Posted by Brutus:
Brutus, you’ve used those words quite a bit, and it’s obvious they mean different things to you than they do to me. What I’d like you to do now is provide us with a clear definition – your own definition of the words “patriotism” and “unAmerican”. Don’t worry about my disapproval; it doesn’t matter whether or not I agree with your interpretation, I just want to understand what it is for the sake of better communication. Don’t be afraid; I know you can do it.
I stand corrected. I’m not much of a gambler, and don’t care much for shows.
What the…? I’m having a hard time parsing this in a way that makes any sense at all-- Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I can only assume you’re using some non-standard sense of “UnAmerican.”
How does expressing the view that someone else’s (not particularly radical) views are intolerable treason typify the fundamental values of free speech?
I was speaking to lissener’s comment to me that anyone who calls Moore unAmerican is unAmerican. My response was to say that in this country people are free to say what they want to say and to express any opinion they wish (and reap the consequences, if any, thereof), with the implication being that since such free speech is one of the cornerstones of our country’s foundation, it is indeed quite American to accuse another of unAmericanism if such is the accuser’s opinion.
No. Please tell me why it’s stupid.
Utter bullshit.
Tell that to the companies that have had their farms destroyed by anti-GM activists.
Tell that logging companies that have had their equipment destroyed by enviromentalists.
Tell that to SUV drivers in the San Francisco bay area that have had their cars damaged.
Tell that to Seatle, or any other city where anti-globalization protestors have gathered.
Also, gamblers are often forced by their SOs to take a break from their gambling and go to shows and do other touristy things.
Haj
This whole thing is a train wreck.
Read this CNN Entertainment article, and then read this Washington Post Performing Arts article, factor in what was already mentioned (that she’s been doing such dedications during other performances) and you have further evidence that you can barely distinguish the shit from the stick stirring it these days.
That being said, if I’d been in the audience I would have given her a whooping standing ovation and tried to get an autograph on some tattered piece of poster.
Now I’m just saving my pennies for a ticket to the assumed Linda Ronstadt/Dixie Chicks tour…
Aside from the illegality you mean? Aside from the fact that what you are basically describing is what happens in totalitarian dictatorships? Aside from the oppressiveness of denying freedom of speech? Well, I guess if you’re Robert Mugabe it’s not stupid, but it’s hardly the supposed to be The American Way, is it?
Hello, Zoe. It’s good to hear from you.
Regarding your question, I don’t think we need to shush anyone. But I do think that celebrities, who have no real standing to be making their opinions known since they are not privy to behind the scenes and big-picture information, have no more accurate idea of what’s really going on and what is really the “truth” than anyone else. Yet they try to leverage their fan base to their way of thinking by virtue of nothing but their own celebrity and whatever charisma or talent they happen to have that has created their celebrity. In other words, they appear to think they are so luminous and cool that we should do what they want simply because they want us to. And since they don’t have a more informed opinion than anyone else but they do have access to the media that ordinary people don’t have, the perception is that they have an unfair opportunity to influence events when in reality they are no more qualified to do so than anyone else.
I don’t think so. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that she has been at least somewhat active in left-wing politics for some time. But that isn’t the kind of work and commitment I spoke of. It’s easy to donate money and pontificate based on your celebrity. The kind of commitment I think would make a celebrity’s endorsement more legitimate would be to run for office or become a spokesperson or officer in some organization that will work to bring about the change that the celebrity in question thinks is good. Then they will be speaking from a legitimate platform and from their own good works, rather than trying to influence events just because they think they are such wonderful people by virtue of their own celebrity.
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. What other reason would she have for speaking out if not for the fact that she is a celebrity and is trying to use what she perceives as her superior point of view to “educate” (quotes are mine for emphasis) her audience?
Please see above for my answer.
