quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

I tossed my DC cd's.  I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think that people of celebrity often take their celebrity too far and abuse it.  Natalie Maines did just that and lost any respect I personally had for her. 

I don't think music stars, movie stars, tv stars have any better opinions on the world and politics than the rest of us do.  I believe it is wrong for them to use their celebrity as a platform to push their personal beliefs and agendas on the rest of us.  I'm not gullible enough to fall for it, but there are many people that are, just because they've seen such and such in a movie or on tv.

I don't think celebrities should be allowed to make their voices louder than mine, as I have just as many beliefs, ideas and opinions about politics and the world at large as they do.  I just don't have the availability of a stage and a microphone.

I avoid the movies, music, etc., of celebrities who have political agendas they present in public. 

I don't really care what Natalie Maines thinks of George Bush.  What I do care about is that she maligned the President (it could have been Kerry, or Ronald McDonald, it wouldn't have mattered), on foreign soil in a very public way.

This is the type of thing that makes our country weaker, not stronger.  It makes us appear weak to the very people who wish to do us harm.  Thanks for opening that door a little wider, Natalie, ya idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

What I do care about is that she maligned the President (it could have been Kerry, or Ronald McDonald, it wouldn't have mattered), on foreign soil in a very public way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: submissvelilbrat

With actions come consequences. I don't dispute their right to voice their opinions, nor do I dispute the right of the public to burn the CD't they bought in protest, or to call radio stations and voice their own opinions as to the music they don't wish to hear.  [and WayWardSoul made an honest and very important point, the books, etc. the Nazi's burned were removed forcefully from the homes of the owners and burned...the CD's were burned by people who owned them...a big difference]

This misinformation has been stated and repeated here and has stood unchallenged. I think it needs to be addressed.

It simply wasn't the case that the German people stood by in impotent horror as some foreign beings called "Nazis" appeared and wrested their books from them. Obviously the Nazi's were German too. That aside, there was plenty of enthusiasm among the citizenry for these measures and worse ones--unattributable to Nazi violence. Plenty of citizens voluntarily and gleefully fed the book bonfires with "books they had bought themselves".

Long before the Nazis took power, Herman Hesse, one of the most revered writers in Germany's recent history, wrote with deep dismay about the despicable way so many of his countrymen from every station in life were going "patriotically" along with calls to abandon and even destroy foreign literature, music and art. This was not a result of violent government coercion to burn books, but rather things like incendiary speeches and editorials in newspapers and weak, forgettable songs performed and published not for art's sake but to simply whip up the citizens in favor of war.

Read the Noon Day Press collection of Hesse essays entitled "If the War Goes On" if you can't accept my challenge to your claims about general German innocence of bookburning. In fact I can't think of a better book to reccomend to any reader with political sensibility in these times.

Voluntary public burning of literature, music and art for political reasons happened in Germany before and during WW1 as well as before and during WW2. It is an error or a lie to say that it was all, or even predominantly attributable to Nazi coercion. If you want to say that the voluntary German public bookfires should not be compared to those of the DC's fickle fans for some particular reasons, that's fine. Make your case if you can. But please don't invent fanciful accounts of history to make your case for you.

To Feastie I would like to say please attend to the poster who asked you why the DCs should not speak out against the deceitful conduct of that man when you make no complaint about the jingoistic pro-Bush, pro-war songs and public statements of other "country" artists. These people beating the drums of war are surely speaking in a voice louder than yours. Did you deprive yourself of their music too? Do you feel they are morally wrong to sing their political songs and make their political statements?

To the person who said that one's military and its actions must be supported "no matter what" I would like to suggest that you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine and others among the early American patriots.

They all disagreed with you, obviously. If they didn't we'd still be subjects of the Queen.

And please do think of those German citizens who supported the German troops "no matter what" even as those troops dragged German citizens from the ghettos to the death camps. How many more innocent lives could have been saved if people uniformly abandoned preposterous ideas like supporting one's military "no matter what," and instead acted in accordance of a principle of supporting truth and justice when the government and military go dangerously off the rails.

The thing which was supposed to make The United States different from all nations which had come before was that it was to be based upon rationally held ideals rather than on blind loyalty to some ruler or tribe.

Blind, silent loyalty is un-American. Speaking out against a deceitful president is entirely patriotic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subvalena

I am new here, so bear with me.  I do not know every detail of the Natalie Maines saga.  I do know that alot of my friends were hurt by what Jane Fonda had done.  They were only doing what they were ordered to do.  I feel that Natalie had every right to speak her mind, but I think it should have been on American soil that she made her remark.  This does not refer to just her, but so much for the united front.  It doesn't matter if I think what we are doing is right or wrong.  It doesn't matter what I think of the president.  As an American I feel that I have a duty to support our troops no matter what.

