Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

After you strike a blow for freedom of speech, listen to some damn fine music. It's good shit. I think I'll listen too some now! Ahhhh! "Long Time Gone" -- so sweet. I need to buy more.

Never heard of Dixie Chicks but I will buy!

Thanks for the heads up, David. I just bought it. I've been meaning to ever since I heard them favorably reviewed. Now I have a reason....

Whow there, pardner! If the Dixie Chicks want to bad-mouth Bush while touring Europe, they certainly have that right. They should also realize that words, as do actions, have consequences. They are entitled to speak their minds, but that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass. You wouldn't be running out to buy a CD by a pro-Bush artist if his or her comments caused stations to pull the artist from their playlists, would you? I don't think you are defending absolute "free speech", but only defending those whose utterances you agree with. Am I correct?

Of course. I'm against muzzling pro-Bush speakers, but I wouldn't go out and buy their CD. With the DC's, I'm not only hoping to support their right to speak their mind without suffering economic consequences, but also supporting the content of what they said. I guess I just don't feel bad about that.

(Yes, I am a card-carryin', donatin' member of the ACLU.)

For what it's worth, I don't believe "free speech", as guaranteed by the Constitution or even as interpreted by the most liberal of the Warren or Burger Courts, necessarily means being able to express one's opinion "without suffering economic consequences". If you want to go out and buy (and encourage others to buy) the Dixie Chicks' latest offering in response to what was said, that's fine. If I choose not to buy their CD (and discourage others as well) because of what was said, that's fine, too. And, if the Station Manager at the local Country station chooses to either heavily plug their music (highly unlikely, but it *could* happen) or pull their CD(s) from the rotation, that's his/her right to do so, too.

Like I said in my first response, speech, like actions, has consequences.

Yes, it's our right to buy or not buy, play or not play, the Dixie Chicks because we do or don't like their political views. That's not the question. The question is whether punishing someone economically for her political views is a good thing to do. IMO, a world in which we punish one another economically for expressing our political beliefs is one in which the right to free speech becomes a right in name only.

So, sure "speech has consequences," but that doesn't mean all and every consequence is fair, just or makes the world a better place.

Your view leads to saying blacklists are just fine, doesn't it? By "blacklisting" I mean a loosely organized agreement to drive someone out of a line of work because of political views that have nothing to do with that line of work. I think that's despicable behavior and erodes everyone's ability to speak her mind. Blacklisting may be our right (I don't know if it is), but not everything we have a right to do is something we ought to do. Would you favor blacklisting actors whose political views are unpopular?

It just seems funny to me that musicians, such a Toby Keith can release "Courtesy Of The Red White and Blue" which makes reference to "Putting a boot up their ass." And as the news is stating the death tole of the Iragi people: Woman, the elderly, children and babies are getting that boot up their ass, as Toby Keith so proudly sings. THAT is something to be up in arms about! Not whether the Dixie Chicks like Bush or support this war. They support life and I support them!

I hear a lot of you people talking about freedom of speech, but I didn't see any of you take a stand for Trent Lott. What about HIS freedom?

No, David, my view does not lead to saying that blacklisting is fine, although my definition of "blacklisting" is much narrower than yours, apparently. I would not have supported the blacklisting done in the '50s, but that type of blacklisting was done at the source of the product (by Hollywood studios and producers), not by consumers or distributors (movie houses o theaters).

Now, if the Dixie Chicks get dropped by their label strictly due to their political views, and no other label is willing to sign them for the very same reason, I'd call that blacklisting and would not support it.

Gotta run. I have another thought or two to add but will need to post it separately later on.

Letter from radio station website in Lubbock, home of the Dixie Chick that spewed forth about our president:

Name: LT Layne McDowell
Date: 03/15/03
Time: 01:54:49 PM

Comment

An open letter to the Dixie Chicks:

Earlier this week, while performing in London, you stated that you were ashamed that our President is from your home state. I wonder if you realized how many Americans would be listening. This American was listening. This Texan is ashamed that you come from my state. I serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. Specifically, I fly F-14 Tomcats off carriers around the world, executing the missions that preserve the very freedom you claim to exercise. I have proudly fought for my country in the skies over Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan without regret. Though I may disagree wholeheartedly with your comments, I will defend to the death your right to say them, in America. But for you to travel to a foreign land and publicly criticize our Commander in Chief is cowardice behavior. Would you have so willingly made those comments while performing for a patriotic, flag-waving crowd of Texans in Lubbock. I would imagine not. How dare you pocket profits off songs about soldiers, their deaths and patriotism while criticizing their Commander in Chief abroad, even while they prepare to give their lives to ensure your own freedom of speech. Please ask yourself, what have you done to deserve that sacrifice? Do not try to justify your comments by claiming that you made them only because you care about innocent lives.

Never once in our history have we committed troops to war for the purpose of taking innocent lives. We do it to protect innocent lives, even yours. If the world leaders of the late 1930's had the vision and courage of our present Commander in Chief, perhaps the evil men who caused the death of millions in WWII would have never had the opportunity to harm a soul. The potential loss of millions of lives in the future at the hands of today's evil men necessitate action. In a separate correspondence, I am returning to you each and every Dixie Chicks CD and cassette that I have ever purchased.

Never again will I allow my funds to support your behavior. All you have done is to add your name to a growing list of American "Celebrities" who have failed to realize that they have obtained their successes on the
backs of the American blue-collar workers such as our servicemen and women.

To Natalie Maines: This Texan, this American will continue to risk his life to guarantee your freedoms.

Vision and courage???? Oh pulleeeze! More like delusions and ego. Did you hear how many times Bush said "I will defend..."? Well, where was this vaunted courage when he would have been eligible for service in Vietnam? How many times does it need to be said that EVERY ONE of the Bush gang who was pushing for war WEASELED OUT of any meaningful service during Vietnam. (Of course I exclude Powell, who pushed against war as long as he could.) Bush and company are all about asking OTHERS to make sacrifices they would never dream of making themselves. That theme runs through their entire program, foreign and domestic.

Having worked in radio for a while I feel I have to say this.
Stations don't have to play the Chicks if they don't want to. As a matter of fact, those that do play their music get hate mail/emails/calls. Don't mess with the country listeners.
The radio stations are just covering their asses. It's not to "economically punish" them for their views.
Maines should have thought twice about what she said. It will probably cost them their careers in the end. Was it worth it?

I too have worked a little radio, including stints at a couple of NPR affiliates and a country station in the Midwest (talk about extremes!). One thing the NPR affiliates and the Midwestern country station had in common: they broadcast what the listeners wanted to hear (especially those listeners who were either major local funders (in the case of the NPR affiliates) or major advertisers (in the case of the Midwestern country station), and wouldn't hesitate to pull programming if they received listener complaints (again, especially if the complaints came from major local funders or advertisers, respectively). In the case of the NPR affiliates, this also applied to influential local community leaders or activists, whether they be donors or not (although they often were donors, too). They also had to toe the line with the University administration.

