The Dixie Chicks Pose Nude
- April 24, 2003
- 41 comments
Why is it that people think posing nude stands for some kind of powerful statement? Or that it will somehow change the minds of those who are on the other side of the debate? It’s ridiculous.
The Dixie Chicks have now gone and posed nude in Entertainment magazine in order to “take on” their critics. Woah… that’ll change the critics’ minds. And if you look at the cover of the magazine, they are trying very hard to look hurt and yet defiant. The poor, innocent martyrs of the country music world. Give me a freakin’ break!
Of course Natalie Maines had every right to speak her mind, but people have every right to not buy their CD or even to burn their CD if they want. And no, free-will CD burning does not take us “back to the days of book burning” as Martie Maguire says in her Diane Sawyer interview. People burning their CDs in protest is not the equivalent of a fascist government forcing the burning of books. Both include fire, but that’s about the only thing they have in common.
Chelsey
February 8, 2007
Jay
February 8, 2007
I don’t remember you asking me if I was or was not against the Chicks. I have to admit, I’ve never heard their music. It might be great for all I know but I’m not that big a country music fan. The Chicks can say whatever they want, it’s their right. They just have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of their choices wouldn’t you say?
Chelsey, you’ve said your piece like 15 times now. We KNOW you love the Chicks and think anyone who doesn’t is immature. You don’t have to repeat this every time someone comes along who disagrees with you.
Get used to the fact that people are going to disagree with you on this one. And stop cluttering up this post with repetitive comments.
Chelsey
February 10, 2007
I totally get you Jay. Mabye I will give those bands you recomended a try. And you know what Chris… I don’t think I asked for your opionion!!! And weren’t you the one who made this whole thing where people could say what they wanted about the Chicks? That’s all that I’m doing!!!!! So unless you can prevent me from stating my opionion, you’d better get used to me defending the Chicks! Got it… GOOD!
That’s funny, no one was asking for your opinion on the Chicks either, yet you freely share it over and over and over.
Yes, people can say what they want about the Chicks, but there’s no need to repeat yourself. It does nothing but clutter up the site and make you look thin-skinned.
I can’t prevent you from sharing your opinion of the Chicks, but I CAN prevent you from doing it here repetitively. Unless you can bring something new to the discussion instead of calling anyone who disagrees with you immature, don’t comment again. This is your last warning.
Alan
February 11, 2007
I think this is a very interesting picture.
Clearly, the groupm is after some kind of martyrdom.
I would like to remain outside the argument, its an argument for people in USA. But, we should always remember that there are no filelds in USA full of dead British youths, the same cannot be said of Europe which is full of young dead American servicepeople. We owe our friends support in the War on Terror.
Thats it.
Chelsey
February 11, 2007
Well, now your being just as bad as you say I am. Your filling up your own site, just to let me know that I’m repeating myself. And just by setting up this site, you automaicaly asked my opionion! So what now!
So what are you gonna do if I keep posting… come through my computer monitor, I’d like to see you try.
Chelsey, how old are you? From your comments, I would guess you couldn’t be more than 18. You seem to enjoy trolling.
Yes, by setting up this site, I allow people to share their opinion here, but it’s a privilege, not a right. Prove yourself to be immature, repetitive and obnoxious and you lose that privilege.
There’s a little thing called common sense. Common sense would tell you that you’ve already shared your opinion along with others, so there’s no point in doing it endlessly. Use your common sense, it’s a good thing.
Missy
February 12, 2007
Do you really think that you are changing anyone’s mind about the Chicks when you act like that Chelsey?
To act that childish because someone disagrees with you won’t get you anywhere. There’s no need to keep saying what you think because we all already know what you think. We get it..we understand.
It’s fine to like the Chicks, but it’s also fine for people NOT to like the Chicks. There’s no reason to fight about it because they aren’t going to see this site and you aren’t changing anyone’s mind, so why do it?
Kathryn Smith
February 12, 2007
When our government doesn’t speak out against people receiving death threats for speaking their minds, people advocating violence against them, THAT is an implicit violation of free speech. In words the man in question should understand, either you support free speech or you are against it.
The truth is that, had their just been burnings of their CDs by the few hundred who did it and dropped sales, this would not be as big of a deal. But to say that is what happened is a complete mischaracterization. An institutional tolerance of it, a blanket boycott by Clearchannel (and all that name implies) and the president’s lax attitude towards the truly dreadful things that were directed at them created an atmosphere where their sentiment could FLOURISH among THINKING people.
Especially when their dislike of the government they insulted is validated daily, over three years LATER.
They keep paying a price, and they are reaping the rewards of simply standing up for what they believe in. This cover was the beginning of that. It is truly inulting to call it “damage control.” It was positively INFLAMMATORY to their fan base, so that comment made no sense to me.
