Friday, October 27, 2006
|
|
The Dixie Chicks Are Oppressed, Part II
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
4:19 PM
|
|
They're so oppressed that they're getting segments on primetime cable news shows! Man, it's rough being silenced.
The Chicks gave props to the Free Republic and corporate America for bringing them down. Ha, I bet the Freepers are lovin' that.
I got some flak from commenters the last time I posted about this-- liberals telling me to put my claws away and asking why I was so angry at the Chicks for voicing their opinions. I'm not angry. I don't think the Chicks are evil, or a scourge upon the country, and I continue to like their music. I do think they're wrong, and they compound being wrong by being silly and spoiled and obnoxious. All that obnoxious understandably spills over into my music-listening and taints it.
They are not victims because people chose not to buy their albums. Those people gave them a stage in the first place because they liked their music. The Dixie Chicks used that stage to insult something those people believed in. Those people had no obligation to prop up that stage with their money and time after they were insulted. Simple as that.
The victim act is really tiresome, especially when it comes from uber-rich international music stars. The victim act will continue with a vengeance from now until their "Shut Up and Sing" movie opens and flops, however. Now, the Chicks are claiming the ads for their movie were turned down by NBC because they're "disparaging to President Bush."
All right, am I the only one who doesn't think that passes the smell test? Networks are, of course, welcome to turn down advertising, but that seems an exceedingly odd and unlikely move by NBC. Keep in mind that it's the Chick movie's distribution company making the claim, though that's not made very clear in the ledes to most of the stories:
According to the Weinstein Co., NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it "cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush."
TWC also quoted a rep from the CW as saying it had concerns that "we do not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot."
The CW brass disputes the Chicks' version of events:
"That's not true," he said. "The spot was not declined. In fact, we were told they were not going to make a national spot buy on CW."
An email exchange obtained by Daily Variety between a media buyer for TWC and a CW standards and practices rep seems to back that up. The CW reps asks the media buyer if "you have a buy with us for the Dixie Chicks movie?" The ad rep for TWC replies, "We do not currently have a national buy with CW."
Oops. Then, there's all this oppression:
The Weinstein Co. isn't facing a total blockade against its ad.
Spot in question aired on the ABC-owned stations in New York and L.A. earlier this week during a broadcast of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" featuring the Dixie Chicks.
Ad has also aired on Peacock-owned stations in New York and L.A., as well as on CW affils in the same markets.
Yeah, the silencing of the Dixie Chicks is positively deafening.
And, lest you think I'm in the business of silencing the Chicks myself, here's a link to their subversive ad on Think Progress. The only thing outrageous about it is how utterly predictable it is. Could the Bush-hate be any more passe?
Update: In comments, someone makes the point that the Chicks received death threats. This is true, from all I know, but certainly represents the smallest, smallest, smallest portion of the backlash they received. Death threats are, of course, vile and unacceptable, but the Chicks' movie and current complaints are not about death threats alone. In fact, they're not even mostly about death threats. They're about people just not liking them enough.
|
|
You are SO right!
Why didn't I see this before?
Bush lied and chicks died, right?
lol |
|
Li Jianping
Guo Qizhen
Dixie Chicks
What do these three have in common ?
They all voiced opposition to the policies of their country and they were all imprisoned after a show trial... well... sort of, except for the Dixie Chicks, they weren't really ever sent to prison, put on trial, or even arrested.
And well... they have a new CD, tour, movie, web site going, and doing lots of interviews in print and tv, but it's like being imprisoned, isn't it ?
A lot people have said mean things about them... and that's just like being tortured... you know, in the newly expanded UN version of what torture means... saying things to people that hurt their feelings and cause stress and what not... it's all Bush's fault... he's a war criminal you know... just ask the tortured, imprisoned Dixie Chicks, they'll tell you.
Li Jianping and Guo Qizhen haven't commented on the persecution of the Dixie Chicks yet but you can sure bet they're glad they don't have it as tough as the oppressed Dixie Chicks... |
|
I don't care what the Dixie Chicks sing, say or sell. I can buy their records. or not. I can buy their concert tickets, or not. I can listen to them on the radio, or not.