Absolute "free speech" as you seem to define it, David, does not exist and never will exist. Filters or gatekeepers exist everywhere at all levels. Even those who claim to espouse "free speech" as you define it are themselves gatekeepers and, quite often, willingly or unwittingly acting as censors. The Internet is the closest we have come to a means of "free speech" as you define it, and even it has built-in filters (financial, technological, etc.) that limit whose voices can be heard.

I think that the music of the Dixie Chicks is beautiful. They have often brought tears to my eyes. I've several of their CDs here at the house that I've listened to often.

As a former member of the US Army Special Forces, I will never listen to them or buy their product as long as Natalie is part of the group. That is my right just as it was her right to speak.

For what it is worth, I think that the First Ammendment covers *political* speech and has no jurisdiction over any other speech, especially pornography.

what good is natalie maines' right to free speech if she can't exercise it? why should she have to watch what she says if her rights to say what she wants are supposedly guaranteed under the constitution? why should anyone in america? i thought that was the point of free speech. other than "fire!" in a crowded theatre, you can say what you like and people respect your right even if they don't respect your views. how much respect for her rights do we have as a society if we condemn her for speaking her mind and drive her out of the entertainment business?

this war has a lot of funny things going with respect to it. congress is the only body that declare war, but it hasn't. congress has had to vote on tax cuts and other expenditures without knowing how much the president wants to spend on the war. the president himself rarely gives press conferences where the people can ask him direct questions. speeches and public appearances are all we see. i don't want ari fleischer to justify this war to me and answer some real questions, i want president bush to do it! many people, including natalie maines it would seem, don't feel convinced that american blood needs to be spilled in the iraqi deserts right now for america to be safe. she wants to say so out loud. how is that disrespectful? she's a citizen just like the president. just because he is more powerful than she is doesn't make him more right, just able to make his views reality.

i disagree that it's unpatriotic for her to speak her mind. i think it would be unpatriotic for her to hold the views that she does and not say anything. if you disagree with what she says, wait for your turn, then say your piece. don't try to shut her up. somebody might try to shut you up one day. when it comes to free speech, you are only as free as your opponent.

just my $0.02

Nick, no one is trying to "shut up" Natalie Maines. She has the right to say whatever she wants. However, she should have realized beforehand that what she said would alienate a good deal of her audience here in the U.S. I seriously doubt she just spouted that off without any forethought. Weighing our words before speaking (or writing or chatting online or whatever) is wise whether we are a so-called "celebrity" speaking on the public stage or simply the average person speaking one-on-one with another person or in a group. You don't just blurt out the first thing that comes into your mind, do you? I would hope not, anyway. Also, one cardinal rule as an entertainer is not to offend or alienate your primary audience. It's simply bad business to do so. Maines violated that cardinal rule and now she and her fellow bandmates are having to deal with the consequences.

I only wish that people realize that the only reason that the DC's were allowed to go to Europe and to say what they said was due to the wars that were fought for freedom. Without the war, there would be no freedom. Paris would be a part of Germany. Look at the Normandy beach cemetery. 10,000 American soldiers died for France's freedom. War is BAD. However being free is worth the price. Sadam would take over the world if we allowed it. Never forget the WTC!

I never listen to country music, til now. I spent $50.00 on Dixie Chicks CD's today. I am really pissed about what has happened not only to Natalie Mains, but Micheal Moore, and even coservative commentator Bob Novak. The Jingoists in this country want to shut off all dissent, unless of course Clinton is president. Remember how the Right Wing howled about Somolia and Kosovo.

The freedom of speach is a privalage given to us by our government. Notice, in many other countries there is no freedom of speach. would someone in korea speak out aginsed there government or its officials? i think not. not without fatal consequesces. The comment that she made was not only a spit in the face of the united states, but also a formal discracing of everyone who has ever fought for the freedoms which she chooses to use aginsed our President and our nation. remember jane fanda in Vietnam. it is my stance that all of the movie and musical icons in our nation who don't have anything to do with, or any knowlege of our government should stay out of its affairs. and further more these people should stop trying to gain publicity by merely being controversial with there comments. for i am proud to be an AMERICAN and will stand by this country. and for that i feel i earned the rights of freedom which i hold. lets ask ourselves what we all have done to deserve to be part of this country and all its freedoms and securities...

I personally am not a fan of the Dixie Chicks, nor do I agree with their statement, but isn't freedom what our soldiers are fighting for and have always fought for? As a free American I personally choose not to support things or people I do not believe in. And I agree with previous statements made, actions do have consequences. If you want to make a bold controversial statement you better be prepared for the consequences of your actions or communication. It's my right not to agree with you and it is also my right to make the choice not to support you in any way based on your actions.

What's so perplexing to me is that many Hollywoodians share the view of the Dixie Chicks, yet I do not see anyone boycotting their movies or sitcoms. Will anyone be burning a copy of "Bowling for Columbine" in the fireplace tonight?

Why is choosing to not buy or listen to DC music oppression? Isn't it the same thing as buying their CDs in support? And to those who believe that dissenting views are supressed - if that is true then how is it that I am reading your views?

I think they should have kept their mouth shut. I dont care if she is behind the war or not but she shouldnt go and tell it to other countries. But in the end she is the one that the world laughs at because Britain is fighting for US. Just because she is a freakin celebrity doesnt mean she can say any thing she wants. My father is a Senior Master Sargent in the air force and my grandfather is a Viatnam vetran and they both are proud of it. I am too.
-CB aka proud american and a person that is behind the Pres. 100%

oh yeah!!!! I will not buy their music nor listen to the radio stations that play them that is the same thing as suporting them and that is one thing i WILL NOT do!!!!!they have lost all respect from me.
-CB

CB, you're right. She can't say anything she wants just because she's a celebrity. She can say anything she wants because she's a US citizen. Sort of what it's all about, isn't it?

Knowingly its true, every United States citizen has the right to say anything they want; but furthermore having the right to such things as freedom of speach and presss, should inbed a sort of respect, for these rights and the country which grants then. Having a respect for this country should coinside with having respect for its leader. While everyone may not always agree with what the president says or does, no matter what, he is still the one who holds the highest office in the government which maintains this great land.

For that, if for nothing else, he has earned my deepest respect... shouldn't he have yours also??

I love freedom. I love life. I do not think war is a good idea. I think that certain leaders have things in mind other than human life. I think human life has the same value throughout the globe. I love the Dixie Chicks and I have tickets for this tour.

Natalie Mains has the right to join with the mental giants - sarcasm, for those retarded few -who support "peace at any price." I have the right to boycott her music or radio stations that play them.

So the consensus from those opposed to the Chicks appears to be: You've got your freedom of speech, so shut the hell up!

FWIW, Natalie Maines didn't say anything bad about America, our military, or baseball and apple pie. She said she was ashamed of President Bush. A man who has never held a job friends of his dad haven't acquired for him. A man who was indulging in "youthful indiscretions" in his late 30's. This is a guy who pissed away every last ounce of sympathy the rest of the world had for us after 9/11 by bullying and threatening the rest of the world to get them to support a war that has NOTHING TO DO with 9/11. His administration fabricated and exaggerated evidence to push us into war. I'm ashamed of him, too. Any sane person should be ashamed of his utter inability to lead.

I don't like country music, so I still probably won't buy any Dixie Chicks music. Ah, heck, maybe I will, just to throw a little support their way.

