yall

But wasn't the criminal issue related to their monopoly, and not what they chose to play? Granted the two are related in that CC had to much power in that they controlled too much, but there is no crime in what they choose to play or not play.

Huh? What exactly about that is a criminal act?

I'll help ya... (Man, I'm REALLY bored today... ) http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/06/10/di...tour.html?print The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines in New York in 2003. Maines's anti-Bush remark has had an effect on the band's concert sales in some cities. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) "This time around, we are willingly feeling our way through unchartered territory," said the statement. "Things don't come as easy as they might have come in the past, and it makes each accomplishment more exciting and appreciated. We will go where the fans are with great anticipation and no regrets." The group's spokesman is also quoted in a Saturday Los Angeles Times article as saying there has been "some reshuffling of dates" and additions to the itinerary. The Dixie Chicks' latest album, Taking the Long Way, opened in the No. 1 spot on the U.S. charts, selling 526,000 copies in seven days. Continue Article Industry reports say ticket sales are sluggish in Republican states because of the prolonged backlash to a 2003 comment by singer Natalie Maines at a British concert. She had said the group is ashamed to come from the same state, Texas, as President George W. Bush. "Basically, they're having to rethink the entire tour at this point," Gary Bongiovanni of the concert industry magazine Pollstar told Reuters. Concert schedule changes Bongiovanni says dates in Memphis, Tennessee, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, Houston and Fresno, Calif., might have to be dropped from the tour. An extra date has already been added in Toronto."

I think that was only in Canada though. I think their stateside sales of merch, cd's, and tix went down siginificantly. What was funny was their audience got a slight augmentation from people who hated the President, but normally wouldn't touch country. I also recall them having some feud with the "Ford Truck Man".

As I refered to it earlier... it's better described as "Nashville Pop". Country music changed for the worse when they dropped the "& Western".

I don't know that I would call it censorship. A media outlet can pick and choose what they want to play. CC probably felt that enough of their Nashville Pop audience would bristle at any Dixie Chick song, and felt it would better serve their customers/listeners by not playing the material. Their record sales and concert attendance figures probably suffered more from their ticked off core fanbase than it did CC deciding to not play their material. I don't really care, but it irks me to see the press calling artists "brave" for speaking their minds, as if there is a real danger of jack-booted goverment agents coming into their homes and pistol whipping them with broom handled mausers.

So I'm doing my usual 7:00 AM news site surfing today, and I'm seeing a ton of "Defiant Dixie Chicks" type of headlines. On top of that these stories seem to have the common theme that the Dixie Chicks were somehow censored and their constitutional right to freedom of speech was violated. Could someone please let the press know that an artist who says something that pi$$es off 50% of their core fan base, and then those fans choosing to ignore that artist's product, is neither censorship nor is it a violation of 1st amendment rights? My fiancee, who likes the Dixie Chicks, didn't seem to think they deserved 5 grammys, although she said it was their best album yet. I'm not much of a fan (I think the lead singer has a pig face and she rubs me the wrong way. I would like the other two to just rub me... ) and I have to wonder how much the controversy they have created impacted their nominations/awards. Not that I think the grammys are a measurement of anything that resembles artistic merit. (*Cough* *Sham!* *Cough*..)

Seriously. Are these ladies from a local retirement home or something? Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes winners perhaps?

I don't think I have ever seen a thread discussing statistics cause such a long lasting ruckus that spilled over into almost every other thread. I feel like I'm posting in a Reese's commercial.... "You got your regression in my global warming!"

I second that! She was my "it" girl for a long time.

Well he does have the general concept of a negative externality correct, but I'm not sure I would entirely agree with his point about the free market. I would argue that free market systems have done a better job at controlling pollution as more consumers become aware of the effects of pollution. No, I wouldn't expect every consumer to become experts in deciphering which companies and/or products are more "green" but as companies realize this is important to consumers they will advertise it themselves (kinda like trans fats).

Shouldn't this be in PPP? At any rate, this type of news will become fodder for people like Ruben Navarrette Jr., to whom every single opponent of illegal immigration is some uneducated, racist xenophobe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be reported, but at the same time you know that people with an "anti" position on illegal immigration will now be painted with a broad stroke as begin similar to the KKK.

