Ed Ved and Pearl Jam are also known for taking on political issues. Vedder's been an outspoken advocate for Nader. In their latest fanclub newsletter, Pearl Jam had contributions from Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Going to a show, one expects Eddie Vedder to say something -- whether it's scribbling pro choice on his arm with a marker or impaling a mask of Bush. At a show in San Francisco on Halloween 2000, Vedder did something similar, with the participation of an audience member constumed as Dubya.

Thanks Le Sab, very important points I didn't emphasize enough. Thanks.

Speaking as someone who is neither a Dixie Chicks, nor a Pearl Jam fan, I'd argue that part of why the Chicks got more attention is that, you know, they still sell records. A lot of folks echoed Glenn Reynolds (or v.v.) when he said, "Pearl Jam's still together?" Pearl Jam hasn't been relevant, outside of a very small demographic, for years now. The Dixie Chicks at least have commercial relevance.

I'm kinda with Le Sab on this, but with a twist: I don't expect adult behavior out of Eddie Vedder. While silly, his antics aren't really more advanced than a four year-old's. We shouldn't be surprised -- or, honestly, offended, any more than we would be by a stupid four year old.

Chris, I'm not sure I would go that far about PJ's irrelevance: they still sell out large venues, their albums still chart high and sell, and they have a large number of rabid fans. That said, I agree they aren't in the public eye as they once were, or like the DC's are. But I still think a bigger reason is the demographics of the fans, their relative expectations, the timing, as per above.

Eric, I think you are correct about the demographics of the respective bands. It's also important where each band is heard on the radio dial. Even at Pearl Jam's height, circa 1993-1996, the band wasn't played on top40 or country radio, where the DCs can be heard now. I am not saying those DJs are any dumber than rock DJs, but I would say they are more apt to flog a story like the DCs' (read: do stunts like crushing their CDs) than a rock DJ would over a musician's political views. I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys? Maybe they did, but I didn't hear about it.

Chris,

While exceedingly lame, your post needs a reply. It's clear that in your opinion Vedder's antics on stage were immature. Sooooo. Besides the speech he gave, where he mentioned his disagreement with US policies and gave support to troops, he used a Bush mask during a song.

So what is so immature about that? Should he have pulled out the ol' chalk board and gave a lecture? Surely the idea of a visual, theatrical aid during a song has no place at a goddam rock concert!

Here's a review from a writer that has no political agenda:

Pearl Jam now classic rockers - '90s grunge stars fresh, passionate at Pepsi Center show

But even though Vedder has cut his hair, he hasn't cut back on polemics. He wasn't overly garrulous during the set, but he made a few anti-war remarks.

"You got a minute for this?" he asked as he started to relate a conversation with a Gulf War helicopter pilot. Moments later, he stopped in mid-sentence. "Did somebody say "Shut up'? There's something called freedom of speech ... It doesn't feel like we've evolved at all in 20 years."

Returning to the stage for an encore, Vedder said, "In regard to what was said earlier, we support the troops." Someone tossed a glow-ring at the stage, and he flinched, then chuckled - "A Scud!"

Vedder donned a George Bush mask for "Bushleaguer," his political song from "Riot Act." Talk-singing the verses, he took a few digs at the president: "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer ... Born on third, thinks he got a triple." It wasn't particularly melodious or eloquent, but he got a big hand. "We follow Ed's intuition, where he wants to go," Gossard said. "He's the leader of the band."

Quite a difference, eh?

I think part of the difference is that fans already know that Pearl Jam is anti-Bush. Fans also know to expect random political ranting from Eddie from time to time. I don't think it's to get publicity. However much I disagree with Eddie's views, they do seem heart-felt (maybe a little too much, Ed's always been a bit of a drama-queen.) The Dixie Chicks sound as if they did it simply for effect. Just look at the phrasing - "Just so you know . . . " That's the kind of comment you hear coming from someone who's backstabbing someone else to get ahead. You know, like a whispered slam against a supposedly "good" friend when they aren't around. It wasn't genuine and it sounded like a cop-out to a sympathetic audience in Europe. Done for pure effect, devoid of any real meaning or importance. And coming from the Dixie Chicks, who have come across as these wholesome Texas sweethearts who just sing down-home good ol' fashion bluegrass/country, it seems ingenuine. It was Natalie Maines trying on her 'self-important' hat. It didn't fit. And now they're paying for it by having alienated a large part of their home audience. Seems perfectly fitting to me.

That said, when I go see a concert, I want to hear music. I don't want to hear the band's political views spelled out for me. If it's that important, put it into a song. Otherwise, shut up and play your guitar. My views won't be changed because Eddie spots off some lame theory on Bush, or because Natalie snips at the president. I've said it before and I'm saying it again: please, people, please do not get your politics from entertainers. Their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's and may very often have ulterior motives (hello, publicity) driving them. You would do as well to point at a random stranger on the street and ask for that person's opinion. Would you trust it? Probably not. And you shouldn't trust Eddie's or Natalie's views either. Watch the news, read the paper. Do something proactive, instead of reactive like these celebs.

Tom I agree with most of what you said. But I think people forget that most musicians are artists. Going to a concert isn't like going to a restaurant were you tell the waiter what you want to hear and s/he plays it for you. It's an artistic, sometimes theatrical, performance. Often it's a journey. If you don't like to trip buy the CD or better still jump an elevator to the 45th floor, there's plenty of "shut up and play..." music in there.

One big difference can be summed up in three words: Clear Channel Communications.

CCC publicized Maine's comments at every turn, banned the group from corporate playlists, and built flag-waving rallies on the basis of an admittedly ill-considered choice of words, all in an effort to look "patriotic".

It's no coincidence that all this took place when it did, as the FCC is currently considering a proposal to further loosen radio market-share regulations. Like most music industry issues, it all comes down to money and image. Clear Channel wants the FCC see things their way, and they used the Dixie Chicks to make themselves look good.