I totally agree with Lt. McDowell. It couldn't be said better. Very intelligent, very true response. How can Americans who enjoy the fruits of this country, turn around and condemn the actions of those brave ones who fight to keep it that way. If they don't like it here and what we have to do to keep it, then they should ship out to another country. I, too, will NEVER use my hard-earned funds to support the Dixie Chicks.

To Lt. McDowell: Thank you and thank you to all of the soldiers who are dedicating their lives to defend ours and our way of life here in America. I am apalled at the people who are so ignorant to the BIG picture. They become so narrow-minded and self-centered.

Listen, When you say you support our troops, but don't support our President, you are being very hypocritical. The President is the Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces. He may not carry a weapon, but neither does Tommy Franks most of the time. Neither did Colon Powell, or Swartzchoff (sorry for spelling) most of the time. These MILITARY leaders are responsible for making very tough decisions that they feel are in the best interest of this country. As a veteran myself during the Gulf War period, I can tell you that the Armed Forces have more respect for these people than you can ever imagine. So if you support and respect the troops, then you must realize who the troops respect and support. We are in this together, and although you may have the right to protest, please realize you are protesting against those who made hard decision along the way to bring that right to you. Protests at this stage are doing more harm than good. We are there now. And we are not coming back until the job is done. So gathering in the streets and speaking out against the war now, will do nothing but cause a riff between the American public during a time when we need to stand together.

Dave D.
I think maybe you have too much time on your hands. You seem to be spending a lot of time going back and forth on this one. Accept it. Natalie has the right to express her views. Read the Declaration of Independence, it doesn't say our liberties stop at the water's edge. For that matter, it doesn't say that God gave these rights only to Americans. Sure, you can boycott the Dixie Chicks if you want. Stations can stop playing their music if they want. That is the point, freedom of expression does allow media to present whatever points of view they want, and whatever entertainment they like. Speech does have consequences, as did Trent Lott's remarks. So deal with it. Buy, don't buy, listen, don't listen, your choice. My problem is where does anyone get off telling her what she can say, or where and when she can say it. Chill out, get a video, comedy perhaps.

I've been listening to the Dixie Chicks since their first big hit and think they are exceptionally talented. That doesn't mean I'd want a young and naive singer acting as my spokesperson before a European audience. Remember, Maines wasn't speaking just for herself when she expressed her displeasure with President Bush. She said "We" and was speaking for all Texans, it seems. Freedom of speech is one thing, but taking advantage of it and electing yourself spokesman for a large group of people is another.

Peggy

I fully agree with Nathalie. I bought all 3 CDs. All in all Texas should be as proud of the chicks as they should be ashamed for Bush .

I am proud to be an American and I have the freedoms that I have because of all the fine soldiers that are willing and able to serve their country to guarantee me that right. BUT as an entertainer, Ms Natalie, should have realized that her remarks were improper--would she blast the President of Germany or make those similar remarks blast Saddam Hussein while doing a concert in Iraq--No not gutsy enough-because as he has proven his capibilites for sadistic actions-she would have probably been executed like he has done to his own people even his own sons-in-laws. Whether or not I support the Commander in Chief (and by the way-I do)I would never make the comments that she made-it is because, again, of these fine soldiers and those that have fought before and those that will fight again, that we, the United States Citizens have the many privileges we have. If she is so ashamed, tell her to move to France or Germany, I am sure they would accept her. Maybe she and Peter Arnett could get a job together blaspheming this great country. She needs to first of all grow up and second "as a mother" that she so stated, she needs to realize that every ACTION has a REACTION and apology or not-you cannot take back what you have already said! Freedom of speech=YES but loose lips and brain disengaged =NO. Sorry for your loss! You have loss four huge fans in this family because we have military friends and family over their fighting! Maybe your child will chose this lifestyle too one day, and then maybe you will not feel the same--President Bush thanks for caring!

What did my ancestors DIE for anyway? My future son-in-law is in Iraq NOW laying his LIFE down for what? ahem..FREEDOM...and FREEDOM OF SPEECH is one of them! I HAVE A LINK ON MY SITE TO SEVERAL PETITIONS TO SUPPORT OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND SUPPORT THE DIXIE CHICKS(NATALIE'S) FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

SIGN THE PETITIONS TO SUPPORT THE DIXIE CHICKS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH! ALSO BOYCOTT THE CLEAR CHANNEL 'RADIO MONOPOLY' WHICH BANNED THEIR RECORDS. WHERE AM I ANYWAY, NAZI GERMANY?

SIGN THE PETITIONS TO SUPPORT THE DIXIE CHICKS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH! ALSO BOYCOTT THE CLEAR CHANNEL 'RADIO MONOPOLY' WHICH BANNED THEIR RECORDS. WHERE AM I ANYWAY, NAZI GERMANY?

I believe all of you have the right to speak your minds. That's why we call it "Free Speech". Yes, even the "Hypocritcal Dixie Chicks". Please do not forget that we are America because of all the uniformed men and women who protect this great nation. But most of all those who led America to where it is, such as President Bush. I did not vote for Bush at the polls, but I am happy that someone is taking a stand against that horrible sadistic man, Sadam Hussein. I know there is woman and children being caught in the cross fire. It pains me to see that. But I reccommend you bleeding hearts to look at the things he is doing to the woman, children, and men of his nation. And let us not forget the day our twin towers fell. The end justifys the means.

I believe all of you have the right to speak your minds. That's why we call it "Free Speech". Yes, even the "Hypocritcal Dixie Chicks". Please do not forget that we are America because of all the uniformed men and women who protect this great nation. But most of all those who led America to where it is, such as President Bush. I did not vote for Bush at the polls, but I am happy that someone is taking a stand against that horrible sadistic man, Sadam Hussein. I know there is woman and children being caught in the cross fire. It pains me to see that. But I reccommend you bleeding hearts to look at the things he is doing to the woman, children, and men of his nation. And let us not forget the day our twin towers fell. The end justifys the means.

I believe all of you have the right to speak your minds. That's why we call it "Free Speech". Yes, even the "Hypocritcal Dixie Chicks". Please do not forget that we are America because of all the uniformed men and women who protect this great nation. But most of all those who led America to where it is, such as President Bush. I did not vote for Bush at the polls, but I am happy that someone is taking a stand against that horrible sadistic man, Sadam Hussein. I know there is woman and children being caught in the cross fire. It pains me to see that. But I reccommend you bleeding hearts to look at the things he is doing to the woman, children, and men of his nation. And let us not forget the day our twin towers fell. The end justifys the means.

people do have their right to say anything they please. But it is a whole different story when you go over seas and bash the person that is saving your butt right now. you represent the american people when you go over seas. I dont want those people thinking Im like that. Do you? And another thing that got on my nerves,like maany other people on here, would be that she would not dare say that in the US.She would be too scared to, although she should be because they would be booed out of the statium.
CB

There is a very big difference between the 'right' to say something and saying the 'right' thing. Nobody will disagree that Natalie had the RIGHT to say those thing. Many people, including myself (Gulf War Marine), think what she said was wrong and improper. So put up all the 'Freedom of Speech' petitions you want. That is not the issue. The issue is that she didn't have to keep her big mouth shut, she just should have. There is a responsible time to exercise your freedom of speech and although you have the right to use it whenever you want, responsible people use it at responsible times.

