Those television journalists, those men of integrity. Dan Rather is about as connected with the real world as Michael Jackson. I like the guy, but let's be honest here, he's a talking head reading from a teleprompter.
Did you see his interview with Hussein? Most of those questions sounded like an 8th grader wrote them. For God's sake, he asked Hussein to speak some English. Sweet Jesus.
Cosmo:
The same Constitution that gives the Dixie Chicks to say ignorant crap gives everyone else the right to boycott them.
<strong>The same Constitution that gives the Dixie Chicks to say ignorant crap gives everyone else the right to boycott them.
Freedom cuts both ways.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I understand. I'm just saying that to me, it seems like those who boycott the Dixie Chicks over their statement are missing the point...the PRINCIPLE of our liberties.
[QB]Maybe you are right, but then maybe, just maybe, they feel that, at present, there are more important things to worry about than one's career<hr></blockquote>
That's entirely possible, hence why I specified that I thought it was a bad decision from a career point of view. But I can't judge their collective thought process from afar so maybe they felt the moral reasons trumpted such considerations. Though I also think it is possible that maybe the one chick just said it off the top of her head, genuinely believing as much, but without giving consideration to the PR consequences and that she/they might regret it in due time.
[quote]and maybe they are also just pissed that anyone in the U.S. who these days voices an opinion that is anti-government is looked upon as being anti-patriotic. Freedom of speech and all that...<hr></blockquote>
To be blunt with you, I cringe at what I believe to be misconceptions, perhaps even ignorance which I feel is displayed when I hear such comments. I don't find this to be the case and even if it were the case, I can't imagine on what basis you can judge as much from England.
As you undoubtedly know there have been massive rallies in the US opposed to the war. It is entirely common to see people with No War in Iraq signs on the houses or lawns or wearing buttons saying as much. People do so in public commonly without fear of confrontation. You have people such as pfflam, bunge, giant and various other ostensibly American posters on this message board daily posting in threads about their opposition to the war.
Anti-war positions and commentary can easily be found in the local paper (and we are talking about a metropolis of 3 million where I live so this is not a podunk paper). Here are today's letters to the editor in the paper:
There are even opposing viewpoints on the radio, though one can certainly find the distilled essence of morons most heavily over the airwaves trying to whip up the hate you speak of there. Likewise though one can also find intelligent critiques.
Perhaps most importantly, when you talk to people, friends or strangers, people are more than willing to stake out their viewpoints. I see little fear of dismissal of the anti-war sentiment by those who hold it. Since I personally tenatively support the war, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to see people shrink when such discussions begin. But I see no such thing. Of course, I'm not the type to denounce anti-war people for their views (unless trolling AI of course) but that is not just me IME.
As far as mass media like the networks, USA Today, cable news or whatever, yes the Fox propaganda channel exists. The rest of it is mostly so sanitized and dumbed down as to be worthless anyway. Other than the general pro-corporate sentiment those forms of media don't proffer any opinions anyway. I wouldn't even necessarily call them pro-war, as they try to avoid making themselves or the consumer think too hard.
Are there jackasses such as Rush Limbaugh, Bob Ney, some radio station in Nashville, or our beloved Scott or others who foment narrowminded views? Undoubtedly yes. Are they common enough to stifle speech? Not in my American experience.
I read the BBC online daily, I listen to The World Today sometimes and I read the Guadian online at times as well. I must say, while they do a nice job in many regards, I hope that you are not getting your viewpoints from them or similar types of UK media. Their reporting on the US is vastly inferior to their coverage of Europe and on the whole inferior to that of various other particulars of American media across a spectrum of viewpoints.
The more pressing obstacle to a thoughtful American dialogue on geopolitical issues is not a reactionary nationalistic stifling of alternative viewpoints but rather (not dan) the general apathy towards current events, politics and reticence toward sophisticated analyses which permeates vast swathes of America. It is a general culture failing and a failing of the education system as well. But now I am starting too digress too much so let's not talk about that.