I think that you are right, Anna. Pearl Jam has an activist left slant. Eddie is a political guy and likes to talk about it. If you don't want to see that, don't go to the show! He didn't put a commerical on national TV, he just did some things at his own show.

I was actually at that Denver show, and it was a bit surreal when he came out in the Bush mask and all, but to me it was just all part of the act. I saw very few people leave early, and if there were any boos they were inaudible to me. I think that a concert would be less enjoyable if the band just played one song after another all the way through.

I don't agree with Eddie's politics, but if he wants to tell everyone how he feels, it doesn't really affect me. If Natalie Maines wants to say something at her own concert, fine. I think that the expectation factor plays a very big part in the reaction.

Look, you want to know what the big difference is, look at who the music is aimed at, OK? The people who listen to country music are the ones who still tear up at Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA", wear blue jeans and Stetson's and drive pick-up trucks, while Pearl Jam's fans are the ones more likely to wear "Free Mumia" t-shirts, drive VW Bugs and smoke a lot of dope.

You want to see the country music demographic? Watch NASCAR. There's still a prayer before the cars start, as well as a huge military presence, mostly color guards holding the flag during pre-race festivities. This is NOT the crowd who reacts well to people bashing the Prez. To be honest, I'm more suprised that people walked out of a Pearl Jam concert than I am with the fans reactions to the Dixie Chicks.

And yeah, I listen to country music.

You mean NASCAR folks don't listen to rock-n-roll? (You should inform the Fox network of this as they use rock and roll in their NASCAR promos - that could alienate some folks!) Or smoke dope? Or drive anything but pickup trucks?

Oh Dave, Dave, Dave...what's up dude? I bet good money you've got a Zepplin album tucked away somewhere.

that article from undercover doesnt tell the whole story though...
vedders free speech comment came after a fan shouted at him to shut up. he then went on to bravely defend free speech. while im glad he didnt try and shut up the yeller himself, that guy was exercising as much free speech as vedder and pj in front of 12,000 fans. tackling the issue of what free speech does and doesnt cover is another issue.
basically, it wasnt completely unsolicited. and as gross as the bush defamation was, i personally think a person is entitled to yell shut up or whatever else they want to a music artist making a fringe political stand.

The difference is largely because Pearl Jam is now not that popular, while the Dixie Chicks are quite popular right now.

Pearl Jams were big in the early 90s, for a while it seemed you couldn't turn on a radio and not hear one of their songs.

http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/bb200.jsp

Dixies Chicks at at #16 on the chart (and top of the country chart). Pearl Jam is no where to be found, at least in the top 100.

12,000 isn't exactly a huge amount at a concert, either.

For instance, Cher, just had a concert with 8,000 fans. So Pearl Jam is 50% more popular than Cher. Whee!

Of course much of the difference is the audience's expectations. But the part that interests me is Pearl Jam's reaction to the criticism. The band focuses on "Ed's talk" about freedom of speech, when it was the symbolic equivalent of impaling the President's head on a pike that had people leaving the show.

The band's response is not unlike MSNBC's firing of Peter Arnett. The stated reason was for giving an interview to Iraqi TV, but his comments would have had the same effect if said elsewhere and rebroadcast there. The problem with Arnett was that praising Saddam's treatment of the press while four reporters were rotting in a dungeon and his claim that anti-war sentiment was rising in the US when polling data showed the exact opposite. It was further proof that Arnett remained an anti-American poropagandist, not an objective reporter. But MSNBC could not admit that because of what it would have said about the decision to hire him in the first place, given his reputation. Pearl Jam's attempt to spin the walkout as being against free speech is much the same...they don't want to defend sticking the President's head on a pike as an artistic statement. Moreover, Ed & Co. are so hopelessly earnest that it will never occur to them that their complaint about the press focusing on a small minority of people acting in protest at one of their shows is just a tad ironic -- not to say hypocritical -- in light of the extent to which the US press focused coverage the minority anti-war view here. I guess Ed is one of those guys who defends dissent...so long as it isn't directed at him.

I detest PJ's politics but musically irrelevant, I think not. Before the Bush bruha they sold out a local, small venue(8 or 9 thousand) tickets in hours. The Chicks could do the same thing but a heck of a lot of 90's musical acts couldn't do that around here without a small army to round up the fans. As far as record sales go, I would look into the Pearl Jam
effect(downloading) before totally trashing their sales. MTV went (c)rap and their popularity has faded but, at least, locally there is strong interest in their concerts.

Well, regardless of what kind of music one listens to, one widely missed point is exactly what "free speech" consists of. Essentially, it means tha the government and government related entities may not pre-censor speech, i.e. prevent it from occurring. It emphatically does not mean that celebrities or anyone else has a right to say anything they want without counter criticism.

Any corporation, business, artist, or act that is stupid enough to say things that piss off their main customers deserves to get whatever fallout occurs. My guess is that PJ will get little or no fallout. So what. On the other hand Eddie Vedder is flat out wrong when he equates someone yelling "shut up" with some sort of restraint of free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The real problem with artists is their changrin and anger when they say something stupid and people point it out. They are used to being surrounded by ass-kissers of various stripes, and the shock is too much.

Woland:

I didn't even expect a response to my "exceedingly lame" points, but here goes:

While excruciatingly poorly phrased, your post needs a reply. It's clear that you either didn't pay attention to the article in question; did, but lack reading comprehension; or are engaging in sophistry. My issue -- and I apologize for not making this clearer -- is not with the cliche anti-Bush speech (or Vedder's atrocious lyrics), Vedder's knee-jerk politics, or even whatever might be inspiring his "thinking;" it's that he chose to express his, um, thoughts, in about as juvenile and egocentric a manner as possible. He didn't just "use[] a Bush mask during a song," he impaled the thing, then smashed it into the stage. That, dear Woland, is what's immature. It's the act of an adolescent, seeking maximum emotive impact, with little thought to logic or reason; it is, in short, a temper tantrum. And that, believe it or not, is a "juvenile" thing to do.