Sorry, Smitty, but freedom of speech *is* the issue. Yes, she has the right to say what she wants. Yes, you have the right to say that she should have kept her big mouth shut. The question is whether she should be shunned *economically* for what she says. If we're going to try to hurt people's income because we don't like what they say politically, speech becomes very expensive, not free at all.

You are proving my point for me. She makes her living with the public's money. In order to be economically successful, she has to have public support. It is the profession that she chose. It goes to show just how irrisponsible her statements were. Not only irresponsible as an American citizen, but professionally irresponsible. You will have to excuse me if I don't feel sorry about Natalie's finacial status. She has more money than I will probably ever see. And she got it from us, the public. She can't expect to make remarks like that in PUBLIC and expect those who dissagree to keep fattening her wallet. I have never been in show biz, but I know not to bite the hand that feeds me unless I expect to go without that food. Freedom of speech IS NOT the issue. The ramifications you face for the indescretion used when and where you say those things is the issue. I support her right to say what she wants, when she wants to say it. However, she must be willing to suck up the backlash for saying these things in PUBLIC. Nothing is free. Not even the freedom of speech.

I can't believe some of these comments that I have read. Natalie Maines had the right to speak against the president. She said that Bush has made her be ashamed that she was a texan, NOT she hated texas or the United States all together. Honestly, how many of you people actually voted on having a war anyway? Do any of you people really know why troops are out there in Iraq in the first place? I don't think you do. Neither do I. Any sane individual would not vote for president Bush as a president. Look at the stock market, the economy, the jobs that are out there. Is the president doing anything about massive layoffs in this country? I dont think so. Tell me, how the hell can someone spend money on a unknown war, while there are kids in this country who even don't have textbooks in their classrooms, or a qualified teacher? I think that Natalie is one the upmost sane persons in this world, especially her views on the president. Some of you people really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Tony,

With all due respect, it is that kind of thinking on MOST of our parts that led to the events of September 11th. We SHOULD have all learned that we cannot turn a blind eye to the unstable leaders of other countries. I agree that we do have many problems in this country that do need addressed. However, they are immeasurable compared to what would happen if turn our backs to dictators like Saddam Hussein. We can no longer wait until we are attacked to defend ourselves. September 12th was TOO LATE. As far as President Bush goes, he does not run this country by himself. The same constitution that gives you the freedom of speech, guarantees that much. There are leaders in Washington who know much more about foreign policy than you and I. These people have dedicated their lives to making and keeping this country strong. President Bush, no matter what you may or may not think of him, has surrounded himself with one of the best group of advisors and cabinet members ever to be assembled in Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike will agree to that. I would disagree with anyone who says this decision was made lightly and without extreme consultation. The President did not wake up one morning and say "That's it, I have had enough". Maybe, just maybe, the people in Washington know more that you and I.....and what's best for this country and it's freedom.

i would like to first say to toni that i find it completely inacurate to blame pres. Bush for the stock market and further more i think the comment u made proves our ignorance in blaming whoever we can for what ever we want. the market fell prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack. want to blame someone for our blimished econemy, blame bin laden.

also arguing over weather natalie can or can't say what she wants is beside the point. the point is she can't expect to make comments like the ones she already made and still expect every one to stand behind her. whether or not she feels she has the right to such comments is irrelavent, the fact still stands she must now reap the consequences.

further more the attention is focused on all the comments being made by all of these public icons and hollywood stars. they refer to this war and the officials in charge as morons, unjust, and as not knowing what is best for this country. jessica lange went so far as to say to a crowd in spain that she hates the president and is embarrased to be an american. my words to her"fine don'tbe an american, move your ass out." ass my words to every one else who wants to bi*ch about this great country, "try somewhere else."

and for all who chose to listen to all these comments made by anti-bush musicians such as Eddie Vedder, Tom Morello, Lenny Kravits, and (of course) Natalie Maines, maybe we should take a further look into the background of these musicians (most of whom didn't finnish highschool) and compare them to the rather lengthy list of achievements of our top officials. then see who really has the knowlege to be speaking for or aginsed any of these political issues. George W. Bush, Vice pres. Dick Cheney, sec. of state Powell, Sec. of defence Rumsfeld, Sec of homeland Security Tome Ridge, national Security adviser Condoleeza Rice. take a look into their background and you will see that infact they are highly qualified enough to be making the decidions they are and that they are knowlegable enough to be speaking to the public. and until someone with enough background comes along maybe all these "stars" should shut the hell up and stop trying to make a dollar by getting into the spotlight every chance they have to be contraversial.

i belive we should take a look

I am saddened by the protests against our President and the action he has taken to defend our homeland. Our President takes the threats against our country seriously, and the decision to go on the offensive was made because this nation was forced to watch "our" citizens die when terrorists flew "our" planes into the World Trade Center. The loss of lives and property in the WTC tragedy should have gotten the attention of every American who claims this soil as home. The so-called "Freedom of Speech" Natalie so recklessly used to bash the leader of our great nation was paid for with the blood of our soldiers, along with the blood of victims of terroism. Well, I believe the blood spilled to allow us the privilage to live here and enjoy so many liberties comes with the responsibility to respect and appreciate the ultimate sacrifices that were made by those who gave their lives for our country. I consider it a privilage, not a right, to live in America. If anyone should be ashamed, it should be the ones who disrepect our President, our nation, and our military. Perhaps the people who are speaking out against our President and our military by demanding their right to free speech should look beyond their individual needs and realize that if our liberties as a whole are not protected, there will not be a United States of America available to enjoy these very costly "freedoms" that all Americans own. Also, let's not forget that President Bush tried to avoid this war. However, as President, he has the responsibility of protecting our country and every citizen living on her soil. So even if you disagree with what's happening, please give President Bush and our military repect. They deserve it.

i would just like to say that i would not feel safe if we left saddam in power with any kind of weapons. the man has invaded other countries before and while there is no link to the bin laden organization, there is proof of those cells working in iraq. saddam supports anything that is anti american and further more anti bush.
i will not except lightly when our government says "it might be a good idea to stock duct tape and plastic, cause u never know what can happen." thats rediculus this is america many men and wemen have died for this country to be safe now shouldn't we feel that way

u know we live in a messed up generation when
our tallest basketball player is chinease
one of the best rappers is white
the best golfer is black
the french call us arrogant the germans don't want to go to war
and a female country singer is speaking aginsed teh president to her redneck crowd

I agree with freedom of speech, but not ignorance. The Dixie Chicks should be hanged in epigee for being stupid bitches. I hope your web site goes bankrupt for supporting anti-american sentiments. Screw the Fat Ugly Bitchs - No Dixie Chicks allowed in Texas !!!!

Duane it's ignorant people like you that should be hanged. If you don't have an intelligent thing to say.......Dont!

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I don't agree with what Natalie had to say at all. She is the one that has to face the public. She did hurt the nation. How dare she go across seas and slam our President. Like it or not he is in office because the majority of Americans put him there, and he does deserve respect. He is looking out for our best interest. I am sorry, but you make a comment like that and you have to face the financial consequences.