[quote]Dan Rather, the other, day in an interview with BBC television admitted that it is *very* difficult, even more difficult now than immediately after Sep. 11, to report anything that goes even slightly against the "official" point of view, although he may have phrased it differently. It makes working/reporting *very* hard, he said. If you ask me, that is not a very healthy state to be in, if you pardon the pun.<hr></blockquote>
If Dan Rather wanted to be doing serious journalism he would not be doing broadcasts at CBS. Those broadcasts have always been simplistic rehashes of the days events and nothing more and that dates to decades before 9/11. Sorry if I am not overwhelmed by the opinion of a glorified teleprompter narrator.
It is an integral part of the anti-whatever movement (because they are the same people who gather under myriad signs) to feel as if they are being persecuted.
Like Scott calling into the Limbaugh show, folks like TheInstaller absolutely THRIVE on acting oppressed, even when standing among 1 million like-minded folk at a rally.
<strong>What do you mean they are missing the point? You're not making sense here.
So in your mind it's wrong to boycott anyone or anything for any reason besides something that breaks the law?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's go back to the founding fathers' time:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both statements by the colonials saying, "We're not putting up with the government's shit if we don't want to. The King is oppressing us, and we want the right to publicly gripe about it."
By radio stations boycotting a music group because of ONE not-so-harmful statement about the President, in my opinion that's essentially going against the spirit of what this country was founded on.
While most radio and TV are commercial entities and they have the right to do whatever they please, it seems silly to me that this is occurring. I would think that the radio stations wouldn't really care.
Now, if it comes down to ratings, because of a bunch of ignorant citizens who vow NOT to listen if any more Dixie Chicks songs are played (which is what has happened)...how sad.
<strong>While most radio and TV are commercial entities and they have the right to do whatever they please, it seems silly to me that this is occurring. I would think that the radio stations wouldn't really care.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Why does her speech get moral weight in your mind but everyone else against her does not?
Why? Why does her speech get moral weight in your mind but everyone else against her does not?
Is it just because you share her point of view?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I generally like President Bush, so I'm not supporting her. I guess my beef is that the American media is self-censoring in such a way that anything they don't agree with gets booted. What that essentially does is tell the American public "this is what you should think, because this is what WE deem as important."
This is kind of the symbolic straw that's breaking the camel's back when it comes to my ever-growing disdain for the news and entertainment industries. I have a degree in broadcasting, and when people were asking me what I wanted to do after I left college, I would tell them, "I'm going to try and stay out of commercial radio and television. There's too much back-biting and competition." I enjoy what I do because I feel like I'm doing something TRULY worthwhile, and commercial media is just in it for the bottom line. The reaction to the Dixie Chicks' statement could hurt that bottom line for most stations, and that's why the band is being boycotted.
I'd like to see a radio station get up there and say, "So, she said it. That's her opinion. We're going to keep playing the Dixie Chicks because their music is good. If you don't like that, fine. We're not going to boycott a band because one of their members' was practicing her Constitutional rights. So we lose some listeners. We'll probably gain others for not selling out."
I guess, groverat, this is just as disgustingly a commercial issue as it is a political one. The problem is figuring out where the fine line lies.
Everyone knows what she said, how the hell is she being censored? More people have heard about this than have probably heard her music, how is she being censored?
I don't see what is "selling out" about a medium (radio) whose sole purpose is to sell out. Their job is to entertain people so they will remove things that aren't entertaining.
<strong>Everyone knows what she said, how the hell is she being censored? More people have heard about this than have probably heard her music, how is she being censored?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a self-censoring that the industry does to ITSELF to boycott the Dixie Chicks. It's essentially a slap on the hand that says, "We don't like what you said, so we're not going to play your music. Nyah nyah."
It just seems petty to me. You may not agree. I don't really feel like keeping this whole debate going round and round the way it's beginning to be.
As for comment about their music not being any good: Come on, man. That's your opinion. That doesn't hold any water in this discussion, and you know it. I don't personally listen to them, because I'm not into country music. The fact that they've won oodles of awards makes me think that a whole bunch of *somebody* out there likes them, and since opinion is closely related to what is considered quality, that must mean they're pretty good. That's why I said what I said.
