Album: Dixie Chicks: Taking the Long way

[Susan]

I submitted this review to iTunes I encourage everyone to go out and buy this album. It does not matter if you like country music or not. If you like the Dixie Chicks or not. We have to show America that free speech is still free.

         I am a former republican,  and I am buying this
         album to reward the Dixie Chicks for having the
         courage to speak out and to stand up for their
         principles. You see a patriot is not someone who
         blindly salutes the flag and mouths the mantra
         that they support the troops. Instead a patriot
         is someone who stands up to those in power, say
         and do the right things even when it may be
         considered by the public at large as unpopular. I
         salute the Dixie Chicks for this reason, you
         should also.

Go out and buy their album and encourage all your friends to do the same!

[jan c]

is this their first release since all the brouhaha? I hope as many buy it for the reason you suggested as for the opposite reason anyway.

[Alexandra]

I got stuck in a car on a long trip with only the next-to-last dixie chicks CD available . . . by the end of the trip I kinda didn't even mind their music. Go DC!

[Chaunte]

Nope.  Sorry.  I must respectfully disagree.

I believe that the Chicks were out of line.  Disagree with the war all you want, and I do, but do it on American soil.  It is inappropriate to carry this type of protest offshore.  Their tirade onstage in England reminded me, and a lot of other county music listeners, of "Hanoi Jane."*  I was glad they apologized and hoped that we could move beyond all this.

Unfortunately, no.

This latest set of rantings by the Chicks comes across like a publicity stunt.  Retraction of their apology was timed to coincide with the release of their latest cd.  They are trying to pick a fight and doing it to boost sales.

I would have respected the Chicks if they had continued their anti-war protest here in the States.  That is excercising their First Amendment rights.  Trying to topple a foreign government on foreign soil is not their First Amendment right.  Instead, they disappeared from view.  This latest set of rantings by them reeks of sleeze.

The Chicks are permanently off my play list.

Chaunte

* For those of you who may not know who "Hanoi Jane" is, I have provided the following link.  I will say upfront that the link goes to the US 1st Cav Medic (Airmobile) website.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

[Susan]

Nope.  Sorry.  I must respectfully disagree.

That is entirely your right. There's an ole saying too many Republicans and Bush supporters forget.... I disagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. People need to apply this to the Dixie Chicks also.

I believe that the Chicks were out of line.  Disagree with the war all you want, and I do, but do it on American soil.  It is inappropriate to carry this type of protest offshore.  Their tirade onstage in England reminded me, and a lot of other county music listeners, of "Hanoi Jane."*  I was glad they apologized and hoped that we could move beyond all this.

The current conflict was started with Congress issuing a document called the Authorization for the Use of Military force. The non-partisan congressional research service stated quite clearly

Where Congress has passed a declaration of war, 50 U.S.C. § 1811 authorizes the Attorney General to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress. This provision does not appear to apply to the AUMF, as that does not constitute a congressional declaration of war.... For a discussion of declarations of war and authorizations for the use of military force, see CRS Report for Congress RL31133, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications, by David M. Ackerman and Richard F. Grimmett.

So basically we are not in a war, we are in one of the numerous conflicts our nation has been in, which  like the Korean war these do not technically qualify as a war.

The Dixie Chicks didn't embarrass the United States, George W. Bush does that perfectly well on his own without anyone's help.  They said specifically.

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."[1]

It is their right to state what ever they feel to whomever they like. George W. Bush even agrees.....

"The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say...I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..."

Trying to topple a foreign government on foreign soil is not their First Amendment right.  Instead, they disappeared from view.

I do not understand that statement. The United States toppled the Governement of Iraq and are now rattling the sabre with regards to governement of Iran. I know of no governement that the Dixie Chicks tried to topple, nor any that they have the ability to even affect beyond voting in the elections.

The Chicks are permanently off my play list.

I am sure that fact won't bother them in the slightest. Me personally, I consider that your right and support your decision totally. However I strongly disagree with the reasoning and logic behind that decision.

* For those of you who may not know who "Hanoi Jane" is, I have provided the following link.  I will say upfront that the link goes to the US 1st Cav Medic (Airmobile) website.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

I believe that attempting to link the Dixie Chick's first amendment protected speech and Jane Fonda, should be beneath your dignity. No side was pure and innocent during that conflict, remember My Lai.

The only information I can find on their retracting an apology is Time Magazine which suggests that by releasing this album, they retracted their apology. They as far as I know never issued a statement saying we didn't mean what we said. It probally came from a Time Magazine article lead-in which said.

                         "Cover Story: Chicks In the Line of Fire Three years ago they apologized
                          for dissing the President. Now, they're back with a new album - and a
                          retraction of the apology."