Dissent bothers me for the same reason it bothers anyone else. While it is a good and necessary part of our democracy, it is still a threat to that which we – whether right or left – consider to be the right thing to do or the proper state of affairs. However, it is the give and take between the two factions that create balance, which is good. And to be honest, if the right were as well represented as the left among the entertainment industry, I doubt I would much care what Ronstadt or Reiner or Streisand, et al. might say. I quess it’s a balance thing.
Thank you. As I said, it’s good to hear from you. 
Darn tootin’. This is why I would have walked out. If I’m at a Dixie Chicks concert, it’s to hear Goodbye Earl, not to be told how to vote. And lest someone call me some vandalizing Republican “trained” by talk radio – :rolleyes: – I’m not interested in hearing Toby Keith’s opinion about what I should politically care about, either. Just STFU and sing.
I can’t wrap my mind around the “dumping out their drinks” part. “I’ll show her! There, my $6 scotch and soda is completely wasted! HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES? Where’s your Michael Moore NOW?!?!”
There’s no question that it’s immoral and against American values. I just don’t think it’s stupid.
Well, I must admit that if it was Picasso who said it instead of Ronstadt I would be more than happy to listen. I wouldn’t convert, mind you, but I’d listen and relish the experience.
Linda Rondstat singing and crazed right-wingers on a rampage: two more reasons I don’t want to go to Las Vegas.
Yeah, you liberal Moore-ons!
Let me clue you in, here.
Patriotism = Remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that you’ve handed the country over to a bunch of self-serving rich men who could care less about your piddly little problems. Wearing a flag pin and maintaining that every U.S. soldier is “fighting for our freedom”, even when they’re burning up children and firing at wedding parties who really aren’t jeopardizing our freedom in the first place.
Also, Singing along with Toby Keith or that “Have you forgotten 9/11?” jackass make you a SUPER DUPER patriot, I’m told.
unAmerican = Questioning the motives behind our Great leaders. Demanding the truth from the Administration. Wearing or touting anti-Bush propoganda.
WISE UP, STUPID LIBERALS!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You tell em, Brut ol’ buddy. YEEEHAW!
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas II
But “Un-American” has a specific meaning, it’s not the same as calling someone “stupid” or “immoral,” it suggests that the person it’s applied to holds views that are so antithetical to the American system that they can’t tolerated.
By calling someone who is working within the context that the Framers intended in order to criticize a sitting President “un-American,” the accuser is implying that the criticism of the President is unacceptable, and equating the Leader with the State. I don’t recall the Pledge of Allegiance mentioning the president, do you? Suggesting that criticism of the President amounts to treason is an argument for Dictatorship, which is un-American.
Advocating a violent revolution, coup, or other non-democratic change in government is un-American. Making a film that’s critical of a particular administration’s policies and suggests that they may be acting in their own interests rather than the public interest is not, and people who suggest such an activity is somehow un-American are expressing a view that is fundamentally un-American.
Not all opinions expressed respect the American system. “Let’s burn down Congress, bomb the Senate, and install Celine Dion in the White House as President For Life!” is an un-American statement, even if it’s a sincerely held opinion that such actions would make life better for everyone. “Michael Moore is un-American because he says bad things about George Bush,” is every bit as much of an un-American sentiment, because it’s totally contrary to the principles that the United States represent.
Your argument is ludicrous-- it breaks down to "‘People shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions’ is a quintessentially American sentiment, because Americans value free speech.
:grumble: Ok, in those terms I’ll concede. However, I do generally agree with Kinthalis’s post that violence is the resort of those who would otherwise be unable to debate their point.
No prob, although I’m sure I would have enjoyed hearing what you had to say.
Well, I’ve already spoken to my distaste for celebrity proselytizing although clearly they have a right to do so (and to reap whatever consequences they may). But having said that, there’s still a time and place for everything, and in my opinion she chose the wrong time and place to espouse her views. It was a betrayal of her employers and an insult to many in her audience.
I don’t think anyone is saying she didn’t have a right to do what she did, but having the right to do something does not necessarily make it the right thing to do.
Cheers.