# Dixie Chicks Defiant & Naked **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 25, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015 "2003-04-25T02:23:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/61 "2003-04-26T07:08:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\*Nobody is entitled to an uninformed opinion. (Not that that applies to the Dixie Chicks’ it’s just a useful general principle.) \*\* Allow me to help you with your uninformed opinion of the nature of public discourse. People are allowed to have uninformed opinions – most opinions start out that way. On a public discussion board, people with differing levels of knowledge of a subject set forth their opinions. Some people know more than others, some express themselves more powerfully and concisely than others, some people reason more logically than others. On a good discussion board, where people who are well-informed, etc. post, you get a general illuminating effect, as people learn from the better posts. There’s also the Asshat Theory of discourse, in which intellectual paladins display their brilliance for the admiring masses who must be smacked down ruthlessly if they violate the sanctity of the paladins’ stage with uninformed opinions. I’m sure no one on the SMDB subscribes to that theory. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/62 "2003-04-26T07:59:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by watsonwil \* > Plus, I don’t know if I consider the statement that Clear Channel is “spearheading” the movement a factual statement. Okay, a non-editorial mainstream cite (pay attention, **Satisfying Andy Licious** 😉 ): > [@](#): > > [Media giant’s rally sponsorship raises questions](http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D0303190157mar19§ion=/printstory) > March 19, 2003 > > Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush’s strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation’s largest owner of radio stations. > > In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have **sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people.** The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies. > > **The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies,** which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/63 "2003-04-26T12:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by FallenAngel_ > By far the worst example of this is Bono’s constant pandering for third world debt forgiveness. You’re a friggin’ singer, not an economist, and you seem to have an incredible weakness at math for whatever that’s worth. I was going to embark on a rant here, but **Payton’s Servant** has done the job for me. i hope he doesn’t mind me quoting his excellent post; maybe it will succeed in drawing your attention to it more closely. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty clear that **you, FallenAngel** are the one talking out of your ass about Bono, as your blatent misrepresentation of him clearly shows. You apparently have the impression that Bono does nothing more then write songs, have sex and do drugs, and then spout off about the 3rd world debt. > > Not hardly. > > You don’t have to be an economist to talk about reducing the 3rd world’s debt; the Pope isn’t an economist, Jesse Helm isn’t an aeconomist, and yeah, Bono isn’t an economist. But unlike you he has done some long hard studying of the issues surrounding the 3rd world debt problem. **Long, hard and detailed studying.** > > After all, you do that sort of thing when you are going to talk to the head of the World Bank and various members of Congress about trying to get the US to forgive a large portion of the 3rd world debt. You don’t just go in there talking like a man with a paper asshole, which is what you you were doing about Bono. > > Try doing some actual research **outside** of the Internet and learning some actual facts about a person before you go about playing character assasination with them. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by FallenAngel_ > His opinion is without value one way or the other. It is of as much value as yours, and given the effort he has made on this issue, I’d say that it is worth a good deal more. How about you provide an actual _argument_ against what he says rather than fly-by with an attack on his personality? > [@](#): > > He hasn’t done even a remotely decent album since Joshua Tree and he talks out his ass at any forum he can nose into. For this they’re talking about giving him the Nobel Peace Prize? **Achtung Baby** was a great album, easily equal to the Joshua Tree. It was the sound of a band in its prime, not afraid to try new things, to head in new directions or to risk the ire of their fans to make the art they wanted to make. **Zooropa** was a great electro-pop album, though not a _great_ U2 album. If you appreciate the former, as I do, it cannot be faulted. Even listening to it in terms of it being a U2 album, it exhibits some treats. _Stay (Faraway, So Close)_ is a beautiful song, _The Wanderer_ is an excellent use of a guest vocalist and _The First Time_ is a great Bono meditation on his religious beliefs, not to mention the haunting piano and his usual, impeccable vocal delivery. _Pop_ was not a great album; it suffered too much from U2 trying to become a dance act, but remain U2. As such, the album lacked focus. _All That You Can’t Leave Behind_ was similarly flawed, but this time they tried too hard to be U2 and forgot about writing songs. Despite this, both albums do have some fine songs and cannot be dismissed as _bad_. They were flawed, that is all. (Isn’t it nice to get some musical discussion back into a Cafe Society thread?) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by KurdPie_ > “It was a personal insult against the President, plain and simple. That’s what I think has gotten the ire of so many Bush-supports raised against them. It was a remarkably stupid thing to do, and I’m sure they are sorry that they did it. I fully endorse any actions taken against them by consumers, up to and including boycotting or bulldozing their albums.” > > You don’t have to like the man but DO respect the office. However, if the man does not live up to the standards of the office, he cannot expect to benefit from any respect accorded to the office. Bush is a disgrace as a US President, and doesn’t deserve the respect that office deserves. I supported what the Dixie Chicks originally said, but I am disappointed that they did not have the guts to stand by their original statement. If I was a Texan, I would be ashamed that Bush came from the same state as myself. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Dogface_ > Remember, folks, ordinary people DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH RICH LIBERAL CELEBRITIES. Ordinary people can do whatever the hell they want. My issue is with ClearChannel, who banned the DCs for their own agenda. The media, which include ClearChannel stations, as one of the traditional proponents of free speech should not refuse to give voice to anyone reasonably exercising that liberty. Of course, they are not legally obliged to, but they do have a responsibility to. ---
**Author:** ![Payton\_s\_Servant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3da27b/32.png) [@Payton\_s\_Servant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Payton_s_Servant)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/64 "2003-04-26T18:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrentLumkin \* > \*\*I know that everyone has an opinion, and I’m sure there are tons of people that I don’t agree with, that I just LOVE to either listen to or watch, however, heh… > > …the deal with the Dixie Chicks is not so much about them speaking their mind with me, I’m actually GLAD they like to speak their mind. My problem is simply where, how, and when they did it. They waited to “speak on it” when they were not only NOT in the USA, but also waited to do so while the USA was at a certain type of dissention over the war and the such. My problem with them is that they did it like they did, NOT that they simply did it. > > Not only was it just stupid business, but also just flat out disrepsectfull towards those that are fighting to provide the 'Chicks with the right to do so. \*\* When would have been the appropriate time for the Dixie Chicks to speak out, six months from now? A year from now? I can’t think of a more appropriate time for the Chicks to have made the remarks that they did. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/65 "2003-04-27T02:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > \*\*… Ordinary people can do whatever the hell they want. My issue is with ClearChannel, who banned the DCs for their own agenda. The media, which include ClearChannel stations, as one of the traditional proponents of free speech should not refuse to give voice to anyone reasonably exercising that liberty. Of course, they are not legally obliged to, but they do have a responsibility to. \*\* You’re confusing an entertainment company with a public opinion forum. If ClearChannel’s costumers don’t want the Dixie Chicks, why should it play them? I’ve heard this falacious argument an awful lot: If you don’t subsidize my speech, it’s censorship. ---
**Author:** ![rexnervous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@rexnervous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rexnervous)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/66 "2003-04-27T03:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious \* > \*\*You’re confusing an entertainment company with a public opinion forum. If ClearChannel’s costumers don’t want the Dixie Chicks, why should it play them? I’ve heard this falacious argument an awful lot: If you don’t subsidize my speech, it’s censorship. \*\* Except judging by album sales you can’t really say that ClearChannel’s customers don’t want the Dixie Chicks. Only a very loud minority. I would assume a radio station is eager to attract the most listeners as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/67 "2003-04-27T04:33:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rexnervous \* > \*\*Except judging by album sales you can’t really say that ClearChannel’s customers don’t want the Dixie Chicks. Only a very loud minority. I would assume a radio station is eager to attract the most listeners as possible. \*\* Or to not drive them away. The people who feel strongly about an issue are the ones more likely to act on their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![nuthinboutnuthin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/96bed5/32.png) [@nuthinboutnuthin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nuthinboutnuthin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/68 "2003-04-27T05:21:59Z")
REALLY DEEP RANDOM THOUGHTS They are not sorry for anything they said or did… They are only concerned about the loss of future money… The “threat statements” were probably just a sympathy ploy. GNATalie is FAT. They are all ugly… One of them is cross-eyed… They are so incredibly stupid… GNATalie is married to an Arab, hence her stance… They are digging themselves a much deeper hole… How many times has GNATalie been married? 