Explicit imagery is of course an important (if, I'd argue, secondary) component of a concert; but it is the choice of imagery to which I object.

As an added note, had he done the same thing to someone on the other side of the spectrum, I would find it just as juvenile and repulsive. Sorry.

Le Sab: I'm gonna mildly disagree on two points. First, I listened to Top 40 from 1993-1997, and can indeed report that Pearl Jam had more than a few songs there (at least in the three major markets to which I was exposed) during that time period. Second, and this is perhaps reflective of the political beliefs where I live, but the rock DJs around here didn't leave Durst alone for a week or two (although they were making fun of his grammar more than anything).

Eric: All salient points.

I suspect the disparity is quite simple: I'd be more shocked if Eddie Vedler had anything complimentary to say about the Bush Reg... sorry, Administration.

CCC publicized Maine's comments at every turn, banned the group from corporate playlists, and built flag-waving rallies on the basis of an admittedly ill-considered choice of words, all in an effort to look "patriotic".

That doesn't make any sense, since Clear Channel owns plenty of rock stations as well. So if it was a CCC-directed move to look patriotic, then they logically would have done the same thing to Pearl Jam that you say they did to the Dixie Chicks.

All of the reasons I can think of for the disparate coverage have been touched on here, so I don't really need to dwell on it. I do think audience perception/expectations of the musicians in question is important. I can remember Pearl Jam hosting a pro-abortion benefit concert locally to promote their first album back in the day. And I refused (and still refuse) to buy an album of theirs because I don't want my money going there or any of the other left-wing causes they support, but I don't think most of their target audience cares about their political leanings either way. The ones that WOULD care about Pearl Jam being ultra-leftists have left them in the dust long ago.

As to the Dixie Chicks, don't forget that their patriotic image was cemented with a beautifully done rendition of the national anthem sung to the largest television audience of the year at the Super Bowl. That made the anti-Bush comments all the more surprising.

"I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys?"

I think they were too busy laughing at the absurdity. The performer of "Break Stuff", who many think is responsible for helping start the riots at Woodstock '99, is suddenly a "peace" activist? That's funny!

"I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys?"

The problem is, nobody would admit to owning one of their CDs in the first place.

I think one point that is being underemphasized so far is that Eddie Vedder made his comments in Denver while Natalie Maines made hers in London. I suspect that matters to some people.

Pearl Jam have become musically and societally irrelevant. Their "woe is me, woe is us" angst, both in their music and in their politic, is tired and useless to most people. No one complains about them because no one is listening to their message. I'm from Seattle and even those of us who live here are surprised to find that the band still exists and that Eddie Vedder still pawns himself off as the conscience of a generation!

Unfortunately, the ever vacuous Dixie Chicks are currently in the public eye because they now experience a popularity in the pop/country crossover market, mainly with teen and twenty-something females. As the Dixie Chicks have used their high-profile to publicize their irrational political views, it is more than fair that they become a high-profile target by those consumers and citizens who find their messages repugnant. Freedom of expression is not soley within the purview of so-called artists - the citizenry also has the right to express a reaction through protest, boycott or open displays of disgust.

Two more points that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:

First: location, location, location. PJ would be getting A LOT more flak right now if little Eddie had made his intemperate remarks and display overseas instead of here in the U.S. Granted, they would never get as much grief for this as the Chicks have gotten, but it still would have made a HUGE difference.

Second, the dam broke. Contrary to what someone said here earlier, the Chicks have not had an image as wholesome country girls for a LONG time. It was always generally known that they were left of center in their views, but as fiddler Martie Seidel noted in an interview right after the group became popular, "We know who our audience is." As long as the Chicks kept their politics to themselves, most country fans were willing to let it slide.

Then came the "Fly" CD, with it's romping pre-meditated murder song, "Goodbye Earl", and the hedonistic, gospel-sampling "Sin Wagon". This raised eyebrows, to be sure, and many people complained -- but in the end, the music was just too good for these dubious song choices to have a serious impact on their careers.

Then came word that the Chicks had posed nude for a PETA ad, although they later denied PETA permission to run it (due to record company pressure). By almost anyone's standards, PETA is a far-left group of the first order, especially to a fan base that tends to appreciate the joys of hunting and fishing.

In January, Natalie Maines decided to wade into the antiwar waters for the first time, ripping Toby Keith and his song, "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue", in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. She called the song "ignorant", said it made country music look bad, and opined that Keith should use more "tact" (as if Maines has any clue about the meaning of the word).

None of these incidents got major press attention, and with their music continuing to be so well received, the group pretty much had a teflon coating. But while record sales were soaring, there was definitely a feeling of underlying ill-will building against the band, a real sense of distrust. So when Ms. Maines opened her big mouth in London and personally insulted the president, that was just the final straw in a something that has been brewing for a while.

It should also be noted that all this talk about how Maines has apologized is meaningless, because the apology was bunk. I read a report just the other day quoting her as stating that all the controversy over her remarks has only made her more glad that she made them. That comment pretty much demonstrates how crass and meaningless her apology was in the first place. You don't brag about being proud of a comment which you are truly sorry you made.

Excellent pre-history David, I was only vaguely aware of some of it and hadn't put the pieces together like you did. Thanks very much.

I think James is onto something - the location of the statement matters. Criticizing the President domestically is expected - that's fine. But ranting in front of an audience in a foreign venue, well, that crosses the line. That is what did it for me.