However the article makes no such claim that they retracted anything, instead it says:

                       "The celebrity playbook for navigating a scandal is one word long: repent.
                       But apologies are for lapses of character, not revelations of it, and sensing
                       that they were being asked to apologize for their beliefs as much as their
                       timing, the Chicks decided not to back down. "

I think the source that you got that impression from was misunderstood, misinformed, or perhaps even intentionally misleading people. I make no judgements either way.

[jan c]

Do it on Ermerikan soil.
(Trying to topple the Gummint that is.)
I like Susan's response to that "The United States toppled the Governement of Iraq and are now rattling the sabre with regards to governement of Iran. I know of no governement that the Dixie Chicks tried to topple...",
which ya know, seems reasonable. To me.
Ermerikan soil tends to be where Ermerika is a wantin' it ta be. Innit?

IF "picking a fight" boosts sales, welcome to the jungle. A commercial act that might wanna boost sales. Oh Dear me!
At most it seems a calculated risk that could well backfire. (And we're only talking about this cause it's a CoUntry and Western act.) Me, I like girls that take risks and Don't Back Down.


Posted at: May 28, 2006, 08:41:24 AMand ya know I checked yr link:

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm


to see exactly what is so particularly offensive;

READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE BROADCAST* posted there,
and please point out the harm in what was said.

I am specifically NOT interested in hearing apologistics for the involvement in Vietnam.

Point out in no uncertain terms the HARM in what "Hanoi Jane"
(that is SO 1972!) had to say that day.

(*: warning you will find such inflammatory rhetoric as this:

I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam- these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.

succor to the enemy or finding that they are in fact human beings and being not afraid to point this out?
!


Posted at: May 28, 2006, 09:34:05 AMsome other aspects of Chaunte's rant I want to point out:
"keep it on American soil."
Dixie Chicks said the thing on British soil.
Chaunte is pointing out the perceived similarity (among members of what can be characterized as an arguably backwards-looking subculture) between the girls from Texas and one "Hanoi Jane";
Here's one similarity: they are pointing out in different ways the excesses of colonialism.
I think Great Britain is an EXCELLENT place to do this.


Posted at: May 28, 2006, 09:47:09 AM
MORE off topic responses -

I saw this very interesting example of revisionist history there at 1st cav.com:

We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.

that is one amazing statement.

Shall we discuss rhetoric? I have some interest in that field.

[Chaunte]

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I believe that the Chicks were wrong to go offshore with their anti-war protest.  Do it here.  Onshore.  I would have had much more respect for them if they had done that. 

The government of Tony Blair has been on shaky grounds for a while, especially since it was revealed that we got into this war on misinformation.  The Chicks' comments could have become a rallying point for bringing the Blair government down, thus losing one of the few allies we have left.  A new government could easily pull British troops out of Iraq, leaving us holding the bag alone.  We started this war together, we need to end it together. 

Both the Chicks and Fonda spend a great deal of energy promoting their anti-war themes.  Both hit their protest highpoint while offshore.  Both were sharing what they truly believe.  No, the Chicks did not receive some palmed note from an allied POW only to turn it over to the enemy forces.  However, the efforts of both could only have been music to the ears of the opposition forces.  There is no greater morale booster than hearing disunity among your foes, except for outright victory.  Would there have been fewer allied casulties had the protest stayed onshore?  We can never know that.

I know that many readers here will strongly disagree with me on this, and that's fine.  I know a that a number of county stations I listen to are weighing whether or not to play this new release from the Chicks.  I know this because the stations have talked about this during their drive-time shows.  The Chicks may get air time, but I wonder how hard the cd will be pushed.

Chaunte

[jan c]

 >I clearly do not get the onshore/offshore aspect. You have not specified what is wrong with FREE SPEECH for Americans wherever they may be.

The government of Tony Blair has been on shaky grounds for a while, especially since it was revealed that we got into this war on misinformation.  The Chicks' comments could have become a rallying point for bringing the Blair government down, thus losing one of the few allies we have left.  A new government could easily pull British troops out of Iraq, leaving us holding the bag alone.  We started this war together, we need to end it together.

>I did not know that a mediocre C&W act had the power to topple governments not only domestically but amongst the world abroad as well.  (I knew that old British empire had seen better days, but that is rilly hurtin'!)
It - IRAQ - is not a war. It cannot end as a war ends. The Administration has been pretty clear that these are not enemy combatants in terms of any established state; so, hey, torture, going against international standards of wartime conduct, NOT A PROBLEM. You cannot have it both ways.
And yes, a 'war' started on misinformation. You begin to see my problem with coming down on its critics? I do not understand.
Uhm, in both of these arguably illegal conflicts, Vietnam and Iraq, which side was the aggressor? (Since you will not answer even rhetorically, I shall give the answer. The United States of America was. Big bullies tend to have their critics. Where I come from anyway.)
Wrong is Wrong. It needs to be said. It need to be said the world over. And often.

This sort of My Country Right Or Wrong has Got. To. Go.
Fighting on the side of wrong is doubly wrong.




