Re-name the Dixie Chicks

The problem with the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Mike Farrell, etc, etc. is that they don't speak out of conviction. If they truly believed what they said, truly felt Bush was wrong, this war was evil then we would have music like in the 1960's. Bob Dylan they ain't. These people are either has beens trying to get another 15 minutes, or a flavor of the month trying to become ideological.

Bottom line, the Dixie Chicks have every right to say what they want. America has every right not to buy their already mediocre albums or buy tickets to movies of people they do not like. Freedom cuts both ways. There was a time that good musicians came out against a war and stood their ground with great music. I disagree with their politics, but the music was undeniably good.

Time for my boot heels to be wanderin'.

 

And here's the proof that politics occasions as much argument as religion. I feel so much better

 

While I'm still iffy on this war, I have to admit that Saddam has definitely killed thousands of his own people, and did so long before the 1988 nerve gas incident. From Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

On another note, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the U.S. government's definition of "ally." This is not only because Rachel Corrie was run over by an Israeli bulldozer (deliberately, by all accounts--presumably the driver had mistaken her for a Palestinian, though why the Israeli government would be running over unarmed Palestinians is beyond me), but because there has still been no apology from Israeli military leaders (only a statement that she didn't belong there, and essentially had it coming to her--though it was, of course, a "regrettable incident"). Rachel Corrie reminds me of somebody I used to know. The whole point of standing down a bulldozer is the presumption that not killing somebody warrants at least postponing the demolition task at hand long enough to get that person out of the way. Obviously, the person driving the bulldozer believes that some human lives aren't worth the trouble. The total silence of his superiors leaves me wondering if the Sharon administration agrees with him. This comes on the heels of news that Putin's military may have been destroying corpses in Chechnya to hide...well, to hide the corpses. Are anti-American protesters in the Arab world right about one thing: That we cheerfully ignore mass slaughter and genocide if the perpetrators happen to be our allies? I don't want to believe this, but right now I see no other alternative. Got any good news for me, Orson? I want to hear a pro-American spin. I can't come up with one.


No cheers this time,

 

Well, scratch "cheerfully ignore"--U.S. state department official Lou Fintor has just demanded an "immediate and full investigation" from the Israeli government, and reiterated that "[w]e again call on the Israeli defense forces to undertake all possible measures to avoid harm to civilians." At least we paid a little attention, but I can no longer comfortably assume that the 2,200 Palestinians killed by the Sharon administration were all either terrorists or accidental casualties. Corrie was obviously neither--and if she happened to be Palestinian, wouldn't the state department have written her off as another faceless victim of the Middle East peace crisis?

 

A very tragic situation. She felt she was doing something right to protect others and knew the risk not unlike what we are about to do in Iraq.

The Israeli/Palestinian situation is tragic and there is enough blame to go around. The Israelis have tried to negotiate and work with the Palestianians to no avail. Repeatedly no matter what Israel has done, her citizens (school children, college age children) have been deliberately targeted for killing by Palestian groups. Smiling Palestinian families receiving checks from Sadaam does not make things look any better. Even Clinton got frustrated when Barak offered so much and Chairman Arafat would not budge. Israel wants to exist and intially attempts were made to destroy her from the founding of the independent nation. One small Jewish state in the middle of a sea of Muslim states. Bill O'Reilly stated that Israeli retaliation and actions certainly have not solved the problem but they have ensured Israels survival.

Unfortunately I think there is much rampant anti-semitism in the world that masks as one sided humanitarian concern (not addressing you Tom). This means Israel is beyond all reason expected to take homocide bombings and do nothing. Would the US do nothing if groups internally were conducting homocide bombings on school buses, teenage clubs, etc.