A lot of people in Hollywood (and elsewhere) love to scream "censorship" everytime the American public reacts to one of their canned leftie opinions. Apparently, they think that "Freedom of Speech" means the freedom to speak WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. Uh - check the Constitution, ladies. There's no such guarantee there. Especially when the "consequences" are a function of the marketplace. The Constitution guarantees the freedom to speak (with certain VERY limited exceptions) without being subject to GOVERNMENTAL restrictions, or retribution. Who was all bent out of shape about the Dixie Chicks' remarks? MUSIC CONSUMERS!
The Chicks' Rolling Stone cover may have seemed dramatic, impactful, and ooh-just-a-little-racy, but all that righteous indignation, and those angry words written all over their bodies in eye pencil were just so much marketing.
It's freedom of speech to be able to voice your opinion. It's also freedom of speech when others voice theirs. And when those opinions include the freedom to buy or not to buy your products as a result, it's also called the free market. |
|
|
The problem with the Chicks and their ilk is that they think they are such big stars that no one could possibly dissagree with them, so instead of just plying their trade they jump into the political arena and let their true colors be seen. I don't care if they have an opinion but when they insult me, my country, my President and my State, not to mention giving aid and comfort to our enemies, I am sure not going to buy any more of their wares. Instead I am filling my 5 disc changer with Reba, Toby, etal. I guess they thought they were the piper, so they didn't need to pay the price. |
|
These three are twits....nothing more. They sing and make music...very nice...but that does not make then any more intelligent than I am. In fact, given the talent thing, they probably did not have the opportunity to study the way I did...
The shame is that THEY have the forum and I have no way to get MY message out....EXCEPT TO VOTE.
SO, people...VOTE and let them know what you think! |
|
|
I fully agree with Dan Starr's comments. I see no need to add or detract from those words. |
|
|
What amazes me is the twits and other dems statements about "Their Free Speech" being violated. Only if they are thrown in jail for stating thier beliefs by the goverment would their free speech be violated. They should not have slept in Civics Class. |
|
That's exactly what I was going to say. It doesn't matter if it's the Ditzie Twits or anybody else.
If one is a wh*re for fame and fortune and seeks pubilicity, one is putting ones's self "out there" for all manner of attack.
It's not as if we live in a moral Godly world anymore, thanks to skanks like the Twits and all asundry others who bash our country and her leaders, but refuse to do us all a big favor and go live in Iraq or North Korea or some other place which, obviously, in their Ditzie opinions, must be a MUCH better place to live. |
|
|
who gives shia about what bunch of spoiled little barbee lookalikes think about things that are over there heads ,if they dont like there countries president then let them go play for kim jon mentally ill and take up citizenship there where they will be accepted for there stance, how about that you liberal pukes. |
|
After following the Dixie Chicks drama, I'm jumping at the chance to provide some comments FROM the stage looking down. I've been performing professionally (piano/keyboard mostly) since 1970, and, although never made it huge likes these girls, I've been on quite a few stages and can make some comments from experience on the exchange between a musician and the musician's fan base.
Actually, it's pretty simple. You might sum it up as "Deliver what you promised." The Chicks made their fame with their brand of country. The exchange was their music for money and notoriety. All up front, all above board, each side knowing what they were getting and what they were paying for.
Then the Chicks betrayed the deal. They used the notoriety American country music fans had provided to deliver another little package, namely political messages disliked by those same fans. They queered the deal and the fans decided not to deal with them any further.
That's how the exchange works in the music marketplace, whether for me at a local level or for international music stars. You deliver what the fans are willing to buy and they buy it and with luck will continue to do so as long as you deliver what you promised in the way you promised.
Notice to Chicks: If you don't know how the music marketplace works, you are vastly stupid. And to top that you claiming that the other party (the fans) violated the terms of the deal is dishonest lying and cheating.
And this is saying nothing about the effect of making these claims. Notice to libs who can't figure this out. Dissing the President in time of war is encouraging the enemy. Or don't you believe we are at war? Or perhaps you would prefer we lose? If that occurs and the Islamofascists get their worldwide "Caliphate" it will YOU who will be the first to be shot or beheaded. They don't much like liberal, musicians, etc.
Back to the Chicks, I'd dislike them for their political idiocity alone, even if they had taken their lumps and taken responsibility for their actions. They COULD have said, "Yeah, we decided to go political and we are willing to lose some fans in the process." But no, they just whine and claim victim status.