For those of you who don't know why we are over there check this out......http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html

hey you bush supporter here this and just to tell you D. Weinberger that the sales are skyrocketing not plummiting go to http://www.michaelmoore.com/
it will show you. for the bush supporters read all this

Stupid White Men
By: Michael Moore

The you and your in this whole paper is referring to “President” Bush as this is from a letter to him.

“Your list of accomplishments—in just your first few months in office—is brutally impressive.

You have:

• Cut $39 million from federal spending on libraries

• Cut $35 million in funding for advanced pediatric training for doctors

• Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50 percent

• Delayed rules that would reduce “acceptable” levels of arsenic in drinking water

• Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28 percent

• Revoked rules strengthening the power of the government to deny contracts to companies that violate federal laws, environmental laws, and workplace safety standards

• Allowed Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to request suggestions for opening up national monuments for foresting, coal mining, and oil and gas drilling

• Broken your campaign promise to invest $100 million per year in rain forest conservation

• Reduced by 86 percent the Community Access program, which coordinated care for people without health insurance among public hospitals, clinics, and other health care providers

• Nullified a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential ramifications of chemical plant accidents

• Cut funding for Girls and Boys Clubs of America programs in public housing by $60 million

• Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, ultimately signed by 178 other countries

• Rejected an international accord to enforce the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare

• Cut $200 million from workforce training programs for dislocated workers

• Cut $200 million from Childcare and Development grant, a program that provides child care to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work

• Eliminated prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though Viagra is still covered)

• Cut $700 million in funds for public housing repairs

• Cut half a billion dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget

• Overturned workplace ergonomic rules designed to protect workers’ health and safety

• Abandoned your campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming

• Prohibited any federal aid from going into international family planning organizations that provide abortion counseling, referrals, or services with their own funds

• Nominated former mining company executive Dan Lauriski as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health

• Appointed Lynn Scarlett, a global warming skeptic and an opponent of stricter standards
• On air pollution, as Undersecretary of the Interior

• Approved Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s controversial plan to action off areas close to Florida’s eastern shore for oil and gas development

• Announced your plan to allow oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest

• Threatened to shut down the White House AIDS office

• Decided to no longer seek guidance from the American Bar Association on federal judicial appointments

• Denied collage financial aid to students convicted of misdemeanor drug charges (though convicted murderers are still eligible for financial aid)

• Allocated only 3 percent of the amount requested by Justice Department lawyers in the government’s continued litigation against tobacco companies

• Pushed through your tax cut, 43 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans

• Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even when facing overwhelming medical bills

• Appointed affirmative action opponent Kay Cole James to direct the Office of Personnel Management

• Cut $15.7 million from programs dealing with child abuse and neglect

• Proposed elimination of the “Reading is Fundamental” program, which gives free books to poor children

• Pushed for development of “mini-nukes,” designed to attack deeply buried targets – a violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

• Tried to reverse regulation protecting sixty million acres of national forest from logging and road building

• Appointed john Bolton, an opponent of nonproliferation treaties and the United Nations, as Undersecretary of State fro Arms Control and International Security

• Made Monsanto executive Linda Fisher deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

• Nominated Michael McConnell, a leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship

• Nominated civil rights opponent Terrence Boyle to a federal judgeship

• Canceled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to develop prototype high-mileage cars

• Named John Walters, an ardent opponent of prison drug treatment programs, as drug czar

• Appointed oil and coal lobbyist J. Steven Giles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior

• Named Bennett Raley, who has called for the repeal of the Endangered Species Act, as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for water and Science

• Sought the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed in the United States against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves in World War II

• Appointed as solicitor general Ted Olson, your chief lawyer in the Florida voting debacle

• Proposed to ease the permit process for constructing refineries and nuclear and hydroelectric dams, including lowering environmental standards

• Proposed the selling of oil and gas tracts in Alaska Wildlife Preserve

Whew! I’m tired just typing this list! Where do you get the energy? (It is in the naps, isn’t it?)”[/QB][/QUOTE]
Bush, “Are you an alcoholic, and if so, how is this affecting your performance as Commander-in-Chief?

Again, there is no finger being pointed here, no shame or disrespect intended. Alcoholism is a huge problem; it affects millions of American citizens, people we all know and love. Many are able to recover and live normal lives. Alcoholics can be, and have been, President of the United States. I greatly admire anyone who can deal with this addiction. You haven’t touched a drop of alcohol since you were forty. Congratulations.
You have also told us that you used to “drink too much” and that you eventually “realized that alcohol was beginning to crowd out my energies and could crowd, eventually, my affections for other people.” That is a definition of an alcoholic. This does not disqualify you from being President, but it does require that you answer some questions, especially after you spent years covering up the fact that in 1976 you were arrested for drunk driving.”
“How do we know you won’t turn to the bottle when faced a serious crisis? You’ve never had a job like this. For twenty years, from what I can tell, you had no job at all. When you stopped “drifting,” your dad set you up in the oil business with some ventures that failed, and then he helped you get a major league baseball team, which required you to sit in a box and watch a lot of long, slow baseball games.
I know this is very personal, but the public has a right to know. For those who say, “Well, c’mon it’s his personal life—that was twenty-four years ago,” I have this to say: I was hit by a drunk driver twenty-eight years ago, and to this day I can not completely extend my right arm. I’m sorry, George, but when you go out on a public highway drunk, it’s no longer just your PERSONAL life we’re talking about. It’s my life, and the lives of my family.
Your campaign people—the enablers—tried to cover for you, lying to the press about the nature of your arrest for drunk driving under the influence. They said the cop pulled you over because you were “driving too slowly”. But the arresting officer said it was because you had swerved off on the shoulder of the road. You yourself joined in denial when asked about the evening you spent in jail.
“I didn’t spend time in jail,” you insisted. The officer told the local reporter that in fact you were handcuffed, taken to the station, and held in custody for at least an hour and a half. Could it be that you truly don’t remember?
This is not a simple traffic ticket. I can’t believe your enablers actually implied your drunk driving conviction wasn’t as offensive as Clinton’s transgressions. Lying about consensual sex you had with another adult while you are married is wrong, but it is not the same as getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk and endangering the lives of others (including, George, the life of your own sister, who was with you in the car that night).
It is also NOT the same, despite what your defenders said before the election, as Al Gore volunteering that he had smoked pot in his youth. Unless he was driving while stoned, his actions endangered no life but his own—and he wasn’t trying to cover it up.
You’ve tried to dismiss the incident by saying “it was back in my youth.” But you were NOT in your “youth”; you were in your thirties.

Bush, “Are you a felon?

When you were asked in 1999 about your alleged cocaine use, you replied that you had committed “no felonies in the last twenty-five years.” With all we’ve learned about tricky answers in the last eighty years, that kind of response could only lead a reasonable observer to believe that the years before that were a different story.
What felonies did you commit before 1974, George?...

