Dumb__ Dixie ChicksPosted by Mahatmelissama on 3/17/03 at 11:36 (113201)
You know, if you slam somebody, you'd better be prepared to mean it and take the consequences of your actions.
Some major back-peddling ain't going to save their career from going down. They forget that the majority of their record buying comes from country music lovers and gee, most of those do support our President.
Ahhhh, I feel better now.
Re: Dumb__ Dixie Chickscarmen on 3/17/03 at 12:33 (113204)
I love em no matter what they say..their opinions don't change their music.
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksBGCPed on 3/17/03 at 12:42 (113206)
Your are right M. I think the phoney last minute we are sorry is lame. You dont say something like that and not mean it. I seriously think there is a movement among these types. They see other entertainers getting attention for anti-war/bush comments so they want to be in on it.
That is fine but they also deal with the resulting backlash in record play.
serves em right
Re: Dumb__ Dixie Chicksmarie on 3/17/03 at 13:15 (113208)
I'd like to quote a great man, his name is Dr. Ed can't remember the exact words but it goes something like this. 'People are allowed to make mistakes in a Democracy'. Ed, please correct me if I don't have it perfect. I still like the Dixie Chicks.
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksBGCPed on 3/17/03 at 13:45 (113212)
I can understand your point Marie. This, in my opinion was not a mistake. She is not sorry she said it, she is sorry she got caught and will take a hit in the pocket book. It is like a politician or sports figure making a racist comment. They get caught then they are forced to apologize.
I would say she spoke her mind and was not misquoted. I dont think she intended to say she was proud to be from Texas cause of GWB
Great man Dr Ed. Isnt he that guy that got his foriegn policy during Viet Nam from Barbara Eden and Tina Louise?
xtra credit for the first to id Tina Louise
Re: Barbara and Tinamarie on 3/17/03 at 14:05 (113214)
I gave out alot of extra credit today.........I think I have had my fill.
I think alot of young men from the 60's got their froeign policy from Barbara and Tina.......actually a whole new genration is getting their foreign policy from them too. Reruns are great.
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksEd Davis, DPM on 3/17/03 at 14:13 (113216)
We have no way of knowing whether the Dixie Chicks were earnest in their apology or not. Celebrities who are using their popularity as a political platform need to think twice about what they are saying. If they are willing to take the risks, then they need to be willing to face the consequences. Many a politicians' career went down for doing or saying far less.
Again, if earnest, they need to take some action to back up their apology -- perhaps a fund raiser for the families of injured servicemen.
Re: Barbara and TinaRichard, C.Ped on 3/17/03 at 14:43 (113222)
I always wondered why Ginger had evening gowns for a three hour tour. Also...why would she and the Howells take such a 'cheap' cruise.
Re: Barbara and TinaSharon W on 3/17/03 at 15:00 (113225)
...Aren't stereotypes wonderful?
The images of the Howells as rich people who are, nonetheless, always looking for a 'bargain' is an image that persists, even though I think that stereotype's origin is from the 'self-made' wealthy who have known what it's like to do without and are always trying to save money because you never know when it may disappear. (This was seen more often among the generations of people who lived through the Great Depression, where everyone witnessed wealthy people losing everything and in some cases, even committing suicide.)
The image of the Hollywood diva who is constantly changing her clothes still has a basis in reality -- just pay attention, sometime, to how many different outfits some of these celebs wear during a single awards ceremony! Many of them will walk in wearing one outfit and then wear a different one during the ceremony itself, at the very least. They like to be photographed looking glamorous...
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksBGCPED on 3/17/03 at 15:33 (113228)
Which brings the question, sorry if it is shallow. If you had to choose would it be Ginger or Maryann and why?
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksRichard, C.Ped on 3/17/03 at 15:47 (113230)
Oh Mary-Ann...hands down. Just the down home cute factor as well as sweetness. Ginger would be to expensive to maintain.
I dont want to get started on Barbara Eden and the genie outfit. man-o-man.
Re: Barbara and TinaRichard, C.Ped on 3/17/03 at 15:49 (113231)
I must go through five...six aprons per day.
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksBGCPed on 3/17/03 at 16:33 (113232)
noting your geographical preference is it safe to say Elli Mae Clampett was in the top 5
Re: Dumb__ Dixie Chicksmarie on 3/17/03 at 16:34 (113233)
I don't purchase, study, or like art based on politics. I like art for arts sake. If an artist makes mistakes, which they often do because they tend to be right brain dominant...it doesn't affect my opinion of their work. If I judged every artist based on their personality flaws or differences in politics I'd have to leave out daVinci, Michaelangelo, Pollack, the Beatles, and so on. I can forgive politicians for some of their personal flaws as long as it isn't in conflict of interest. Descrimination is never acceptable and is a conflict of interest.
I do like the idea of a concert to support our troops. I don't want to see this war but realize that I have no control over the events in the world. My concerns now are for our troops, the Iraqi troops......they are someone's sons, and the people of Iraq. I don't have any prayers for Saddam, some of his family or his right hand thugs.