Pathetic, really.
|
|
What makes them think they have the "right" to have anyone buy their records? I didn't buy them before, and I most assuredly don't now. Nor do I feel the slightest obligation to explain it to them.
They have thier right to free speech and I have mine to listen to what I wish. |
|
Go to the website Beyondmarriage.org. Be sure you DON'T sign up to be one of their supporters!
|
|
Did anyone see the shameless plug for the DC and their "movie" on ABC?
Then they went on to give political advice to the candidates and said that like Linus in You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown, a politician should not say "Macaca" if he wants to be elected and that when Linus was still elected by a slim margin he (read between the oh so obvious lines Bush) went on to break all his campaign promises.
Also in the another segment they said that President Bush said that unbelievers won't go to heaven and they twist that to mean that President Bush is condemning unbelievers. President Bush responds to a question about his statement when he was Governor and correctly says that Governors don't decide who goes to heaven, that God does and you can hear the laughter from the reporters there. |
|
|
My regrets for the double posting - for whatever reason my browser was refusing to confirm the post, leading me to reattempt it. |
|
Death threats seem to be a price one pays for celebrity these days. I wonder if ANY celebrity these days lacks such threats? The mere existance of such threats does not make them credible, even if investigated by authorities.
I wonder how many death threats President Bush receives. |
|
Death threats seem to be a price one pays for celebrity these days. I wonder if ANY celebrity these days lacks such threats? The mere existance of such threats does not make them credible, even if investigated by authorities.
I wonder how many death threats President Bush receives. |
|
They're ENTERTAINERS. Their job is to do things that the rest of us can't do and amuse us.
When my kids were young they were amused by a monkey that beat cymbals and the dolphins at Sea World. In a fundamental way the Dixie Chicks are no different. They get up on stage and play their instruments and sing their songs. We all go "ooo" and "ahh" just as we would if they walked a tight rope or swallowed flaming swords.
But I can't see any circumstances where I would pay any attention to the political opinions of the monkey, the dolphins, or any of the others. It's not their area of knowledge and expertise. It's like flying around pretending you're an authority on global warming when you're really just an out of work politician.
Everything I hear about the Dixie Chicks or some other entertainer using their public position to flog a political position, I wonder what makes their opinion any better than that of the dolphins?
The name of their movie (which they stole from Laura Ingram) says it well. Shut up and sing.
|
|
What a bizarro parallel universe the lefties reside in----they object to parental notification for their underage teenage daughters' partial birth abortions, but if Joe Jones in Anytown, U.S.A. stops buying Dixie Chicks records, these lefties demand a notarized, valid excuse authorized by not only a Federal Judge, but also a physician, and a sales clerk from a record store !
I know that the Dixie Chicks' acolytes are in a frenzy that Americans are exercising their freedom of choice not to buy their records, but then again, my Uncle Brian did not resort to kicking and screaming that nobody buys his CD of Irish jigs which he recorded at Grandma's 75th birthday party.
People don't need to justify to Democrat activists what their reason is for not buying an artist's record---that's why it is called 'freedom' of choice, as opposed to 'state compulsory purchasing of records by liberal musicians.'
Besides, the Dixie Chicks' cover of Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide" was just horrendous---they ruined all the original nuance and subtlety of the song.
If someone wants to hear a good cover of that song, go hunt down the Smashing Pumpkins' version.
|
|
I read your link and it said that the threat was made in 2003. It was taken seriously and evidently the perpetrators couldn't be identified or somesuch. That's too bad, because they deserved to be punished if they were guilty of threatenng.
Do you have any threats that are any more recent? If not, how long are the DCs going to be claiming "victimhood"? Knowing that they don't like the President means that I will never give them any of my money, because by doing so I would be aiding and abetting their unreasonable hatred of our President and helping them to have a platform for their hatred.
If you are a Republican and don't like RINOs, tell the Narional Republican Party that you are not going to give them your money because are supporting people who have NO business claiming that they are Republicans. That is the way to punish those who disagree with you. Take your money somewhere else and give it to people who agree with your principles. I will not buy a Ford Motor Company car because they are supporting the homosexual agenda by giving financial support to those homosexual groups that have the same-sex marriage agenda. It's too bad that Ford had as yet not realized that their sales are in the tank because a lot of people has taken their money and NOT spent it buying a new Ford Company vehicle. |
|
my problem with the Dixie Chicks comments were with where they said it and who they said it to.