Also, you recently made it a requirement for any young person seeking financial aid for collage to answer a question on the application that reads: “Have you ever been convicted for any drug offense?” If they have, they are denied student aid—which means many of them will not be going to collage. (Or, to put it another way, according to your new orders Sirhan Sirhan can still receive student aid, but a kid with a joint can’t.)
Doesn’t this move on your part strike you as a little hypocritical? You would deny a college education to thousands of kids who only did exactly what you have implied you did as a young person? Man, that takes some chutzpah!”
“We do know, George, that that you have been arrested three times. Other than some peace-activist friends of mine, I don’t personally know anybody who has been arrested three times in their life.
In addition to the drunk driving, you were arrested for stealing a Christmas wreath as a prank. What was that all about?
Your third arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game. Now this I really don’t get. Everyone conducts themselves in a disorderly manner at a football game! I’ve been to many football games and I had many a beer spilled on my head, but to this day I’ve never seen anyone arrested. You’ve gotta work pretty hard to get noticed in a crowed of drunken football fans.
George, I have a theory about why and how all this happened to you.
Instead of having to earn it, you have been handed the presidency, the same way you’ve come by everything else in your life. Money and name alone have opened every door for you. Without effort, you have been bequeathed a life of privilege.
The night your conviction was finally revealed to the nation, just days before the election, it was painful to watch you swagger as you tried to chalk up your “irresponsible” action as the mere “ youthful indiscretion” of having a few beers with the boys (smirk, smirk). I really felt for the families of the half a million people who have been killed by drunks like yourself in the twenty-four years since your “little adventure.” Thank God you kept drinking for only another several years after you “learned your lesson.” I think, too, of what you must have put your wife, Laura, through. She knew all too well how dangerous it is when any of us get behind the wheel. At seventeen she killed a high school friend of hers when she ran through a stop sign and collided with his car. I’m hopeful that you can look to her for guidance if ever you feel the pressures of the job getting to you. (Whatever you do, don’t turn to dick Cheney for help: he’s had two drunk driving arrests on his record for more than twenty-five years!)

You learned at an early age that, in America, all someone like you has to do is show up. You found yourself admitted to an exclusive New England boarding school simply because your name was Bush. You did not have to EARN your place there. It was bought for you.
When they let you into Yale, you learned you could bypass more deserving students who had worked hard for twelve years to qualify for admission to collage. You got in because your name was Bush.
You got into Harvard Business School the same way. After screwing off during your four years at Yale, you took the seat that rightfully belonged to someone else.
You then pretended to serve a full stint in the Texas Air National Guard. But one day, according to the Boston Globe, you skipped out and failed to report back to your unit—for a year and a half! You didn’t have to fulfill your military obligation, because your name was Bush.
Following a number of “lost years” that don’t appear in your official biography, you were given job after job by your daddy and other family members. No matter how many of your business ventures failed, there was always another one waiting to be handed to you.
Finally, you got to be a partner in a major league baseball team—another gift—even though you put up only one one-hundredth of the money for the team. And then you conned the taxpayers of Arlington, Texas, into giving you another perk—a brand-new multimillion-dollar stadium that you didn’t have to pay for.
So it’s no wonder you think you deserved to be named President. You didn’t earn it or win it—therefore it must be yours!
And you see nothing wrong with this. Why should you? It is the only life you have ever known.”

to tell you laure bush and his no good brother stole the election even with the cheating in flordia gore still had more votes he didnt get voted for by the majority of americans he just was a no good rotten lying damn cheater.

now bet that laure

Too bad you didn't type it. Next time you want to cut and paste a book, you should just give us the link and we can go there ourselves.

go dixie chicks. i will continue to support TROOPS,THE INDIVIDUAL MEN AND WOMAN WHO GIVE THEIR LIVES FOR ME AND ALL OF AMERICA. i do not support bush the president of the united states. NATALIE MAINS IS A BUSINESS WOMAN AND MOTHER AND SHE SPOKE HER MIND AND I AM PROUD TO BE THE SAME. I WILL GO AND BUY THEIR C.D. RIGHT NOW AND I WISH I COULD BUY ALL OF THEM. i am happy that i am NOT from the same state as bush. actually Natalie bush just grew up in Texas but was not born there. so don't be too ashamed. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE.

Have any of you seen the following item? It was posted to Space.com's forum 'Free Space' on 3/29/03. 'Free Space' is at this URL:

http://uplink.space.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=freespace&PHPSESSID=

It should be worthy of comment one way or the other, here and elsewhere.

The letter:

Letter from Navy pilot LT Layne McDowell to Dixie Chicks
From radio station website in Lubbock, home of the Dixie Chicks aired 3/15/03

An open letter to the Dixie Chicks:

Earlier this week, while performing in London, you stated that you were ashamed that our President is from your home state. I wonder if you realized how many Americans would be listening. This American was listening. This Texan is ashamed that you come from my state. I serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. Specifically, I fly F-14 Tomcats off carriers around the world, executing the missions that preserve the very freedom you claim to exercise. I have proudly fought for my country in the skies over Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan without regret.

Though I may disagree wholeheartedly with your comments, I will defend to the death your right to say them, in America. But for you to travel to a foreign land and publicly criticize our Commander in Chief is cowardice behavior. Would you have so willingly made those comments while performing for a patriotic, flag-waving crowd of Texans in Lubbock. I would imagine not. How dare you pocket profits off songs about soldiers, their deaths and patriotism while criticizing their Commander in Chief abroad, even while they prepare to give their lives to ensure your own freedom of speech. Please ask yourself, what have you done to deserve that sacrifice?

Do not try to justify your comments by claiming that you made them only because you care about innocent lives. Never once in our history have we committed troops to war for the purpose of taking innocent lives. We do it to protect innocent lives, even yours. If the world leaders of the late 1930's had the vision and courage of our present Commander in Chief, perhaps the evil men who caused the death of millions in WWII would have never had the opportunity to harm a soul. The potential loss of millions of lives in the future at the hands of today's evil men necessitate action.

In a separate correspondence, I am returning to you each and every Dixie Chicks CD and cassette that I have ever purchased. Never again will I allow my funds to support your behavior. All you have done is to add your name to a growing list of American "Celebrities" who have failed to realize that they have obtained their successes on the backs of the American blue-collar workers such as our servicemen and women.

To Natalie Maines: This Texan, this AMERICAN, will continue to risk his life to guarantee your freedoms. What will you do to deserve it?

I just finished watching the Primetime special with the Dixie Chicks and it makes me so mad seeing what has been done to them. I'm a 22 year old college student who considers herself to be liberal. I agree 100 percent that you don't have to be pro war to support the troops. The Dixie Chicks have every right to express their opinions, that's what this country is all about, freedom...of speech, expression. There are many people in this country who agree with their statements, but they are the ones taking the heat because they are in the public eye. They have become scapegoats, and it makes me literally sick when I hear about the death threats against them. In saying what they say, they are using the exact same freedom that our troops fight to protect. They are fighting to protect our freedom. Some Americans may not agree with the reason why we are in this war, but they do support the men who are fighting it. It makes me sad that people are so closed minded that they can't see the distinction and they don't respect the opinions of those different than theirs.

