The Dixie Chicks strike again

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

so what mag did they pose in Playboy,Penthouse or Hustler?

None. They didn't even show anything.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

so what mag did they pose in Playboy,Penthouse or Hustler?

Entertainment Weekly. And, as Thrawn said, they didn't show anything.

[Sriad]

Well, first of all, I hadn't really directed that at you, your positions seem to be approximately reasonable, be here goes:

But should they voice such things in the mainstream, I'll hold them to the same standards I would anyone else: when they say something controversial, they should back their shit up.

Er. In what way is thinking that Schwarzenegger shouldn't be governer of California contreversial? I mean, if they were talking about abortion rights or something... But thinking that being a successful actor is not the best basis for a career in politics? Controversial... how?

Also, the article linked hardly seems to be exaustive. It's little more than a ten line blurb noting that "wooo, the Dixie Chicks said something political." No context, no report on any follow up, no details regarding if this was a nationally televised interview or just something Reporter X heard while standing around.

Why weep for these "role-models"? Unless one wants to follow their example--that is, to grow up and be the shitty band du jour--they're nothing of the sort. I'm dismayed knowing that my neighbor's kids say they "look up" to the likes of a Britney Spears or Dixie Chicks.

I weep not for the Dixie Chicks, but for...er... other people. I thought that was pretty clearly farcical.

I hope you're pulling my leg. You're calling my logic stupid, and yet you construct another Straw Man.

For a second time, paying special attention to the bold text:

...I'd still say they're [Dixie Pigs] foremost at fault. Sure, the media is their megaphone, but it doesn't write the script for them (for once), nor does it compel them to say certain things.

Simply, they can choose to keep their mouths shut, talk about something else to the vulture-types, OR go out on a limb and try and support their conclusions.

If they even attempted the latter, I wouldn't give them such a hard time. But they didn't.
[...]
Jokes aside, when the DC even attempt to substantiate one of their off-the-cuff declarations, I'll...well, I won't bust as to run defend it, but I'll be there in spirit 'Til then:

I note that no where in these two pages of Dixie Chick bashing does anyone actually say why Arnie would be a good governer. Let's practice what we preach, eh?

Anyway, as for the first part of the quote, you're (incorrectly) assuming that my post was directed at you specifiacally, when in fact it was just a general reaction to the Dixie Chick bashing at large. It might have read better as "what (stupid) logic are you all following?"
Anyway, I blame the media.
When you or I have a water-cooler opinion, that's cool, but when the Dixie Chicks are standing around the water cooler and makes an off the cuff remark about Schwarzenegger's apparent underqualifications, we're halfway around the world writing about it on a message board all of a sudden. Break the cycle! Quit yer bitchin' and just don't buy their music! Hell, I don't and I tend to agree with what they say.

[seanrobertson]

Well, first of all, I hadn't really directed that at you, your positions seem to be approximately reasonable, be here goes:

Er. In what way is thinking that Schwarzenegger shouldn't be governer of California contreversial? I mean, if they were talking about abortion rights or something... But thinking that being a successful actor is not the best basis for a career in politics? Controversial... how?

Ah, shit man. I'm sorry...when you said "all of us" or something to that effect, I was sure you were talking to me.

Incidentally, I wasn't just thinking of their statements about Arnold, though "controversy" is probably not the best word.

I hate it when I misunderstand people. D'oH!