Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I agree that it's good to see their success even if I don't care for them, their music, or their beliefs. That said if you are a public figure and make political statements you have to reasonable expect it may have potential to impact your future success. There is nothing wrong with it.

Speech has impact.

If you say something to your friends, it has little effect even as a public figure. But if you say it on a stage in front of thousands of people you have the potential to impact many more people and likewise it can carry a cost. That one should only benefit from such speech and not have the potential for negative impact ignores the basics of market economy. The reality of public policy and speech is it carries impact both positive and negative, to judge one positive and acceptable without accepting the other seems to be a naive perspective.

You can not have freedom of speech without the responsibility for your words/actions that goes along with it.

Agreed. The interesting thing about all of this is that public opinion has changed pretty dramatically since the original DC fiasco.

It seems to be a pretty safe bet that even the average joe is pretty angry at Bush these days. The music reflects it, too: There's anti-war stuff coming from everyone from pearl jam and green day to bruce springsteen and neil young to pop acts like pink and madonna.

One that you might enjoy, if you're into the DC is Josh Ritter. His song called "Girl in the War" is probably one of the best of the bunch. http://www.joshritter.com/album_animal.shtml

But, Thomas, the question isn't whether the DC's accept responsibility or should expect negative economic consequences. The question is whether one should boycott entertainers who voice political views one disagrees with. Sure, the DC's should have expected consequences for speaking out, but should you, as a member of the market, punish them for what they said?

(Keep in mind that this all refers to the DC's first album, which was non-political.)

I've heard 'buycott', which seems immediately understandable if it's heard clearly enough.

I don't watch Tom Cruise films anymore because I think he's certifiable. Is that any different than not buying a Dixie Chicks CD? Maybe it's just a matter of how much whatever you disagree with inhibits your ability to enjoy the particular product of the entertainer.

Girlcott? Gimme a break. So blatantly sexist, not to mention confusing. But I do admit the alternatives lack cachet. "Antiboycott", "Unboycott", "Buy the damn album already" just don't create the same imagery.

But then you wander off into some field of lotuses or something equating massive support as a form of protest as being somehow sinful or something. Just because they don't solicit direct contributions doesn't make this any different.

Buy the damn album already.

Sure I can and do, David. Not them, because I am not a country fan and had no issues with what they said, but I do specificly avoid anything with Alec Baldwin because he was on Conan Obrien and promoted violence against House members because of impeachment. Now had he only said "vote these jerks out of office" I don't know I would have the same opinion, but he crossed a line and I haven't seen anything he has done since. Not that he misses my $10 a film.

I hardly EVER agree with you on alot of politics, but it doesn't stop me from buying your books or reading your blog. That said if either advocated a position that I felt crossed a line I'd stop tomorrow and have no problem saying it.

Speaking of which when does 'All things are Misc' hit the shelves? :-)

I would never buy a major label mainstream album simply because other people are girlcotting the release. If George W. Bush made an album and everyone refused to buy it (which probably would happen), does that mean that I should run out and buy a copy? Everyone knows that our current political state is a mess and I no explanation is necessary. Anytime a musician preaches politics, it is to be expected that they will alienate certain fans or groups of fans. Why are the Dixie Chicks acting so suprised that certain groups are not supportive? It seems to me that the Dixie Chicks are trying to capitalize on the stupidity and dishonesty of our leaders in an attempt to give themselves more credibility in these modern times. If these comments had come from Judy Collins, Bob Dylan, The Clash or Leonard Cohen, it would be much easier for fans of popular music to digest.

I think you make some decent points, but fundamentally this argument is flawed. It reminds me of the fanaticism of the folks who went on the campaign with that friggin terrible song "Bush Was Right." They wanted to get this song into MTV's regular rotation, and if MTV wouldn't put it in rotation, it was proof that they were raving left wingers who were somehow against the troops and for al-Qaeda and wanted Iranian nuclear weapons stationed in the living room.

The problem was that the song really effin sucked, so a refusal to play it meant nothing of the sort.

I don't have a problem with boycotting artists because they espouse views that I disagree with. I personally wouldn't usually do this because I fell it is important to understand that with which I disagree. But I do have a problem with buying something, ostensibly a piece of creative art, simply to indicate my support of the politics of the person who created it. I think that is ludicrous.

If I were to buy the Dixie Chicks album, it would be because I wanted to hear the music. I support what Ms. Maines said about President Bush, but I will not support her musically because of that. I, as someone who has written, recorded and performed music (with essentially no commercial success whatsoever, I might add), would not want people to buy things I had produced for reasons that had nothing to do with the product (unless it was a charity recording or something).

