Well, if you don't necessarily agree with someone, you shouldn't be terribly hostile. However, as an American, you have just as much right to boycott a band because you disagree with their beliefs, as the band does to have those beliefs. That's why the "dissent crushing" excuse has always pissed me off, because if you have the right to say what you want, then you have to be able to accept the other person's rights to boycott you. That's about as American as I can think of.

and, no, I myself haven't boycotted these artists (never was a Chicks fan anyway), and I'm not too crazy about Iraq.

Hey Paul- Two questions for you or anyone else that may want to answer:

How does boycotting someone limit their rights to act upon their beliefs?

If millions of people(hypothetical, of course) were to boycott your website because of your views, would they be now limiting your rights to act upon your beliefs?

I'm just glad Cheney came clean on the fag marrying issue. Ya see, #1 and #2 don't always see eye to eye. I'm with Cheney, let the fags marry for Christ sakes!

Maybe not in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Montana, Iowa, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Oregon, Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky, Gerogia, South Carolina, Utah, South Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maryland or the Upper East Side of Manhattan....
But everywhere else would be ok.

There is some "strategery" behind this.

Being a guitar player, I think that Post article (about chicks playing guitar) failed to do adequate research...I mean, check out The Donnas, anything with Lita Ford (cannot believe that The Runaways were mentioned but NOT Lita), Kitty (as much as I despised them), Nashville Pussy etc. Maybe it is just writer David Segal's personal homoerotic obsession with the guitar representing a phallic symbol on a man? The players he represented were mainly rhythm players (except for Raitt), and with showing only that side of female guitar playing who could argue his point. My point is, he research was skewed.

Sigh...or maybe I am just ranting...thinks to recording tonight in NashVegas...ahhh...recording...
/rant over

What about boycotting Will Ferrell just because he sucks?

Settyboy, people have a right to boycott whomever they want for whatever reason. I would never deny that.

What inspired me to write this piece is Ferrell's wide appeal. So if you boycott Ronstadt and Goldberg and Springsteen and the Dixie Chicks, then no more Old School or Anchorman or SNL re-runs or whatever.

But I guess you were asking about this part:

"What would be the alternative? To allow entertainers to think a certain way but limit their right to act upon them?"

Goes both ways, of course. Famous of not you can act however you want based on your views. Support this, boycott that, it's you're right.

But whatever percentage of people are engaging in boycotts against liberal entertainers, I think it's less than people who would boycott these artists if they know they were Democratic and kept their mouths shut.

Because if it was only about political party affiliation, they really would poll hardware store owners before buying hammers.

Here is my two cents:

The problem with Hollywood is that most actors use their fame to campaign for causes. I have no problem with a person’s right to dissent. But when actors and actresses decide that they can get away with spewing forth political opinions that are baseless in fact because it is the "in" thing to do, and realize that they will get attention for it is where I take issue. I look at the Dixie Chicks/Will Ferrell situation differently.

The Dixie Chicks decided to pander to a crowd in a country that does not support Bush. It seems to me that they knew they would get a rise out of the crowd because of that. If you are making statements to improve sales of your cd in Europe then you are an idiot.

Will Ferrell on the other hand is a different situation. He whored out his impersonation to a group for purposes that I am not sure of. I think he either knows no better, or is desperate after a series of sub-par movies hopes that pandering to the left will get him some oscar worthy movie offers. Thank God he left his shirt on anyway.

So I think it breaks down like that. There is either an agenda, or they just want to try to gain attention by acting like fools.

I helped coordinate a reception for some primary winners from our local Republican political races. The DJ asked me if he was going to make anyone mad if he played songs from bands who openly oppossed President Bush. We just looked at him blankly...

Does anyone really care what Ronstadt or Springsteen or Pearl Jam or James Taylor thinks about politics? I mean, I don't care what they think about art's abstract expressionist period, if they prefer their eggs fried or poached or if they get their market news from CNBC or CNNfn-- why would I care if they think Bush sucks? I bet GWB isn't exactly kicking it to Ronstadt anyway.

But I worry-- are people really forming their political views by listening to Kevin Bacon?