North

 

No, of course not--our response to 9/11 definitely established that. But there is a great deal of difference between arresting or killing terrorists even if civilians are accidentally killed in the process (as we do), or demolishing Palestinian homes that serve as terror centers even if civilians are accidentally killed in the process (as Israel does), and deliberately running over an unarmed human being--twice--for standing in front of a bulldozer. If the Sharon Doctrine is "feel free to kill any inconvenient Palestinians whether they happen to be terrorists or not," then the line between self-defense and slaughter has been crossed. I'm not sure what has happened here, but I now have an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach about those 2,200 casualties. I can no longer rest comfortably in the knowledge that they were terrorists, or that they were killed by mistake. Once again, Corrie wasn't--and we probably would never have known about it if she hadn't been an American. How many other people have died for doing no more than what Corrie did? I'd like to say zero; it makes me feel better. But what if the number is much higher, and growing?


Peace,

 

ANd Tom Head second's rejecting expression of this robust difference of opinion!

My, how LIBERAL we are!!! NoT...

I say the opposite--have at it, everyone. Just as the Dixies have every right to express themselves, so does anyone who abhorrs their opinion; they can embrace the radio stations that now reject their tunes, etc.

There's nothing childish about merely having a strong opinion in time of war.

--Orson
(who may still listen to the girls....)

 

Gee, whiz, Orson, I thought that's what we were doing; I'll try to disagree more vehemently next time.


Cheers,

 

Actually, if you look at the period leading up to our Civil War, you will find that it is an argument of States Rights vs Federal Rights, not so much about slavery.

And, yes, I do have a problem with GWB, as it seems he only looks to the UN when it pleases him to do so and ignores it when it suits his purpose. The war is being fought over a UN resolution that the majority of the UN members don't wantf as a basis for the war. So, we throw in a 15 year old chemical agent attack that we can't even say for certain was done by Iraq.

I personally have no love for the guy, but I am not willing to destroy the framework of the UN, run up a hundred billion dollar tab and put countless lives on the line to get rid of him. And that doesn't even take into consideration the relationship that we will have with the rest of the world from this point forward.

Wes

 

Clearly, there is considerable debate about what caused the Civil War. Slavery was a major issue that led to the war. Also clear is the fact that we haven't always treated others with respect, but we are one of the few nations that admits culpability, demonstrates a willingness to learn, and seeks reconciliation with those wronged.

You flipantly write off years of national striving to make amends for past wrongs so that you can allow yourself to say we are no better than Saddam. I think you are being spiteful. Regardless of your opinion of President Bush (or our history) I don't think it is all that difficult tell him (or us) apart from Saddam and his regime.

 

No U.S. government has ever resembled Saddam's regime in philosophy or dictatorial efficiency. However:

(1) Our government has used weapons of mass destruction since the 18th century (smallpox biowarfare against American Indians).
(2) Some of the pre-constitutional Puritan governments did bear a disturbing resemblance to the Taliban.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan (and someone else who precedes him by a few thousand years): There is no righteous man, no, not one. But a nation should not be judged by events in its distant history; our current regime, flawed though it may be, has condemned slavery, biowarfare, and sadistic dictatorship. Saddam has actively practiced #3 for decades, and would probably practice #2 given half a chance.

Which is not to say that this war is necessarily just (I'm not at all convinced that it is, though I do hope it is quick and successful)--but the removal of Saddam Hussein (who has modeled his policies after a man who killed 22 million people) may be its saving grace.


Cheers,

 

I agree. The fat chick needs to stop singin'. As for the others, your 15 mins are up. Go home.

 

Whatever one might think of the Dixie Chicks and their political opinions, I gotta say I'm raising an eyebrow at the idea that the lead singer is supposed to be fat; she looks to be in fairly good shape to me. (But then I've never understood how Janeane Garofolo was supposed to credibly pass as an unattractive Cyrano de Bergerac character in The Truth About Cats and Dogs, either.)


Cheers,

 

OK, Tom, let's be diplomatic: she's "Ruebenesque"

 

The average American woman is 5'4" and weighs 140 pounds; the head Dixie Chick is Rubenesque only by fashion model standards.


Cheers,

 

Tell my frikken wife that PLEASE. I am tired of answering her "Am I fat?" questions!

Bill

 

The average American is over weight. Maines is chunky but still attractive. Don't like her flaky political views but she is cute & musically talented.

North