Is Jane Fonda a Dixie Chick?

Picked up the Dixie Chicks cd the other day. It is pretty good. Well written songs, well crafted and produced, it has grabbed my attention. For how long, we shall see.

But I am still mulling over the whole controversy. Think what you will of the Chicks musically, the fuss over their words "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas" seems pretty tame by any political standard. I don't care if those words were uttered on "foreign soil," they are still tame--especially compared to many things that Republicans like Tom DeLay uttered about Clinton.

We had a friend over for dinner last weekend and she was reading the Jane Fonda bio. Fonda contends that the whole trip to Hanoi was an attempt to stop Americans from bombing farmers and was in no way intended to turn out like it did. She completely understands why people hated her visit and resented her posing with NVA and asserts that was completely manipulated by the NVA and certainly not intentional on her part.

I have relatives who still say her name with hatred. I remember a student who's father would turn around all Fonda's video boxes in the rental store.

I understand that--to a point. But remember that in the decades after the Civil War, former soldiers on both sides memorialized battle together. That is, people who shot at each other, who presumably killed friends and comrades in arms--all gathered together to recreate Pickett's charge.

Yet, hatred of someone like Jane Fonda persists some 40 years after the fact. Given the over-reaction by some country fans to the Dixie Chicks, one starts to wonder--is there a gender issue here? Did the Chicks cross some imaginary line? Had they been men, would anyone still care? Sure, some don't like Steve Earle, but I am not aware of any boycotts against him, and he is far more radical than the Chicks.

The New York Times has the best explanation so far, but it is not very convincing, nor does it make more sympathetic to country music fans.

"'Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.' --snip--
This is a fight about the identity of country music. There's a contract that binds country singers to their fans, and the Dixie Chicks have broken it.
--snip--
By the time Ms. Maines made her statement in 2003, many were already questioning the trio's commitment: would they leave their old supporters behind?For mistrustful listeners in search of an answer, Ms. Maines's comments provided one.
Forget about President Bush: she had used the words 'ashamed' and 'Texas' in the same sentence, and she had done it on foreign soil. She meant to insult the president, but some former fans thought they heard her insulting Texans, and therefore Southerners, and therefore nonmetropolitan listeners everywhere.

It seems to me that this kind of response just furthers the anti-South response of many.

Anyway, it is a good cd. FWIW

Talk To Action | They Prayed for the United States to "Come Back to God"

Hat tip to Nathan at Moral Contradictions for this great post from Talk to Action. As I have been saying, I really understand Karl Rove and Bush (to a degree) and even Tom DeLay. They are politicians who have figured out how to use people and our system to benefit them. They certainly have figured out how to use people of faith. So, it amazes me when good people continue to support someone like DeLay even when we learn about the unbelievable shell game he was running--preaching to churches on one hand, using his position to solicit huge donations from Russian interests (can you imagine that scandal--even post cold war--if it had been Clinton?) or as you will read here--people who run sweatshops and force women to have abortions.

"One man was perhaps the most powerful Congressmen in U.S. history, the other was his Chief of Staff. But Ed Buckham was more than just Tom DeLay's powerful Chief of Staff. He was also Tom DeLay's spiritual advisor. They were devoted to bringing the United States 'back to God.'
Time Magazine reported last March that Ed Buckham, 'a licensed nondenominational minister, was also DeLay's pastor... the two of them frequently prayed together privately, joining hands in DeLay's office.'

The unsuspecting couple served on the Board of the U.S. Family Network, a shell organization that raised millions of dollars for former Congressman Tom DeLay's Political Action Committee. Geeslin became suspicious when they received a gift of a million dollars from a Russian oil magnate.
Perhaps the most ironic gift was the half million dollars from the textile mills of the Mariana Islands, now in the limelight for their sweatshop-like working conditions for women. The gift was used to fight Clinton administration efforts to regulate the islands.
Pastor Geeslin was particularly upset by the fact that the textile mills sponsored forced abortion and forced prostitution - a hard pill for anyone to swallow let alone an evangelical pastor who believed he was helping bring the United States to God.
He said in a pained voice, 'I feel like we were used in a grand way.'

Ya think?

