Re-name the Dixie Chicks

This is true in the sense that 65% have an above-average BMI (a figure that includes muscle mass), but not true in the sense that most Americans are noticeably overweight by normal standards. After all, how could the average American be heavier than average?


Cheers,

 

Compared to the other 2 Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines is probably a bit chunky. That being said, I much prefer a woman with a bit of meat, so I still think she is very attractive.

Besides that, I'm not really sure how/why her physical appearance has come into this. She could be a 100lb singing star or a 400lb singing star, her opinion should be given no more or no less weight than a regular person.


Bruce

 

No dear, you're just perfect.

 

I like the Dixie Cicks. I find there music wonderfully entertaining. I don't care about their political opinion. I can develop my own. I love the music . I thought this was America. I thought we were each entitled to our own opinion. I can like the music and disagree with their position. In my mind it is just entertainment!

 

By the way, I like Natalie. I think substantial women are more attractive!

 

You are correct that this is America (and they say that our education system is failing us) Although, I once heard some Mexican national object to saying the USA is America because they (Mexico) are America too as is Canada.

At any rate, I agree that the Dixie Chicks are talented and those who have said that Maines is chunky but cute. I am glad you are able to disassociate yourself with the persons individual opinions and behaviors. That attitude may help R Kelley. I do not intend to put money in the pocket of Maines when Dixie Chicks have made a couple of political statments that frankly fail to appreciate the sensitivites of probably a majority of country fans and others in a very sensitive situation. You are free to do as you please and she is free to speak as she pleases as you are correct that this is America. I firmly believe she has the right to voice her opinions and consumers have a right to voice theirs.

As I say, I have no heartburn with those who buy their music or voice her opinions. My opinion is that she is wrong but we have no shortage of shallow opinions from celebrities ranging from Maines to Streisand's & Baldwin's silly remarks at Democratic functions. Such is life. This is a country that celebrates diversity and that means we need diversity of opinion.

Sighhh....Thank goodness for the 'No Spin Zone' and Sean Hannity

North

 

I think many are missing the very large fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of talented singers. For a singer, they must sell their reputation and their ability to sell to the masses. Since the Dixie Chick’s target audience is not those that would agree with their statement, the result that has occurred is not a surprise It is a business, and if the Dixie Chicks are not making air time, they will not sell as many records. If you want great music in country, take a stroll to Nashville, there are many that have a great voice, great look, and are looking for someone to pick them up. (I won’t comment on the fat statement, Natalie is a beautiful woman, but a bit off track).

Business – that is all it is – the Dixie Chicks got too big for their own good – they said something that goes against the bottom line, who they thought might back them (friends??) will end up siding with what they are out to do – make money.

As for me, I appreciate the opinion that the Dixie Chicks have, but also have a strong opinion. If you are not supporting the war, you are against it, and if you are against it, it would seem you are with the man that tortured children, women, and a truly horrific man. To me, it does not matter what the “true reasons” Bush has – if he gets this man out of power, many, many people will benefit. Any of those who disagree, please keep in mind the children tortured, in front of their parents, to death, in truly obscene ways…… this is undisputed.

God bless all those fighting and who have lost their lives for the children and all who are civilized.

 

Hrm. I've never been an atheist, but I've always enjoyed listening to Billy Joel. I haven't really been a theologically orthodox Christian since I was 14 or so, but I still adore reading Christian theology. And though I have been a liberal for some years, I still enjoy watching a Rush Limbaugh interview and the occasional O'Reilly Factor. I suppose I've always sympathized with the comment Jorge Luis Borges made that "most people are more important than their opinions." I knew of some people who said they were embarrassed Clinton was president (some in my immediate family), and I never held it against them; and if they were musicians, I wouldn't stop buying their music.

This is totally different from the R. Kelly issue, which does affect the way his music sounds to me (though I'm not convinced that it should). Same goes for post-divorce Phil Collins. For some reason, it's not so bad with literature--I enjoy Luigi Pirandello's plays, even if he did melt down his Nobel Medallion to use for ammunition in Mussolini's army. Strange how that works.


Cheers,

 

An aside to kristie: I have never met an intelligent human being who likes Saddam Hussein's policies and would like to see him remain in power. Those who oppose the war do so because they believe that another war would be more traumatic to the Iraqi people than the most viable alternative, namely a government transformed by influence rather than by force (and in their defense: look at how we're handling China, whose government is undeniably guilty of atrocities that dwarf those of Saddam Hussein). Most anti-war folks I've talked to are compassionate human beings who sincerely believe that they're doing the right thing. Most pro-war folks I've talked to fall into the same category.


Cheers,

 

Atrocities can't be quantiifed. I meant to say "...guilty of atrocities on a scale that dwarfs that of Saddam Hussein." Sorry for any confusion.