I think there is a big difference with entertainers voicing their opinions on social issues publicly vs integrating their opinions into their shows.
If I were a Rondstadt fan I wouldn't have any problem buying & playing her albums but I don't think I would attend her live shows these days because I don't care about her political opinions and I'm certainly not going to pay to hear them.

UH OH...NO MORE SIX DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON.

I THINK PEOPLE FIGURE "WELL...HE SEEMS WELL SPOKEN. HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE." ITS ALL ABOUT USING YOUR IMAGE. YOU DONT SEE ALOT OF PEOPLE ASKING DENNIS RODMAN WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION. IMAGINE IF ELVIS WAS STILL ALIVE (OR FOUND..DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU BELEIVE) HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD VOTE DIFFERENTLY ON WHAT MR. BLUE SUEDE SHOES DID.

Note From Paul: Hallas, no more caps. No more caps! NO MORE CAPS! It's fucking annoying.

I agree, Dave, and I wrote something to that extent back when the flap occurred. I don't need to be subjected to that stuff, either.

These are all gray areas, and I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. More like trying to understand.

For me, a lot of it seems to come back to some people's assertion that we should back a president unconditionally in a time of war. And that's nonsensical, as the war is one of the main reasons people want a new president.

(Not so much in my case. International affairs are so way over my head, and does any citizen have as much info as Washington insiders from both sides? So I vote based on my liberal personal views.)

Sorry about the caps. Didn't realize it was that annoying. The company program that I use recognizes CAP letters only. No more CAPS!!

Hasn't America been boycotting SNL for years?

On the battleground state polls... I'll be interested to see how they change after the Republican National Convention. Bottom line, it's going to be an extremely close election.

I was at a Todd Rundgren show last night in Central Park, as some of you may know Todd is a Left-wing, Susan Sarandon loving, anti war Democrat and to his credit... made a small comment about the REPUBLICANS COMING and that was the end of it. I'm really glad he didn't pull a Dixie Chicks on us. Fact is, we went for his music not his personal beliefs and he delivered!

I see 2 different things going on in regards to entertainers making political statements. One involves purpose and the other involves crossing a line.

Purpose. When someone pays money to attend a partisan dinner or attend a rally, the purpose is politics. When someone pays to go to a concert, the purpose is entertainment.

Crossing a line. Meaning when someone crosses the line from being disentful to disrespectful. Meaning when someone crosses the line from entertainment to politics.

In reality, it's only a handful of entertainers that boycotts have been called on compared to the counteless others that have given public support of one political party or another. These handful are the ones that became disprespectful and/or changed purpose on an audience that didn't want to pay for that. The countless others seem to be able to know where the lines are, while the handful either are unaware or, with purpose, cross it.

Flip it over. How would you like it everytime you pay for a hammer or whatever at a hardware store, you now have to listen to their opposing political view too?

Has Will Ferrell crossed the line or become disrespectful? I'd wager no, because that clip has been around for over a month now with little, if any, response. Rohnstadt, Dixie Chicks, Whoopi all had immediate backlash.

Aside from the current issue: Paul, I enjoyed the article in "Page 3". If the rest of you are football fans I would encourage a gander at the article. Paul has noted one of the many reasons why famed QB McMahon sucks. Although he (McMahon) did have a nice roll in Anger Management.

Paul is right.. if you boycotted the Dixie Chicks, you should be boycotting Will Ferrell or you're a big fat hypocrit, however this isn't news about most far right wing people.

I'm really here to complain about your p. 3 column. The Super Bowl Shuffle is the most excruitating piece of crap. Do you KNOW what it's like to be a New Englander and watch your team lose (and lose is the kind way of putting it) to the team that made THAT??!! Is there no end to our suffering?

As someone who is not easily influenced, I really don't care that Susan Sarandon, Dixie Chicks, Ronstadt, Will Ferrell, et al are voicing their political beliefs. I feel the same way about every day people who talk about politics and religion. That is the beauty of being an American...The Right To Free Speech. We also have the right to tune it out of we don't want to hear it or agree.

I vote based on the issues that are important to me. I like some things about Bush and I like some things about Kerry. Nothing the Dixie Chicks or Will Ferrell says is going to sway me to vote for one or the other, it is something I am going to decide on my own. I am actually frightened of people who are easily influenced by those celebrities. I personally think that that Hollywood and the media should focus more on getting people to register and vote, then telling them who to vote for.