Regards,
Tony
(who does listen to country)

And here's the latest (from Launch):

"Maines admitted that she told a London concert audience that the group was ashamed that the President is from their home state of Texas, but added, 'It was a joke and it wasn't planned. And it was really funny at the time. It got lots of cheers, and that's what it was meant for. You see the trouble that you can get into if you speak religion or politics. It gets people very upset.'"

Um . . . yeah. It was all just a joke. So tell me Natalie, do you really expect us to believe that s**t? And do you really think everyone is just going to forget about your "joke" now and start buying your records again? Now THAT'S a joke.

I don't remember who said this so I'm not posting under my own name, but I think it's illuminating:

"If Elvis came back from the dead and held a concert, a couple dozen fans would still leave early in hopes of beating the traffic."

Also enlightening: the comment above about Clear Channel Communications using their pervasive power to silence a voice critical of the administration. Not just because CCC is lobbying the FCC for the ability to expand, but also because CCC is owned by a long time ally of the Bush family.

Besides, CCC's airplay probably gave the Dixie Chicks their success in the first place, so it's no surprise that CCC was able to pull the plug on them, and no surprise that they did so considering the circumstances.

One of the stupid things about this whole business is that if Eddy had said "USA Uber Alles" or something similar we wouldn't be discussing this now. I guess as Steppenwolf wrote thirty-something years ago "You're free to speak your mind my friend, As long as you agree with me, don't criticize the Fatherland or those who shape your destiny, 'cause if you do.. you'll lose your job, your ma your pa and all the friends you knew, We'll find a way to silence you." The more things change, the more etc etc

Anna Kissed,

Sorry, but your post is pure stupidity. Yes, if lil' Eddie had said something patriotic, then there would be no controversy. And your point would be? We are, after all, Americans. Likewise, there would be very little controversy if he had simply criticized America or the administration in a rational manner. Instead, he chose to engage in an ugly display which violates very basic concepts of respect for our nation and institutions. He's free to do it -- and we are free to criticize him for it.

But let's turn this around for a minute. Despite the carping and bitching coming from your ilk, you would be LEADING the damn boycott if Eddie or Natalie had gotten on stage and used the n-word, or disparaged homosexuals. "Hate speech", you would tell us, must not be tolerated. And yet somehow, even criticizing someone for speaking against the president is a sign of creeping fascism in your eyes. Pathetic.

On a related note, when are numbskulls like "Anna Kissed" going to tire of using and abusing ad hominem Nazi rhetoric as cheap, disposable, all-purpose insults? Bush is Hitler. Cheney is Hitler. Rush Limbaugh is Hitler. Dr. Laura is Hitler. Damn, it's absolutely amazing how, according to people like Anna, we have freakin' Nazis living around every corner!

Personally, it makes me sick to hear it. It cheapens true evil and trivializes the deaths of over 6 million Jews at the hands of Hitler's henchmen. And don't even get me started on how these "peace" freaks embrace neo-Stalinist groups like ANSWER, excuse monsters like Saddam, and tolerate extreme anti-Semitism in their movement in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance". Want to be a Hitler yourself? All you have to do is exercise your First Amendment rights to criticize something stupid a lefty has said. Wham -- welcome to the Nazi Free-Speech Death Squad!

Sheesh. No wonder these wackos are so marginalized.

To David Mathis:

I would argue that squelching debate and bullying citizens into obedience in the name of 'patriotism' violates the "basic concepts of respect for our nation and institutions."

Tom J,

I would argue that what you so carelessly label as "squelching debate" IS debate. Why is it free speech when Eddie Vedder says something stupid, but it's "squelching debate" when someone criticizes him for it? If anything, HE'S squelching debate by not allowing his detractors to join him on stage and enjoy the benefits of access to the microphone.

And "bullying citizens"? Oh, you mean how lefties use Nazi-themed and race-bating rhetoric in an attempt to get anyone to the right of Al Sharpton to shut up? Yeah, I hate that, too. Glad to see that we can agree on one thing.

Race-baiting:

"They (Democrats) don't want Miguel Estrada because he's Hispanic," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MS, said after a White House meeting.

"If you are a conservative and minority, the bar goes up a lot higher," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, said. "This is Clarence Thomas all over again. This is complete discrimination."

Stated Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM: "I want to say to Democrats ... you don't have to be afraid. They (Hispanics) are good lawyers and great judges."

By the way: Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who coined the term "feminazi"?

Tom J.,

You're really stretching here. Taking such quotes completely out of context does not prove your point, nor does it do wonders for your credibility.

1) Lott's and Domenici's comments were based on the well-known fact that, in the political battle for Hispanic votes, Democrats do not want a Republican president to win a coup by nominating the first Hispanic to the second most powerful court in the country. Lott and Domenici were NOT accusing the Dems of racism, just political opportunism.

2) It is a well known fact that black conservatives are routinely called Uncle Toms, "self-haters", and "house n*****s" by black liberals, and to a lesser extent, by white liberals as well. Santorum was responding to exactly the kind of left-wing race-baiting I was complaining about.

This is disingenuousness at its best. We can split hairs over the Rush Limbaugh comment all you want, but I think we all know the difference between an offhand comment like Limbaugh's and calling the president of the United States a Nazi. Much the same difference as making a crack about CNN being the "Communist News Network", and calling Hillary Clinton a Communist. The first statement is fine with most people, the second is unacceptable.

By the way, I haven't noticed too many pro-war rallies featuring pictures of Jesse Jackson or Howard Dean with Hitler mustaches . . . yet there are plenty of antiwar kooks willing to call Bush and Blair Nazis while not criticizing Saddam at all. Hmmm . . . I know which side I would rather defend here.

So offhand comments like "feminazi" do not cheapen true evil and trivialize the deaths of over 6 million Jews?

I saw a picture today of a young Iraqi boy who had both of his arms blown off by an errant bomb. If President Bush had decided not to pursue this war of aggression, that boy would have been able to keep his arms.