I guess I am essentially saying I disagree with you completely. I would be fine with not buying something on the basis of the artist having espoused views I find reprehensible, but I think it demeans the product to buy it simply because other people are not.

Hey you bleach blonde bitches with your heads up your ass. You are pathetic! You suck big time and should be ashamed of yourselves as Americans. You blew it big time.... You had some minor talent, and could be good, but YOU AREN'T and YOU SUCK Bitch! Dumb blondes all the way...even though you aren't real blondes. You are commie bitches and we all know it. I wish you the worst in life! So F You and the horse you ride. Get a life or better yet, get some education.

I previously liked the DC's music and voted with my $. Their arrogance is showing. I read the lyrics to the latest and wouldn't keep the cd if you gave it to me. Check out Al Gezzera, maybe their new fan base is Al Kada and the Talaban. I hope they like performing in a chadur.

ummm, I'm guessing SteveO and Bill aren't regular commenters here, but have sought out your blog because you mentioned the dreaded DC's. Wow. I wish I had that much spare time.

Anyway, I support people that I want to succeed, whether musically, politically, artistically - whatever. I probably won't campaign to get others to do so; it's a private decision on my part. I wouldn't support someone just because nobody else does, but I'd usually want to know why nobody else supported them. I'd only support them if I thought they were worth supporting.

So, I think you missed the target with this post, laudable though I might find your sentiments. Merit gets rewarded and lack does not, in my book.

And to Thomas: wethepeepul often make the mistake of thinking that, because we know of someone, they are a public figure. Singers are not public figures - they have little direct influence on the society they exist in. The Cult of Celebrity has placed undue weight on the thoughts and actions of the well-known as if their popularity in a particular field makes them superior in some other field. Nu-uhh! It's grossly unfair to them as they are not allowed to have the same opinions that we lesser mortals may. They must keep themselves "above" that, whatever that means.

Whether it's the way life is or not, it's still wrong. It the difference between the Public Interest (e.g global warming, political malfeasance) and what the public might be interested in (e.g. Brangelina's new baby) - in confusing them we disenfranchise the recipients of celebrity.

I am not a country fan buy any means ,but who or what gives us the right to boycott the Dixie Chicks because the disagree with the powers that be. I am going to buy their ablum to show my support for them and I am ashamed as an American to see such ignorance and hate of anyone who disgrees with the current policies of our government. This country needs checks and balances not RIGHTWING INGNORANCE SHILLS who spout the latest talking points with no idea of the history or context behind their remarks. Shame on all you FOX News, Hannity freaks who wrap yourself in self rightousness who think patriotism is blind obidence to status quo. You are sheeple....

James the Free thinker

In this country you have a right to free speech..but you don't have a right to be heard. So many people seem to miss the point...it's not what she said..it's where she said it. You want to bad mouth the President..have the guts to do it here on your own soil. It's gutless to pander to an anti-Bush European crowd.

Hear, hear James--though not a country fan I am purchasing a CD for the same reason. Before this, I thought McCarthyism was long dead and something that caused shame for those who went along with it. History does indeed repeat, and more quickly than I would have thought.

Howdy ya'll...
I was upset at first when the Dixie Chicks made the comment and Toby Kieth went all out on them. I guess I didnt want another Jane Fonda/Vietnam incident. But now, I am sorry and ashamed that I threw my Dixie chicks CD's away and now I hope their album sells millions and millions... Freedom of speech is for everyone... why is it that they were the only ones punished and banned.
Look at other stars that have said and sang things about the President and their albums go to number 1... Bruce Springsteen wants the President impeached and his album goes to number one, Green Day sings about him in American Idiot and their album goes to number one, Eminem sings about him and his album goes to number 1 and yet Dixie Chicks make a remark about the President and they get banned..... what hypocrits the radio stations are..... I went out and bought all their CDS again.. and the the newest one Taking the Long Way... Not ready to make nice.. is the best song so far... You shouldnt apologize for something you believe in or because everyone wants you too and for the idiots who sent death threats to them... I hope someday you get treated the same way you treated them and be watching over your shoulder.... My close friend in S.A, where Im from was killed in Iraq.... I was only wounded...