Maybe it is time for the grownups to stop nodding in appreciation whenever some idiot preacher says something like "praying for the United States to 'come back to God.'" Maybe it is time for the grownups to recognize that inserting faith into our political process has harmed both. It has created a situation where an amoral person like Tom DeLay can compare himself to Christ. It is a no-win situation. Good people can't really determine if a politician is a "true-believer" or just an idiot pandering to those who say they "vote by the book."

this is pretty funny

Tom Delay's legal fund's website features none other than Stephen Colbert as if, evidently, Delay thinks Colbert is a conservative? Or as Think Progress suggested--that DeLay is so desperate for supporters that he will turn to a fake conservative.

RLP has some words on the Da Vinci code

Real Live Preacher suggests the obvious--that the religious right is almost operating as an unpaid publicist for this film and book. And he also suggests that the church should be about doing church business, not obsessing about this film. If I were them, I would worry more about the consumer crap that fills the mega bible bookstores.

Oh wait, I already blogged about this.

this is funny--conservatives think bush might be lying, and they are shocked. Shocked, I say!

Jonathan Chait: The right discovers Bush's 'honesty' - Los Angeles Times

Dixie Chicks up or down?

CNN.com - Dixie Chicks in the line of fire - May 21, 2006: "Few other stations are playing Not Ready to Make Nice, and while it has done well on iTunes, it's quite possible that in singing about their anger at people who were already livid with them and were once their target audience, the Chicks have written their own ticket to the pop-culture glue factory.
....
Programmers say that even now a heartfelt apology could help set things right with listeners, but it's not happening."

Our local tv ran a promo suggesting that the Dixie Chicks were in some kind of public relations trouble again. So I googled them and found this CNN/Time story.

But looking around, I started wondering about this portrayal. For one thing, Itunes has their new song--the one that CNN said was tanking as a "4 minute f___-you to country music" ranked in the top 100 downloaded songs. Ok, that is Itunes. But then I found this in Rolling Stone that suggests the complete opposite. According to RS, the Chicks don't really care because this album is really more rock with country influences. In fact, the story suggests that it is country music that is scared--not the Chicks. They need the Dixie Chicks more than the Dixie Chicks need country.

"Hints like that have unnerved some in the country industry,
where sales were recently reported to be down about ten percent
from 2004. From an economic perspective, it's tough to argue with
an act that has sold more than 22 million copies of its first three
major-label studio albums, according to SoundScan.

'We need them,' says Clay Hunnicutt, Clear Channel's vice
president of country programming nationwide. 'Radio is always
looking for great artists with great music, great hits.'"

It kind of makes me wonder. The CNN/Time story seems highly annecdotal and seems to have already concluded that the Chicks album will bomb. I don't really care. I will buy it anyway. But it kind of reminds me of the mainstream media's response to Stephen Colbert's bit on the president. It's as if there are certain acceptable ways and people who can criticize Bush.

I don't know. It just seemed odd.

What free press?

These people are unbelievable.

"WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
'There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility,' Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. 'We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected.'"

Translation--congress makes us do this. It isn't that we are incompetent and immoral, just that congress is forcing our hand. And of course it is reasonable to intimidate the press into playing by our rules.

I knew that Bush/Cheney disliked the media, but this is really unbelievable even for them. Question for conservatives out there? What happens when the press doesn't function? (I mean, besides an administration ramrodding a war?) Do you really think that conservatives are incorruptable?

The more I watch of this administration, the more I am convinced that conservatives lack even a basic understanding of our system.

A brave person

Perhaps not as brave as Colbert--in that she spoke to a largely sympathetic crowd. But it took some guts to rightly go after McCain. I have never completely trusted McCain, but have admired him at times for at least showing common sense and some ethics when he chastised the Repubs for their "swiftboating" tactics. Speaking to Falwell's university was horrible. Falwell consistently undermines our very republic and stands for everything that is wrong with Christianity today.

