Rhymes With Right

January 28, 2007

Bollywoold Legend Nayyar Dies

This may surprise some of you, but my wife and I are both fans of India's Bollywood films. Really.

Back when my wife taught at a school with a 20% Asian student body, she had many Indian students. They introduced her to a number of aspects of Indian culture, including this one. And while we do not speak the language, many of the films are available with subtitles so we can enjoy.

That is how I became familiar with the work of O.P. Nayyar, who died today in India.

Indian music director O.P. Nayyar, who composed some of Bollywood's most memorable tunes of the 1950s and 60s, died on Sunday after a heart attack at his home outside Mumbai, a news agency reported.
Nayyar, 81, was famous for the use of Punjabi rhythms in his music and is credited with making stars of several leading singers, including Asha Bhosle, Press Trust of India said.
Indian film director Mahesh Bhatt described Nayyar as ``an audacious man who was a king in his time.''
Nayyar, who always dressed in white and was never seen without his distinctive black felt hat, was born in Lahore in what is now Pakistan in 1926.
He got his first break in 1949 when he was appointed music director on ``Kaneez'' (Junior), but recognition came with 1950s movies like ``Mr and Mrs 55'' and ``CID.''

Nayyar may have died, but his influence lives on today in much of Bollywood cinema.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

January 27, 2007

A Fan Favorite For American Idol

I've not followed American Idol this season, and have had only mixed interest over the last couple of years. However, I think I've found the person I want to see win -- Intelligence Specialist 2nd Class Jarrod Fowler of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

A Sailor assigned to USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) has become a celebrity almost overnight as millions of Americans watched him advance to the next round of the "American Idol" competition on national television Jan. 16.
Intelligence Specialist 2nd Class Jarrod Fowler said he has received numerous telephone calls, e-mails and even a few requests for his autograph after his audition for FOX's hit series "American Idol" competition aired earlier this week.
Fowler, who has spent much of his time over the past two days giving telephone interviews to local radio and television stations, says he was totally caught off guard by all of the attention.
"It's not just being on national television," said Fowler, "it's the chance to represent the entire crew of USS Ronald Reagan. I really want to say thanks to everyone who helped get me here."
The audition, which was taped back in September, took place in Minneapolis while Fowler was on leave. Fowler said he wore his uniform to the audition in order to represent both the Navy and the crew of Ronald Reagan.

* * *
Ronald Reagan is the Navy's newest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and completed its maiden combat deployment in support of the global war on terrorism in 2006.

Let's hope Jarrod Fowler can win one for the Gipper -- and for every man and women in our nation's uniform at a time when too many Americans are ready to betray them and their mission in Iraq and the war on Islamofascist terrorism.

Posted by: Greg at 05:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

January 26, 2007

Tailgating A Crime At Super Bowl

The NFL promotes tailgate parties at every stadium in the league. Indeed, it is one of the attractions of the gameday experience.

But at the Super Bowl this year, tailgating is banned Â– even at venues not part of the stadium complex, including private property.

Die-hard football fans attending the Super Bowl game at Dolphin Stadium are getting a rude awakening after finding out that no tailgating of any type will be allowed on game day within one mile of the stadium.
"There is no tailgating allowed in the Dolphin Stadium parking lots," Sue Jaquez, a member of the Super Bowl XLI Host Committee, confirmed on Tuesday. "And there is no tailgating anywhere within a one-mile radius of the stadium." "And there are no RVs allowed."

* * *
Detective Nelda Fonticella of the Miami-Dade Police confirmed the Super Bowl rules.
If caught grilling or consuming alcohol within that one-mile radius of Dolphins Stadium, fans initially "will be warned and asked to pick up their things and leave," Fonticella said. "We're trying to make this a pleasant experience for everyone, and there will be plenty to do in the week leading up to the game."

I can understand the on-site issues Â– but banning tailgating at off-site venues seems to be a bit of a draconian approach.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, 123 Beta, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger Â®, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 4 kb.

January 25, 2007

What Do You Think?

A football player promises a fan during an interview that if his team makes the Superbowl, he will take the fan along. The team makes the SuperBowl. What should happen?

That is a controversy raging in the Chicago area, after Bears safety Chris Harris made such a promise to Bryan Lange during a 40-second interview for a public-access television show.