President Bush is directly responsible for what happened to him. I won't defend Saddam Hussein, but I wouldn't be so quick to defend President Bush either, if I were you.

Tom J.,

Thanks to the efforts of U.S. and British forces, nearly 150 children were released from a children's prison today in Baghdad. The conditions in such prisons are so bad that even notorious Saddam apologist and possible child molester Scott Ritter has said that they were beyond horrible. Millions more Iraqis are now free of Saddam's brutal regime, a regime which just two days ago was responsible for dousing children as young as four with gasoline and setting them on fire in front of their parents. If you want to blame the fate of the armless little boy on Bush, that's fine -- as long as you give him proper credit for the millions more he is freeing. Not that you will, of course. This would require that you not only think, but assume a position of basic fairness and level-headedness that is evidently beyond the reach of most in the "peace" movement. Which leads us back to how you can claim with a straight face that people exercising their First Amendment rights are somehow guilty of attempted censorship.

If it were up to you, that little boy might still have his arms, but for how long would he even continue to breathe under Saddam? Your position is simply untenable and immoral.

Tom J, it's absurd to blame Bush for the armless Iraqi boy: war kills and wounds and maims and there are accidents. The war is right and necessary, the casualties are regrettable but inevitable. Saddam "caused" this war not Bush.

David, I agree with you 110%. Thanks for saying what you say better than I ever could. You handle the other side(people like anna and tom j) of this debate with ease. Keep up the good work!

Yeah, nice try there David, but you're pretty much wasting your time even trying to argue with morons like this Tom guy. Guys like him will say pretty much anything in the way of an argument, with no regard whatsoever to whether or not it makes any sense. It's like trying to convince a schizo that no one is out to get him - all you end up doing is convincing him that you're in on the conspiracy, too. If I were you, I wouldn't waste any more of my time with him; just let this loser go back to reading The Village Voice and praying for another Vietnam. I'm sure he's already plenty disappointed that we haven't killed a million Iraqi civilians, yet. Probably why he's in such a foul mood.

This is a good day.

Iraqis are cheering in the streets.

The Minister of Information is dressed like a woman in the back of a chicken truck barrelling for the Syrian border, explaining to the flock that the infidel invaders are being slaughtered in the desert.

Jacques Chirac snorted his cafe au lait through his nose when he turned on CNN this morning. He turned to al Jazeera, but there were still Iraqis dancing in the streets.

Janeane Garafolo is shopping for knee pads because she promised to crawl on broken glass to Fox News and apologize if this happened. She'll weasel out, but that's okay because Iraqis are beating statues of Saddam with their shoes.

The wobbly hawks like Josh Marshall are wondering why they switched teams in the third quarter. Maureen Dowd still doesn't get it, but it takes more than a war to make her understand. But that's okay because kids have been released from the Tyke Gulag -- and the gang at the Nation need to come up with a reason why that's a bad thing.

Antiwar protestors are circling their picnic blankets and fingering the dregs of their trail mix bags, wondering what to do next like dogs whose food bowl's been moved. They'll figure something out, alas. But they'll have to explain how sanctions and inspections would have resulted in Iraqis cheering in the streets.

The war isn't over, of course. Our troops who've made us all so proud are still in harms way. Tikrit must be deloused. Weapons must be found. And the really hard work of making Iraq a decent country must still get underway. But you can't take away from the fact that today is a very good day.

Jonah, nice to hear from you: we must take a moment to appreciate our satisfactions in life when they all too infrequently appear. It is a good day and I have great pride in our spirit, determination, and sheer efficacy. We can do shit when we put our minds to it - the validation from Iraqis is sweet icing on the cake.

I have been trying to tread a thin line between apprehension and triumphalism, but will take some time to enjoy the latter today.

Glenn Reynolds has posted an excellent comment this morning over at Instapundit:

"Fortunately for the Iraqi people, all those folks who just a few weeks ago were demonstrating in 'solidarity' with them were quite properly ignored. And within minutes, they'll have changed the subject to something else and will be acting as if they were never colossally, utterly, unredeemably wrong about this.

But they were, and a lot of people will remember."


Yep, but you can count on them to furiously try and change the subject (while continuing to pray that things will go pear-shaped in Iraq and turn into a quagmire after all). Count on it. Next thing you know, you will see Janeane Garafolo on TV saying, "Yes, yes, we won the war, but what about the plight of the homeless right here in this country? How can we talk about 'freedom' for Iraqis when our own people are suffering at the hands of an unjust society?" Blah, blah, blah.

"Yes, but...." is the rallying cry of the eternally pessimistic.

I think that this war poses some interesting philosophical questions. For instance, is an endeavor truly virtuous if one were to inadvertently murder one innocent person while rescuing five others?

Utilitarianists such as yourselves would argue that if the war were, on balance, positive, then it was all worthwhile. Arriving at such a conclusion, however, assumes that it is possible to attach a specific, measurable value to human life. I personally feel that the value all human life is equally immeasurable, so it is impossible to make such a calculation.

Nevertheless, it probably can be argued that civilian casualties are acceptable in a war of self-defense. Since this is a "war of choice" (as stated by George F. Will in his column "Conservatism's Moment of Truth") we Americans cannot also make the claim that this is a war of self-defense. A true war of self-defense implies a "war of NO choice". Taking all of this into account, in my view the civilian casualties in Iraq are absolutely unacceptable.

Tom,

Evidently, the thousands of Iraqis dancing in the streets today and praising Bush do not share your opinion.