Re: Hollywood vs. America -- two docs commentEd Davis, DPM on 3/17/03 at 18:16 (113246)
Treatment for Hollywood Hypocrisy
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, M.D.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Hollywood hates America. So what else is new?
This time, perhaps, a great deal. War has a nasty way of forcing people and nations to spend some time in front of the mirror, to see who and what they really are, who and what's really important.
So maybe it's time to take a hard look at the industry that provides that noxious mash of inanity, acerbity and pornography we're conditioned to call 'entertainment.'
But don't expect here any recitation of the latest absurdities to issue from the high-rent mouths of Arnold, Sylvester, Barbra, Sean, Susan, Martin or the rest. The problem goes far deeper than that. We also need to understand it clearly before we can fix it.
Historically, the verbal arts – literature, poetry, drama, film – have, more often than not, been servants of power. Prior to the 19th century, if you wanted to write or act and also eat in style, you needed a fat-cat patron to pay the bills. You didn't get or keep patrons by calling them jerks or their upper-crust class origins awful.
What changed? Basically, capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, which created a large, educated and increasingly wealthy middle class. The newly wealthy bourgeoisie were not dependent on a wealthy royal class for their existence and were increasingly able to travel and expend their new wealth in new mass markets.
They also became a new audience for performing artists. The successful artist could now amass and, in some cases, surpass the wealth of the royal patrons before whom he'd previously groveled.
But 19th century 'modernist' culture also produced a curious new product. Poets and artists were considered blest with the kind of inspiration and genius once deemed gifts of the muses or God.
And, in an increasingly secular age, they become 'the unacknowledged legislators of mankind,' in Shelley's words. Or, if you will, its conscience.
By the First World War, the principle was firmly established. If you wanted to be a 'serious' artist, you had to exist in opposition to bourgeois society ... even as that society made you rich.
Why bourgeois society chose to support and deify this well-paid 'adversary culture' remains a fascinating mystery (Marx, Freud and Darwin, among others, may have had something to do with it). Decades ago, we began to sense that the whole movement had grown stale, sterile, banal, excessive and ridiculous.
But the point here is: That was then, this is post-then.
Genuine artists and artistry gave way to manufactured celebrities and corporate productions that tried to mask their banality by 'pushing the envelopes' of excess. Life drained out of this adversary culture. Everybody knew their roles and their lines – crusading artists, the conscience of society, etc. But the exercise grew ever more ridiculous, culminating in the preposterous declarations and depredations since 9/11.
The Keepers of the Conscience had devolved into a bevy of circus clowns, insulated from reality by their wealth and status, hurling their invective as an exercise in self-righteousness, posing as victims of censorship and black lists even when there were none, and sneering all the way to the bank.
Those of us owning SUVs – but lacking personal 19-car garages filled with expensive automobiles – get somewhat indignant hearing celebrity owners of larger SUVs and limousines deride us.
So, Hollywood hates war. But, if you 'Google' the subjects 'Hollywood + war' you get 1,040,000 hits. Guess they like glorifying war and playing action heroes for billions of dollars but not if it means standing up for their country in real life.
So, what is to be done?
Well, for starters, you, your family and your friends can vote with your money. Don't view the films or buy the books. If you're the type who exercises his or her First Amendment rights by joining organized boycotts, that's also kosher. But more importantly, remember that influence can never be claimed, it can only be bestowed by others.
Neither the laws of nature nor nature's God require you to listen respectfully to every jerk who claims the title of 'celebrity.' Instead, recognize them for what they are – the final, perverse, spoiled products of a cultural style that failed long ago and has lingered far too long for any good it may have been doing.
Remind your children that their favorite war and action heroes are fake. Finally, remind yourself that no wise parent ever rewards a hissy fit.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple-award-winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Contact Drs. Glueck and Cihak by e-mail at (email removed).
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksEd Davis, DPM on 3/17/03 at 18:24 (113248)
Stardom is about popularity. A mixture of talent, image and so on. Stars can exercise free speech but if they are willing to express themselves on controversial issues, they do so at the risk of their popularity with segments of their followers. I absolutely do not discuss religion and politics with my patients as I feel it would be a distraction to the care for which they came and could compromise my relationship with them. We make an exception for the social board since we speak as any citizen.
Re: Hollywood vs. America -- two docs commentBGCPed on 3/17/03 at 20:40 (113258)
Very good article, I think you will see very very few of these 'artists' speaking up. I think Sean Penn should go to France and be a mime and a court jester for Chirac.
p.s. Why have we not heard a peep about Martin Sheen since his visa ads got sacked?
Re: Dumb__ Dixie ChicksRichard, C.Ped on 3/18/03 at 08:13 (113289)
I was never an Ellie Mae fan. She didnt do it for me. Now a young Samantha Stevens....whoa baby!