Months before the Chicago Bears clinched their first trip to the Super Bowl in 21 years, safety Chris Harris stared into a video camera and promised to take fan Bryan Lange with him to Miami if the team made it to the big game.
The apparent promise -- made during a 40-second interview with a public access television show last June -- might have seemed like a longshot at the time.
But now that the Bears are in, thanks in part to Harris' big plays last Sunday, Lange is trying to hold Harris to his words.
Lange, a construction worker from Crystal Lake and a Bears season ticket holder, has set up camp on the road to Halas Hall this week with a sign saying, "Chris Harris You Promised.''
He also posted a clip of the interview he filmed at a charity event at www.psychobabble tv.com/chrisharrispromised.
In it, Harris tells Lange -- who goes by the name Chong on a show called Psycho Babble -- that his goal is to make it to the Super Bowl.
Says Lange: "If you guys make it to the Super Bowl, I'll sell my Harley to go.''
Harris replies, "You won't have to sell it. I will give you tickets.''
Lange replies, "I'm going to hold you to it. I've got you on tape.''
Harris, looking at the camera, then agrees: "It's on tape. If we win, he's going.''
Lange concludes the interview by saying, "Chong is going to the Super Bowl with the Bears on Chris Harris' dollar.''

HarrisÂ’ agent calls LangeÂ’s demand unreasonable, based upon the fact that Harris only can purchase 15 tickets and has about 40 family members who want to attend the game. Lange and his supporters think Harris ought to take him along. Personally, I think someone in the Bears organization ought to scrounge up a ticket to keep a fan happy and get some good publicity out of the deal.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

Does This Bode Well For The Colts?

Or will they just be well rested for the big game?

Bears finally asleep as cold wave hits Russia

Oh -- wrong bears!

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Does This Bode Well For The Colts?

Or will they just be well rested for the big game?

Bears finally asleep as cold wave hits Russia

Oh -- wrong bears!

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

January 22, 2007

"Razzie" Nomination Thrills My Wife

I am married to a wonderful woman, who I love dearly. I can think of only one character flaw that she has (well, other than voting Democrat -- just kidding, dear!). That is her ability to hold a grudge for a very long time.

And ever since we first started dating, I've known that she held a grudge against a certain no-talent actress she knew growing up -- one she refers to as "that bitch" and whose appearance on a television screen causes a quick grab for the remote.

And so this "professional recognition" for her childhood rival warms my beloved to the very depths of her soul.

At least someone was happy Sharon Stone reprised her notorious femme-fatale role with "Basic Instinct 2."
The box-office bomb received seven nominations Monday for the Razzie Awards that mock the bottom of Hollywood's barrel, among them worst picture and worst actress of the year.

* * *
Stone previously won a Razzie as worst-actress for 1994's "The Specialist" and "Intersection."
"She's what we call a Razzie repeat offender. Perhaps even a recidivist," Wilson said.
"Basic Instinct 2" also had a nomination for worst screen couple for Stone's "lopsided breasts." Also nominated were co-star David Thewlis for worst supporting actor and the movie's director, Michael Caton-Jones.

And as my darling shouted when she heard that second nomination -- "They aren't even real!"

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

January 18, 2007

Vick In Drug Scandal?

This could be interesting.

Michael Vick reluctantly surrendered a water bottle to security at Miami International Airport that contained a residue "closely associated with marijuana," police said Wednesday.
The Atlanta Falcons' quarterback entered a concourse Wednesday morning at the airport with the 20-ounce bottle. He eventually handed it over and boarded his flight to Atlanta. But his initial reluctance to turn over the bottle aroused suspicion among airport security screeners, a police report said.
The bottle was found to have a hidden compartment that contained "a small amount of dark particulate and a pungent aroma closely associated with marijuana," the report said. The compartment was hidden by the bottle's label so that it appeared to be a full bottle of water when held upright, police said.

No decision has been made on charges, league discipline, or actions by the Atlanta Falcons.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | Comments (271) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

January 11, 2007

Feinstein To Propose "Sore Losers Revenge Act"

Not that I believe that professional sports franchises ought to be able to loot the public coffers for new facilities, but I don't believe that the federal government has any place interfering in the decision of non-essential entertainment businesses choosing where to set up shop.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation today aimed at blocking the 49ers from leaving San Francisco by giving National Football League owners the right to vote on all franchise moves.
The measure, called the Football Fan Protection Act, would require an anti-trust law exemption.
Baseball has a much broader anti-trust exemption and has had only one franchise move, the switch of the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C., in the past 25 years. In a similar period, the NFL has had seven franchise moves, Feinstein noted, including the Raiders, who moved from Oakland to Los Angeles and then back again in search of the best stadium deal.
Feinstein, a Democrat who was mayor of San Francisco when Candlestick Park was remodeled for the 49ers, was furious last November when she learned that the team's owners, John and Denise York, had broken off talks with Mayor Gavin Newsom over a new stadium at Candlestick Point and were instead undertaking negotiations with Santa Clara on a new South Bay stadium.
"This legislation is designed to slow the movement of NFL teams and prevent communities from suffering the financial and intangible costs of these moves," Feinstein said. "Our football teams are more than just businesses. They are a common denominator that cuts across class, race and gender to bond the people of a city. They are a key component of a city's culture and identity."