3? 4? Did I mention they are incredibly stupid? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/69 "2003-04-27T06:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nuthinboutnuthin \* > **REALLY DEEP RANDOM THOUGHTS** > > They are not sorry for anything they said or did… And as far as I’m concerned (a conservative), they shouldn’t be. > [@](#): > > They are only concerned about the loss of future money… Ah, aren’t we all… > [@](#): > > The “threat statements” were probably just a sympathy ploy. I don’t know. Is this just a guess? > [@](#): > > GNATalie is FAT. And… > [@](#): > > They are all ugly… Good one… > [@](#): > > One of them is cross-eyed… And… (so’s a friend of mine, I don’t quite catch your point). > [@](#): > > They are so incredibly stupid… Okay… > [@](#): > > GNATalie is married to an Arab, hence her stance… What?? I know-- personally know-- Arab Americans that were for this war. > [@](#): > > They are digging themselves a much deeper hole… Explain… > [@](#): > > How many times has GNATalie been married? 3? 4? Cite? Your point?.. > [@](#): > > Did I mention they are incredibly stupid? Yeah, good one. ---
**Author:** ![medstar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f07891/32.png) [@medstar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/medstar)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/70 "2003-04-27T19:03:14Z")
Payton’s Servant says: > [@](#): > > When would have been the appropriate time for the Dixie Chicks to speak out, six months from now? A year from now? I can’t think of a more appropriate time for the Chicks to have made the remarks that they did. I think that the poster’s point was not that the Dixie Chicks should have waited until after the war to make those comments; rather, they should have made those comments in the U.S., and taken the heat for it and stood firm. Natalie Maines made that comment in England when she was pretty sure that she would be applauded for it. Then, when word got back to the U.S. and the hoopla started, she apologized and tried to say she didn’t mean it. She should have thought **really, really** hard about her opinion and couched her objections to the war a bit more diplomatically. And done it in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shrew)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/71 "2003-04-27T21:46:01Z")
First of all, I am sickened by the number of people on this thread calling Natalie fat, which apparently is supposed to be some lameass way of discrediting her. The girl could not possibly weigh more than 140 pounds, especially considering she is constantly photographed next to two stick-thin women. It reminds me of when Courtney Thorne-Smith went anorexic on Ally McBeal because she said she looked fat when compared to Calista Flockhart and Lucy Liu. For Christ’s sake, people, have some perspective. And even if she weighs 200 pounds, fuck you all anyway. Fascist body-nazis. And secondly, the Dixie Chick fans are no longer just Dollywood pilgrims, as was stated earlier. The DCs have a huge audience ranging from country to pop to bluegrass. They are amazing musicians who earned their audience through years of hard work. If I can forgive Madonna for wearing an American flag on MTV, and if I can forgive Mick Jagger for having illegitimte children, and if I can forgive Hugh Grant, Rob Lowe, and Robert Downey Jr. for their indiscretions, I can forgive Natalie. She’s young, idealistic, and I personally think she simply didn’t understand the ramifications of her words. One more thing, the woman’s name was Lorena Bobbitt, not Loretta. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that _Goodbye Earl_ is an homage to Lorena Bobbitt. That’s like saying Garth Brooks’ _Mama’s in the Graveyard_ is about O.J. Simpson. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/72 "2003-04-27T22:38:05Z")
djbdjb: Sometime try listening to: “Run for Your Life” by the Beatles “Hey Joe” a traditional blues song. The most famous version is by Jimi Hendrix. “CC Rider (“I’m going to get me a shotgun as long as I am tall/'Cause if I can’t have you, baby, no one can have you at all”)” However, this song or variants thereof has been covered by both male and female artists. You might also review a collection of traditional ballads or read Sharyn McCrumbs Ballad novels, and you will find any number of traditional songs that refer to men murdering women. I like “Goodbye Earl” and the Dixie Chicks, tho’ I find Ms. Maines’ comments to be muddled and stupid. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/73 "2003-04-27T22:41:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shrew \* > \*\*First of all, I am sickened by the number of people on this thread calling Natalie fat, which apparently is supposed to be some lameass way of discrediting her. \*\* I don’t think she is fat (she’s kinda sexy to me), but the people WERE talking about her NUDE photos! And she WAS the one who decided to fight back by posing nude. It seems like a legitimate “point” if she feels her photo is expressive… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015/74 "2003-04-28T14:35:48Z")
I respect the Dixie Chicks SO MUCH more than the people who are trying to restrict their right to free speech. Plus, they are all, including Natalie, really good lookin’ without clothes on. Eat your hearts out, conservatives. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dixie-chicks-defiant-naked/171015.md?page=3)