The Blog | Jean Rohe: Why I Spoke Up | The Huffington Post: "More importantly, I feel obligated to respond to one thing that McCain told the New York Times. 'I feel sorry for people living in a dull world where they can't listen to the views of others,' he said. This is just preposterous. Yes, McCain was undoubtedly shouted-out and heckled by people who were not politely absorbing his words so as to consider them fully from every angle. But what did he expect? We could've all printed out his speech and chanted it with him in chorus. Did he think that no one knew exactly what he was about to say? And it was precisely because we listen to the views of others, and because, as I said in my speech, we don't fear them, that we as a school were able to mount such a thorough and intelligent opposition to his presence. Ignorant, closed-minded people would not have been able to do what we did. We chose to be in New York for our years of higher education for the very reason that we would be challenged to listen to opposing viewpoints each and every day and to deal with that challenge in a nonviolent manner. We've gotten very good at listening to the views of others and learning how to also make our views heard, even when we don't have the power of national political office and the media on our side."

Wealth and Camels, oh my

From Sojo is this story that I forgot--about a Catholic principal who decided to cancel prom, mostly because he thought that the decadence was a poor symbol of Christian stewardship. Here, Sojo notes the wonderful way that Stephen Colbert took on this issue:

'Yeah, I know that this is a Catholic school and Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But may I remind Brother Hoagland, our nation is rich enough to buy some really huge needles, with eyes you could drive a limo full of drunk prom kids through. ... So, remember kids, they may take away your prom ... but never let them take away your champagne dreams and your caviar wishes.'

Hoagland wrote in his letter, 'When Jesus said that it was very hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, it shocked his hearers and it still shocks us.' "

Genius. Pure genius.

Even our best non-stick pans wear off eventually

Americans don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either:

"WASHINGTON - It's not just the way he's doing his job. Americans apparently don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either.

A drop in his personal popularity, as measured by several public polls, has shadowed the decline in Bush's job-approval ratings and weakened his political armor when he and his party need it most.

Losing that political protection - dubbed 'Teflon' when Ronald Reagan had it - is costing Bush what the late political scientist Richard Neustadt called the 'leeway' to survive hard times and maintain his grip on the nation's agenda. Without it, Bush is a more tempting target for political enemies. And members of his party in Congress are less inclined to stand with him.

'When he loses likeability, the president loses the benefit of the doubt,' said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. 'That makes it much harder for him to steer.'"

Of course, his aides, such as the criminal Karl Rove maintains that Bush is still well-liked--they are just unhappy about the war. Wishful thinking on his criminal part. I think the squinting smirking dumbass act is starting to wear thin.

Of course, it never worked on me.

How did this guy get elected twice?

Crooks and Liars: "GREGORY: But they're just not unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you're doing.
BUSH: That's unsettled."

Hillary

Had a good conversation over lunch yesterday with Anglican about the Senator from New York. Most Democrats that I know either don't like her or simply oppose her because they think she is unelectable. And I understand both arguments. I am not sure I like her either.

But I am starting to question this conventional wisdom about her as a Presidential candidate. A) she is scary smart, and after this President, I would love to have a bitchy smart President. B) we seem to forget that despite all the Clinton hatred that dominated the msm and talk radio, the man was at 70% after impeachment. Certainly, Hillary is not Bill, but you get my point. And C) the right has been pretty good at demonizing who ever we throw out there.

In 2000, they managed (with the help of the so-called liberal media) to completely distort Al Gore into a lying jerk. No doubt, Gore didn't fight back well, but as Bob Sommersby over at the Daily Howler demonstrated, the msm's willingness to spread GOP talking points that completely distorted Gore's points or statements.

In 2004, they pulled off what I thought was impossible. They turned John Kerry--decorated war veteran--into a anti-war hippie, while somehow managing to transform the lying, war dodging, drink-his-way-through-the-60s Bush into a freaking war hero! Again, Kerry didn't manage the campaign well, but we sometimes forget how close that election was. Depending on your faith in Diebold and the Ohio election. . . Well, we will just leave that.

My point is that we can nominate Jesus Christ for President as a Democrat and the Rove/Bush/Dobson machine will go after him. "Did you know he hangs out with lepers?" "I heard he would take away your extra bread and distribute it to the poor." "President Christ will embrace those migrants who are taking away our jobs." And, of course, "once we start turning the other cheek, the appeasement to evil will surrender our country to Al Qaeda."