Imagine if she actually gave a damn about keeping major employers from moving rather than something as trivial as a sports franchise -- and I say that as a season ticket-holder for our local team.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

January 08, 2007

Why The Dixie Chicks Are Not Played On Country Radio

It isnÂ’t corporate censorship so much as it is consumer preference. This article explains the situation rather clearly.

Locally, none of the three major country stations say they have a ban on Dixie Chicks music Â— but they also haven't played the group's music in years.
"We don't really have an official policy," said Mark Wilson, programming director at Cat Country 100. "We basically play the songs that test well and unfortunately, their songs just don't test well."
This goes not only for new music, but also the group's old hits Â— songs that used to top every country station's playlist.
"We didn't really ban them per se, but like most of the other country stations, the hate scores on the music they put out has come out so high that it makes it impossible to play them," said Mark Phillips, programming head at Gator Country 101.9. "They had a bunch of great songs that tested power gold Â— that's our top oldies category Â— and when you take out all those songs at once, it leaves a giant vacuum in your music library."

Quite frankly, the girls pissed off a lot of country music fans with their rhetoric about the president and their subsequent whining about non-existent censorship and insulting comments directed at country music fans. The result is that they produce a strongly negative reaction from a sizable segment of the audience Â– and the desire to hear their more pleasant early work is simply not that great on the part of the rest of the audience. And letÂ’s face it Â– if 1 out of 4 (or even 1 out of 10) listeners will turn the station because a group is played, that is deadly to a stationÂ’s ratings and profit margin. On the other hand, most listeners are not so anxious to hear the Dixie Chicks that they will leave a station because they are not played. Thus, it is merely economic common sense not to play them.

And that is no more censorship than the decision of the local R&B station to not put Alan Jackson into their rotation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aw, c'mahn, Greg! Those poor Chicks -- they are victims of right-wing censorship! We should mandate that all those who bought their pre-anti Bush comment CDs buy their newest CDs, too. This will "eradicate" said censorship!

Posted by: Hube at Mon Jan 8 12:03:55 2007 (p2uDb)

2 There is more to the story than meets the eye.

The below link is an Article published by Radio & Records. It highlights the lengths of deception the chicks have gone to to try and convince people that their rights were somehow violated and that people conspired against them. In all actuality, it is the chicks who conspired against the American people.

http://pdf.rronline.com/Cou/COU-20060619-3150.pdf?

If you read the article, you will see the chicks had major support from a major country station. They wanted to be seen as "rock", so they lied and lied and lied about being "not being played".

Posted by: Beansox at Mon Jan 8 12:10:33 2007 (gFtE6)

3 The fact is that most radio stations have censored the Dixie Chicks, including my local country station.

I requested Not Ready to Make Nice on my local station and it was never played. Not because of negative comments, I was the first one to comment about it, but because they wanted to continue to ban them, just like they did when Natalie first made her comment.

I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area) who pulled the Chicks single because of 30 (thirty) negative comments. He used those reactions to determine what the audience wanted and didn't want to hear.

Know how many listeners he catered to?

Nearly half a million.

Thirty people dictated the audience reaction of 500,000 listeners. Is that fair, or censorship?

30 people certainly isn't a sizable share of that market, yet it was enough to have the Chicks banned from the radio.

Why, because of their "abhorrent political views" (a quote in an interview with him about the Chicks).

His audience had nothing to do with whether or not the Chicks were played, it was his political views that determined that.

There is much more to this than the country audience. Radio corporations banned them because those corporations have close ties to the Bush administration. Local DJ's used their own political views to determine what the audience listened to. An organized effort by a ultra-conservative website to request the Chicks be silenced from the airwaves.

Or the simple fact that the country industry was upset that the Chicks were "Not Ready to Make Nice".

I was one of those who turned the station because the Chicks were NOT played, as I have done with most country radio stations. They lost me as a very loyal listener to their station, and I may never support them again.

And I owned all of their old CD's and bought the new CD, but the only mandate I was under was my love of the music and the band. I tried to eradicate the censorship with my purchases and concert tickets, but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally.

And Beansox, for someone who clearly doesn't like this band, why do you worry about them so much? I see your negative posts everywhere......

You really seem to have quite a fascination for this band.....

The Chicks wanted nothing to do with the country industry after the horrible way it treated the them. They didn't lie about anything.