<strong>I'm ashamed the Dixie Chicks are from Texas.</strong><hr></blockquote>And by a strange coincidence, Steve Earle - another of my musical heroes - is from Texas too
Do you find that people outside of the United States don't understand that or maybe have less sympathy for the victims? In Canada a lot of people can't understand why Americans are so supportive of Bush ? do you think that people who are not American may underestimate what the country is going through emotionally?
- Definitely that. And everything that everyone from outside the country is saying is being dismissed by people within my country on that very basis, but I don't accept that. In the first place, look at Iraq. Iraq had **** all to do with September 11. No one's proved any connection one way or another. And the problem with equating what happened on September 11 with Iraq is that it becomes racism. There's no real reason, no real connection, but we're in danger of drawing a line in the sand and declaring war against Islam. And believe me, that war will not be won easily or quickly, that's taking on the third largest belief system in the world. And it won't be over with quickly. And it's a very dangerous thing to do. And it's a wrong thing to do. It did happen in the United States ? but that kind of terrorism has happened all over the world for a long time in a lot of different places. Also, Iraq is no threat to the United States directly. But is a threat to Israel and other countries in the region. They'll be a threat to Europe long before they're a threat to us just because of the distance. It's just how far a missile can fly. So Europe and the rest of the world should have something to say about that. We started out saying "We don't care what anyone else thinks," which didn't play very well. It's arrogant, it's us throwing our weight around and we're worse about that than we've ever been. And it embarrasses me. I think it's embarrassing that we don't want to participate in a world court. We want to indemnify our own military from prosecution in war crime tribunals. That's disgusting to me. That we're not signatory to the land mine treaty is embarrassing to me. But I think it's patriotic to be embarrassed by that....
...You've mentioned several times that the American government has made you embarrassed to be an American. Have you ever considered leaving?
- I don't think I could ever not be an American anymore. I mean, Texas embarrasses the **** out of me and that's where I'm from. I live in Tennessee and I have for 28 years, but I'll always be a Texan. Living outside of the country? If I lived outside of the country it probably won't be for political reasons. I'd probably be living in Ireland right now, but only because I like Ireland. I'd love to live someplace where there's no death penalty and Ireland's in the European Union and the European Union is actually turning out to be a lot more of a force and a lot better than anyone envisioned it would be at that time. It's really making itself heard right now. I live with a woman who has small children and they have a father and he lives in Tennessee, so I'm still in Tennessee. Things worked out this way, so I guess I'm supposed to be here right now. I'm definitely not going to leave because the New York Post thinks I should leave. It would be abandoning the country to the assholes, and I'm not sure I'm ready to do that yet.
They are entertainers. When they stop being entertaining they have no use.
No one owes them airtime, no one owes them anything.
I swear to God we have the whiniest bunch of "radicals" and "dissidents" in the history of mankind. Not only do they need their freedoms they need a double tall mocha latte and you better pat them on the head for it, too.
He's obviously not well-informed. </strong><hr></blockquote>I can't really say that I am a fan of a bureaucratic federal Europe, but I think you are wrong. Europe, or rather the EU, is beginning to flex it's political muscle, and will do more so in the (near) future.
Comments
Did you see his interview with Hussein? Most of those questions sounded like an 8th grader wrote them. For God's sake, he asked Hussein to speak some English. Sweet Jesus.
Cosmo:
The same Constitution that gives the Dixie Chicks to say ignorant crap gives everyone else the right to boycott them.
Freedom cuts both ways.
- T.I.
<strong>The same Constitution that gives the Dixie Chicks to say ignorant crap gives everyone else the right to boycott them.
Freedom cuts both ways.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I understand. I'm just saying that to me, it seems like those who boycott the Dixie Chicks over their statement are missing the point...the PRINCIPLE of our liberties.
<strong>I see that you are based in Independence, CosmoNut . . .
- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in your mind it's wrong to boycott anyone or anything for any reason besides something that breaks the law?
[QB]Maybe you are right, but then maybe, just maybe, they feel that, at present, there are more important things to worry about than one's career<hr></blockquote>
That's entirely possible, hence why I specified that I thought it was a bad decision from a career point of view. But I can't judge their collective thought process from afar so maybe they felt the moral reasons trumpted such considerations. Though I also think it is possible that maybe the one chick just said it off the top of her head, genuinely believing as much, but without giving consideration to the PR consequences and that she/they might regret it in due time.