We have to stop allowing the Repubs to dictate our choices. We have to assert our own ideas.

Bush world

Kevin Drum points to this story and wonders if anyone cares.

....As has been the case with other people deemed to be insufficiently loyal, the White House went fishing for dirt on the two station chiefs, including information on their political affiliations. "I spent 30 years at the CIA," said one former official, "and no one was ever interested in knowing whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. That changed with this administration. Now you have loyalty tests."

This administration has politicized areas that should not be politicized. Imagine what religious righters would have said about Clinton had his administration demanded absolute loyalty to work in the CIA. As someone said the other night on Colbert, Bush has prized loyalty over results. And yet, his "base" doesn't care.

What a fog this administration has placed across our political landscape. Helped in a great part by people like James Dobson, who most recently showed what his brand of Christianity really values. No, it isn't fighting poverty, or extending grace. No, it isn't saving God's creation. Nope. Got to stop the gays. And the preverts.

Secular government

Coming home today, I heard this on NPR about the killing of a judge in Turkey. As I understand it, the judges ruled against the Islamists and one of them decided to strike back.

The good news? Thousands of people protested in defense of their secular government. I suspect most Americans saw that protest as positive.

Yet, when we had our own judges killed here, people like Senator Cornyn (Texas) suggested that judges deserved this kind of violence if they were intent on ruling on the wrong side of the Schiavo case. In other words, when our religious extremists threaten judges, it is ok. When Islamic extremists threaten judges, it is a bad thing.

I am simply stunned that anyone watching the world would want to have more religious fundamentalism in our politics. Where in the world has that worked out? Where in history?

`Da Vinci Obsession'

Driving around town yesterday (yeah, on my birthday) I caught several Christian radio people just obsessing over Dan Brown's book. I thought Richard Land might pop a vein on his show. "Poppycock" he uttered at one point.

Ok, then. On Hank Hannigraf's show, Lee Strobel was equally apoplectic (even as he shilled for donations for Hank's show). Evidently, he was referring to some polling data that suggests that people are actually losing faith after reading the book.

`Da Vinci Code` protesters organize online: "These religious leaders are engaging in the media because they say they feel Dan Brown`s novel, 'The Da Vinci Code,' has already taken its toll on the faith of many individuals. Movieguide founder Ted Baehr, a panelist at the conference, cited statistics that linked a 4-percent loss of faith and a 10-percent change in beliefs toward Jesus Christ after reading the novel in France."

Imagine the chaos if more see the movie. "Historical accuracy" shout the angry Christians--seemingly welcoming this film because it serves to reinforce what they already tell themselves--that Christianity is under attack and they are being persecuted just as Jesus said they would.

Nevermind that passage has become a Biblical license to be an asshole, but this entire exchange reminded me of several things. Like the student who comes up to me and says if I don't get a "C" in your class, I flunk out. It always makes me feel bad, but then I remember that my class is just the last straw. Had they performed better in other classes, they could afford to flunk my class and still remain enrolled.

First, I doubt very much that the faith is in trouble because of this book. As Kevin Powell suggested, this film will come and go, and the faith will persist just fine, thank you very much. (Reminds me of Anglican's prescience that the Passion controversy would fade too (though we still have to see if Mel's recent broadside on Bush might cause some of his defenders to question their favorite bloody Christ film--afterall, criticism of Bush is a criticism of the God who elected him, eh?) . And for the most part, it has. I suspect that the Passion will still make the rounds in Church theaters (literally) every Easter, but that is probably it.)

Ok, so the Da Vinci Code isn't really making people lose their faith. If anything, perhaps, like my student, the film could be the last straw for some. Why?

Maybe it is the conservative church's insistence on:

ignoring science and choosing Intelligent Design or Creation over evolution.

like Dobson and so many others, deciding that environmentalist concerns--even global warming--are just the most recent cases of prioritizing animals and trees over people (evidently Dobson's science is so bad, he assumes that a warming globe won't harm people).

raising holy hell over homosexuals and the Ten Commandments, but strangely silent about poverty.

worse than that, tacit approval of torture.

the continued commercialization of the faith and the open embrace of greed and capitalism.

with that, the marketing bonanza of intellectually thin religiously themed books and the paucity of serious theology either in church bookstores, or the megabookstores. Perhaps it is no wonder that the "churched" don't really know anything about their faith.