Posted at: May 29, 2006, 12:46:28 AM I am not being disingenuous per the argument that you have IMPLIED, that such criticism OFFSHORE has the potential to give succor to the enemy, I did suggest a discussion of EG: some rhetoric which you chose to make available as part of your 'argument'. Your response is merely a restatement of your position.
The old convention 'we must agree to disagree' is disingenuous.

Warmongering sucks. Period. IF you have a really well-constructed argument against that statement, I'll agree that I disagree with it. In advance. How's that?


Posted at: May 29, 2006, 12:53:29 AM

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I believe that the Chicks were wrong to go offshore with their anti-war protest.  Do it here.  Onshore.  I would have had much more respect for them if they had done that. 

...  A new government could easily pull British troops out of Iraq, leaving us holding the bag alone.  We started this war together, we need to end it together. 

I have to point out further illogies here:
"Do it here. Onshore." BUT, wait a minute, "We started this war together..." - so how is it wrong to criticise over there. I do not see the difference between doing it here and doing it there. (Your 'argument' is all about the shakiness of it all, that a group of gurl sangers can cause a world o' hurt by not keepin' they mouf shet.)
There is NO actual parallel with old Hanoi Jane and the NVA in August 1972, is there?

Of course it is not surprising to me that any attempt at an argument built on such a bad premise has some real holes.

(and of course I am at this point doing mainly this: )


Posted at: May 29, 2006, 01:06:48 AM

  No, the Chicks did not receive some palmed note from an allied POW only to turn it over to the enemy forces. 

also are you presenting a myth as a fact by this veiled reference? That in itself is a tactic of desperation.

[Kendall]

I am enjoying this post. It shows how even such discussion like this mirrors the event your talking about. Susan owns this forums, sort of like being the President. Chaunte you since you have the right to disagree, can post your disagreement and reasons, without fear of being kicked out, as long as abide by the rules. Mainly the attack the issue not the person rule which you are abiding by. It reminds me of bush vs dixie chicks.

My girlfriend's son was in the 1st Marine, from San Diego that has been in 2 major iraq offenses. He was in the first "surge to baghdad" where they went from the border to baghdad in a few days at the beginning of the war. They said they killed everyone in their way, even bus loads of people. They even ran over people. He took pictures of it all. One picture he took was called the flatman where a tank had flattened one person.

We also attended a return of her cousin from iraq that lost all ability to move, and lost half his brain in a land mine. The whole small town held a parade to him, he couldnt even talk anymore.

Then her son was in Fallujah, for his 2nd tour. They brought the 1st Marines there to invade that city. He said they killed everyone in sight, even women and elder people.

In pursuing one person that had entered their cleared section (they had eliminated everyone from their houses, and someone entered coming from another uncleared section), after throwing 2 grenades into a shack, his lead soldier then quickly went to fire in to finish them off, and was killed instantly (he thinks) shot in the face/head. He then, in a attempt to pull the fallen soldier (one of his good friends) out of the doorway, reached around and returned a volley of rounds. He was shot in the hands. One other of his soldiers was shot in the shoulder, and one in the elbow, and they had to pull out leaving the fallen soldier.

He said he could see through his palm. I saw the wound when he got home. War is no joke and very serious, nothing to be trivial. I will try getting him to send me a picture of all the wounded soldiers in Germany showing their wounds if you want to all see. Very graphic and something you will never see on tv or cable. Or the pictures of the carnage on way to baghdad. News has a way of making the war seem clean and without injury/death, not showing the true nature of the beast.

The whole Military Engagement makes me really mad. The whole resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq 's weapons of mass destructions is a joke, and even after years of being there, havent even turned up any WMD. Our cousin and son that was injured should have been in Afghanistan fighting, chasing Al-Qaeda fighters that caused 911.

On my brother's side (who lives in new york), his wife's relative was a firefighter killed in the collapse of the World Tradecenter. And Bin Laden hasnt been captured yet. And I have only heard of a few people in the chain that have. Iraq was one huge costly diversion (lives, ideals, and tax money) from the real war on terror. This force, if it was in afghanistan would have made a difference against terror, greater than the current forces there.

I would have been in agreement had the Dixie Chicks responded against Afghanistan, the real war on terror.

I applaud anyone that speaks out against this actions, and any future actions, especially before it happens. Yes its already happened now and you cant really dwell too much, since we have fighters there now. I look at what Dixie chicks said in between songs "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." at a concert, a few weeks Before USA invaded Iraq. And they were boycotted as well as lipton tea was boycotted after, which is all fine in the USA. With freedom of speech, others get freedom of speech to respond, and even act with boycots.

I do like the song that I have seen videos of lately.

I would like to see both sides continue, because It makes me feel better that at least we still have freedom here, at least a great portion of freedom. And I applaud you Chaunte for speaking against the Dixie chicks, though I have been pursuaded to go out and buy the CD.