[quote]and maybe they are also just pissed that anyone in the U.S. who these days voices an opinion that is anti-government is looked upon as being anti-patriotic. Freedom of speech and all that...<hr></blockquote>
To be blunt with you, I cringe at what I believe to be misconceptions, perhaps even ignorance which I feel is displayed when I hear such comments. I don't find this to be the case and even if it were the case, I can't imagine on what basis you can judge as much from England.
As you undoubtedly know there have been massive rallies in the US opposed to the war. It is entirely common to see people with No War in Iraq signs on the houses or lawns or wearing buttons saying as much. People do so in public commonly without fear of confrontation. You have people such as pfflam, bunge, giant and various other ostensibly American posters on this message board daily posting in threads about their opposition to the war.
Anti-war positions and commentary can easily be found in the local paper (and we are talking about a metropolis of 3 million where I live so this is not a podunk paper). Here are today's letters to the editor in the paper:
<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134652504_frilets14.html"; target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134652504_frilets14.html</a>;
Various editorials and such from this week:
<a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=lincoln12&date=20030312&query=Iraq"; target="_blank">http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=lincoln12&date=20030312&query=Iraq</a>;
<a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=dionne11&date=20030311&query=Iraq"; target="_blank">http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=dionne11&date=20030311&query=Iraq</a>;
<a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=raspberry11&date=20030311&query=Iraq"; target="_blank">http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=raspberry11&date=20030311&query=Iraq</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112407_copecol14.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112407_copecol14.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/111391_bushreaxed.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/111391_bushreaxed.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112224_frenched.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112224_frenched.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=costed08&date=20030308&query=Iraq"; target="_blank">http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=costed08&date=20030308&query=Iraq</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/111553_mcgrory09.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/111553_mcgrory09.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112038_krugman12.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112038_krugman12.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112225_friedman13.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112225_friedman13.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112037_kristof12.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/112037_kristof12.shtml</a>;
<a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=raspberry04&date=20030304&query=Iraq"; target="_blank">http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=raspberry04&date=20030304&query=Iraq</a>;
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112530_iraqfest14.shtml"; target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/112530_iraqfest14.shtml</a>;
There are even opposing viewpoints on the radio, though one can certainly find the distilled essence of morons most heavily over the airwaves trying to whip up the hate you speak of there. Likewise though one can also find intelligent critiques.
Perhaps most importantly, when you talk to people, friends or strangers, people are more than willing to stake out their viewpoints. I see little fear of dismissal of the anti-war sentiment by those who hold it. Since I personally tenatively support the war, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to see people shrink when such discussions begin. But I see no such thing. Of course, I'm not the type to denounce anti-war people for their views (unless trolling AI of course) but that is not just me IME.
As far as mass media like the networks, USA Today, cable news or whatever, yes the Fox propaganda channel exists. The rest of it is mostly so sanitized and dumbed down as to be worthless anyway. Other than the general pro-corporate sentiment those forms of media don't proffer any opinions anyway. I wouldn't even necessarily call them pro-war, as they try to avoid making themselves or the consumer think too hard.
Are there jackasses such as Rush Limbaugh, Bob Ney, some radio station in Nashville, or our beloved Scott or others who foment narrowminded views? Undoubtedly yes. Are they common enough to stifle speech? Not in my American experience.
I read the BBC online daily, I listen to The World Today sometimes and I read the Guadian online at times as well. I must say, while they do a nice job in many regards, I hope that you are not getting your viewpoints from them or similar types of UK media. Their reporting on the US is vastly inferior to their coverage of Europe and on the whole inferior to that of various other particulars of American media across a spectrum of viewpoints.
The more pressing obstacle to a thoughtful American dialogue on geopolitical issues is not a reactionary nationalistic stifling of alternative viewpoints but rather (not dan) the general apathy towards current events, politics and reticence toward sophisticated analyses which permeates vast swathes of America. It is a general culture failing and a failing of the education system as well. But now I am starting too digress too much so let's not talk about that.
