dixie chick thing.

A month ago or so I read an article in the Washington Post about the Dixie
Chicks and some protest against them for saying they were ashamed that bush came
from Texas. At the time I didn�t think much of it since I was quite ashamed that
bush was human (I am no longer ashamed as I have concluded that I am not human).

Then I read in the Guardian that they are still boycotted by some 1500 radio
stations.

More alarmingly "the American Red Cross turned down the group's offer of a $1m
donation from the tour proceeds because Bush is one of its patrons."

After reading on a few American sites I am surprised at the anger of some these
people has towards the 'Dixie Traitors'.

Actually while I'm at it what do you think about the anti-French attitude that
has become so accepted - talk show hosts and others are openly racists (albeit
thinly disguised by humor)?

What do you think of this trend in American society? Do you think something new?

I think the whole Dixie Chick thing pretty lame as a subject of debate, really. They said some stuff, and they are reaping the consequences. VonDondu indicates (and I have no reason to doubt her, though I have not kept track of this affair myself) that some stations encouraged their fans to protest what the Chicks did. Well, it is a (mostly) free and (somewhat) capitalistic country, and the stations responded to a market force. What's the big deal?

The Red Cross? Same thing. They can take $1 million bucks from the Chicks now, but they risk making Mr. President mad and losing his contributions (which could be considerably more, and more regular). It is simply a financial decision, as far as I can see. If the Chicks really want the money to go to the Red Cross, I am sure they can still get it to the organization anonymously, in a plain brown paper bag or something.

Racist show hosts? Puh-leaze.

I don't even own a TV, so I have no idea who is saying what about whom, but I do know that late night shows always take on a current subject, and turn it to humor. The French are simply the subject du jour (haha!), and I am sure that they will be forgotten soon enough. So, in so far as this is standard operating procedure for late night comedians, I see no new "trend" in it at all. And if you are trying to imply that late night TV dicates the course of the American psyche, well, I guess I would simply have to disagree.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:35 am

Originally posted by nael
as for france- I think the majority of America doesn't understand why france has such anti-american views. for the most part, Americans don't even think about france until we hear how we're being bashed over there.
Well someone must have thought of France when french-fries were re-named to freedom fries. And I believe that was a responce not to American-bashing in France, but to the fact that France did not support the US foreign policy.

A very common phrase you'll hear when Americans are talking about the french- "they'd all be speaking German now if it wasn't for us".
And there goes the inevetable counter argument which has been said so many times it gives me a headache - if it wasn't for France Americans would be speaking... British English

.

and if france hadn't been such babies about gettign the crap beat out of them in WWI, WWII may not have started. but france was set on makign Germany destitute...
And if America had joined the league of nations and/or not adopted an isolationist policy after WWI, WWII would not have happened either. I think both America and France had reasons for acting the way they did and I wouldn't put the blame on either. If there had been actual fighting on American soil maybe the US would have reacted differently.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:47 am

Re: Re: Dixie Chicks etc...

Originally posted by Lazarus
I think the whole Dixie Chick thing pretty lame as a subject of debate, really. They said some stuff, and they are reaping the consequences. VonDondu indicates (and I have no reason to doubt her, though I have not kept track of this affair myself) that some stations encouraged their fans to protest what the Chicks did. Well, it is a (mostly) free and (somewhat) capitalistic country, and the stations responded to a market force. What's the big deal?

I edited my message at the top of this page (I wanted to get back on topic) and didn't finish it before you posted your message, but I addressed the question you just asked. If the stations merely reacted to market forces, there wouldn't be any big deal. But if they manipulated public opinion and therefore manipulated the market, that violates the spirit of a "free, capitalist country". If people decided of their own accord that they wanted to protest what the Dixie Chicks said, that's fine. But if media figures tried to fan the flames and influence public opinion to advance their own (hidden) political agenda, then I think it's part of a broader dirty tricks campaign to corrupt the soul of America, and I think that's a problem.