Elton attacks 'censorship' in US

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

I don't believe that Lux was talking about censorship, but rather the reaction that most people SHOULD have in regards to someone displaying an ignorant statement such as not knowing (or caring) about the difference between Iraq and Iran, but feeling we should just bomb 'em all.

Exactly, it's not. The question I posed was rhetorical. Everyone has different opinions and reacts differently. To not let someone express their opinion would be censorship. Apparently Toby Keith doesn't sell too well in Australia. So what? They have every right to buy or not buy his music. I was merely making the point that a lot of the Chicks fans reacted in the same way as Lux and her fellow Aussies reacted to Toby Keith. I'm really not saying who's viewpoint I agree with, that's beside the point. I"m simply saying that I don't agree with the censorship remark Elton made by citing what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

There is a very scary mindset in the US right now, that to be anything other than a conservative is to be Anti-American, un-patriotic, or, worse, a "commie."

And you could say that there is a mindset that anyone who is not a liberal, hates, is a thug, a criminal, etc., etc., etc. Or anyone from the South is a redneck and stupid. There are lots of scary mindsets in the US. The scarier mindset to me is the one of labeling people and the division it causes.

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I don't believe that Lux was talking about censorship, but rather the reaction that most people SHOULD have in regards to someone displaying an ignorant statement such as not knowing (or caring) about the difference between Iraq and Iran, but feeling we should just bomb 'em all.

To be fair, the song in question, Alan Jackson's "Where Were You When The World Stopped Turning," was about the immediate gut reaction of people when they first learned about the Sept. 11 attacks. Mostly he talks about fear, shock and the impulse to cling tightly to your loved ones. I don't think he says anything about military retaliation. The bit about Iraq and Iran goes as follows: "I'm just a singer of simple songs / I'm not a real political man / I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you / The difference in (sic) Iraq and Iran / But I know Jesus and I talk to God / And I remember this from when I was young / Faith, hope and love are some good things he gave us / And the greatest is love." I could do without the preachy Jesus bit, but I don't see anything in there about bombing 'em all. It's also worth noting that the example of Iraq and Iran was written before all the noise started about Iraq and WMDs--I think AJ just picked the two most obvious countries in the Middle East whose names would get mixed up by someone who's not very politically astute.

Of course, I agree that if anyone did write a song about "Iraq, Iran, what's the difference, let's bomb 'em all," it would be the very height of blind, hyper-patriotic hubris and ignorance.

And there are plenty of famous performers who express conservative opinions... Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Wood, Lara Flynn-Boyle, Chuck Norris, Pat Sajak, Dennis Miller and Kelsey Grammar, being chief among them... and I very rarely hear anyone blast them or conduct boycotts of their films, etc., the way the conservative/Republican party was boycotting and blasting the Dixie Chicks and anyone else speaking out against the war in Iraq.

Geez, I didn't even know half of them were conservatives. Also, have you noticed that when famous performers--actors, singers, sports figures, etc.--get involved in politics, they're almost invariably Repugs? Saint Ronald, Sonny Bono, Fred "Gopher" Grandy, Mike Ditka and the Governator....not a Democrat in the bunch.

There is a very scary mindset in the US right now, that to be anything other than a conservative is to be Anti-American, un-patriotic, or, worse, a "commie."

"The 1950s called...they want their mindset back!"

Seriously, though, at least the 1950s had a valid excuse for distrusting left-wing politics, given the Cold War and the threat of nuclear conflict with the ultra-far-left. Of course, the extremism of Soviet communism begat an equally extreme reaction on the right in the form of McCarthy's witch hunts. It seems like the ultra-far-left and the ultra-far-right have a lot more in common with each other than anyone in between the two extremes, but I can see how the average ignorant Joe Schmo might easily have associated anybody left of Eisenhower with communism.

But today there's no excuse for it. The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist Muslim radicals, and it seems like our leaders are responding to it, not by doing the opposite, but by governing our own country with ultra-religious fundamentalist Christian radicalism. Yet the average bloke who gets his information mostly in sound bytes and catch phrases is still swallowing Reagan's crapola about government being the problem, and at the same time fails to realize that a government run by today's Repugs is a far greater problem than the Democratic-run government of the late 1970s ever was.