Once again, the intellectual and moral dishonesty of the left is simply astounding -- lots of bitching and whining, but no solutions. Michael Moore has also complained about civilian casualties and has said that if the Iraqi people want to replace their leader, they should do it themselves. Putting aside for a moment that 1) villagers with pitchforks stand zero chance against tanks and helicopter gunships, and 2) they already tried this once and failed, how many more civilians would die in such a civil war compared to the relatively small number of civilian casualties from this conflict? So Moore's position is not so much designed to protect Iraqi civilians as it is to simply bitch about America. Some on the left have defended and augmented this position by suggesting that we should have supported the failed Shia uprising in 1991; this despite the fact that these same people lambaste our government for every other incident in history where we have provided arms to rebel groups.

Your position is both arrogant and immoral. Yes, this is a war of choice -- at least in terms of its timing -- but it is also a war of defense. But since the left cares nothing about defending our nation and wants only to talk about the effects of war on the civilian population, defenders of the war have said fine, let's debate it on that issue alone. Even on that very narrow issue, however, you still don't have a case because the Iraqi citizens are clearly better off being liberated by us than continuing to live under Saddam's boot. The antiwar movement is nothing more than a collection of morally-obtuse hand-wringers, more concerned with maintaining their ideological purity than they are with doing what is right.

From Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton (via Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO):

When tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death knell ringing;
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?'

--19th century Quaker hymn revived by lefty singer Pete Seeger in the 1960's

Gee, haven't heard Pete or other Leftists singing today. Wonder why?

I SHOULDN'T be so happy. After all, I'm a right-wing deathbeast, and the end (or near end) of a war should upset me, because we conservatives lust for war all the time. Except when we have to fight it ourselves, of course. Being chickenhawks and all.

And the toppling of a fascist dictator should have me all weepy and nostalgic for Hitler. Because I'm a fascist, according to much of the mail I receive.

Those Iraqis dancing in the streets? That should really piss me off, because I want to oppress them and steal their oil. Why are they even able to dance? I was promised 500,000 murders, yet thus far only 1,000 or so innocents have died.

So why am I so damn happy? I really can't explain.

I'd go and ask some oppression-hating anti-fascist peace activists about it, but for some reason they're all incredibly depressed.

Great to hear from you Tim, the big boys are checking in today. It is certainly a day for slightly attenuated celebration and I am most satisfied with that gaping hole in the ground near that restaurant in Baghdad

I love it when people speak for me. I'm not depressed.

Just because I oppose the war doesn't mean I'm not happy that Hussein is no longer in power.

And as far as the left "lambast[ing] our government for every other incident in history where we have provided arms to rebel groups."

I'm sure some on the left who aren't pacificsts would have been happy if the US had supplied arms to the FMLN in El Salvador, but the the government was arming the military and death squads there. Or the ANC in South Africa (though the most effective resistance there was non-violent).

I'm sure I will be blasted for this, but here goes:

First of all, didn't we go down this road already with Iran? Also, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with the best of intentions and ended very badly. I just think we should stay out of that part of the world and let those people sort out their own problems. It remains to be seen how all of this will play out. Clearly, invading Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein was good for the Iraqi people in the short run. (At least for those who weren't killed or injured by errant bombs.) I don't think anyone disputes that. But will it be good for America's long term strategic interests? Well, I suppose that all depends on how the Arab/Muslim community perceives things.

There is a long, ugly history of colonization in that part of the world, so it's probably understandable that they might be a bit suspicious about the real intentions of the Bush Administration. Furthermore, because the liberation of the Iraqi people was brought about by an unprovoked invasion of a foreign (non-Muslim) army there is a strong possibility that it will not be perceived as authentic or legitimate. It may also deepen the sense of humiliation that permeates much of the Arab/Muslim world and, it should be noted, gave birth to the 9/11 hijackers. If the Iraqi National Congress is regarded as a puppet government of the United States, then I'm afraid it may go the way of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

I think that's what Michael Moore was getting at.

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
George Washington's farewell address, 1796

Tom, I won't blast you, your concerns are legitmate and thoughtful, but we will not install a Shah - with his hated secret police - this time around. I believe we can learn from our mistakes.

Tom,

Well, I will have to say that your latest post was much more lucid than some of your previous efforts. No, you won't get blasted (at least by me), but I do disagree with your assessment. Unlike during the Cold War, I believe that current U.S. policy (no matter who is in the White House) is decidedly geared toward encouraging TRUE democracy, not phony puppet governments. If the Iraqis will listen to us and give us some trust and patience, they have a very good chance to build something special for themselves.

Now I am under no illusions that this effort will be easy, or even successful. If the Iraqis succumb to the unfortunate Arab tendency to allow radicals to whip them into a paranoia-driven rage, then things could get very ugly very fast. And if that happens, we will likely have no choice but to pull out and leave them to their craziness. That would be a real shame for everyone, especially the Iraqis themselves.

You give Michael Moore far too much credit, Tom. You seem to think that he actually had a point to make, other than just making noise. Moore is a self-indulgent, self-promoting, self-important provocateur, a rebel with neither a cause nor a clue, a limousine lefty of the first order. Truth and consistency are not part of his act. I can promise you that if Bush had proposed merely helping the Iraqi resistance rather than going to war using U.S. troops, Moore and his ilk would be dead-set against that, too. After all, it's guys like Moore who have spent the last ten years accusing the U.S. of genocide for supporting sanctions against Iraq, when the fault for both the sanctions and the misappropriation of "food-for-oil" money lies solely with Saddam.

Yes, I am gloating today, and for good reason -- so many of the nightmare scenarios of the left have proved so completely and utterly false that it's really hilarious. Didn't Garafolo claim that Iraqis would "never" dance in the streets celebrating Saddam's downfall? Wasn't Scott Ritter proclaiming as recently as two days ago that the allies had lost the war? Even today, I have visited some left-wing web sites where it is being claimed that the Baghdad celebrations were staged by the "corporate media," or that the celebrating Iraqis were paid to dance in the streets by the Bush administration. Pure lunacy.