This is a family disagreement. We don't need to talk to outsiders about it. |
|
How can it be about morality? What's moral or immoral about refusing to buy someone's records because you don't like what they say or think? My wife stopped buying Barry Manilow records after hearing him cuss out a stagehand at a concert. Is there really any difference here. Is she an 'authoritarian freak'? I don't watch any movie with Tom Cruise in it because I can't stand to see him. Should I care if you think my reasons are valid or not?
For whatever reason some people don't like the Dixie Chicks. Give me one good reason someone should give them money (i.e. buy their records).
Now death threats are something else altogther. Regardless of what side of the fence you're on threatening someone's life is wrong. However don't equate everyone that won't buy the Dixie Chicks records to someone that is willing to see them dead.
And do we need to visit the death threats and wishes made against President Bush?? No. Didn't think so.
Oh and btw, I don't like President Bush. I don't like his policies. I don't like his Democratic tax and spend methods. But I just wish him out of the White House not ill. |
|
Congragulations Snap Digger, in just 2 paragraphs you prove to everyone here that you have no concept of what the word morality even means.
Yes, it's immoral and wrong to send anyone a death threat for any reason, which is why 99.9% of the people who turned against the Dixie Chicks DIDN'T do so. Trying to blame an entire group of people for the actions of a perverted few is not going to win you any arguments.
As for radio stations not playing there records, it's pretty simple really. The Dixie Chicks alienated a large portion of their fan base, the same people who listen to those radio stations. If country music fans want to hear the Dixie Chicks all they have to do is start calling thier local station, as soon enough people tell them that they want the Chicks back on the air then they will be.
For the record, the Chicks main "sin" was not insulting the President anyway. It was acting like people had no right to be offended by it. Natalie Maines can say whatever she likes, wherever she likes, but sometimes words have consequences. Did she really not realize that the vast majority of country music fans would not agree with what she said? If she did not, then she is monumentally stupid.
My favorite part is how you assume that since a few people went way beyond the line and "threatened the lives" of the Dixie Chicks, that somehow that means everyone who doesn't hate George W. Bush condones that behavior. We don't. And you know what happens when you assume. |
|
According to this, they called in the police and the Texas Rangers for one of the specific threats (which said that they would be shot dead in Dallas at a particular show). I don't have the police records, though, and I don't know where to get 'em.
http://cbs5.com/minutes/sixtyminutes_story_132005755.html
Praisingfool: the thing is, can you blame them after the "mainstream" country music fans turned on them for their political beliefs? It's just bizarre. I don't understand people who think that way. I think Ronald Reagan was an underrated actor. I like many entertainers with right-wing views. I just don't understand the mentality of someone who'd be so devoted to a political leader that they'd hate entertainers who don't like The Leader. |
|
stink. They're immoral and wrong. But the fact of the matter remains that not only have the Dixie Chicks been insulting to their country, but they've been downright insulting to their fans!
Dixie Chick Marti Maguire said "I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do.”
Personally, that's a problem for me. |
|
Give us names of the people who threatened the Dixie Chicks. Anyone can SAY that they were threatened by anyone. In order to believe that there is ANY truth to that claim, we need some kind of corroborating evidence. Did they make a recording of the threatening phone calls? Did they report it to the police and the police have reports showing that they did?
If I say Snap Dagron threatened me, does that make it true? I'm sure that is anyone talked to you, they would be told by you that you have never ever threatened me and that would be true and would make ME a big fat LIAR, that would be right and I should be condemned for my lies and rightly so. |
|
Again, it's not about victimization or free speech, it's about morality. The Chicks aren't victims if somebody declines to buy their records or play their music. But if somebody boycotts or tries to punish them simply because they don't like The Leader, that person (while acting within his or her rights) is a moral monster. They didn't "insult something those people believed in." They just said they didn't like the President. What kind of authoritarian freak starts refusing to play somebody's records because they don't like the President?
Also, you conveniently leave out the whole death-threats thing. It's hardly spoiled or obnoxious to dislike some authoritarian Bush-lover threatening your life -- and it shows what the Bush movement has become that people would actually *threaten the life* of celebrities who don't like President Bush. |
|
|
|