The Dixie Chicks

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

And again. Totally blew the record out of the water.

And Nephy, yes a song. The people who vote on this stuff are the future, and they are pissed.

Yeah- people are pissed- but they are NOT falling over into the democrat side by any means at ALL- in fact polls indicate BOTH parties in the dog house.

So if you think this anger is going to add votes to the dem side I think you are in for a rude awakening-the people who are as angry as you were not conservative voters in the first place.

[scaeagles]

I find it hard to believe that the amount of records sold or the numbers of weeks a song has been on a chart is relevant at all politically.

I listen to a conservative talk radio station in Phoenix. It is the number one station in terms of ratings - not just talk, but any format - in the entire Phoenix metro area.

Yet we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat mayor.

[scaeagles]

How interesting. I look at the actions taken, but yet you have the ability to look at the hearts of those involved.

For example, you know that Clinton was a genuinely religious man. You know this how? Because he was filmed coming out of church after the Monica story broke?

You also seem to know that Reagan was completely uncomfortable with his Christian professions.

I do not call it hypocrisy for me, as a member of the Christian base you reference, to aspire to living a better life while understanding that I need to improve. Rather than citing that as hypocrisy, I would regard it as an understanding of my limited ability as a human to be good and do good. Is it a bad thing to wish to be better than I am? It is no "convenient understanding". It is a fact that I am not as good a person as I should be.

The more I type, the more insulting I find your whole premise to be.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How interesting. I look at the actions taken, but yet you have the ability to look at the hearts of those involved.

For example, you know that Clinton was a genuinely religious man. You know this how? Because he was filmed coming out of church after the Monica story broke?

You also seem to know that Reagan was completely uncomfortable with his Christian professions.

I do not call it hypocrisy for me, as a member of the Christian base you reference, to aspire to living a better life while understanding that I need to improve. Rather than citing that as hypocrisy, I would regard it as an understanding of my limited ability as a human to be good and do good. Is it a bad thing to wish to be better than I am? It is no "convenient understanding". It is a fact that I am not as good a person as I should be.

The more I type, the more insulting I find your whole premise to be.

Okay. "By all accounts," Clinton was a genuinely religious man, or, at least as genuinely religious as the next fellow. He certainly presented himself as such, which is really all that matters. I also didn't say Reagan was uncomfortable with his religion; I said he was not close to his children or emotionally available to them, a point I don't think anyone disputes. I also do not question the virtues of a humble approach to life, Christian or otherwise, and the recognition of human fallibility. You were the one who called Democratic celebrities hypocrites for their inability to fully walk the walk. You apparently do not disagree that the Republican party is happy to allign itself with celebrities who are drunk, abusive and who produce coarsening entertainments as long as those celebrities come from the world that appeals to the base (country music, action films, NASCAR, pro wrestling). I offered an explanation for why the base embraces these stunts while, out of the other side of its mouth, the base has no problem criticizing "Hollywood," when "Hollywood" is defined as the smug left that admits no self-doubt. If you have a better explanation, please share it.

[scaeagles]

To address Reagan and his children, I would suppose his adopted son Michael would disagree with you wholeheartedly. His other children? Probably not.

I am not suggesting that either republicans or democrats are without faults? Not in the least. There are plenty of drunk and abusive republicans. There are plenty of drunk and abusive democrats.

What I am referring to is, say, a Martin Sheen. He seems to think that because he can go sleep on a sewer grate for a night that he understands what it means to be homeless. Or a group including Barbara Streisand that goes on a "rolling hunger strike" where they skip a meal in protest to the war, and then pass it along to the next in line while just having a bigger dinner. Publicity stunts. I am sure republican celebrities do the same, but far more fall on the left side of the aisle politically, so it is more evident (at least to me).

There are so many who do good. Take Bono. Left side of political spectrum. Quietly goes about his business of providing real assistance to the needy in Africa, both in fund raising, soliticiting political assistance from elected leaders, and using his own money. I have no idea where John Travolta falls politically, but after Katrina he took his own money and own 737 and flew tons of supplies to people who needed it.

So, no, I do no criticize "Hollywood" as whole. But most of Hollywood is on the left side of the spectrum, so when there are stunts from the outspoken in Hollywood, my criticism falls on the left.

I do no expect anyone to "fully" walk the walk. What I don't like is the animal farm approach of someone telling someone else what they can do while doing he opposite themselves. Robert Redford - a huge environmentalist, except when is comes to his own property in Colorado, where clearing trees to build ski slopes is fine (my details on that are a bit sketchy, bu if I recall correctly i is something similar to that).

[BarTopDancer]

My point has been all along that the up and comming generation of voters is more understanding of the *real* world around them, aware of the catestropic fvck-ups of this administration and will make a difference. The day of the right-wing "rights-removing" administration are about to be a thing of the past.

We're about to see a swing in the leanings of this country; the "we're going to protect you by spying on you" and "we're going to let our religion dictate your rights" has worn it's welcome.

[Nephythys]

we'll see.

I doubt it- of course I disagree with your premise- but I don't think you are going to see any landslide towards the left by any means.

[Not Afraid]

I'm just keeping my fingers crosss for a landslide towards the middle.

[Alex]

Oh, I think that has already happened. I just think that to a great extent the middle has abandoned the political process because regardless of whether it is from the left or the right they hate listening to the screeching righteous indignation.

And I wouldn't read much into the success/failure of the Dixie Chicks. Perhaps all that has happened is that by repeatedly playing her fawning interview, Terry Gross has successfully marketed the Dixie Chicks to the NPR set. They, for the most part, are already on one side of the issue and wouldn't represent any kind of demographic shift.

Kind of like when Christopher Hitchens stopped being a liberal and became a conservative. He went from X number of readers to Y number of readers but that isn't reflective of anybody other than Christopher Hitchens changing his mind (Arianna Huffington did the same thing in the opposite direction).

[Kevy Baby]

A non-politcal comment on the Dixie Chicks.

I think one of the reasons they may not be getting much airplay of their latest album (if the one single I heard is any indication) is that it ain't country: it is pop music pure and simple. There isn't the slightest bit of country to it. It is less country than Shania Twain.

I'm not saying it is good or bad ('though it ain't my cup of tea); I'm just saying that it ISN'T country.