The smirk on my face today does not mean that I think there are no hard days ahead, however. But even if it inevitably does not work out, we still did the right thing. By getting rid of Saddam and his terrible weapons, and at least giving the Iraqi people the chance to govern themselves, we are on the side of the angels here.

Funny you should mention that George Washington quote, by the way. It was cited quite often in 1999 by isolationist conservatives who felt we had no business stopping the genocide in Kosovo. After all, if they didn't like being raped and slaughtered, they could have just taken out Milosevic themselves. Sound familiar?

From Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO:

Profiles in Courage

The House voted 414-0 last night on a resolution "Stating the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime; calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners and supporting free elections for Cuba." The vote was 414-0.

11 Voted "present":
Frank Ballance
John Conyers
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
Ron Paul
Bobby Rush
Maxine Waters
Albert Wynn

Is it a shock to anyone that the pro-Castro members of Congress are also by and large the ones who refused to vote for the resolution supporting the troops and who have been the most vocal antiwar voices in Congress?

Eric and David:

Thanks for the input.

Needless to say, I'm a bit skeptical about this venture because it has become pretty clear to me that we Americans are NOT welcome in the Muslim world--just as we would not welcome foreign armies in our homeland. Yet, our leaders do not seem to get the message. On three different occasions (Beirut-1983, Mogadishu-1993, Khobar Towers-1996) U.S. troops were slaughtered by unhappy locals. I just think we're in for more of the same treatment. It is a thankless job to be sure, and our servicemen are just sitting ducks out there.

Maybe this will all work out in the end, but history does not support that claim in my opinion. For the most part, democracies do not flourish in nations whose primary source of income is oil. (I mean, why bother to develop a dynamic economy based on strong democratic principles when you can just pull that liquid gold out of the ground and sell it to the rest of the world for huge sums of money and be done with it?) Furthermore, it seems to me that when we avoid political entanglements with Muslim countries, their people tend to gravitate toward us. Look at Iran, for instance. It is probably the most pro-American country (save Israel) in the Middle East and we have zero ties to their government.

Saddam Hussein was a real monster, no doubt about it. And the Iraqi people deserve to be free. But, in my opinion, we should have waited for the United Nations, or the Arab League, or NATO--or whoever--to come to us and say, "Hey, we can't take care of this problem on our own and we need your help." It was a huge mistake to do this against the will of the international community, even if it was the right thing to do. We're going to pay for it down the road I'm sure.

If President Bush's motives are truly as altruistic as he claims, then I wish him/us the best of luck. If they are not, or if the Arab/Muslim community perceives they are not, then we are in for a bumpy ride.

Tom,

You make some good points, but your information seems to be a little skewed. For instance, the terrorist attacks you described were not carried out by "locals," but by terrorist organizations. To say that "locals" were responsible makes it sound as if some guys sitting around a bar (or a mosque) one night said, "Boys, I think we need to go blow up some Americans." That's not what happened.

As for avoiding entanglements with Arab countries, I would agree wholeheartedly with you if this war were just about liberating Iraq, but it's not. Our primary reason for being there is to eliminate a direct threat to our nation in the form of Saddam and his WMD. The stuff about introducing democracy into the Persian Gulf and freeing the Iraqis from oppression are just happy byproducts. If we could just keep the Arab world at arm's length until they grow up and decide they want better relationships with us, that would be fine with me, but Saddam has forced our hand in this instance.

Your description of Iran is only half right, at best. Yes, the people of Iran tend to have a more positive view of the U.S., but the Muslim clerics who still dominate the country politically are some of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. If the Iranian government were really so concerned about having good relationships with us, they wouldn't by trying like hell to build a nuclear bomb right now. One more thing to keep in mind about Iran: they may be Muslims, but they are not Arabs (most of them anyway). That makes a HUGE difference.

Your argument that we should have waited for the U.N. or the Arab League to come ask us for help is pretty naive. First of all, it completely ignores the main point of the invasion: the need to get rid of Saddam's WMD. But even ignoring that fact, it's still not a good argument. We have been waiting twelve years, and no one but us and Britain has lifted a finger to get rid of Saddam. Do you really think the Arab League would ever in a million years ask "infidels" to invade a fellow Arab country, especially when most of its member states are autocracies unenamored by the prospect of a democratic Iraq? The proverbial blizzard in Hell would come first, I can promise you. Granted, I would not be for this war if it were not for the WMD situation; but if that were the case, the choice would not be should we go in or wait for someone to ask us. The choice would be should we go in, or not go in, because we sure as hell would never be asked.

I fully believe that our motives are just and altruistic. The problem is that the state-run media outlets in the Arab world are almost certain to continue their practices of selectively reporting the news in the worst light possible, and printing slanders, lies, and conspiracy theories as fact. This will whip up extremist sentiment and cause a flood of "martyrs" to head toward Iraq. All it will take at that point is one false move by U.S. forces -- one accidental shooting, one pedestrian run over by a Humvee -- and the whole place will blow up. I just hope we've gotten rid of all the WMD before we have to get the hell out of there.

You have to keep in mind that Arabs are largely infected with a group form of schizophrenia. As Jonah Goldberg highlighted in his excellent column from a couple of weeks ago, Arabs will believe almost any kind of ridiculous story that you can come up with as long as it involves Jews. Every time Yasser Arafat does anything the Palestinian street doesn't like, the rumor starts to go around that he's actually a closet Jew -- and those idiots believe it! Even now, the theory is being circulated among many Arabs that the real reason Baghdad fell so quickly is because Saddam was actually a secret Zionist puppet whose job it was to hand over Babylon to the infidels and humiliate Islam. With people this insane, it should come as a shock whenever they actually behave rationally.