[quote]Dan Rather, the other, day in an interview with BBC television admitted that it is *very* difficult, even more difficult now than immediately after Sep. 11, to report anything that goes even slightly against the "official" point of view, although he may have phrased it differently. It makes working/reporting *very* hard, he said. If you ask me, that is not a very healthy state to be in, if you pardon the pun.<hr></blockquote>
If Dan Rather wanted to be doing serious journalism he would not be doing broadcasts at CBS. Those broadcasts have always been simplistic rehashes of the days events and nothing more and that dates to decades before 9/11. Sorry if I am not overwhelmed by the opinion of a glorified teleprompter narrator.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
Goddamn you and your preemptive Bushesque anti-Rather attacks groverat. Must you take advantage when work interferes with my prompt commentary?
It is an integral part of the anti-whatever movement (because they are the same people who gather under myriad signs) to feel as if they are being persecuted.
Like Scott calling into the Limbaugh show, folks like TheInstaller absolutely THRIVE on acting oppressed, even when standing among 1 million like-minded folk at a rally.
<strong>What do you mean they are missing the point? You're not making sense here.
So in your mind it's wrong to boycott anyone or anything for any reason besides something that breaks the law?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's go back to the founding fathers' time:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both statements by the colonials saying, "We're not putting up with the government's shit if we don't want to. The King is oppressing us, and we want the right to publicly gripe about it."
By radio stations boycotting a music group because of ONE not-so-harmful statement about the President, in my opinion that's essentially going against the spirit of what this country was founded on.
While most radio and TV are commercial entities and they have the right to do whatever they please, it seems silly to me that this is occurring. I would think that the radio stations wouldn't really care.
Now, if it comes down to ratings, because of a bunch of ignorant citizens who vow NOT to listen if any more Dixie Chicks songs are played (which is what has happened)...how sad.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</p>
<strong>While most radio and TV are commercial entities and they have the right to do whatever they please, it seems silly to me that this is occurring. I would think that the radio stations wouldn't really care.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Why does her speech get moral weight in your mind but everyone else against her does not?
Is it just because you share her point of view?
<strong>
Why? Why does her speech get moral weight in your mind but everyone else against her does not?
Is it just because you share her point of view?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I generally like President Bush, so I'm not supporting her. I guess my beef is that the American media is self-censoring in such a way that anything they don't agree with gets booted. What that essentially does is tell the American public "this is what you should think, because this is what WE deem as important."
This is kind of the symbolic straw that's breaking the camel's back when it comes to my ever-growing disdain for the news and entertainment industries. I have a degree in broadcasting, and when people were asking me what I wanted to do after I left college, I would tell them, "I'm going to try and stay out of commercial radio and television. There's too much back-biting and competition." I enjoy what I do because I feel like I'm doing something TRULY worthwhile, and commercial media is just in it for the bottom line. The reaction to the Dixie Chicks' statement could hurt that bottom line for most stations, and that's why the band is being boycotted.
I'd like to see a radio station get up there and say, "So, she said it. That's her opinion. We're going to keep playing the Dixie Chicks because their music is good. If you don't like that, fine. We're not going to boycott a band because one of their members' was practicing her Constitutional rights. So we lose some listeners. We'll probably gain others for not selling out."
I guess, groverat, this is just as disgustingly a commercial issue as it is a political one. The problem is figuring out where the fine line lies.
I don't see what is "selling out" about a medium (radio) whose sole purpose is to sell out. Their job is to entertain people so they will remove things that aren't entertaining.
Very very simple. Very simple.
<strong>Also, their music isn't good. There is no value to their music. It is pre-fabricated country-pop.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't follow.
I'd rather listen to my refridgerator
<strong>Everyone knows what she said, how the hell is she being censored? More people have heard about this than have probably heard her music, how is she being censored?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a self-censoring that the industry does to ITSELF to boycott the Dixie Chicks. It's essentially a slap on the hand that says, "We don't like what you said, so we're not going to play your music. Nyah nyah."
