My Dixie Chicks Mindless Rant

[Axenos]

Mindless does not seem to be a completely inaccurate way to way to describe "personal feelings," although it might be a dickish way to describe it. You believe that is disrespectful to speak ill of your country overseas not because of any well thought out rationale, but just because you don't like it in your gut. That's not exactly mindful, now is it?

I really mean it... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Did you read anything posted here except that one line? Anything at all?

Most normal people would have just thrown up their hands and quit by now, but I'll stick this out till the end.

Did you read the damn thread?

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't see what I missed. You are of the opinion that you should not "air dirty laundry on your neighbors porch," and that "people should show respect for their country and their countrymen" and "you simply do not disrespect your home." You don't say that this is the objective truth, but just your opinion. This opinion, as far as I can tell, does not derive from any elaborate ethical system, therefore it is mindless.

Of course, it is probably true that absolutely everyone has mindless opinions. I suppose it is a tragic part of being human.

 

[Axenos]

Of course, it is probably true that absolutely everyone has mindless opinions. I suppose it is a tragic part of being human.

That I cannot argue with.

My opinion does have an elaborate ethical system however... mine.

You can call my opinion mindless if that what floats your boat. I disagree.

But hey, that's what it's all about, right?

 

[RandFan]

I don't see what I missed. You are of the opinion that you should not "air dirty laundry on your neighbors porch," and that "people should show respect for their country and their countrymen" and "you simply do not disrespect your home." You don't say that this is the objective truth, but just your opinion. This opinion, as far as I can tell, does not derive from any elaborate ethical system, therefore it is mindless.

"Elaborate"? I don't understand. For the record I was raised with the same sensibilities. Good manners dictated that you not disrespect your mom, family, best friend, friends, school, town, county, state, nation, etc. in that order. It is a cultural thing associated with tribalism. We protect our own. There are many examples in popular culture including the song by the Beach Boys Be True To Your School. It is also part of the Military tradition (Semper Fi), etc. I'm not sure how mindless it is. I suppose that by this definition most if not all manners are mindless and perhaps they are.

 

[Axenos]

Interesting observation, RandFan. Well said.

 

[fuelair]

I have to say I appreciate these posts and I will give them respectful thought.

Danish, here is the story as told by my point of view. What this band did was to go on tour in the UK and say something they might not have wanted to in the end. This was right at the heat of the US lead invasion and the public was emotionally charged after 911 and going in to take out Saddam.

The band is from Texas and they consist of three (I confess) very talented women who were until then very admired by the American public.

Now, I have heard that they were influenced by the fact that they were emersed in the UK culture of tabloids where people attack the royality and government in a cruel way. Also, it is known that these women like to say things off the top of their head in a concert.

Maybe they were sensitive about being from the south and maybe they were sensitive about not portraying themselves and right-wingers (as Texans seem to be labeled as). They said something to the effect "we want you all to know that we are ashamed that President Bush is from Texas"

ok, so, why do they want them all to know.

To be honest I think they might have had any idea what impact this would have to other people's feelings. When your son is going thousand of miles away to possibly die, it hurts when your favorate band decides to crush his morale.

Right after 911, Bush's support was at 90 percent. Some people were still at that fever pitch. It is too stunning that some americans were not and they were proud to announce it to a foreign audience.

Here is a new idea (if reversing yourself is allowed here). Maybe they didn’t really know, care or think of politics at the time. As I said, they are known to shout out anything the audience wants to hear and the UK is known for their tabloids that bash politicians. I think it is likely they just wanted to fit in.

I think this in light of the fact that they made an apology to the president.

And then, after Katrina, they retracted that apology.

So maybe there is a new reason to dislike them. Maybe they are just very unethical.

Regardless of whatever opinion I may hold about the Dixie Chicks, I believe from my imperfect memory of the reports of the events that most Brits at that point were heavily annoyed at Blair for going along with Bush (I believe "lap-dog was a very common phrase bandied about) and the DC were responding (I assume truthfully) to their fan base at the concert by trying to distance themselves from Bush and lapdogism. Since Bush has used that tactic on occasion I don't believe that holding them to a different standard is fair. I am also curious about the stretch to make this remotely treasonable unless you are working from the theory that simply condemning Bush without actively saying you support Al Quaida/Osama is sufficient. If that is true, myself and at least half the US is guilty of treason. But I want Al Q, Hammass, Hezbulsht et.al. destroyed utterly and with as much pain and terror as possible. (OOps, no comfort for the little trds there.)

 

[RandFan]

Regardless of whatever opinion I may hold about the Dixie Chicks, I believe from my imperfect memory of the reports of the events that most Brits at that point were heavily annoyed at Blair for going along with Bush (I believe "lap-dog was a very common phrase bandied about) and the DC were responding (I assume truthfully) to their fan base at the concert by trying to distance themselves from Bush and lapdogism. Since Bush has used that tactic on occasion I don't believe that holding them to a different standard is fair.