Eileen

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by jwd

Exactly, it's not. The question I posed was rhetorical. Everyone has different opinions and reacts differently. To not let someone express their opinion would be censorship. Apparently Toby Keith doesn't sell too well in Australia. So what? They have every right to buy or not buy his music. I was merely making the point that a lot of the Chicks fans reacted in the same way as Lux and her fellow Aussies reacted to Toby Keith. I'm really not saying who's viewpoint I agree with, that's beside the point. I"m simply saying that I don't agree with the censorship remark Elton made by citing what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

But there is a bit of a difference between simply yelling at the TV or booing, and boycotting someone and burning their albums, no?
Booing or not buying someone's albums is expressing an opinion... but banning their music from the radio and denying them their right to make a living, because of their views, is censorship.

Originally Posted by jwd

And you could say that there is a mindset that anyone who is not a liberal, hates, is a thug, a criminal, etc., etc., etc. Or anyone from the South is a redneck and stupid. There are lots of scary mindsets in the US. The scarier mindset to me is the one of labeling people and the division it causes.

I, for one, don't believe that being a conservative means you're a hater or a criminal... in fact, I have several friends and family who are conservative, so I know that to be untrue.
However, I am still baffled that anyone who claims to be for gay rights (or, at the very least, not against them), could vote for the very politicians who are actively working to deny gay rights.
Same thing with the environment and other social issues. If someone is against the fact that their party has worked to cut medicare and social security, or if they're angered by the fact that jobs are being outsourced with the encouragement of their political party, or if they're displeased that their party isn't more concerned about environmental issues, then why vote for them?
Isn't your vote tantamount to agreeing with the stances of the party and candidates for whom you're voting?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

To be fair, the song in question, Alan Jackson's "Where Were You When The World Stopped Turning," was about the immediate gut reaction of people when they first learned about the Sept. 11 attacks. Mostly he talks about fear, shock and the impulse to cling tightly to your loved ones. I don't think he says anything about military retaliation. The bit about Iraq and Iran goes as follows: "I'm just a singer of simple songs / I'm not a real political man / I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you / The difference in (sic) Iraq and Iran / But I know Jesus and I talk to God / And I remember this from when I was young / Faith, hope and love are some good things he gave us / And the greatest is love." I could do without the preachy Jesus bit, but I don't see anything in there about bombing 'em all. It's also worth noting that the example of Iraq and Iran was written before all the noise started about Iraq and WMDs--I think AJ just picked the two most obvious countries in the Middle East whose names would get mixed up by someone who's not very politically astute.

Of course, I agree that if anyone did write a song about "Iraq, Iran, what's the difference, let's bomb 'em all," it would be the very height of blind, hyper-patriotic hubris and ignorance.

Thanks for posting, Eileen... I had Alan Jackson's song and Toby Keith's song mixed-up, and I appreciate you clearing it up for me.

I know that what I did hear of Toby Keith's "boot in your ass" song, raised the hairs on the back of my neck, and left me hoping that folks in other countries don't think ALL Americans think or act that way.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist Muslim radicals,

Have to disagreee with you there, although the rest of your posts are very insightful. The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist right wing Christians occupying the highest positions of power within our own government.

[estranged4life]

Peter Jennings for Toby "Mulle-mulle-mulle" Keith's rise to fame...If ol' "comb-over" would let him had his 15 minutes (Since he is a redneck we'll give him 10 since 15 is too high for 'im to count too) of fame on that LAME 4th of July show this "Oklahoma Cow Pattie" would have dried up in the sun & been a forgotten "Mullet" memory already...

Thanks ya bald putz...

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

However, I am still baffled that anyone who claims to be for gay rights (or, at the very least, not against them), could vote for the very politicians who are actively working to deny gay rights.
Same thing with the environment and other social issues. If someone is against the fact that their party has worked to cut medicare and social security, or if they're angered by the fact that jobs are being outsourced with the encouragement of their political party, or if they're displeased that their party isn't more concerned about environmental issues, then why vote for them?
Isn't your vote tantamount to agreeing with the stances of the party and candidates for whom you're voting?