You are right that an oil-dominated economy is a bad thing (just look at Venezuela for proof), but maybe Iraq's river system and the resulting agricultural possibilities, plus their relatively well-educated population will give them a better chance at success, despite the kookiness of the region. I certainly hope and pray that it is so.

The actions of both are deplorable and need to be punished. These idiots have freedoms because of the actions of heros like our soldiers and President.

I hope both organizations fail and the complaining whining, whining, and spoiled Natalie and Eddie Fender get what they have coming!

Pearl Jam do things on there own terms. No videos, little press, and still they can sell plenty of records and debut in the top 5 of Billboard. Just because you don't hear of them any more, doesn't mean there still not making kick ass music. They set billboard records just three years ago with there live bootlegs debuting on the top 200, the most any at once. Eddie Vedder is anti-bush, and really, who gives a fuck about the Dixie Chicks?

What it boils down to is this when it comes to pearl jam class and morales are not something we expect , we at leat thought the Dixie Chicks had some.

eddie vedder a 4 year old? LOL , you know nothing! Pearl Jam are still a mega band with music that will stand the test of time. Eddie Vedder is a true rock star that will go down as one of the best. His opinion is just that, and it is his right to share it with his audience.
As for the Dixie Chicks, well, i never really listened to them anyway. Even though i am from Alabama, i guess i would say "I'm ashamed the Dixie chicks, carry the name Dixie" LOL!

Candace

You can visit my pearl Jam message board called Save You located at

http://eddieismine.proboards13.com/.


Candace

GREAT JOB PEARL JAM AND DIXIE CHICKS!! I am now a fan for life!! Someone needs to stand up to this court selected war mongering CHIKENHAWK AWOL MORON IDIOT SO-CALLED PRESIDENT!! AMERICANS ARE SO DAMNED BRAINWASHED!! iT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THAT 911 WAS A INSIDE JOB AND A PHONY TERRORIST ATTACK!! JUST ASK ALL THOSE STOCKHOLDERS WHO OWNED AMERICAN AND UNITED STOCK HOW THEY KNEW TO BET THAT THE STOCK WOULD TAKE A NOSE DIVE JUST 2 DAYS BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS!! ALL THESE CLOWNS ARE JUST TRYING TO MASS MANIPULATE PEOPLE IN TO ACCEPTING A 1 WORLD GOVERNMENT USING THE OLDEST FORM OF CONTROL .......FEAR!!

I disagree with that last comment, I have mixed feelings about the war. As for what happened with the dixie chicks being so because it was in London? GET REAL! We are not anti-American in England, but many of us are anti-Bush. I know people who are for, against and have mixed feelings about the war - none of them like Bush, and I live in England and am actually from London myself. I disagree about Eddie's behaviour being immature but then I feel the same way about his "pro-choice" act so I can understand that point of view even if I disagree with it. Virtually no-one in the anti-war movement likes Saddam Hussein either. Also abortion=left wing? GET REAL! This post is to various people by the way...

Olden is delusional, I am not comforted by the number of those who will believe any conspiracy theory that comes along if it fits their worldview.

Thanks for the thoughts and clarifications, Dave. I understand the difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush.

Pearl Jam sucks and always have. You hate Bush and not america. Well now all of you far left freaks know how bad the right hated Clinton and his immorality and mix of appeasement of evil and war like vengeance attacks on 5 countries. All the useless entertainment idiots backed Clinton's war mongering. You are nothing but a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical haters.

Pearl Jam sucks and always have. You hate Bush and not america. Well now all of you far left freaks know how bad the right hated Clinton and his immorality and mix of appeasement of evil and war like vengeance attacks on 5 countries. All the useless entertainment idiots backed Clinton's war mongering. You are nothing but a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical haters.

Eddie V.'s position supporting J. Kerry suck big time. You're mixing water and oil, art and politic.
Hoping your future CD disgust me
sincerely
George

Honestly, I dont see what the fight is about. The reason the Dixie Chicks are hated is because there saying the Iraq War is a scam to a load of rednecks who blindly follow a guy who would sell the country for an oil well. Meanwhile Pearl Jam is isnt being hated by the public because first off there agreeing with 71% of public and its that 71% that goes to there concerts. Honestly I think both of the bands are good. While demolishing a mask of the president on-stage is a little over the top, not because of the political statement but because it makes all anti-bushers look like a group of angry punks. America is just sick of Bush's shit. When you do the math were paying $30 per person a week on the war, and thats without dividing it out because plenty of americans are too young, old, poor, or rich to pay for it. And where is this money going? If you look at Walter Reed it cant be going to Iraq. Maybe we should ask the bastards at HALIBURTON. After all there the ones charging $24 for a 6 pack of coca-cola to the army. And ive noticed a lot of u attacking Eddie & co for giving an 'anti-patriotic' statement for every damn scandal on good ol George & Dick seem to wind up in. And what did Clinton do? He reduced poverty and the national debt. Ow but he got a blow job!!! I'm sorry I dont think he got the no oral sex allowed memo. I cant wait to see someone with integrity in the white house in '08. Just please o' please stop saying if you hate the president you hate democracy. The central part of a democracy is "the people shall lead, democracy is the will of the people." and Bush fights it, he's a trator and maybe even a tyrant. When you bring America into a war they dont want your flat out betraying them. If the somebody impaled a mask of Stalin or Castro, that would be just fine. So why cant we do that to the tyrant Bush? America dosnt love him, yet he tortures foreigners without a trial, invades our privacy, declares wars on harmless countries, lets true villans go free, and values loyalty over compitence! Why isnt this immoral? Clinton got blown and lied about it. Bush killed thousands and let our heroes wrote in Walter Reed, and lied about it! He's up there next to Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein (Americas ex boyfriend), and Muo. But are we calling him a dictator? No were to busy assaulting Chavez because he's building hospitals and schools with money that bush would rather spend on an oil well!