Elvis has left the building...R.I.P.

Sorry, but I find it more than a little disingenuous when anyone expresses outrage when a famous person tells the world their political beliefs. For every Linda Ronstandt and Barbra Streisand, there is a Charlton Heston or a Ronald Reagan (he was an actor before he was a president and a governor) more than happy to lend money and fame to their political favorites. Their ability to garner attention is their key asset. It's no surprise that they use it to advance their causes. What is different and troubling about the Dixie Chicks incident was that the boycott wasn't made by some grass-roots organization or local yahoo. It was corporate radio, Clear Channel Communications, which owns hundreds of station around the country. Just like the free TV networks, Clear Channel is awarded use of the airwaves FREE OF CHARGE by the U.S. government with the expectation that they perform a public service -- music, news, talk radio, etc. -- to the country's citizens. I don't know about you, but telling Americans how to feel and oppressing opinions that conflict with their own isn't a public service. And it isn't right. I have no problem with people boycotting musicians, movies - whatever - because they're annoyed at their political statements. When it's perpetrated by people whose livelihood is dependent on the same constitutional rights they're trying to take away from others, it strikes me as partisan and borderline fascist. Sure, they have a right to put on the air whatever they want. But the reality is that rampant mergers and consolidation has put much of the country's media under the control of only a few big companies. Along with the highers cost savings and profits comes greater responsibility.

And another thing: I thought the "Super Bowl Shuffle" was a tour de force. It was more than an ode to a superb football team; it taught us that doing the right thing - i.e. ``we're not doing this because we're greedy, we're doing this feed the needy'' - pays dividends. Samarai Mike Singletary, L.A. Mike Richardson, Sweetness, the Punky QB, Mamma's Boy Otis and even the punter, Maury Buford, who helped lend a hand with an instumental solo, understood this, and tried to teach it to the world.

amy, I believe the Bill Simmons 5-year "no-bitching rule" after a Super Bowl title is in effect here, so please allow the Chicago Bears there ONE Super Bowl title song to be praised for one day....besides Boston had 1986, while a native Alabamian like myself, who is now living in Atlanta, has to endure Crimson Tide football (it's at its lowest point since the mid-50s), Braves baseball (yes, we're always good, but we get outdrawn during home playoff games), Hawks basketball, Thrashers hockey. We do have Vick, but the Falcons have been a mediocre team for years, with the exception of 1998, a year we shouldn't have even made the Super Bowl (Gary Anderson, thank you).

Paul, that was an excellent article on ESPN3, and I think the Super Bowl Shuffle was robbed of a 1986 Grammy, and the Fridge should've been able to sign a multi-million dollar rap album after his virtuoso performance.

"When it's(boycotting) perpetrated by people(Clear Channel, et al) whose livelihood is dependent on the same constitutional rights they're trying to take away from others, it strikes me as partisan and borderline fascist."

WTF? Do you mean that it strikes you as partisan and borderline fascist when it's not YOUR view? FYI...Most of free radio/tv,and print for that matter, gets their revenue through advertising.

I'll ask you a similar question to the one I asked Paul. Let's see if you answer it:

How exactly does boycotting take away the constitutional rights of another?

"....with the expectation that they perform a public service -- music, news, talk radio, etc. -- to the country's citizens. I don't know about you, but telling Americans how to feel and oppressing opinions that conflict with their own isn't a public service."

The part that struck me here, was "talk radio". Most of which is exactly what you say ISN'T a public service. "talk radio" tells people how to feel as a basis of it's existence. You're very contridictory here. Are you sure you didn't mean "talk radio that expresses views that you agree with"?

I'd love to read your article, but even with DSL my pc bogs down on Page 2 and 3. drives me nuts.

"How exactly does boycotting take away the constitutional rights of another?"

I love this crap. Boycotting doesn't take away your constitutional rights. The constituion also defends one's right to be an asshole, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

The problems seem to arise when the boycotters try and force their opinion on other people...which is ironic given that they are usually boycotting someone for that exact same reason. It's like elementary school all over again. Everything turns into a shoving match like on a playground...there is some name calling and then there's a popularity contest to wrap it all up...this year it's Nov 2. As we get older aren't we supposed to get wiser and more tolerant of other people's opinions?