They owe their success and opportunity to tap their own talents and artistry to ALL on this board, their friends and their enemies, and I commend them for not selling out, for not folding.
Jay
February 12, 2007
Kathryn, it’s not the government’s job to police what people say on either side of any issue. They didn’t crack down on the Chicks and they didn’t crack down on those opposed to the Chicks. In this case, amazingly, the government did the right thing and stayed out of it.
Clear Channel isn’t controlled by the government. It’s a business run by people who made a decision to not show the Chicks based on their statements. Another example of exercising free speech. Sure you don’t agree with it, but it’s their right as a business to make that decision.
Your whole argument doesn’t make any sense really. You’re upset that the government didn’t step up and stop Clear Channel from boycotting the Chicks and didn’t stop people from burning CDs and speaking out against the Chicks (death threats are never good and should never be supported). Yet if the government had done that, they would be messing with free speech. It would’ve been as bad as if the government had spoken against or outlawed the Chicks.
Also, Kathryn and Chelsey. This isn’t a “board” or forum in the sense of normal discussion forums. You don’t see various forums dedicated to certain topics. There are no threaded comments. This is a personal Web site or blog that allows comments on individual posts made by the author, me. The original post is my thoughts or opinion on an issue at that time. I don’t have to allow comments on anything, yet I choose to because I like hearing what others have to say on the issue, whether they agree or disagree with me. The only time I don’t let people comment is if they are personal attacks on me or another commenter, racist or in the case of Chelsey, endlessly repetitive.
You’re both free to share your opinion on the issue at hand. Just don’t hijack the comments and make it your personal agenda to call everyone who disagrees with you immature or in your case, Kathryn, unthinking.
Kathryn Smith
February 12, 2007
Your first sentence indicates to me that you did not understand me, nor do you understand what upset me about the situation. Perhaps that is my fault. Of course the government has the job of policing those who do not allow free speech. It is a civil right, and violating it through threats and violence is a crime. They do it all the time when it behooves them.
That is really a secondary issue. The general mindset of a nation that can’t handle what she said and tolerates the much more offensive, violent and dangerous reaction under the guise of “patriotism” or “supporting the president” is really frightening to me. Apparently it is scary to much of the nation.
My assertion about the government having a obligation to stand up to people who direct violence at others for using their freedom of speech stands undisputed, even as you seem to mistakenly turn this into something it is not.
And thank you for your assessment of clearchannel:) You can sit there and pretend all day that what was done to them was simply “freedom of speech” in return, and it won’t change that it wasn’t.
The irony that you state an opinion, allow for feedback, and then tell people, like me, they can’t attack your opinion is a bit telling, in my humble opinion, of course. Calling it “personal” is an excuse. I never personally insulted you. I don’t know why I would. I don’t even know you. I can certainly assess people’s opinions with any word, barring vulgarity, that I feel fits it. I mean, you certainly have allowed yourself to do that. I don’t think I am at all unusual in characterizing people as, “thinking”. I find nothing wrong with it.
never mind.
I have nothing more to say on this. No one has hijacked anything of yours. I made the mistake of thinking this was some kind of discussion. It truly was my mistake and I apologize for any offense.
Thanks a lot for the opportunity and good luck:)
Kathryn, who is not allowing free speech in all of this? I’m assuming you are meaning Clear Channel?
What in the world are you talking about in your second paragraph? There was no “general mindset” of our nation about the Chicks. There were a lot of people who disagreed with them and a lot of people who agreed with them. Some nutjobs went too far and threatened them. That’s what makes them nutjobs and not a “general mindset”.
No where am I saying the government shouldn’t protect free speech. What I am saying is that government shouldn’t interfere with free speech. You and I are on the same page with this.
You can sit there and pretend all day that the Chicks are “paying a price” for their actions and have had their free speech trampled on when in reality the Chicks are doing fine and have had tremendous press over the issue. They’ve lost some fans, sure, but they’ve gained new ones. That’s what happens when you say controversial things on hot topics.
Who’s making this personal now? Where have I ever said you can’t say your opinion? I’m letting you leave your comments, aren’t I? I’m not censoring or altering them in any way, am I? Where have I ever called your comments or Chelsey’s personal? They’re not. You both simply disagree with me. Reread what I wrote earlier. I am simply telling you what qualifies a comment for deletion or blocking. If your comment qualified, you wouldn’t see it on the site.
Again, I never said you were hijacking the comments. Chelsey was pushing it, hence my warnings to her to bring something new to the table or stop commenting.
And please, stop with the martyr mentality. You misread my comment.
ChrisMPT
February 14, 2007
Okay, okay. If you don’t like those two you should really look up my favorite Dallas rapper “Vainglorious P.I.G.” He had a great debut album “Straight Outta Oak Cliff.” Too bad he died when rival rapper Six-Pac’s fans shot him.