And, along with Roy Moore's idol and the last point, a wonderfully ironic preference for pseudo American history that relies on a hack from Oral Roberts and ignores volume after volume of scholarly work on American religion. "Oh, but you say, we are concerned about historical accuracy." Yeah, except when the Passion characters speak latin or rely on mystic visions, or when David Barton (aka, the ORU Hack) produce poorly researched semi-GOP authored "histories" of American Christianity.

/rant

PS, and one more thing. It is just a movie based on a novel!

Birthdays--indeed

I remember my senior year in high school that it snowed on my birthday in Colorado. The one snow day that annoyed me since I had little school work to do and many friends to see.

Birthdays are just weird. Yesterday's was fine. I played golf with a friend which was both enjoyable and annoying (kind of the definition of golf). I played well at times, but on 17 ended up in the sand trap for more than a few strokes. It must have seemed amusing for my playing partner who most likely just saw sand and heard the swearing. I wasn't amused.

My parents called. My sister-in-law called with their family ritual of the entire family singing "Happy Birthday" to you on the phone. That was pretty funny this time.

The comments from my last post made me appreciate my friends (blog and other--you know who you are). The contrast between Nicole's and Greek Shadow's comments made me feel like I was on a roller coaster (you're not as old as my parents :) -- you are too young to talk about age). Reminded me of a funny example this semester. One student was shocked (shocked, I say) to find out I listened to Arcade Fire AND Ryan Adams. Undoubtedly, she was expecting a lot less hip music to be playing on my Ipod. Feeling a little "hip" I ran into another student from another class. He asked what I was listening to, and I said "The New Pornographers" expecting a similar response. He said, and I quote, "I think MY FATHER LISTENS TO THEM." Sigh.

SOF took me out to dinner to round off a pretty good day. Thanks for all your nice wishes.

Oh, and...

Tomorrow I will be 41.

Be nice.

Huh? Bush reverses on spy oversight?

Bush reverses stand on spy program oversight - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House, in an abrupt
reversal, has agreed to let the full Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees review President George W. Bush's domestic spying program, lawmakers said on Tuesday."

Evidently God changed her mind.

dammit, first newt, now crazy mel

I have been on a long personal boycott of Mel Gibson since his callous manipulation surrounding the Passion film. I can't even watch "Chicken Run" which is delightful. He didn't help when he weighed in on the Terri Schiavo case last year.

Now he criticizes Bush?

Gibson inspired by 'fear-mongering' Bush - Yahoo! News UK: "Film star and director Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new film Apocalypto.

The epic, due for release later this year, captures the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.
Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power.
He tells British film magazine Hotdog, 'The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys'."

The definition of "legal"

H/t to UBUB. As this column argues, the argument that immigration is just about following the law is rather hollow under this administration.

Gonzales/Rodriguez: "Anti-immigrants like to bandy about the phrase: What is it about illegal you don't understand? And they go ballistic at the thought of "amnesty" -- at the thought of treating all human beings equally and humanely.Here's a question that should help clarify the meaning of illegal:
In U.S. history, which of the following were not simply common practice, but legal?
a) forced removal of native peoples and the theft of their lands.
b) slavery, segregation & racial discrimination and the denial of voting rights to women.
c) mass internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent and the mass repatriation of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

If you answered yes to all of them, you would be correct. But let's fast forward to 2006. Which country asserts the right to:
a) wage preemptive and permanent worldwide war against nations that do not pose an imminent threat?
b) secretly and indefinitely detain suspects incommunicado, without charges at home and also outside of its legal system, while exempting its military from the international war crimes tribunal and claiming that the Geneva Conventions on war do not apply to this nation?
c) spy on its own citizens outside of the law, and also asserts the right to use the military for domestic purposes?

If you guessed the United States -- right again. The U.S. formulation of what is legal/illegal emanates from its military arsenal. (Since the 1950s, the United States has overthrown dozens of legitimate governments and propped up brutal military dictatorships). President Bush is but carrying on a tradition that says that whatever he says is legal, is legal, or else."