Peace,

 

Rereading this entire thread, I have arrived at an alternative. Perhaps we need an "intolerance" thread. It would be great; anyone who disagreed with "the right opinions" could be totally degraded and diminished for their thoughts. Then, those with the "right" opinions could feel superior and safe. ....or perhaps we could return to intellectual agreement without personal attack.....naaaaa... it would never work!

 

Yes, I think people should be more tolerant of those who disagree with the Dixie Chicks. It's clearly wrong to label people who are simply exercising their right to chose which recording artists they will listen to as intolerant.

 

So let's leave them to being tortured, rape, and murdered... not sure the logic works, but appreciate the opinion.

Just like some have the right for the opinion to keep buying their music, others have the right to their opinion that the singer and their opinion is what is bought and does not buy.

 

How 'bout the Human Shields? OK, Dress Shields?

 

Well, no; it's more like "Let's place the Iraqi government in a position where it will no longer torture, rape, and murder its citizens, but do so in a way that doesn't involve bombing cities into oblivion." Here again, the issue isn't over the end--it's over the means. Anti-war folks tend to be exactly the sort of liberals who are out there with Amnesty International actively campaigning against torture, rape, and murder. They were anti-Taliban when anti-Taliban wasn't cool (and so was I, incidentally).

I'm not sure either side's logic works, but now that we're in the war I hope the desired results will be achieved with minimal casualties.

I probably won't buy a Dixie Chicks album simply because I don't generally listen to country music (Garth Brooks being the notable exception--and, okay, Shania Twain is a guilty pleasure, but given that her stuff was co-written with AC/DC's songwriter...). If they keep moving in a more folkish direction and become more like James Taylor or the Indigo Girls--which they may have to, if they've alienated the hardcore country fanbase--then I will probably pick up some of their albums. They're successful crossover artists, so it's not much of a stretch to see them finish crossing over.

No skin off my teeth as to whether other folks here keep buying their stuff; I'm just confused at the idea that large numbers of folks apparently stop buying an artist's records if they disagree with his or her political beliefs. Never heard of such an animal. I hope it doesn't reflect a new wave of lock-step uberpatriotism, because that can't be good for our country. It's not like the Dixie Chicks went racist, or issued a fatwa against somebody. They just griped about the President. Country artists did that all the time with Clinton; what makes Bush so special?


Cheers,

 

Well, obviously it's difficult to enjoy a Dixie Chicks record if you're PO'd at them. I'm not recommending you buy their albums--I don't buy their albums (for entirely different reasons), so that would be hypocritical. What I'm concerned about--and let's just call it concerned--is that there are apparently very large numbers of people, probably tens of millions, who will stop listening to a recording artist because he or she criticized the president. This was not the case five years ago with Clinton; the fact that it's the case today leaves me wondering how much the culture has changed since 9/11. In the back of my mind, I'm afraid of another McCarthy era of persecution against anyone who doesn't hold mainstream opinions. Since I'd rather not have to move to Canada, I'm trying to examine this situation to get an idea of how deeply rooted it is, and how long it might last, and how much worse it might get.


Cheers,

 

Tom - Good reply, and I understand your points.

I tend to tie music, actors, and people to their opinions. I do much more in war time. I feel very patriotic right now, and think that the troops need to know we support them.

My husband is more liberal, and I am more conservative - it makes great debates in our household, and enjoy the same here.

I am very happy to see that those troops are fighting for my right to discuss my opinion here, in Iraq I could not do the same.

 

Good points Tracy. It is rather funny that people complaining about intolerance over Maines remarks are then themselves intolerant of the right of those who disagree with Maines to state so and not buy their music.

North

 

Thanks for this. Those of us who have an American understanding of human rights may have more in common than we realize.

I should have understood this; war time should be different and always has been different. Clinton was pretty much a peacetime president--and when he did order military campaigns, they were relatively quick and small-scale--so it's not really a fair comparison. The last real large-scale wartime Democrat (not counting Vietnam, which was a very unusual case) was FDR, about whom nothing negative could be said (but then, this was the forties). And Bush 41 in Desert Storm was treated with much more reverence than Bush 43 is receiving now.

I'm glad to hear this--I should stop projecting my fears on other folks in this forum. My brother and I have always enjoyed debating politics, since he's about fifty notches to my right, and I have fond memories from my teenage years of sitting up late and watching Rush Limbaugh's TV show so I could argue with him about it.

This much is indisputable. And regardless of how one might feel about the war, I don't think many people will complain when Saddam Hussein is gone and the Iraqi government joins the ranks of the democracies.


Cheers,

 

I think a call for tolerance is reasonable. My point was this thread was started with name calling, not just intellectual disagreement. It is reasonalbe for people to not agree with the DIxie Chicks. As a matter of fact I am one who disagrees with their position. It is reasonable for people to choose not to buy thier albums. It is also reasonalbe to assure that their opinion can be expressed and that people who agree or disagree with them can do so. Debate is healthy. Name calling is not.