When was this taken? Not that it matters, I just get really annoyed when internet geeks like us talk **** about a way a woman looks, when in actuality, she's a normal looking female, weight-wise.
When compared to the average American female, I think she's right on target. But that says more for the fatness of American women AND MEN more than it does about her. I have no idea when the picture was taken. It could be dated.
I have no idea, but if she is, it ain't by much. Of course, if you're talking normal by celebrity standards, then yes.
I posted in that thread. These girls are not attractive. One of them looks okay. One has a decent body. One is hideous from top to bottom. If I saw them at a bar, I wouldnt look twice. Houston has much more to offer as far as attractive women goes.
Clear Channel is the biggest radio station owner in the nation and if their political affiliation affects the way they present news and influences the public then their choosing to ban certain types of anti-war music and musicians critical of this administration while choosing to play up patriotic music and supporters of the administration is most certainly not a silly issue. There's a significant and potentially dangerous distinction between private companies making decisions and quasi-monopolies that use their power to push political agendas.
I'm a big Springsteen fan, but this is pretty stupid if true. I don't think anybody is boycotting them because they were "speaking freely," they're being boycotted because some people think their opinion is ****ed.
oh come on. now you're saying a some organization has to have the right to imprison someone to be afflilated with the government??? talk about reaches
come on...argue substantively with me...don't pick one sentence, one distinction between a private and public organization, and let that be your shot back at me. want more distinctions?: 1. no power to regulate the affairs of citizens; 2. no power to tax; 3. subject to taxes; 4. subject to govt. regulation; 5. incorporated as a private business; 6. owned by private shareholders like you and me. want me to go on?
Just a couple of notes from a musical angle... The Dixie Chicks are still in the country music business. There is nothing in that industry BUT image. It is completely and totally about it. The reason we have heard more whining about their image beating is because it means more to them than it does to the average rock band. Notice Pearl Jam's onstage antics have garnered very little attention despite the fact that they were arguably more extreme than the Chicks. The reason is that your image in rock as some anti-social idiot oftentimes helps more than it hurts. Not so with country. Second, they made a tremendous record. This is one of the best releases from a mainstream country artist in years. It deserved crossover airplay because it really was that good. This may be the best record they ever make and the only way they were able to make it was to pay for it themselves because the country industry was worried it would flop. Again, image over substance. Third, this is hardly the only thing any artist has said or done in an anti-war stance. Everyone from Dave Matthews to Peter Gabriel to Bruce Springsteen spoke out against the war and the administration's position. The fact that they got all the publicity says more about the media than it does about them. Springsteen is a really good example. This is a guy who has written really honest, moving stuff over his career. The Rising is maybe the most heartfelt and moving tribute ever made before or after 9/11. Yet, he gets little press on his comments because, again, he's a rock artist. No one expects him to be reverant and toe the corporate line. The Chicks don't get that benefit. Now, on this boycott, Clear Channel is the devil. They own well over 300 radio stations throughout the US and their next closest competitor owns fewer than 60. They also own the largest concert promoter in the country (Pace) and the largest outdoor sign company in the country (Gannett). They are a monopoly plain and simple. When they, as a company, boycott one artist, it is absolutely devastating to an artist and, in this case, it is hypocritical. They still play songs about drinking, doing drugs, having sex, shooting people, getting in fights, the occult, you name it. Yet, the Chicks utter one sentence about the president and they get the death knell. You know, I've heard Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave on the Buzz (a Clear Channel Station). Niether of them are exactly conservative. In fact, you might even call RATM anarchistic and far left liberal. They've said WAY worse things in public about our government, yet they aren't banned. I still hear Sheryl Crow on CC stations. Why no outrage over her comments? The list goes on and on. The whole thing smacks of money and hypocracy.
Actually I'm going to snap my fingers and disallow one company from monopolizing the public airwaves. And then, since I'm greedy and they are the public airwaves, I'm going to force tv and radio news to be news like it used to be and not commentary laced entertainment.
1. i'm not sure i understand what the money angle is...if listeners wanted to hear the dixie chicks and realized they couldn't hear them on clear channel stations, they tune down the dial for the stations that do play their songs. so they risk losing listeners. an admittedly small concern for such a big company..but with listeners all over the entire nation that concen is multiplied 2. i've seen nothing to indicate they're a monopoly. they are definitely big. but 104 does very well in this market...and they're not owned by clear channel. and they didn't just get suddenly big...they've been the big boy on the block for quite some time. has there been any formal efforts to break them up? any indication of that? none that i'm aware of, but you certainly know more about them than i do. 3. totally agreed with you that it's hypocritical...but it's playing to an audience. the country music audience, as a whole, is much less accepting of these kinds of things. if it's all about image, as you say, then these ladies have no one to blame but themselves for this problem. so what's the solution? tell stations they HAVE to play the dixie chicks?
great i was hoping you would say that. now let me ask you a question. if this organization was not subject to government regulation (#4 on your list) would it still be a private organization?
Just to add, here are some of the lyrics from a song I've heard played on the Buzz from time to time: <i>Movements come and movements go Leaders speak, movements cease When their heads are flown 'Cause all these punks Got bullets in their heads Departments of police, the judges, the feds Networks at work, keepin' people calm You know they went after King When he spoke out on Vietnam He turned the power to the have-nots And then came the shot... Ya better beware Of retribution with mind war 20/20 visions and murals with metaphors Networks at work, keepin' people calm Ya know they murdered X And tried to blame it on Islam He turned the power to the have-nots And then came the shot What was the price on his head? What was the price on his head!</i> I mean, you don't get much more incindiary than that when it comes to politics.