All well and good but Natalie could have easily said that she disagreed with Bush's policies or any number of other things that wouldn't have been offensive to their fans. Remember that many of their fans were Bush supporters. Saying that you are ashamed of Bush is to a large degree saying you are ashamed of many of your fans.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But you are missing the simularities too. For instance, there was a lot of talk at that time that Germany could be contained and taking Hilter out of power was not necessary. We bought that until it was almost too late. The old adage comes to mind: Learn from history or repeat history.

Right, excpet the history we should have learned from is Viet Nam, not WW II. Sadly we didn't learn that lesson, despite being a more recent event in our collective memory.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe I'll take your idiotic rant seriously when you prove that Saddam was an ally of bin Laden and the Taliban and assisted in the 9/11 operation. Until then I have better things to do.

Stephen Hayes, the staff writer for the Weekly Standard and commentator on CNN and Fox News, reports in his book, The Connection, mentions the following part of a Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003:

According to sensitive CIA reporting from a "regular and reliable source," al-Qaida's number two operative, Zawahiri, visited Baghdad and met with Iraqi Vice President on 3 Feb 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and Bin Laden and establish camps in al-Falluja, an-Nasiriya, and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul-Aziz.​

According to sensitive CIA reporting, the Saudi Arabian Natinoal Guard went on a kindgom-wide heightened state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al-Qaida in attacking US and UK interest in Saudi Arabia.​

And those are just the things we know of. Logically there must be more we don't know of.

I am sure people who are stuck in hate-Bush mode will think of some way to just brush this asside and explain it one way or another. But doing this reminds me of people like Bart Sibrel who thinks the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax. It does not matter how much information or details you present him as evidence that we did walk on the moon. Every piece of every fact becomes part of the wider conspiracy or there is some special explaination or method to brush off any informaiton. The same holds true here. There are books and there are news reports and magazine articles and congressional reports and senator speeches all talking about the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. But none are good enough if you refuse to believe it because we are, I think, brainwashed by our press.

The press does not lie. The government lies. Right?

 

[Bill Thompson]

But you are missing the simularities too. For instance, there was a lot of talk at that time that Germany could be contained and taking Hilter out of power was not necessary. We bought that until it was almost too late. The old adage comes to mind: Learn from history or repeat history.

Right, excpet the history we should have learned from is Viet Nam, not WW II. Sadly we didn't learn that lesson, despite being a more recent event in our collective memory.
Right, excpet the history we should have learned from is Viet Nam, not WW II. Sadly we didn't learn that lesson, despite being a more recent event in our collective memory.

I don't think anyone really thinks Vietnam compares to Iraq. We lost more soldiers in Vietnam in one battle than in a year in Iraq. There is not the same serious blow to our nation. Of course, our lovely press is trying to make it seem that way.

 

[wastepanel]

Stephen Hayes, the staff writer for the Weekly Standard and commentator on CNN and Fox News, reports in his book, The Connection, mentions the following part of a Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003:

According to sensitive CIA reporting from a "regular and reliable source," al-Qaida's number two operative, Zawahiri, visited Baghdad and met with Iraqi Vice President on 3 Feb 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and Bin Laden and establish camps in al-Falluja, an-Nasiriya, and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul-Aziz.​

According to sensitive CIA reporting, the Saudi Arabian Natinoal Guard went on a kindgom-wide heightened state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al-Qaida in attacking US and UK interest in Saudi Arabia.​

And those are just the things we know of. Logically there must be more we don't know of.

I am sure people who are stuck in hate-Bush mode will think of some way to just brush this asside and explain it one way or another. But doing this reminds me of people like Bart Sibrel who thinks the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax. It does not matter how much information or details you present him as evidence that we did walk on the moon. Every piece of every fact becomes part of the wider conspiracy or there is some special explaination or method to brush off any informaiton. The same holds true here. There are books and there are news reports and magazine articles and congressional reports and senator speeches all talking about the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. But none are good enough if you refuse to believe it because we are, I think, brainwashed by our press.

The press does not lie. The government lies. Right?

Oh my God Bill Thompson! I believe you now! It's just...well...we have traitors amond us! Look!

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=rumsfield,+saddam,+shaking+hands

Is the the DOD chair shaking hands with Saddam?

 

[Ladewig]

here. There are...senator speeches all talking about the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. But none are good enough if you refuse to believe it because we are, I think, brainwashed by our press.

In terms of evaluating evidence, I place senatorial speeches on the same level as my neighbor's hairdresser's cousin said it was true.

As for the link, I am curious as to why in January of 2003, President Bush said there was no link between Saddam and the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Ladewig]

If I may quote Paul Harvey on a skeptic forum, "and now, for the rest of the story."

http://www.shutupandsingmovie.com/

http://www.myspace.com/shutupandsing

A documentary about the reaction to those 12 infamous words.