Bruce Springsteen is a toad..he claims to be the voice of the working man..but have you priced his concert tickets? I'd bet there aren't to many working men in his audience..at least not in the first 200 rows. Green Day..what do these retards know...their lead singer is from California but sings like he is from the UK. American Idiot is not necessarily anti-Bush..but anti-media. The difference between Springsteen, Green Day and the Dixie Chicks...is that the latter rose to fame and made their money off the wallets of country fans and middle America (the red states). Country music fans tend to be more conservative. While I only hope the best for the Dixie Chicks in their new endevour into the pop mainstream..I can only remind them that the pop genre is a fickle one. As David Lee Roth once stated, " Here today...gone later today." Might have been better off keeping their mouths shut..or best yet...at least while on European soil.

This just in: “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live, but as for loving the whole country…I don’t see why people care about patriotism”-- Natalie Maines-- Telegraph.com UK 6-15-06
Now attempt to defend this buffoon.

Here is a view of the Dixie Chicks from a former Detroiter who traded winters for Florida sun, truly changing from blue to red in a few different ways. Stations don't play Chick tunes in Orlando and their absence, plus enjoying great theme parks nearby are two favorite things about my home town. I'm not ready to make nice either!

Free speech, boycotts, baloney! Just because you or I author something, stars or not, whether its an opinion piece, painting or album, we have no guarantee or any right whatsoever to have it posted, published, shown, played or otherwise. Radio stations have every right to shape their own programming, including or excluding material as they see fit. They are under no obligation to play anybody's music, and when they don't, it's not a boycott, it's a business decision. Are you suggesting that stations be forced to play their music?

The Chicks milked the 2003 slur incident and media-hyped fallout by shaping it into an audacious comeback campaign of hate and hurt, fraudulently casting themselves as innocent victims of "Accidents and Accusations". The down and dirty marketing melee deliberately stirred up controversy to score attention, publicity and profits by disrespecting all those who aren't one "of the really cool people who get it" or by mocking universal truths such as patriotism, dignity and respect.

Apparently the Chick machine will say anything and insult anybody to con unwitting fans into spending upwards of $100 million, as much for their snotty, in-your-face, political rants, as for the album and concert series. I want music, not acting out in expressing deep-seated hatred or suffering. I want entertainment, not political pandering by cunning con artists.

"Taking" is what it's all about for them now, and in this case, "Taking the [WRONG] way". The magic in the Chicks' music is long gone with most of their former fan base also missing in action - lost to terminal cases of disrespect and disgust, no doubt.

I'm not willing to be conned and manipulated by them anymore, but others are welcome to stick with the slick Chicks' show biz all the way to the bank. Imagine those devious divas partying it up with your $$$ and toasting how easy it was to SCAM you. Too bad you can't buy stock in them.

They're not Bleached Blondes, they're Bleached Brunettes and the only way to take them down is by their own name. Tell Dumb Bleached Brunette jokes and laugh.

ok i understand that people are mad that she stood up for what she believed in but everyone needs to get over it this is a country where you can say what you want. yes i do not agree with what was said however people thereatnig the s for it is just as wrong being from texas i didn't agree because i think bush is a great president.

people need to grow up and stop being stupid and need just live with what was said it can't be changed

Too bad most blogs on the Dixie Chicks are about politics, because it ignores their great talent. More to the point is the quality of their music. I love it, but having just seen them live in Sydney, Australia, I think they might be appalled at how bad their sound is in concert, mainly due to poor sound engineering. The volume was too much for the sound system to handle properly, so that it was distorted and fuzzy. All the words were indistinct and the music from individual instruments was lost in a hash of noise. While part of the problem may have been a second rate sound system, this would not have been a problem if they reduced the volume, of which their was more than enough.

Great music - you have got to be kidding. I guess if you like a nasally rendition, the DC's are for you. I could care less what they say. I resent their intellectual hubris.
Instead of trashing the President in front of a mere 2000 in London, I dare the DC's to try it in their home town of Lubbock, TX.
The fiddle players have talent. Their arrogance is suffocating.

The negative backlash against the DC reflects the either/or logical fallacy that President George Bush presented in his speeches leading up to the war: either you are with the war or you are with the terrorists. This simplifies an issue that is much more complex than that. If we must support any action taken by our government, without question, this could lead to huge abuses of power. In fact, the logical fallacy of either/or is part of what define president Bush’s speeches as having characteristics of the Propaganda of Integration, the same propaganda employed by the Nazi regime. Now we see President Bush admitting that mistakes had been made in regards to the War in Iraq. Perhaps this is because many worked so hard to silence those who tried to raise questions.

Amen:-)