Thank you for letting me speak my mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: submissvelilbrat

With actions come consequences. I don't dispute their right to voice their opinions, nor do I dispute the right of the public to burn the CD't they bought in protest, or to call radio stations and voice their own opinions as to the music they don't wish to hear.  [and WayWardSoul made an honest and very important point, the books, etc. the Nazi's burned were removed forcefully from the homes of the owners and burned...the CD's were burned by people who owned them...a big difference]

This misinformation has been stated and repeated here and has stood unchallenged. I think it needs to be addressed.

It simply wasn't the case that the German people stood by in impotent horror as some foreign beings called "Nazis" appeared and wrested their books from them. Obviously the Nazi's were German too. That aside, there was plenty of enthusiasm among the citizenry for these measures and worse ones--unattributable to Nazi violence. Plenty of citizens voluntarily and gleefully fed the book bonfires with "books they had bought themselves".

Long before the Nazis took power, Herman Hesse, one of the most revered writers in Germany's recent history, wrote with deep dismay about the despicable way so many of his countrymen from every station in life were going "patriotically" along with calls to abandon and even destroy foreign literature, music and art. This was not a result of violent government coercion to burn books, but rather things like incendiary speeches and editorials in newspapers and weak, forgettable songs performed and published not for art's sake but to simply whip up the citizens in favor of war.

Read the Noon Day Press collection of Hesse essays entitled "If the War Goes On" if you can't accept my challenge to your claims about general German innocence of bookburning. In fact I can't think of a better book to reccomend to any reader with political sensibility in these times.

Voluntary public burning of literature, music and art for political reasons happened in Germany before and during WW1 as well as before and during WW2. It is an error or a lie to say that it was all, or even predominantly attributable to Nazi coercion. If you want to say that the voluntary German public bookfires should not be compared to those of the DC's fickle fans for some particular reasons, that's fine. Make your case if you can. But please don't invent fanciful accounts of history to make your case for you.

To Feastie I would like to say please attend to the poster who asked you why the DCs should not speak out against the deceitful conduct of that man when you make no complaint about the jingoistic pro-Bush, pro-war songs and public statements of other "country" artists. These people beating the drums of war are surely speaking in a voice louder than yours. Did you deprive yourself of their music too? Do you feel they are morally wrong to sing their political songs and make their political statements?

To the person who said that one's military and its actions must be supported "no matter what" I would like to suggest that you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine and others among the early American patriots.

And please do think of those German citizens who supported the German troops "no matter what" even as those troops dragged German citizens from the ghettos to the death camps. How many more innocent lives could have been saved if people uniformly abandoned preposterous ideas like supporting one's military "no matter what," and instead acted in accordance of a principle of supporting truth and justice when the government and military go dangerously off the rails.

The thing which was supposed to make The United States different from all nations which had come before was that it was to be based upon rationally held ideals rather than on blind loyalty to some ruler or tribe.

Blind, silent loyalty is un-American. Speaking out against a deceitful president is entirely patriotic.

Noah: Thank you for your summary. You said everything I was trying to say, however; you did a much better job at  it! [sm=applause.gif]
Irishbynature

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

In 2002, George W Bush got voted the 3rd most dangerous man in the world.  The only two guys that beat him were Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Try this little test.

Ask yourself the following question and answer it to yourself as quickly as you can.
"Why did we go to war with Iraq?"
I bet you either struggle to come up with an answer quickly or you say "to bring democracy to them".  If it's the latter, I wonder why we chose Iraq and not China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Talking of Germany. It was a long road from 300 principalities to the Third Reich. Foreign interference, occupation by Napoleonic France, revolutions and starvations that killed up to 30% of the population. It didn't suddenly arrive at a militarist power with ambitions and a hatred that allowed it to perpetrate something as vile as the holocaust.

In Roman times this Germanic part of Europe was inhabited by a fiercely independent people that refused the Roman yolk and actually assassinated the man that successfully led them to defeat the Romans because he had ambitions of becoming a permanent leader that threatened their individual freedoms. It was these Germanic peoples that exported the seeds to Britain that grew into democracy and through Britain to the American colonies and so the US.

OK simplistic. But when people invade a relatively peaceful backwater, they should be aware they could be making tomorrow's monster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

Billy Bragg said:

 it’s all about the price of oil

Left-wing, right-wing....no matter to me really Level. Opinions & stories from either side are fine by me.  Like I said earlier, I'm rather confused at this point on why we are there...still....and what monsters we are creating in the future. NPR is a good site and I do listen to their radio broadcasts sometimes.
Thanks!
Irishbynature
 
 
Then why does NPR (hardly right-wingers lol) say it isn't?
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365439

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

In 2002, George W Bush got voted the 3rd most dangerous man in the world.  The only two guys that beat him were Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Try this little test.

Ask yourself the following question and answer it to yourself as quickly as you can.

"Why did we go to war with Iraq?"

I bet you either struggle to come up with an answer quickly or you say "to bring democracy to them".  If it's the latter, I wonder why we chose Iraq and not China.