Posted by: A Dixie Chicks Fan at Tue Jan 9 07:45:39 2007 (40hco)

4 so you think that 30 people isnt enough to not play them, but your 1 request is enough to keep playing them?

get a fricken grip!

"I see your negative posts everywhere......"
why thank you! *takes a bow*

"They didn't lie about anything."
Obviosuly you didnt read the article I posted, or you too are liar.

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:05:18 2007 (gFtE6)

5 "I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area)"

Why on earth would you want to have a say in what listeners of a station you cant hear have to listen to?

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:09:02 2007 (gFtE6)

6 "but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally"

no ban was ever placed on thier music, tour, or movie. last time i checked, the were still making music, still touring, and still promoting their movie.

Why do chicks and their fans lie so much?

Posted by: Beansox at Tue Jan 9 08:16:55 2007 (gFtE6)

7 Both of our local stations pulled the group in response to listener complaints in 2003 -- and have made actually held call-ins to see about bringing them back. In every case, the response from the listeners has been negative. Tell me -- is that corporate censorship or is it listener preference, fan?

Similarly, was it corporate censorship or audience choice that forced the cancellation of the Houston concert by th Chicks after poor ticket sales.

I, for one, was ready and willing to welcome them back to the air -- until they insulted country fans in their interviews at the time the new CD was released.

But then again, I guess that the fan who posted thinks it is great that the Chicks "aren't ready to make nice" but demands that everyone else do so despite their own right to express political and social sentiments.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 9 12:42:04 2007 (udLR9)

8
I agree! Country music fans are mostly an intolerant conservative lot, no surprise there. Fact is the Dixie Chicks newest album is probably their best music yet and is recognized as one of the top albums of 2006, pick up a copy, listen, and enrich your life. If not - your loss.

Posted by: TEX at Tue Jan 9 19:47:05 2007 (2l9Nz)

9 And of course, "TEX" (or should i say "Natalie"), such rhetoric is certainly going to propel country fans back into the arms of your band.

And you know what -- I'm sure some of the neo-Nazi skinhead metal bands are making some great music, but I'm not going to subsidize them or their message, either. I suppose that makes me an intolerant conservative in your book -- I believe it makes me a wise consumer who spends his dollars in conformity with his personal values.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 9 22:45:22 2007 (NNYG0)

10 Notice Tex's email addy

info@dixiechicks.com

Posted by: beansox at Wed Jan 10 12:23:54 2007 (gFtE6)

11 Hence my suggestion that we are dealing with a poster whose name is really Natalie.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jan 10 13:40:30 2007 (tapAJ)

12 No rhetoric, just the plain truth. We donâ€™t care anymore if country radio plays us or not. We donâ€™t care anymore if you or country fans donâ€™t like us. I believe we have made that point quite clear this past year. We decided early 2005 to go a different musical direction. Our 2006 album "Taking the Long Way" and "Accidents & Accusations" tour were both successful. Bluntly - we are unapologetic to your disappointment.

Posted by: TEX at Thu Jan 11 01:16:26 2007 (LDqr5)

13 I guess I did peg this one -- I do have Natalie here!

But I love the twisted logic here -- Natalie and her fans complain the band is being "censored" by country radio, but by her own admission they are not shooting for a country audience anymore!

So let me get this straight -- you aren't country, but it is wrong for country stations not to play your music and for country fans not to buy your records. That is rich!

Well, Natalie, let me clue you in -- i was one of the folks who called stations trying to get them to play you in 2003 after your juvenile political statements. I was one of the folks who argued you had a right to your opinion. The only reason I didn't buy tickets for your show that summer was my liberal Democrat wife's request that I not spend that much money on concert tickets, since we hoped you would make a return engagement to RodeoHouston in 2004 (we were at the 2002 show).

And even though I have trashed your political views since then, I anticipated the release of your new album -- right up until you attacked country fans and country music (when you made it clear you don't believe in free speech for anyone except yourself and your supporters). It is why folks stayed away from your concerts in droves, forcing all those cancellations and postponements -- something that hardly makes it possible to claim your tour was a success or that you had "given up" on the country market since your biggest failures were in cities closely tied to country music.

But hey, i wish you well -- if you can find an audience for your message, go for it. Just recognize that those of us who won't be part of that audience are not small-minded or intolerant -- we have simply decided to go a different direction, one that is in keeping with our beliefs and values, and one that you certainly ought to respect just as much as you demand we respect your decision to do the same.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 01:46:58 2007 (dXDzr)

14 Hey Gnat, how come you went on STAR 98.7 and lied to the station and listeners about not getting played on an station ins Los Angeles when KZLA (country) had you in heavy in rotation and even had their staff go on CNN to defend you?

