Blogcritics Comments on Getting Dixie Chicked

Comment by mark on Getting Dixie Chicked

Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:47:08 EDT

Jeez, 2 commentaries on the Dixie Chicks on this site in the same day. I guess they are getting the exposure they were after. I saw the Chicks at the 20th Kerrville folk festival, and they were pretty good. Good musicians, but apparently not much common sense. Oh well, Barbra S. and Sean Penn don't strike me as a particularly intelligent people, either. Folks, you have to admit, we've all been over this ground for the past couple of weeks, and let's face it, entertainers are just not fonts of knowledge! GET OVER IT !!! Have fun, Mark ]]>

Comment by Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge on Getting Dixie Chicked

Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:09:14 EDT

People listen to the Chicks, who I kind of liked, for their music not their politics. Maines made her politics known and a lot of her fans decided they didn't agree with her. Many no longer felt they could support her in her position. There is always a price for free speech. I, as a writer and author, know that my libertarian views affect whether or not I am published by certain publishers and outlets. Every time I express my opinion on any of the various blogs I write for, I risk losing readers for myself and the blog. That is the way life works. Maines made several tactical errors (in the minds of those who are most miffed) in her comments. 1. She should not have made them in the UK. 2. She should have made them as an individual not a member of the group (they were receiving an award as the group). 3. Her surprise at the reaction of country music fans show either stupidity, naivete or ignorance. Those who are boycotting the Dixie Chicks are in fact flexing their rights to free speech, association and choice. Howard good piece, I will blog it. ]]>

Comment by Dude on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:13:10 EDT

Funny, I'm not from Texas, but I am still ashamed of the Commander in Thief. ]]>

Comment by a regular guy on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:01:25 EDT

Look, Natalie is free to say whatever she wants. If the group's 'fans' decide they don't like it and choose not to purchase her albums, so be it. If it's a result of her political views and their disagreement with them who's to say that's wrong. She used a forum granted to her visa vie her, and her group's, popularity to broadcast a political view. If the public that supports that forum decides to stop purchasing her albums, that's a choice they, the 'fans', made. It amazes me that a 'celebrity' thinks they can use their popular status to expose their views and beliefs and then claim mistreatment when people choose to show their displeasure by not supporting them by buying a ticket their movie or buying their album. Sure, they have the right to say whatever they want, but to cry and moan and complain that people are treating them poorly as a result is insulting. You want to remain popular, don't insult the beliefs of your 'fan' base. If you do, be prepared for the consequences. Popularity is a fickle thing. Next time she'll weigh the consequences to her economic future of what she chooses to say, what's more important to her, her beliefs or her portfolio. - A simple guy ]]>

Comment by THE VINMAN on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:29:18 EDT

Much of what Howard wrote was contained in my original post that is linked to in his article at the top of this page. There is also an UPDATE by The Vinman on VINMAN's VERBOSITy after watching the interview with Dianne Sawyer on ABC last night ... www.thevinman.com ]]>

Comment by Tom Johnson on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:11:24 EDT

I think people are missing the real problem with the Dixie Chicks: they weren't brave enough to air their feelings here in America and instead did so in front of a sympathetic crowd in London. I think Maines knew full-well what she was doing, revelling in the approval of anti-war London audiences. I have a feeling that were the Chicks unable to tour outside the US, they would have never voiced this criticism in public. People have a right to say what they want, I firmly stand behind that. I also firmly stand behind the belief that if you say something and it hurts others or just plain pisses others off, you have the right to suffer the backlash. The Dixie Chicks have as much right to voice their disapproval as their fans who decide to voice their disapproval of the Chicks' statement. If you want to jump all over Clear Channel for suggesting a ban on their music, do so knowing that it is in response to the fans. I have a friend who works at Clear Channel here in Phoenix and she said that their phone lines are jammed every time they play a Chicks song with people berating them for playing their music. If everything else in the world can be exploited, such as celebrities jumping on a hot topic such as the war for publicity they are starving for, why can't Clear Channel jump the other way and appease the very people who bring in the advertising dollars? Maines' explanation comes across more like damage control than anything else. She tries to re-frame her statement so that it sounds like it had something thoughtful behind it. It did not, or it would not have just been blurted out like it was. She stood on that stage, looking out at a strongly anti-war crowd, and fed the crowd what it wanted to hear. In the process she fueled her ego with a weak and childish statement catered to a responsive crowd. She made a jab at the president and only the president, not at the war, and that is why this is such a profoundly and pointlessly stupid action on her behalf. But it got them lots of attention, so I guess in the end it still serves to fuel their egos. Their Enterainment Weekly cover is just part two of the Dixie Chicks' effort to provide the world with cheap and, again, childish and weak responses, this time to criticism they fully deserve. Their clumsy handling of this situation is simply more proof that this is just a publicity stunt aimed at taking advantage of the attention they can get right now. What would have been responsible and adult would have been to simply let the issue fizzle on its own, instead they decided to add fuel to the fire by posing naked, branded with the labels that were given to them in the wake of Maines' statement. Instead of asking for people to respect their statement, they just use it against everyone to grab that much more attention. What's really sad and embarassing to see is a group with such a bright future stooping so low to grab up this fleeting and fickle attention. Enjoy it while you can, girls, your fifteen minutes may just about be up. ]]>