Not necessarily. I was vehemently pro-life back in 1992, but I voted for Bill Clinton because I felt that Aitch-Dubya was trying to ride his success in the Gulf War I to an easy victory without paying enough attention to domestic issues. I doubt there are many people who agree with everything their party stands for; it's just a matter of picking which one comes closer to representing your viewpoint, or which one is in line with your views on the issues that matter to you most. And sometimes when you analyze the facts more closely, you realize that what appeared one way on the surface is actually just the opposite.

Case in point, I still believe that abortion is wrong in most cases, although I'm no longer in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would never vote for a Repug on that basis. Why? Because if you look more closely at their stance on all the issues, you'll find that they're in favor of cutting off access to abortion while at the same time doing everything they can to increase the demand. For example, the odious Sen. Rick Santorum--and I'm as ashamed that he's from PA as Natalie Maines is that Dubya is from Texas--is one of the most vehemently anti-abortion politicians in Congress. Yet he voted against subsidized child care--a major need for poor single mothers--with the words, "Well, making someone struggle a bit isn't necessarly a bad thing." Excuse me, but you can't have it both ways. If you're against abortion, your primary goal should be to do whatever it takes to decrease the number of abortions performed. That means voting in favor of whatever aid can be made available to help single mothers in need, promoting a complete program of sex education at no later than the junior high school level, ensuring universal access to effective contraception, etc. So in my opinion, it's really the Democrats who are working to cut the demand for abortions, which is the only effective way to deal with the problem.

As for people who claim to be in favor of gay rights but vote for Repugs who want to deny them....Johnny, I'm in the same boat as you are, and I feel like beating my head against the wall every time I hear someone who seems like a perfectly nice and intelligent person say they support Dubya. I want to shout at them, "What? You support a president who wants to make me a second-class citizen? I thought you liked me!" But the problem is, for most people who are not gay themselves, or who don't have a very close family member or friend who is, gay rights rank way, way down on their list of priorities. The reason the fight is so difficult for us is that there are so few of us who are directly and immediately affected by the Religious Wrong's tactics. And we're more invisible than, say, black people were in the South 40 years ago, because unless you have exceptionally good gaydar, you often can't tell a gay person from a straight person. So heteros don't realize how many of us there are. Think about it, when you hear people discussing the amendment, what are the two major voices you year? Bible-beaters screeching about how important it is to protect their traditional, narrow-minded definition of family. And Democrats saying, "Hey, wait a minute, there are far more important things to worry about." You don't hear many voices speaking up and saying, "Not only should we defeat this amendment, but we should be doing everything we can to ensure equal access of same-sex couples to the more than 1,000 legal benefits that married heteros take for granted. For every day that we delay in this, another gay couple is denied the right to make medical decisions, inherit property without a heavy tax burden or receive the often-crucial financial relief of Social Security benefits for a deceased partner." The only people fighting on that front seem to be us, the affected, and the few straight folks who are close enough with one or more of us to care that much about our well-being. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Eileen

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Have to disagreee with you there, although the rest of your posts are very insightful. The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist right wing Christians occupying the highest positions of power within our own government.

Ooops, my bad! I meant to say the most pressing threat from outside our own government come from ultra-religious, fundamentalist Muslim radicals who have more in common with Dubya and Co. than either group would ever dare admit.

Eileen

[estranged4life]

interview I read of Alan Jackson he never intended to release "Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)" because it was a personal song and he DID NOT want it to become a song that would cause controversy like other country songs (ie-Mullet Man's "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue")

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by Lux

Well it didn't really cause controversy, from where I was atleast. It just caused some baffled and disgusted looks on faces.

with your previous post. I cannot see how people equated Alan Jackson beautiful song with "Mullet Man's" track "Courtesy of the Redneck, Whitetrailer trash & the Blue"

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

with your previous post. I cannot see how people equated Alan Jackson beautiful song with "Mullet Man's" track "Courtesy of the Redneck, Whitetrailer trash & the Blue"

LOL, don't you mean "Courtesy of the Rednecks, the White Trailer Trash and the Blue-State Haters?"