 

[Crossbow]

Stephen Hayes, the staff writer for the Weekly Standard and commentator on CNN and Fox News, reports in his book, The Connection, mentions the following part of a Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003:

According to sensitive CIA reporting from a "regular and reliable source," al-Qaida's number two operative, Zawahiri, visited Baghdad and met with Iraqi Vice President on 3 Feb 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and Bin Laden and establish camps in al-Falluja, an-Nasiriya, and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul-Aziz.​

According to sensitive CIA reporting, the Saudi Arabian Natinoal Guard went on a kindgom-wide heightened state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al-Qaida in attacking US and UK interest in Saudi Arabia.​

And those are just the things we know of. Logically there must be more we don't know of.

I am sure people who are stuck in hate-Bush mode will think of some way to just brush this asside and explain it one way or another. But doing this reminds me of people like Bart Sibrel who thinks the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax. It does not matter how much information or details you present him as evidence that we did walk on the moon. Every piece of every fact becomes part of the wider conspiracy or there is some special explaination or method to brush off any informaiton. The same holds true here. There are books and there are news reports and magazine articles and congressional reports and senator speeches all talking about the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. But none are good enough if you refuse to believe it because we are, I think, brainwashed by our press.

The press does not lie. The government lies. Right?

Bill Thompson:

Have you heard of the Congressional 911 Report?

On page 83 it speaks of the meeting you mention, then goes on to say:

... But to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Please make an effort once in a while to get your facts straight.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

One of the things that bugged the hell out of me in the public discussion leading up to the Iraq War was the constant conflation of Saddam with 9-11, when the actual reason for taking him out was pre-emption, to pre-empt his supporting a terror group in the future to conduct an attack with WMD. The whole concept was "an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure" but you heard the shills all over the radio, and on TV, trying to tie 9-11 to Saddam. I recall a news show in early 2003, on Fox NEws, that had that country guy singing "Have You Forgotten" during a segment about the looming Iraq War. It was a transparent twisting of symbols, blatant propaganda.

There was a one month ban on Faux News in my house, that I enforced. (So, the wife kids watched more Disney Channel, or CNN, or AMC. *srug*) I tended to wait until late at night to get CBC news on Cspan. I find CNN hard to stomach.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

Freedom of speech is not free. It is a privilege, not a right. It was earned.

Damn right! Anyone who does not agree with me is just so undeserving of being allowed speech at all.

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Damn right. Only reason why those pesky insurgents are killing each other and USA troops in Iraq is because they lost.
Whoops.
As Bush said, they know they're losing. That's why they're fighting.
damn.
And they only keep that up because of their Dixie Chicks albums.

Treason by definition includes providing comfort an encouragement to an enemy during war.

Let's shoot the Dixie Chicks now for treason. Or hang them. THAT will win the war in Iraq.

 

[Lurker]

]isn't it just as ethical to go to war with Iraq as it was ethical to go to war with Germany eventhough Japan had attacked the United Staes in the 1940's?

Um, clue time. The US did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on us.

Lurker

 

[Beerina]

I need to learn more about the Bill of Privileges one of these days.

Yes, me too. I mean, whether the government "grants" us privliges or whether the people have them, inalienably, and grant the government limited powers, and none other, is just a meaningless philosophical difference.

 

[Ladewig]

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Isn't the idea that al-Queda and other violent muslims would pay any attention at all to the opinions of western women too ridiculous to even consider?

 

[Segnosaur]

Dixie Chicks made theirs' on foreign soil to a crowd friendly to such statements. Than on return made a somewhat apology on the statement. At that point I wrote the chicks off as just working the different audiences but in the following months they did stand together and work through the strong backlash.

When ready to return to the scene they stood solidly behind their right to make the statement and took the risk in losing the country audience (which they mostly did). That is where I gained respect for them; they looked their old fan base in the eyes and stood their ground.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming their actions in standing behind their statements were done for moralistic or idealistic purposes. Given the fact that they tried to appologize earlier puts that into doubt.

What I think happened: They made the initial statement, and many of their fans complained. They tried to apologize, but their apology fell on deaf ears. When they made their return, they probably figured that they'd never get their old fans back regardless of how much they grovelled, so the next best thing would be to try to get new fans by tapping into a more 'liberal' demographic. Their actions to 'stand their ground' are nothing more than attempts to manipulate their demographics - Instead of "Dixie Chicks, Redneck entertainers", they become "Dixie Chicks, progressive folk group". Whatever will continue to bring in more money.

By the way, this isn't the first time the Dixie Chicks have made dumb decisions that could have harmed their career.... A few years ago (before the whole "Ashamed of Bush" statement, they posed naked for PETA's "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign. However, they realized that being associated with PETA may alienate their fan base (many of whom are farmers involved in livestock production, something PETA opposes) so the pictures were scrapped. Not exactly the sign of a music group willing to stand up for what they believe in...

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/dixie-chicks.html
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12025176