How come you lied to everyone about not canceling any concerts, even thought you knew at the time you were canceling 14?

How come you have yet to witdraw your names from the country categories at the Grammy's?

How come you requested RIAA certify your album for 2X platinum even though you are 250K short of that benchmark?

How come you have no integrity?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 03:59:36 2007 (gFtE6)

15 Beansox the DC are less than 140K away from selling 2 million. This is a typical process. Toby Keith's latest was certified platinum by the time it sold 600K. The Killers were recently certified and they are at 700K.

Posted by: Bill451 at Thu Jan 11 04:35:25 2007 (ZSgVm)

16 very well bill. when are they going to remove their names from the country categories?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 04:37:31 2007 (gFtE6)

17 Another thing bill, TOTW was aruond the 850K mark in sales, they declined to have that certified as platinum, so why is it so important for TTLW to be certified for 2? Just more spin on their part to paint the album a success when it it really isnt.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 04:40:28 2007 (gFtE6)

18 Good question Beanstock about the live cd. The cd has actually sold about 960K. I can't tell you why it isn't platinum - maybe a million copies haven't been shipped?

As for them being removed from country - they can claim they aren't country but they are and the new cd, while it has rock elements, is still very country - more so than most country groups today.

Any way you slice, they are a great band - country or rock

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 05:09:54 2007 (ZSgVm)

19 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 06:01:01 2007 (gFtE6)

20 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign against would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 06:01:17 2007 (gFtE6)

21 At first Boston country station WKLB (which has done well lately in the 12 + over ratings) said they wouldn't take the Chicks off the air but more recently their PD has said that most of WKLB's listeners have a strong negative opinion of the Chicks, and thus the station doesn't air too many of their songs anymore. When the Chicks turned away from country (for some reason, they're still in the country CD section at Borders) and called their fans a bunch of ig'nant rednecks, that may have been why
public opinion turned.

And in my opinion, the "Not Ready to Make Nice"
song was a whiny bunch of crap that deserved to
bomb. The parody of it on MAD TV (see it on YouTube), "I Will Never Apologize", was much
better.

Posted by: raccoonradio at Thu Jan 11 06:08:29 2007 (X3/Ix)

22 NRTMN was a fantastic song and brilliantly written. Had the song been written without the context of the incident in your mind, you probably would have enjoyed the song.

And let's refresh memories, it was the country audience that turned on the Chicks well before the Chicks gave you guys the finger.

Posted by: BILL451 at Thu Jan 11 06:29:55 2007 (ZSgVm)

23 Sorry, Bill, it really is pretty whiny -- and would be even outside of the specific context. Indeed, it would be nothing more than a "B-side" track were it not for the controversy.

And yes, the country audience did "turn on" the band -- because a large segment of that audience rejected their political message, their choice of forum for expressing it, and their subsequent arrogance in presuming that they had a right to be free from criticism or commercial consequences. Indeed, it was the latter factor -- and their decision to try to paint themselves as victims -- that permanently alienated many of us.

And remember -- the band has not been in any way censored. No government official has forbidden them to perform in concert, not law prevents them from recording or marketing their music, and no decree forbids their music from being played on the public airwaves. What happened was that they alienated their fan-base, and they have had to live with teh consequences of their decision to do so.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 07:16:44 2007 (2YNli)

24 Is anyone suprised my questions have yet to be answered? Im not, as it requires honesty and courage.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 09:23:40 2007 (gFtE6)

25 Rhymes, while I support your right to your opinion, I respectfully disagree, most notably with your assertion that the Chicks haven't been censored in any way. Yes, the are still free to speak out, haven't been jailed, etc.. they have been railed against by corporate entities, the free republic, etc.. they have been threatened, stations have been threatened with either pull them or we'll withdraw advertising, etc.. So, in a sense they have certainly had their free speech toyed with. If you can't speak out against governement for fear of being blacklisted or threatend,then it's not really free speech.

In the end, it doesn't much matter. They have alienated a large portion of their fan base and the Chicks simply have a smaller audience. And as long as the continue to produce stellar records such as Taking the Long Way, they will maintain the audience. I'm sorry you are no longer a fan because you are really missing out on, what in my opinion, is their best record yet.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 11:10:25 2007 (ZSgVm)

26 If the chicks are against boycotting, then why back in Ocotber of of 2004, right before the election, did they post a meesage on their website asking anyone whould listen to use the same tactics to get Stolen Honor taken off the air?

"http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/123011.shtml"

"The Chicks punctuate their alert by saying, "during the past week there has been a massive backlash, and Sinclair is on the defensive. They are on the ropes and we need you to help us keep them there."

They even provided a link to encourage people to join the boycott...

http://freepress.net/music/

The result?

"Dear Media Reformer,

Thanks to you, Sinclair bowed to massive public pressure. After a deluge of phone calls, emails, boycotts and threatened lawsuits....(excerpt)
Sincerely,
Robert McChesney
Free Press "

Seems to me they dont have ANY problem using the tacits they continue to whine about, against others.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:25:16 2007 (gFtE6)

27 Here is the link bill, I wouldnt want you just to take my word for it.

http://www.freepress.net/action/archive.php?id=10

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:33:33 2007 (gFtE6)

28 Beansox, you got me there. Although, you and I have had this discussion in the past and you know that I disagreed with the Chicks on those tactics. Just because I'm a Chicks fan doesn't mean I support everything they do. I believe they were wrong for inciting that type of boycott just as I believe you and other were wrong for your organized boycott.

It was more disappointing coming from the Chicks because they just went through a similiar situation and didn't like it - very hypocritical. I will certainly give you that.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 11:36:01 2007 (ZSgVm)

29 But when you financially support them (if i remember correctly, you said you bought more than one copy of TTLW *ducks for cover*)going to concerts, paying to see their fauxcumentary, you are indeed supporting everything they do.

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 11:41:04 2007 (gFtE6)

30 But bill, I can't help but notice that your statement effectively concedes my point -- that the only folks you and the girls in the band believe they are the only folks who have a right to freedom of speech.

You claim the have been "railed against" by certain entities and individuals. Where I grew up, that is freedom of speech.

People have threatened boycotts if their music is played -- again, an act of speech and freedom of association long recognized as a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

And yes, words do have consequences in a free society -- just look at the response to the recent racist rant by Seinfeld's Michael Richards. The man likely no longer has a career left, and has been banned by certain comedy clubs for what he said on stage. Have his rights been toyed with? Is his right to freedom of speech somehow diminished? Or are we simply seeing the reality that speech invites more speech, and that controversial speech may provoke a strong reaction?

I guess what I am saying is that I'll have some sympathy for the plight of the Dixie Chicks when they find themselves taken into custody by the FBI -- not when they complain that the working class folks of America are not willing to shell-out $15 for a CD or $50 for concert tickets to feed the lifestyle and bank accounts of a threesome of wealthy, over-privileged entertainers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 11:49:05 2007 (AT+mw)

31 Beansox,

I did buy more than one copy (two copies to be exact - you know the story behind it), saw them in concert but sadly haven't seen the documentary.

I will continue to support them as long as the music continues to be topnotch.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 12:08:47 2007 (ZSgVm)

32 LOL.. i know why you bought the copies...that why i threw in there!

You think the music will still be top notch when they have to cut back on promotional costs because they lost 70+% of their fans base and can no longer afford to outsourse the creative process to topnotch artists?

Posted by: Beansox at Thu Jan 11 12:25:07 2007 (gFtE6)

33 Rhymes I have nothing against freespeech for you or any one else. I'm a huge proponent of freespeech, I think Beansox can attest to that. What I am against is organized boycotts and threats of derailing careers unless you speak or think like everyone else. Additionally, had the DC said the same thing about Clinton they would be hailed as heroes. Very hypocritical.

If you, as an individual, don't want to support the Chicks, fine, don't. The Chicks have said the same thing. If you know longer like them for their views, so be it. But having an oranized boycott that threatens radio stations with pulling of advertisers, etc.., it's a bit far. What it does is sparks fear in others to keep silenced. That works nicely in China or Korea but this is still America.

As a side note, I'm a Republican and I disagreed with Ms. Maine's statement.

Posted by: bill451 at Thu Jan 11 12:37:14 2007 (ZSgVm)

34 I have to wonder, Bill -- would you say the same thing about the concerted action taken in the 1960s to end segregation and guarantee civil rights? You know, "Hey, you are welcome to oppose segregation, but organized boycotts against segregated stores, lunch counters and bus lines is a bit much!"

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 12:57:49 2007 (44XVi)

35 Please, don't you find the issue of segregation much different than one woman saying she doesn't care of the president? Obviously fighting for every man/woman/child to be equal is different that one off the cuff comment. It is no comparison and can't be treated as such.

Natalie's comment was so minute that it shouldn't have had the impact it did. It still amazes me that a little ol' country singer from Texas had this much power to scare people into rallying against her.

Again, for her comment, you, as a fan/non fan, have every right to say "hey, I don't like her views and I'm not going to support her" but the tactics and threats and everything that went with it was over the top.

Posted by: bill451 at Fri Jan 12 04:11:14 2007 (ZSgVm)

36 bill... there is nothing little about her. stop with the nonsense! DOH!

And people didnt jsut rally against her for what she said, it goes much deeper than that. People were ready to move on... the chicks? not so much, as you can clearly see from their marketing campaign for this latest album. They wanted to beat people over the head with their politics and then declare they were somehow beyond reproach because they are "financially set" (natalies words not mine) "celebritites".

What they found out is that most people just find them completely unlikeable and that trait overshadows their music. So as long the chicks continue to campaign against conservatives, and I refer you back to TEX's post, by calling them names, they can expect to met with resistance and all that it entails.

Posted by: Beansox at Fri Jan 12 04:37:49 2007 (gFtE6)

37 The funniest part of this is that many of the top 10 superstar country artists (concert revenue, album sales, you name it) are left-leaning politically.

Tim McGraw? Democrat. Actually quite outspoken. Featured in Esquire. Lauded as potential governor by Bill Clinton. Country superstar.

Faith Hill? Outspoken "loony lefty" (that is to say, she criticized President Bush).

Johnny Cash? "Left of center," and that's being as conservative as possible.

Kenny Chesney? Democrat, from what I can glean from your brethren over at Free Republic.

Keith Urban? Pretty clearly left of center.

Not just stars, but elite superstars, all.

Using hindsight, it seems the real culprit here was the mood of the country when the Chicks spoke up. McGraw could probably bash the President daily now with no effect at all!

Either way, the Chicks themselves had the #3 selling country album of 2006. So...yeah. Let the country stations do whatever their little hearts desire.

Me? I think that if you don't listen to nonpolitical music because of the artists' politics are to be laughed at. This is coming from a liberal with Toby Keith on his iPod.

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 07:46:42 2007 (aPL79)

38 that should read: "you are to be laughed at."

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 07:57:08 2007 (aPL79)

39 And dan, for what it is worth, in the last three years I have spent my money to attend concerts by Chesney and Urban, and would consider attending one by Tim McGraw. I'd skip Faith Hill (whose shows I've attended in the past) because I don't like her musical direction the last four or five years. And i would kill to be able to see Johnny Cash one last time.

By the way, I own albums by all, and would consider purchasing more in the future, politics be damned.

The Dixie Chicks, though, fall into a special category -- their arrogant insistence that no one criticize them and attempt to paint themselves as victims is what offends me. And their whiny single grates on my nerves.

Also please note that while they are classed as "country", their airplay was on non-country stations and their sales were to a decidedly non-country audience. They themselves claim to have moved beyond the country market -- but they are somehow still classified as country. To say, therefore, that they "had the #3 selling country album of 2006" is somewhat disingenuous -- and the response to their concert tour in traditional country bastions bears that out.

When the Dixie Chicks decide that they are ready to make nice with the country music audience, apologize to country fans for their insulting comments about country fans and the country music industry, and get back to making good country music rather than political music, I'll consider buying another Dixie Chicks album or attending another Dixie Chicks concert.

Instead I'll be going to see many of these artists during a three week period in February and March during
RodeoHouston -- because I love their music and don't care about their politics.

By the way, the ones my wife and I are seeing are GEORGE STRAIT, REBA McENTIRE, CLAY WALKER, JOSH TURNER, GRETCHEN WILSON, ALAN JACKSON, PAT GREEN, SUGARLAND, RASCAL FLATTS, DIERKS BENTLEY, and BROOKS & DUNN -- at least a couple of whom the Dixie Chicks said they don't want to share CD players or iPods with their music. And please note -- we've left out the two artists most closely connected to conservative politics, because our goal is to be entertained.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 08:13:33 2007 (9uOV3)

40 It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The slams of the country fans came after the fans, as Maines has said, "turned on [us] in a day." As I said, I suspect it was a sort of perfect storm of political climate and bashing by the mainstream media that sunk them, and made the country fans react.

But I simply can't defend the fans for what they did to the Chicks after the intial tame comment -- which resulted in death threats! Now that it's an all-out war, with the Chicks firing at the fans, well, sure, you can be upset. But they didn't start the fire.

As for their sales being to a decidedly non-country audience: Do you have any numbers on that? I'd be interested. Probably hard to gauge. Surely their sales to pop audiences are higher--but so is the #1 act in all of music, Rascal Flatts. Yet they are still classified as country, and no one questions it.