ROCK on Natalie, Emily and Marty. I have all three of your CDs and your music has made an impact in my life. Their songs and who they are mean a lot to me. I respect them more than they can say. They are full of courage and passion and are fighting back for what they believe in. They deserve the praise of their fans, not this backlash that includes threats and protests at concerts. I am a fan that supports them no matter what. I will continue to support them in whatever way I can. I will also continue to let their music be a part of my life.

I went and bought the album, plus two others of theirs, for just this reason!

My mom said she remembers when Bob Hope and other performers toured tirelessly to support the soldiers at war - a break from what they had to endure. What must have been on the minds of all of those people? The future WAS uncertain. Just as it was to our Founding Fathers. Today we benefit from and are simultaneously blinded by the freedom that was then so uncertain. The comment by the Dixie Chic struck me as lacking respect for the POSSIBILITY that our future freedom may be threatened and the President will be held accountable for the outcome. Kenneth Pollack states, in his book 'The Threatening Storm', that Iraq could aquire nuclear capability in five to ten years, which would mean 2004 if Saddam started in 1999, which is believed possible. Is nuclear attack a possibility? Who would have guessed on September 10th the events to come the following day? Finally, I'd like to see Michael Moore (author of 'Stupid White Men') go up against Dinesh D'Souza (author of 'letters to a young conservative') in an open debate. Anyone wanting an intelligent view of America ought to read D'Souza's books. Michael Moore comes off sounding like the Dixie Chic.

Back from work. I wanted to ask Jack if he's aware that most of the news networks - except Fox - predicted Florida for Gore around 8 p.m. before the poles were closed. That's against the law. And ... they were wrong. It's calculated that the early prediction may have cost Bush around 90,000 votes. Around 11 p.m. or so - when the poles were closed - Fox predicted, accurately, for Bush. Fox took a lot of criticism for their legal and accurate prediction. But you heard nothing about the early, illegal and inaccurate predictions. Why? Don't expect to hear it from Michael Moore.

To Apryl I'd say human life OUGHT to have the same value across the globe, but, in reality, humans commit heinous acts against other humans. Read about Saddam's regime and you will quickly see examples, such as, slow dipping in acid to death or the raping and murder of wives and daughters to create fear and eliminate opposition to his dictatorship. These methods are used as a FIRST - not as a last - resort. Would you consider these acts evil if done to your family? Saddam - if he's still alive - intends to harm us. Stalin killed over 20 million people. Saddam studied Stalin's methods IN DETAIL. Kill a thousand people a day and how long before you get to 20 million? Many people operate from an idealistic view of the world, especially, here in America where we have been isolated. When I think of that girls comments overseas I can't help but wonder if she realizes how much our government NEEDS our support to see Iraq through to a better future, which is now tied with our own. Forget whether she has the right to speak or not. The fact is her comments don't aid the situation regarding world opinion. Many countries have bad dealings with Iraq and around the globe. The U.S. is far from first when it comes to invasion and conquer - if you see America as being the invader. Go back in history and read for yourself. We too have a right to defend our way of life.

Finally, to Sarah, it doesn't seem that the Dixie Chicks are a scapegoat. Though, I agree, people should not be threatening their lives. They did make a mistake. Think of the timing of the comment. Parents, siblings and friends of soldiers fearing the one they love may be killed. The longer the war last the more soldiers likely to die. Any and all public support - AT THAT TIME - was needed, and still is, to get them home alive. The reality is that we were and are committed. To voice out at a music concert - where people are likely drinking and having a good time - seems tremendously inappropriate and irresponsible. The Dixie Chicks are getting flak because they touched a nerve and did so at a venue which doesn't exactly lend the necessary respect. What if it were her child in that war?

Sarah, for this -

"In saying what they say, they are using the exact same freedom that our troops fight to protect"

- and other things you wrote, let me say: Well done! It is good to see there are people out there (apparently over half of those who voted in the last presidential election) who understand what America is supposed to be about.

Let's take a look at the awful and terrible anti-war - and, therefore, of course, anti-patriotic - statement Maines made:

"'Just so you know we are ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."

No wonder people feel the troops were put in mortal danger by Maines' remarks. She has done incalculable damage and no doubt is directly responsible for injury and loss of life in Iraq! Such words are borderline treason, putting Maines too close to war criminal status for her own comfort.

Or, perhaps, it is the administration that insisted upon war that is actually responsible for the maiming and killing of innocents and soldiers in Iraq? Some people's brains will begin hurting as they try to answer that question, which after all is a tough one. It would take a genius to figure out who is more responsible for loss of life in Iraq: Natalie Maines or George Bush, Jr.

In the letter I provided here, the lieutenant wrote:

"To Natalie Maines: This Texan, this AMERICAN, will continue to risk his life to guarantee your freedoms. What will you do to deserve it?"

Perhaps the best thing she can do to deserve those freedoms is to exercise them, and especially to exercise them when it is unpopular to do so. By making dangerously unpopular statements, the right to free speech is kept alive.

Navy ships periodically sail through international waters just off the coasts of other countries to demonstrate those waters remain international and not under a particular country's control. I believe Reagan asked this be done in the Gulf of Sidra during his confrontation with Qaddafi (though I am willing to be corrected on this point since I'm unwilling to do the research). And he was entirely correct and within his rights to do so. A Navy pilot, of all people, should understand this principle. Exercising freedom - especially when it is dangerous to do so - is freedom's best defense.

But those freedoms should be the birthright of every American citizen. The people who earned those freedoms, fought for them, risked - and often lost - their property and their own lives for them made such sacrifices in order for there to be a nation where freedom is a citizen's heritage. They earned it, and the America of today owes its legacy of freedom most of all to those brave revolutionaries. Who would be called terrorists in today's parlance.

In other words, if America continues to be what it has tried to be for over two centuries, Natalie Maines should not have to do anything to "deserve" those freedoms. They were hers from birth.

The lieutenant writes, "Do not try to justify your comments...." As well she should not. When the day comes when a citizen must justify exercising his or her right to free speech, or must earn it to the satisfaction of military officers, or must apologize for exercising it - then that will be a bad day for freedom in America.

John... sarcasm? Now I'll know not to take you seriously if you propose we start eating our babies. I could have said those soldiers are fighting to protect the very freedoms the Natalie Maines so freely exercized. Why not just state the OBVIOUS - as Sarah did. My brain hurts already. Maybe what I need is a concert ticket to the Chics this summer. Even if I don't like them I'll "support them no matter what". Maw... git me some more beans an' cornbread. Maybe Sarah's surprise that she's a 22 year old college student and considers herself a liberal got me started. I bet she doesn't meet TOO MANY LIBERALS like herself on campus? Maybe it sounds ludicrous to suggest - as I did - that Natalie Maines' comment had any impact on anything. As a friend said, "who cares what she says". Is it her right to state what she feels? Yes. Maybe I should have stated simply that I FELT her comment was disgraceful given the time and the place. Ofcourse, Sarah, your college professors will not likely take that position. And Hollywood won't take it either. Your liberal stance won't ROCK the campus. You'll fall perfectly in step as I'm sure Natalie Maines knew she would at that concert - most likely full of young liberals like yourself. ROCK ON Sarah! (You got Johnny Swift on your side.)