What a great way to marginalize normal people who may be agsinst illegal immigration for entirely legitamate reasons. Thanks KKK.

Wait a minute you said "seemingly high character" and the Dolphins seem like a good fit? No wonder your name is the Jokeman!

I've stayed out of this one for the most part, due to the fact that I honestly don't know who is right and who is wrong even after doing a fair amount of reading on the subject. As usual the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate, I do take issue with this being something that Gore really care about, when he tends not to practice what he preaches. This is an older article, but I think it speaks volumes about these pseudo environmentalist types that want to tell the common folk that every bit matters, but are unwilling to make sacrifices themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm I didn't bother finding a link, but I'm sure most of you remember Gore having a motorcade to drive him and his "posse" 500 meters at the Cannes Film Festival, to promote his conservation movie.

I wish we would play them again this year. But at the same time, I'd hate Aaron Schobel to have a guilty conscience for assaulting an elderly person.

Hmmm... where are the people questioning the source here? Don't misinterpret, I'm not saying that you are lying about having heard this on the radio, but I don't see anyone saying "bah! that's just the warmongers. It's not even on NBC right now, how could it possibly be true!" And this development, even if it proves to be true, doesn't rule out Iranian involvement. If these generals were Shiites they could very well be working with the Iranians. If they were Sunni's however, almost surely they were not.

I enjoy parts of their programming. I could listen to Howard Simon all day long. He has always been one of my favorite radio personalities. I just wish they'd dump the afternoon crew. Hell, bring back Brinson baby! Edit: And for clarification, the reason I don't care for Schopp anymore, is how rude and dismissive he can be with callers. Yeah, I'm sure they get tired of hearing the same people call in with silly opinions or comments, but he just gets too high and mighty with people. Example: Yesterday they were asking for people to call in with their opinions about who they would like to see the Sabres matched up against or avoid in the first round of the playoffs. At least once they phrased the question as "call in and let us know is there someone you want the Sabres to play in the first round..." Some dude called and said he really had no preference as he felt the Sabres were good enough to take on anyone in the 1st round. A reasonable opinion, and it answered their question. They wanted to know "is there someone" and the guys answer was "no there is not, and here is why...". But before he had a chance to fully explain his position, which ostensibly may have been more than "the Sabres are good" Schopp disconnected him and then went on to berate him for not calling in with anything of substance.

This is my favorite part so far: "Assistant Attorney General John Grossman called the light boards "bomblike" devices and said that if they had been explosive they could have damaged transportation infrastructure in the city." Yeah and if my shoes were made of VX gas, they could kill people... "OMFG... look out for yall's shoes!!!"

I loved their very well thought out alternative to uses for the money. My favorite was "let's make beer cheaper". Second place was "let's use it to reduce the price hike". My recommendation would have been to use part of it to buy plane tickets to send those bozo's somewhere else. Oh, and by the way guys, don't be too proud of having the number 1 rated sports station in the nation. Good ratings are easy to come by when you have ZERO competition.That would be like Time Warner bragging that they have more cable subscribers than anyone else in Erie county. You go girl!

For starters, it's not my evidence. I made no claim as to the veracity of the evidence cited by any official. I merely showed reports that officials said they had evidence. There is a huge difference. And once again I said "if this was true"... Do you understand what that means? I'm not sure you do, because I have repeatedly explained the same thing several times. Let me sum it up for you: If the Iranian government was involved in the murder of US troops, the US should enagage the Iranians. Notice the "if" part. That doesn't mean "it seems as though they may have" nor does it mean "I want them to have done this so we can bomb them". It simply means "if they actually did it". Why can't you comprehend this?

Gimme a break, are you still harping on this? Most major news outlets are carrying this story, and you are still hung up on the drudgereport? What makes you say that it's erroneous, the fact that it is no longer on the web site? Yeaterday's news isn't there either, does that make it wrong? I was musing on leveling another country based upon a report that links said country to the ambush, abduction, and execution of 5 US soldiers. Like I said "if" it were true, there should be some retalition. What don't you get? