Jotown

Frontline on PBS had a documentary last night about this here is a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/ The vast majority of experts the world over who have been studying this stuff have no doubt that climate change is real. That there are more people on the planet than ever before emiting more greenhouse gasses than ever before is a fact. Look at the air in China during the olympics; do you not get that the polution was man made? Or do you think the toxic air in Beijing is from Yak's farting in the Himylaya's? Mininizing mans role in our current cylcle of global warming is just plain ignorant at this point. We are in a crisis and no matter what you think the cause is we should all be responsible for our part in this mess. If you make soup in your toilet you will get sick. Our planet is sick right now and all of the creatures that inahabit it (including humans) are showing symptoms of this. To ignore it for the sake of argument is irresponsible and ignorant. Have a nice day.

the problem with a decision that man has nothing to do with it and the funding goes away, as does Al Gore's reason for being here. The money has to be taken out of BOTH sides of the arguement. Again; at this point there is no doubt that the 6 1/2 billion people on this planet and all of the damage we have done to the earth, water and air is having an effect. And yes, glaciers are melting. In Tibet they have seen an amazing decline that has sped up predictions of their demise by a hundred years. That an Alaskan glacier appears to be growing is great, but that does not ameliorate the 99 % that are not.

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan%2BGlaciers%2BGrow%2Bfor%2BFirst%2BTime%2Bin%2B250%2Byears/article13215.htm I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. The Alaskan glaciers have grown this year, Arctic sea ice has increased this year, some areas just had the coldest summer in several decades -- and yet the press isn't giving it any coverage. Odd. I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one. The overwhelming majority of experts on this subject have long ago agreed that climate change is real and that Co2 emissions from humans are a big part of the cause. There will always be experts on the fringe of every issue (and most of those claiming climate change is not due in any way due to humans are usually funded by the oil companies) but this is a non issue in most of the worlds universities and think tanks. Climate change is real. Humans are playing a huge role in its acceleration. We need to get that and get on with doing our part to contain it. Pretending its not real only wastes time.

I don't think you can find a contemporary country record that has not had the vocals tuned. There are many a Nashville cat who makes his living tuning vocals before the mix.

Man has this thread wandered way off track. I am a big fan of Willie Nelson and not a fan of the Dix Chix in any way. But you cannot compare their success in the last 9 or 10 years. The Chix have been huge and gotten massive airplay (until recently) and Willie has not. That he scored a hit 4 years ago in a duet with the loudest voice of support of the War and GWB in country music (Toby Kieth) by the same stations that have blacklisted the Chix reinforces the main point here. Blacklisting and free speech. But you can't compare the commercial success between Willie and the Chix in the last ten years regarding radio airplay and record sales (not that it has anything to do with this topic)

Originally posted by Lee Flier The whole thing just smacks of BS to me, sorry, and that's why no, Craig, you're not the only one who thinks it's much ado about nothing. You are a good debater but you still play fast and loose with the facts. People have explained the cronolgy of what has transpired her (as have I) so I am not going to explain it to you again. You have called this contrived (when it clearly wasn't) you have called it a publicity stunt (when it clearly wasn't) you have combined statements and events that happend three years apart and you still don't want to coment on the fact that before the success of this CD it was blacklisted by country radio; only then did anyone make a free speech connection to this story. Again; you have a clear bias here and if you don't care about this why have you posted so many times; Craig hasn't.

Originally posted by Lee Flier And how about Willie Nelson? - does he get "blacklisted?" I don't think so. That's why I think the Dixie Chicks are just using this issue as a publicity stunt. If their career isn't doing so well maybe it's just because people aren't into their music (unlike Steve Earle and Neil and Willie). For starters Steve Earl, Willie Nelson and Neil Young haven't gotten played on country music stations (or any stations for that matter) for a long time. Steve Earl has always been outside of the mainstream, Willie Nelson hasn't had a contemporary hit in years and Neil Young isn't even country. Also; the DixChix have sold ten times more records this year than any of those guys even without country airplay. The reality is that their careers aren't going so hot while the Chix are red hot even while being blacklisted by country radio. And I am not a Chix fan, but a fan of free speech and someone who is very much against McCarthyistic tactics against any one. I hate to say this Lee but you have gotten several facts wrong in this thread; yet you keep going back to your misconceptions about this story. Why is that?

Originally posted by Billster The problem with this thread (for about 6 pages) is that there's a lot of claims that the free speech of the "banned" artist is in question, and that is not the case. You should say: "in your opinion" because thats all it is. Clearly many people disagree with your opinion; as I do.

Originally posted by Lee Flier But it's hardly a free speech issue when you essentially call your fans a bunch of dumb rednecks and then are surprised when country radio turns its back on you. I think this would have likely happened even without the conglomeration of radio ownership. Lee; (I can't believe I am saying this again) The comment about being ashamed of GWB came in 2003. The comment about rednecks came this year (May 2006) after country radio blacklisted their new CD and they recieved more death threats. The two events are separated by almost 4 years. They are being punished by a corporation for their political opinion. Period. What in your bias is making it impossible for you to consider this?

Originally posted by chunkathalon adn to answer the original question... apparently people do care about this stuff, since this is like the longest thread on sss ever. Correct. And as always as happens on this board; nobodys mind was changed. Some see this as a free speech issue and some do not.

Blue +1

So when someone does not agree with you they have "gone off the deep end"? You are indeed a wise and kind soul. NOT> I am not going to explain this to you again because it is clear your reading comprehension is not very good. I have nothing more to say here. Live in your bubble.

Originally posted by Brittanylips If not getting on the radio is a violation of free speech, then is Clear Channel denying you of your right to free speech if it chooses not to play your music? -plb You are making this way too complicated or you are intentionally trying to cloud the issue. This is why the de-regulation of radio and TV station ownership was such a big issue. By allowing one entity or voice to control what comes through the publicly owned airwaves you get (for the first time in US history) the ability to block dissenting views. Clear Channel and others are not blacklisting the DixChix because people don't want to hear their music (the success they are currently having proves this to be untrue) they are blacklisting them for what they said about bush; hence they are being punished by an organized entity - which has clear political ties - for what they said. First they blacklist music, then the blacklist news. This is not a good trend for America and that the Chix have succeeded despite efforts to block them is an aberration. Someone not so high profile who can't get other media exposure will never get their music, or their political opinion heard. Why is this so hard to grock?

Originally posted by MrKnobs Speaking out about politicians is a special area. All politicians are fair game, always have been. It's part of what you accept being a politician. It's a vital part of being in a free country. Being spoken out against isn't what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Anyone is free to buy or not buy their records for whatever reason, but that's not what happened. What happened was a corporate decision at high levels, a publicity stunt in its own right to promote radio shows and stations who were ragging on the DC for being anti-American. Pure mob mentality hate speech. Control of what the listeners get to hear by mega-corporations, exactly what many musicians decry as the evil system. Except even more evil in this case, because it was politically motivated. Terry D. Thank you Terry for typing out my response to both Billster and Blips. There is a huge difference between free speech and institutiional character assasination. I will let you figure out who is doing which.

When political action groups launch an attack on someones career that prohibits them from participating in the arena they have made their living in it is coercive whether the government supports it or not. And if this effort in effect takes away someons right to free speech we have a problem. It is the principal that one should be paying attention to here.

Originally posted by Lee Flier Exactly. Jotown, that's pretty disingenuous of you to say that anybody claimed they "tried to ruin their career on purpose." Nobody said they did that. If it really is true that 95% of country stations have blacklisted them, that's {censored}ed up in its own right,. Well you say that you thought it was a publicity stunt and you did say that you thought it was contrived; so I am not sure what you are saying now. Again; that most all of country radio (which was their main source of getting their music heard) is blacklisting them makes this a free speech issue. I think Lee, you should look into to facts behind this story before you jump to conclusions about it. I am not now, nor ever have been a Dchix fan. In fact I caught some heat at musicplayer over my dislike of the formula that created them. But this is different and its about free speech and blacklisting; something all artists should be concerned about.

Originally posted by MrKnobs I still disagree. It cuts to a fundamental question that I guess a lot of you don't care about. So I wasn't there, but I don't think it's a publicity stunt. It cost them dearly for a while, and it's really a testament to how good they are that they could survive the sort of institutional blacklisting they got from the incident. Music matters to me, and so does freedom of speech. Terry D. I agree with you Terry. To believe that they attempted to ruin their career on purpose is about as funny a thing I have ever heard. Someone asked about which country stations are blacklisting them; 95 percent or so. That anyone familiar with how hard it is to get a music career could believe that the chix dumped their own on purpose defys logic. That despite no country airplay they have managed to get to number one on both Amazon and iTunes says something. I think it says that a lot of people are now agreeing with what Natalee said. They see the war is a mess and they get that this is a free speech issue. Something that many here just can't grasp I guess.

Lee, you are missing the bigger point. That a small group of people could literally take away their only means of getting their music out and in effect taking away their ability to make a living is a big deal. The beatles thing was different because it was much broader in scope. This is a free speech issue at a time when free speech is being attacked and limited. I think that the reason so many news outlets are covering them is because it is news and they see it for what it is; a free speech issue. Also a good publicist doesn't hurt.

Originally posted by Anderton I mean, what's the big deal? The big deal is that they have been black listed by country music radio and that there is an organized right wing attack on their career. That a non-important country act could get black listed and that a group of religious/bush zealots could legally organize an effort to ruin them is news. That despite the full frontal assault on them they have managed (mostly through the internet with Amazon.com and itunes) to create a demand for their product by the people is also newsworthy as it shows that Americans are not supporting the Dixie Chicks boycott. I am not a DC fan, but I have heard the CD and it is pretty good. Rick Rubin has them almost rocking and it is worth a listen.

Well the searched threads you listed Brazillian don't say anything about the pads they use. Any ideas?