Good point, Eric. Were I an entertainer, I think I would lose more opportunities by being pro-Bush as opposed to anti.

Also, despite the less-than-patriotic motivations of Clear Channel, I wish people would just own up to the truth that they're a privately owned company and can play (or not play) whoever the heck they want. Listen to (and support) public and community radio stations if you don't like what the big Corp does.

In an interview with the LV Review Journal, Ronstadt said it was a one-off gig, and she didn't like playing Vegas because the audiences have no respect for the performer. In this case a bunch of yahoos went nutzoid and trashed the lobby.

The singer's political profile -- including her late '70s relationship with former California governor Jerry Brown -- are a past edition that does linger. "I've been dedicating `Desperado' every night to Michael Moore, trying to get people to go see `Fahrenheit 9/11,' " she says.

"They say the country is evenly divided, and boy is that true. One half of the audience cheers and the other half boos."

"I don't understand this country sometimes and I really fear for it," she adds. "The government is making everybody in the world hate us, including the people that used to be our friends."

Anyone who disagrees with that is welcome to get in line, behind whoever she manages to rile at the Aladdin this time.

"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she says with a laugh.

Regarding Clear Channel and the other media oligarchies, yes, they are corporate entities (I believe CC is a publicly traded company, not private). But the airwaves are in the public domain, and as such CC and their like have a fiduciary responsibility to the public.

The e-m spectrum belongs to everybody.

I agree with your last point entirely, Jim

Fine insights from Jim Carruthers.

I agree there hasn't been a real free speech debacle in the Goldberg, Ronstadt, Raitt, Jadakiss, scenarios. (No government action.) But, I think there can be a chilling effect without government action and said chilling can harm the person's career. The message communicated when these people are lambasted or dismissed for opposing Bush is 'they are now pariahs.' Many people will reflexively respond to that. In fact, the only thing a group of middle-aged Moms in Pasadena, for example, may have heard about Ronstadt in years is she 'did something bad.' That is bound to color the perceptions of at least some people that might want to see her perform. So few Americans have good critical thinking skills. That is the problem to a great extent. People who realize they may or may not agree with the public figure about everything but can still appreciate his or her talent are less likely to follow the script.

I find the Jadakiss situation particularly interesting. The people criticizing him, white folks on the Right, did not know he existed until they heard he had a line in the song "Why" asking who is responsible for 9/11. They immediately converted that into 'some stupid Negro thinks Bush blew up the towers.' But, if you listen to the song, the remark is one of a series of rhetorical questions. It is clear Jadakiss does not think Bush personally caused the buildings to go boom. He is saying the president should have been prepared for terrorism. Since mainly white youths buy rap music, there could be some chill on Jason Phillip's career as their actual status in society comes to bear. I've long thought they are being attracted by the stereotypical content of gangsta rap. Now, that attraction has clashed directly with their parents,' and perhaps their, values. How dare someone they believe doesn't knows what a voting booth is criticize Bush? Jadakiss is 'supposed to be' rapping about putting anybody who messes with him 12 feet under, not politics. We will see what happens.

The Jadakiss video can be viewed at the iTunes Music Store. It is on the second page. You can get iTunes from here.

MD, your thoughts are very measured and well-considered, but I still think there is more intimidation against pro-war or pro-Bush entertainers, at least from within the industry, because their view is very much in the minority.

Were I an entertainer, I think I would lose more opportunities by being pro-Bush as opposed to anti.

Kurt, what's wrong with being an entertainer and neutral? I'd settle for that among singers and actors.

Thanks for the link, Eric, but you're bloody right I'm intimidated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that so are you.

I don't ever feel intimidated about expressing my opinion, but giving my opinion is what I do

What's wrong with a painter only using tones of beige?

Yep, mediocrity is the hall-mark of a vibrant culture.

If Linda, and the rest of Entertainment-Media conglomerate are guilty of something, it is pandering. Las Vegas only comforts itself in that at least it's not Branson.

I like what Heather Mallick had to say in today's Globe and Mail about this (aside from calling Ronstadt an "enthusiastic whore"), which she summed up:

In this era, anyone attempting any kind of genuine artistry in the United States should be writing in their own blood. Instead they write in crayon. To paraphrase that song lyric by the original rebel Tom Waits, Bush is the man who sold Americans "a rat's asshole" and told them it was a wedding ring. I wish someone would just say it out loud.