Do you not understand English? I believe that we should enforce our current immigration laws until they are changed. But I do favor changing them to allow for easier legal immigration into the US. The fact that I do want immigrants to learn English apparently marks me as a racist, though I don't know why that would be. So, actually I am in favor of having more "brown skin" people in the USA, not fewer. I think encouraging immigration makes America more dynamic and vibrant.
If they bothered me THAT much, it wouldn't have taken a 60 Minutes feature to get me to start this thread. I was just always touched by their arrogance. They think that they have a sacrosanct right to express their opinion (and they do) yet they refuse to accept the backlash which is also the expression of an opinion-- with the exception of death threats or harm in general.
This simplistic view of the situation has always dumbfounded me. They're fine with the backlash. They're fine with people not buying their CDs. The problem is the ban that some stations still have. That's where it becomes a free speech issue. Most artists need radio exposure to be a success - it's not optional. And here, certain public radio stations are effectively saying "think just like we do politically, or get the hell out." No, there's no "right" for an artist to receive airplay. But when every single an artist release ends up with tens of thousands of spins per week nationally and suddenly that dwindles to hundreds, the message is quite clear. And yes, I also recognize that many radio stations cater to their listeners, and polled showing a slim majority in that area not wanting to hear the Chicks on the radio. I could accept the majority/minority argument under one condition... that it's applied to every other artist. It's not. There are a lot of other artists that a lot of people don't like (see the Toby Keith reference in the last post), but I haven't seen any polls of "Should Toby Keith be played on station X?" When you selectively apply the logic to one particular group based on political opinion, it comes off as politically motivated and serves as a method of curtailing free speech. The Chicks' statements were exercising their freedom of speech, and the ignorant hicks who ran over their CDs with tractors were exercising their freedom of speech. Any ban, however, crosses the line, and to me gives them a very valid right to complain.
The 60 minutes piece also stated that the single from their new CD is #46 on the country singles chart, but is the #1 downloaded country song on I-Tunes. That should give everyone a little pause to think.
If they can accept one repercussion, they can accept them all. How about that simplistic thinking? What radio station does not "cater" to their listeners? Without listeners there is no radio station.
Think what you want about the Dixie Chicks....they are a little above average musically, but thier CD's are never on my must buy list. But they are smart enough to know that if they just looked purty, played their music and made nonsensical "How ya'll doin" banter with their conservative fan base, they would have made a LOT more money. They had the intestinal fortitude to take a stand that hit them in the pocketbook....thats a little different than a Kanye West, who's core audience will Amen anything he says about the President or the Government.
They don't go out of their way to do so when it doesn't involve the Dixie Chicks, though. They don't run polls on whether listeners want to hear Toby Keith, for example. To an extent, they listen, but they also rely heavily on national playlists and national feedback. The individual listener response is focused exclusively on the Dixie Chicks... that's where it comes off as a freedom of speech issue. I wouldn't say that. They would make some more, certainly, but they'll still sell out major venues across the country when they tour and they'll still sell close to half a million albums in their first week (next week). It's hard explaining to people who don't know country music, but there have always been distinct differences between the Dixie Chicks and between the rest of the commercial genre. They lost some of the casual fans, but a majority of the fans they "lost" never really were supporters in the first place... they were generally indifferent. Maybe had an album or two. But most of the actual core fans are still there because they were always a somewhat different demographic to begin with.
Wnes, my desktop background would like to thank you for this image. Although I kind of wish it was landscape, so I could stretch it rather than tile it. Interesting to note this is a PETA anti-fur campaign: nothing like a lost cause with hot, publicity-conscious female supporters (Alicia Silverstone, Pam Andersen) to bring out the nekkid. Although, don't most people buy fur and kill and eat animals to get over the fact they don't look like, or can't be wth, women that attractive? Also, for some reason, it kinda seems less political when there's three of 'em.