Personally, I always took AJ's song as saying, more or less, "I'll admit, I'm not very knowledgable on all the political implications of what happened, probably not as much as I should be....but even with my limited knowledge, this is what I do understand about what's happened and how I'm feeling about it." I got the impression he was portraying his ignorance of the countries in the Middle East more as a personal weakness than as something to brag about. I certainly don't think he meant to encourage a "Who cares about 'em, us Americans is all that counts" attitude. From what I know of the larger context of AJ's music, that would be extremely out of character for him.

Eileen

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

LOL, don't you mean "Courtesy of the Rednecks, the White Trailer Trash and the Blue-State Haters?"

Personally, I always took AJ's song as saying, more or less, "I'll admit, I'm not very knowledgable on all the political implications of what happened, probably not as much as I should be....but even with my limited knowledge, this is what I do understand about what's happened and how I'm feeling about it." I got the impression he was portraying his ignorance of the countries in the Middle East more as a personal weakness than as something to brag about. I certainly don't think he meant to encourage a "Who cares about 'em, us Americans is all that counts" attitude. From what I know of the larger context of AJ's music, that would be extremely out of character for him.

Eileen

I couldnt decide on anything that went with blue...Except for balls, And that sounded rather tacky.

You're comment on AJ's song is EXACTLY how he meant it...The man made a simple but yet strong statement with his composition.

[jwd]

Johny Stew:

But there is a bit of a difference between simply yelling at the TV or booing, and boycotting someone and burning their albums, no?
Booing or not buying someone's albums is expressing an opinion... but banning their music from the radio and denying them their right to make a living, because of their views, is censorship.

It's all freedom of expression. I'm sure that the reason their stuff wasn't being played on certain radio stations was because the people who listened to those particular radio stations didn't want to hear it. Is there anything wrong with that? Doesn't capitalism cater to what people want or don't want? Their fans in certain markets drove that, not some political machine. The bottom line is that their music is still being played on radio stations across America. They hardly are being denied a right to make a living. The Chicks aren't hurting a bit. And they still have the right to diss W. any time they want to.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

I, for one, don't believe that being a conservative means you're a hater or a criminal... in fact, I have several friends and family who are conservative, so I know that to be untrue.
However, I am still baffled that anyone who claims to be for gay rights (or, at the very least, not against them), could vote for the very politicians who are actively working to deny gay rights.
Same thing with the environment and other social issues. If someone is against the fact that their party has worked to cut medicare and social security, or if they're angered by the fact that jobs are being outsourced with the encouragement of their political party, or if they're displeased that their party isn't more concerned about environmental issues, then why vote for them?
Isn't your vote tantamount to agreeing with the stances of the party and candidates for whom you're voting?

Well Brian, because you're one of the more level headed ones. But I see it plenty from people who post on these boards and in my own personal life. The whole mindset issue you brought up slices both ways. Generally speaking you do vote for the party or the candidate that best supports your beliefs or the majority of them. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them all. You know, what Eileen said!

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by jwd

It's all freedom of expression. I'm sure that the reason their stuff wasn't being played on certain radio stations was because the people who listened to those particular radio stations didn't want to hear it. Is there anything wrong with that? Doesn't capitalism cater to what people want or don't want? Their fans in certain markets drove that, not some political machine. The bottom line is that their music is still being played on radio stations across America. They hardly are being denied a right to make a living. The Chicks aren't hurting a bit. And they still have the right to diss W. any time they want to.

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Clear Channel was largely responsible for the Chicks being blackballed from the radio. From what I recall, they supposedly banned the Chicks at all their radio stations--and they own well over 1,000 of them across the country--and staged CD-smashing events hosted by some of their country stations. And let's not forget this happened at a time when the 800-pound gorilla of radio ownership was lobbying for a favorable ruling from the FCC on the market share issue, so they had a possible motive to kiss up to the Republican administration that had nothing to do with patriotism. I'm not saying there weren't individual radio programmers who were offended, but I wonder how widespread the ban would have been if you removed Clear Channel from the equation.

Eileen