Sounds like a good show in Houston. For the record, there are just a couple songs I can't listen to because I take them personally. The big one is Daryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten," because it unambiguously implies that liberals think we should "not worry about bin Laden," which is despicable and makes my blood boil when I hear it. If it were "don't worry about Hussein," that would be based in truth.

Posted by: dan at Sat Jan 13 08:44:44 2007 (aPL79)

41 But here's the deal -- they made those comments on foreign soil as we prepared for an imminent war with high public support. Had Natalie Mains even acknowledged that there was a better time, place, and manner to express the same ideas, I think she would have killed off the ugly response in an instant. Indeed, I didn't find her comments all that outrageous -- but then again, I hear similar sentiments expressed by my wife on a daily basis.

And I'll agree that death threats are out of bounds -- but I understand that Toby Keith and Daryl Worley get similar comments without engaging in the sort of histrionics the Dixie Chicks have. Sadly, it goes with the territory if you are a celebrity entering the political fray -- which is a truly unfortunate comment on a small fringe of looney-toons in our society.

By the way -- if you find yourself here in Houston during rodeo season some year, let me know -- we'll take in a show -- and in the game of Bulls vs. Cowboys, this former Chicagoan transplanted to Texas always picks the Bulls!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 09:23:19 2007 (9uOV3)

42 Just to be clear, you've got two Dans commenting now. Must be your lucky day.

I tend to be amused by those who get themselves worked up by the politics of stars. The best living author is Mark Helprin, but his politics are moonbat rightwing nonsense. Doesn't make his novels any less compelling, though.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Jan 13 10:07:39 2007 (IU21y)

43 I noticed that -- and my invite goes out to both of you Dans, as well as the other commenters on the thread (well, except for the Dixie Chicks Fan -- too much of a moonbat).

hexck. if TEX/Natalie comes down, I'd even be willing to take in a show with her -- but hope she would spring for luxury box tickets for us.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 13 10:51:02 2007 (tCngE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 07, 2007

Tragedy For USC

There are few college sports programs I dislike more than the University of Southern California. I'll root against them in virtually any game in which their opponent isn't Michigan, Michigan State, or any team from the state of Florida (especially Miami).

But today my heart is broken for the Trojans and their fans following the senseless death of their incredible young kicker, Mario Danelo.

Police said there was no evidence pointing to suicide in the death of Southern California kicker Mario Danelo, whose body was found about 120 feet down a rocky cliff.
"I have no indication per se that it was a criminal event," Lt. David Pierson, commanding officer of the LAPD Harbor Division detectives, told the Los Angeles Times. "But we exhaust all leads to ensure that we're making the right categorization of the case."
Pierson said investigators had information that Danelo was out with friends Friday night and that he was last seen around midnight. His body was found Saturday afternoon near Point Fermin lighthouse in the city's San Pedro section.
Pierson said police had no information as to whether Danelo had been drinking and that there was no evidence he committed suicide. Martha Garcia of the Los Angeles Police Department said the body showed signs of traumatic injuries.

I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of the loss being experienced by the Danelo family at this time, and my prayers are with them. May God reach out and comfort them in this time of tragedy.

Posted by: Greg at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

January 03, 2007

A Well-Deserved Award For DeMeco Ryans

Last April, we Houston Texans fans expected that the defensive rookie of the year would be wearing our uniform. After all, we had just taken Mario Williams with the first pick of the draft. Surely it would be him.

Well, we were half right.

The winner of that honor is a Texan -- but not Williams. It is DeMeco Ryans.

DeMeco Ryans came into the NFL as Houston's second choice to bolster its defense. He leaves his first pro year as The Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.
The linebacker, chosen at the top of the second round of last April's draft Â— 32 spots after the Texans made defensive end Mario Williams the first overall selection Â— was a runaway winner of the award announced Wednesday. Ryans led the league in solo tackles with 126, and his 156 total tackles were 33 more than the next-best rookie, Detroit linebacker Ernie Sims.
In fact, no rookie in the last 20 years had more tackles than Ryans, who was an All-American at Alabama in 2005. And Ryans had more tackles than any of the other five linebackers who won the award this decade, including Brian Urlacher and Shawne Merriman.
"It's always nice to be touted as one of the best and have a big-time stat, but I credit that to the other 10 guys that are around me on defense," Ryans said. "We wouldn't be talking about me without those other 10 guys out there."

This young many has bee absolutely incredible -- and clearly outshined Williams. he's also become a fan favorite, with a winning personality and a genuine warmth shown towards the people of his professional home. And the great thing is that we know there is more to come from this kid, that he has yet to reach his full potential.

So congratulations, DeMeco -- you earned this one.

And I'll keep that autographed football in the place of honor it deserves.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.