It just seems petty to me. You may not agree. I don't really feel like keeping this whole debate going round and round the way it's beginning to be.
As for comment about their music not being any good: Come on, man. That's your opinion. That doesn't hold any water in this discussion, and you know it. I don't personally listen to them, because I'm not into country music. The fact that they've won oodles of awards makes me think that a whole bunch of *somebody* out there likes them, and since opinion is closely related to what is considered quality, that must mean they're pretty good. That's why I said what I said.
<strong>I'm ashamed the Dixie Chicks are from Texas.</strong><hr></blockquote>And by a strange coincidence, Steve Earle - another of my musical heroes - is from Texas too
<a href="http://www.chartattack.com/DAMN/2002/12/1019.cfm"; target="_blank">http://www.chartattack.com/DAMN/2002/12/1019.cfm</a>;
Do you find that people outside of the United States don't understand that or maybe have less sympathy for the victims? In Canada a lot of people can't understand why Americans are so supportive of Bush ? do you think that people who are not American may underestimate what the country is going through emotionally?
- Definitely that. And everything that everyone from outside the country is saying is being dismissed by people within my country on that very basis, but I don't accept that. In the first place, look at Iraq. Iraq had **** all to do with September 11. No one's proved any connection one way or another. And the problem with equating what happened on September 11 with Iraq is that it becomes racism. There's no real reason, no real connection, but we're in danger of drawing a line in the sand and declaring war against Islam. And believe me, that war will not be won easily or quickly, that's taking on the third largest belief system in the world. And it won't be over with quickly. And it's a very dangerous thing to do. And it's a wrong thing to do. It did happen in the United States ? but that kind of terrorism has happened all over the world for a long time in a lot of different places. Also, Iraq is no threat to the United States directly. But is a threat to Israel and other countries in the region. They'll be a threat to Europe long before they're a threat to us just because of the distance. It's just how far a missile can fly. So Europe and the rest of the world should have something to say about that. We started out saying "We don't care what anyone else thinks," which didn't play very well. It's arrogant, it's us throwing our weight around and we're worse about that than we've ever been. And it embarrasses me. I think it's embarrassing that we don't want to participate in a world court. We want to indemnify our own military from prosecution in war crime tribunals. That's disgusting to me. That we're not signatory to the land mine treaty is embarrassing to me. But I think it's patriotic to be embarrassed by that....
...You've mentioned several times that the American government has made you embarrassed to be an American. Have you ever considered leaving?
- I don't think I could ever not be an American anymore. I mean, Texas embarrasses the **** out of me and that's where I'm from. I live in Tennessee and I have for 28 years, but I'll always be a Texan. Living outside of the country? If I lived outside of the country it probably won't be for political reasons. I'd probably be living in Ireland right now, but only because I like Ireland. I'd love to live someplace where there's no death penalty and Ireland's in the European Union and the European Union is actually turning out to be a lot more of a force and a lot better than anyone envisioned it would be at that time. It's really making itself heard right now. I live with a woman who has small children and they have a father and he lives in Tennessee, so I'm still in Tennessee. Things worked out this way, so I guess I'm supposed to be here right now. I'm definitely not going to leave because the New York Post thinks I should leave. It would be abandoning the country to the assholes, and I'm not sure I'm ready to do that yet.
<a href="http://www.chartattack.com/DAMN/2002/12/1019.cfm"; target="_blank">http://www.chartattack.com/DAMN/2002/12/1019.cfm</a>;
- T.I.
No one owes them airtime, no one owes them anything.
I swear to God we have the whiniest bunch of "radicals" and "dissidents" in the history of mankind. Not only do they need their freedoms they need a double tall mocha latte and you better pat them on the head for it, too.
Earle re: The EU.
He's obviously not well-informed.
<strong>I'd rather listen to my refridgerator</strong><hr></blockquote>Do you mean them? A duo called Ed in the Refridgerators and featuring DeGeorge?s 14-year-old brother... <a href="http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/music/other_stories/documents/02580231.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/music/other_stories/documents/02580231.htm</a>;
- T.I.
<strong>Earle re: The EU.
He's obviously not well-informed.
- T.I.