I read this site's post pretty often and go on with my daily life and choose not to comment. However........I think I'm sick and tired of hearing how sorry we are for her.....She took her freedom speak out and did it to the world. Now as I have the same fredom.....I'm going to take that to say I don't like her views and I will not choose to listen to her music any more. I don't feel sorry for her that she is having to face the music so to speak on it. For every action there is a equal and oppisite reaction. SOrry about your luck Natile. She couldn't have really felt like that comment would go over to well in America. Yes she has a freedom to say it but I think you should choose to use your freedoms of being an American maybe when your in America. The only reason she is making a big issue is because its hurting her fame. I personally feel she is getting what she deserves.

As a non-American I can say that many people across the world share the Dixie Chicks' anti-war views and criticism of the Bush Government. Unfortunately for these young women they have been singled out and made punching bags for those who don't share these views. What has started out as a controversy has become mania. Their problems go beyond loss of money and fame. They have been receiving death threats and their families have been harassed. I pray for the troops fighting in Iraq and I pray for the safety of these three young musicians.

D. Weinberger do me a favor if you own a business or if you have a friend that owns a business ask him to find come up with something that he believes in but a majority of his customers strongly disagree, with then ask him if he would make a great big sign and post it where all of his customers can see.
I think you might be one of these people that have the idea that you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want but not have to take any responsibility for what you say or do. They Dixie Chicks have the freedom of speech and if they feel strong enough to suffer the consequences without complaining even if they lose there income (which by the way is exactly what will happen to the president if enough people disagree with him) then they have my respect. If you agree with them and can talk enough people into supporting them you will be supporting your believes and those who don't will be supporting theirs. A freedom people who are not celebrities have. If people disagree and don't support them you shouldn't have a problem with it. What you, the Dixie Chicks and the rest of the celebrities (the give there point of views about the war) need to understand the people that go to concerts, movies, and buy their records are customers. Everyday people in the real world lose their businesses because their customers have some proplem with their business even when their product is ok explain why this is different.

Dearest Jack the Poet,

Have you met a politician that isn't a no good rotten lying damn cheater?
My comment had nothing to do with anything you stated in your "Book" above.
I support all the men and women that are overseas fighting for freedom. I "respect" Bush for putting his foot down to all these meaningless peace talks with the Iraqi leaders, and beating that "Horrid Regime" into oblivion. The whole point of my comment was that Natalie had the right to say what she did, but it was disrespectful to "Our" leader and "Our" nation. She should take a lesson from Madonna. She doesn't agree with the war, but she did pull her anti-war video of the airways for the purpose of respect!
My Husband is a hardworking Ironworker. We are a middle class family. Don't lecture me about what Bush has or hasn't done! I know! But this isn't the topic of this forum! So Save it Jack!

Actually, the dixie Chicks PR was pretty clever.
When faced with the loss of their core fan base after the first London statement, they came up with a way to save their bacon.
How? Invent a new fan base.
How? Issue a bogus email saying this was all a vicious right wing conspiracy.
Attack the radio stations that have stopped playing the Dixie Chicks, not to force them into playing the chicks, but to get out the word that these right wing corporations were pressing their own political agenda.
What did this accomplish?
Every antiwar protester came out screaming foul play, buying up concert tickets dumped by disgruntled fans and buying up cd's to keep the charts up and the tour alive.
Big business does not give up profits easily.
All the derogatory comments about the fans, the tune changing every 15 minutes, the alleged slipping of the PETA ad, the nude Magazine cover, all designed to say "up yours" to ex-fans? No, all designed to bring new money in. The ultimate damage control.
Would a true antiwar thinker apologize? Read or watch the New Zealand interview. Would a true antiwar thinker say;

Transcript: The Dixie Chicks Interview with TV One's Holmes
New Zealand

Holmes: What did you actually say, and what did you mean?

Natalie: Uh...I said...what did I say? I said...um...we're
embarrassed...just so you know, we're embarrassed...

Martie: Ashamed...

Natalie: Oh, we're ashamed that the President is from Texas...is
that what I said?

Emily: Yeah.

Natalie: And it was a joke and it wasn't planned. And it was
really funny at the time. It got lots of cheers and that's what it was
meant for.

I don't think so. This band was playing the crowd. Telling them what they wanted to hear to bring up their share of the gate.
No strong political views here.
This band uses everyone for money. The antiwar crowd is their latest victim. Brilliant strategy on behalf of the Dixie Chicks PR.
It does further prove the only motivation this band has is money.
Viacom, which owns CMT, which is sponsoring the Meadia campaign for the D.C. owns KKCS & KILT, two stations that "Banned the D.C.", they also own a total of 180 radio stations.
Viacom is sueing a company that gave a lucritive contract to Clear Channel instead of them. Hence Clear Channel get's elected the vicious right-wing radio mugal out to destroy the poor D.C.?
Before you waste your money, spend a little free time on google.

Looks like the Dixie Chicks are receiving the awards they deserve - Absolutely Nothing from the Academy of Country Music awards this year. I bet the number one DC feels great tonight wearing her F.U.T.K t-shirt when it was announced to the world that Toby Keith was selected the Entertainer of the Year and the DC got not a single award. Maybe we will see t-shirts tomorrow morning with F.U.D.C. or F.U.N.M.

Ray

I am an old timer who spent 18 years as a country disc jockey. I've got to say that the people who paved the way for todays performers outclassed them in every way. Country "folk" used to stick together, not use national TV forums as an outlet for their PMS. I feel bad for Mark Maines and the rest of the Maines Brothers Band. It's got to be embarassing to have a fat loudmouthed pig like Natalie carrying their name in public. To attack a true patriot like Toby is the same book different chapter as her attack on Bush. She's trailer trash pure and simple and her so called star is dimming quickly, mostly because of the hot air coming out of her trashy mouth. Anyone remember Johnny Cash's "the one on the right is on the left"?

Yes, Natalie is certainly trashy. Not the "role model" for young girls she said she wanted to be during her interview with Diane Sawyer. Hope the DC's agent is smart enough to advise the "young chickies" to keep their ignorant mouths shut and lose the attitude. Hopefully they have learned that "freedom of speech" has it's consequences and also, make sure you know something about the subject matter before lashing out!

The Country Music Industry (CMI) is no better than any other music industry. It's always about profit. The CMI is profiting on the fact that Americans want patriotic music these days. The Dixie Chicks are just an example of a group that has "balls" enough to speak to the rest of us. I'm all for this Country, but laying balme on the Dixie Chicks for exercising their freedom to speak out is cause for concern. It's not just about firefighter, soldiers and beer. It's about what this country was REALLY founded on. Freedom. The freedom to speak and be heard.

And another thing. That speech by Reba McEntire (or was that Dana Carvey in drag) at the CMA left me with a sick feeling about the loyalty of the CMI. It sure made her sound like the classic "dumb hick"

F.U.T.K - Whoop it up!!!

I can't help but read the last post and wonder....Do you really think they are entitled to cry about the reaction they are getting from the public? They do have every right to say what is on their mind just as we have every right to not agree with it and do what we chosse with it and if that means we take our freedom of speech and lash back out at them then so be it. When you speek up in any matter you take the chance of having negative reactions to your opinions. If that wasn't w