Comment by Julie Nelson on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:27:22 EDT

Brian, I have to agree with Howard. If Maines meant to communicate that not all Texans share the same beliefs and views as President Bush, then she should have chosen different words. Period. What she literally said, in fact, was... well... stupid and meaningless. The Chicks had the chance to "clear up" the comment that was made in the interview on tv tonight. Although I really would like to believe your rational explanation, I didn't hear them explain "the comment" that way. It would have been nice if Maines could have offered more insight as to what the heck she was getting at when she made her statement in London last month. Because she didn't offer an explanation of any real substance, I tend to feel that the Chicks look even more stupid now than they did when the whole incident occurred. As much as I like their music, I have to admit that it's not the same listening to it anymore. I guess that like Howard, I don't enjoy listening music from artists that I don't respect. I am from Texas. So are the Dixie Chicks. And I'm embarrassed that people MIGHT EVEN think Texans are people like the Dixie Chicks. I guess it goes both ways. ]]>

Comment by randy on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:41:03 EDT

I have no problem with what Maines said. I have a problem with all those on the right who paints anyone who disagrees with the warmonger Bush as an unpatriotic American, not supporting the troops, blah blah blah. Hey, your troops are all volunteers, and they didn't ask to fight in this war. There is no left-wing dominated media in your country - it's all Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan. And God forbid anyone speak out against the war, or against Bush. "The land of the free"? Are you kidding us in the rest of the world? Good for Maines, good for Garofalo. ]]>

Comment by John Wilkinson on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:26:58 EDT

I just saw the Primetime report on ABC about the Dixie Chicks. Let me just say that what I saw was three prideful women begging the public to restore their image and buy their albums and play their music. I saw no apology on this interview from Maines. She has far too much pride to just say "I'm sorry for what I said. Please forgive me." I also don't think the statement itself was stupid. I think it was really bad timing to say something disrespectful about our president. If you recall, it was just before we sent our troops into Iraq. Our country had mixed feelings about the war and I think we just needed to find assurance about this war. And Maines did not give us that assurance. (Not that it's her job) Bottom line: I'm not falling for this brainwashing from the media. The Dixie Chicks did not apologized for their remarks and having them naked on the cover of Entertainment Weekly isn't going to change my mind about them. Shame on them and I hope America continues to boycott them. ]]>

Comment by Brian Flemming on Getting Dixie Chicked

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:33:18 EDT

Howard, I didn't have any trouble understanding what Maines was trying to say with her statement. The statement: "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of United States is from Texas." It's pretty simple, really: We're from Texas. So is the President. And we're embarrassed that people think Texans are people like George Bush. Call it what you like, but I hardly think the statement is "stupid" or "meaningless." I don't think it shows "no evidence of rational thought." The rational thought is this: Bush is a hateful man who is deservedly seen as a menace to the world, and people all over the world therefore characterize him as a Texas "cowboy." But not everyone in Texas is like that. As a Texan, I am ashamed of President Bush, and ashamed that people associate him with our fine state. It would be like an American saying, "I'm ashamed that Natalie Maines is out there representing America to the world." If someone said that, I think I'd understand what they were trying to communicate (that is, "Not all Americans think like that shameful Natalie Maines"), so I wouldn't call it meaningless. And as for "stupid"...well, I would disagree with it (I'm happy that people in the world are getting messages from Maines and Michael Moore--I don't want them to hate all of us), but it wouldn't be a "stupid" statement. As far as their EW cover, I don't see why it is "stupid." Is this just an all-purpose word for "I disagree with their political views"? ]]>