And one more thing...I will state again that I thought Anchorman was hysterical.

Also, I'm sorry Amy, but hearing a New Englander complain about losing the Superbowl in '86 after they've won two of the last three Lombardi Trophies would be like hearing PK complain about losing the '81 World Series to the Dodgers. You're not going to get much sympathy here.

"Boycotting doesn't take away your constitutional rights."

I totally agree. I asked the question because justin was basically saying it does. At least in the case of the radio stations. I still like to know HOW. It seems like justin, as well as Paul, think that telling someone that they should feel a certain way equates to forcing someone to feel a certain way. I say this because stating an opinion and then telling someone else they should think the same way doesn't cross the line of infriging someones rights. But, telling someone how they should feel and MAKING them does. That I don't see happening here.

That's the second best part about being an American: you can express your political philosophies to your little right wing/neo-nazi/christian conservative/liberal/pinko commie/socialist/libertarian/needlepointers for jesus heart's content.

It doesn't matter whether you're a plumber, a sports writer, a housewife, a congresswoman, an actress, a bus boy, a hooker, a corporate attorney, you, me- we can speak our mind, write our manifestos and rally round the old oak tree.

The BEST part is that, as an American, I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN IF I DON'T WANT TO.

....um....so does it really matter if an actor who lives in hollywood rants in a tv interview or WHEREVER about how much he or she likes/dislikes a political party/person/issue? I think not.

You missed the point. My political views have nothing to do with my argument against clear channel. I wouldnt give a shit what chear channel did if they didnt have close to a monopoly in many media markets. so when they decide to pull an artist natiowide because his or her views dont match those in the corporate suite, their decision has a much broader and profound effect than if you or i decide to boycott something. And thanks for the ``FYI'' on media economics, dude. Revenue is different than costs. Free radio and tv doesnt have to pay for the spectrum or frequency it uses to broadcast. That spectrum was once owned by the U.S. government. If they had to pay for it, they wouldnt be in business. In exchange for getting that free, broadcasters agreed to provide a public service. That WOULD include expressing opinion on talk radio, playing music, etc. More opinions and more freedoms are good; fewer is bad.

justin-
"so when they decide to pull an artist natiowide......their decision has a much broader and profound effect than if you or i decide to boycott"

How?...and, So what? When an musician/actor/entertainer makes a comment, it also has a broader and profound statement. Simply because many more people are going to hear it. If CC should be more reserved intheir desisions because they have a greater impact, shouldn't a popular figure then be more reserved for the same reason?

"Revenue is different than costs"(in regards to my "FYI" statement)

True, but you were taking about the dependany of their livelihood....

"...whose livelihood is dependent on the same constitutional rights they're trying to take away from others"

And again that brings up my same question, because you were also suggesting here that CC was taking those constitutional rights away. How?

"More opinions and more freedoms are good; fewer is bad."

To a point. Couldn't anarchy be considered total freedom

lucy-
"....um....so does it really matter if an actor who lives in hollywood rants in a tv interview or WHEREVER about how much he or she likes/dislikes a political party/person/issue? I think not."

I think it does matter. The purpose of a concert for the attendee is to have a joint musical experience. The people attending that concert are joined in this pusuit of enjoying that music. When the artist gets political, they inveritable divide that unity up because that's not what the audience was there for. In a sense, it's a betrayal of sorts. You don't pay to watch a movie, to have it interupted in the middle for a political statement.

Actors for a different reason and that reason is purpose. The purpose of his portrayal of Bush on SNL is entertainment, but his purpose in that ad was to be hurtful. Plain and simple. Whoopi's joking of Bush's name had the purpose of being hurtful. There was no message to be made. That's the different between disent and disrepect.

Opinions. Does anyone real think the type of cold blooded killers which would take an entire school hostage, as fanatical Islamic terrorist have done in Russia, (not the U.S.) care about 'peace' and 'protesters'?

They understand only one response. Electing Kerry will result in more children being held hostage or worse, since the enemy is cognizant of the appeasement mindset.