I don’t get it.
I mean, was it a slow news day, or did Al just get around to reading last week’s Time or something?
According to the Tennessean, Gore used recent attacks on the Dixie Chicks that followed anti-war comments by Natalie Maines as an example. Gore told the audience, “They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit,” Gore said. “Our best protection is free and open debate.”
So the DCs (or a member thereof) saying they’re ashamed that Dubya is from Texas is “free and open debate,” but someone saying that they think the DCs are doofuses is “making them feel un-American”?
And given that the only reason anyone cares about, or heard, the DCs’ statement is because of their economically-lucrative celebrity (i.e., people like things they’ve done in the past), why should that not be at stake when they make use of that celebrity (and do things that people dislike)?
I mean, it would be nice if people were able to separate art from the artist, but if I as an artist insist on insinuating myself into realms outside my art, it seems to me fair game for others to express dissenting opinions. And if that translates into reduced music/book/movie/TV sales because of the association, that’s the I take.
(via Andrea)
Exactly. Why on earth you aren’t paid for your writing is beyond me… 🙂
Well, as the “Manager for IT Documentation Services” at my company, I guess I am. 🙂
But, thanks.
Well, that’s a reasonable assertion. Unless it’s a Shel Silverstein book parents in North Dakota insist being pulled from the shelves because he looks like a hippie. Unless the government gets involved and says you shouldn’t buy art from people that criticize the government. Unless there’s blacklisting involved. Unless… Well, I could go on, but I could care less about the Dixie Chicks, to tell you the truth. Nevermind.
On the other hand, there are political brownie points to be made all around on this issue. Disgusing.
1. a Shel Silverstein book parents in North Dakota insist being pulled from the shelves because he looks like a hippie: If we’re talking about a book store, that’s part of commerce — it’s no more reasonable than demanding that a book by someone be stocked because they’re well-groomed, but that’s how it goes. If we’re talking about a library — well, that’s unfortunate, but no different from any other request by a community (or a part thereof) that wants a book pulled from their community library (and with plenty of precedent). I object to it on principle, but I object to a lot of things on principle, and nobody listens to me.
2. Unless the government gets involved and says you shouldn’t buy art from people that criticize the government : That’s where the line gets drawn, because that’s where the First Amendment kicks in, IMO.
3. Unless there’s blacklisting involved : “Blacklisting” takes place for any number of reasons. It’s counterproductive, but, again, that’s the marketplace.
I’d also consider the reverse case. What if the DCs made a statement (about Bush, for example) that folks thought was really cool, that caused them to contact radio stations to play their songs, that boosted sales of their CDs, that made the folks at Big Media Company XYZ invite them to all sorts of functions and concerts and the like. Would that be “right”?
It’s the rampant false-patriotism that’s the problem. People are wrapping themselves in the flag and decrying anyone who dares to question the President.
THAT’S the problem here. The DC’s are but one example of it. What about Fox News using its ticker in NYC to goad on anti-war demonstrators, which it did last week?
We disagree on a number of issues, Dave, but the free-speech issue is becoming nasty lately for folks who dare to speak up.
I agree that it can be a cheap rhetorical trick to wrap oneself inside a flag and declare oneself a patriot — and, by extension, declaring one’s opponents automatically unpatriotic. I would disagree that the DCs are “un-American,” even if they are effectively guilty of calling Bush “un-Texan.”
I do think there’s been a lot of un-patriotic and un-American speech from the fringes of the anti-war movement (De Genova and flag-burners being examples). I don’t think that includes the majority of folks opposed to this war, and regardless, it’s still speech that is protected from government action by the First Amendment.
That doesn’t mean that private citizens, or other non-governmental organizations (businesses, for example), can’t disagree with such speech. I’d prefer if we could all get along, and keep the rhetorical heat down to a low simmer, but being shouted down is not censorship. It’s rude, perhaps, and may be socially counterproductive, but it, too, is an expression of opinion, and needs to be just as protected and respected, at least in principle.
Very interesting comment on free speech. What I’m hearing is that it’s alright for the lead singer of the DCs to express her opinion on the President. When listeners express their opinion on what the DCs said, it’s censorship? Sounds like a big double standard to me.
If you are an anti-war, anti-troop protester, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am. Be prepared for people who support our kids on the ground to voice their opinion that you are wrong. If you cannot accept their emotions, or if your feelings are hurt, tough.
I kind of look at it as the PC of the Right.
Yes the DC’s have the right to express their opinions, just as people have the right to smash their CD’s. Clear Channel has a long history of Blacklisting artists in this country. But as a corporation they have the right to decide what to play on their stations. Currently, People have the right to say almost anything they want, as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. But people on the right have decided to destroy the lives of dissenters as best they can.
With Patriot I and Patriot II hoving into view, and the fact that the right is wrapping itself in clothes of the “Morally Just”, dissent might be a thing of the past.
Remember…We are all just monkeys in a bunch of trees…Busily handing asshats out to each other.
Clear Channel has a long history of Blacklisting artists in this country. One reason why the near-monopolistic nature of US media is a problem.
People have the right to say almost anything they want, as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. I’d say that’s a truism.
The seeming alternative (“People have a right to say anything they want, without any consequences”) seems a bit odd.
But people on the right have decided to destroy the lives of dissenters as best they can. A generalization that can be made of any group that holds PC standards, left or right. I think Trent Lott’s comments, to take a recent example on the other side of the political fence, were abhorrent, and I fully support the efforts made by various parties to “destroy” his political life as a result. How is that different?
More of a “Separate the art from the artist” statement. For myself, I don’t see the point of not watching shows/movies of people that I disagree with politically (say Emma Caulfield, Swartzennagger, or Bruce Willis). I also think that we, as a nation, put to much importance on what celebrities say.
Yes, the “People have the right to say almost anything they want, as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences” is a truism, but it needed to be repeated. Both sides seem to be emotional and have hurt feelings.
And the whole point of PC is to destroy dissent. People have a right to hope that others will call them by the preferred names etc., but not the right to demand it. Likewise, People can refer to others in derogatory ways, but not have the right to not get beaten to pulp for doing so.
Trent Lott, as a politician and leader of the Senate, was in a position of authority when he put his foot in his mouth. There have been others since then, some having been chastised, others not. I don’t see Lott having any problem being re-elected, though he may be asked not to run by the party.
The DC’s had the right to say what they felt, but should have known that there would have been retaliations because of it (especially since they are a C/W band).
I also think that we, as a nation, put too much importance on what celebrities say. I agree that, and also with the sentiment of trying to separate the art from the artist. (I have too much trouble already with separating actors from previous roles — separating the role from the actor is also a problem.)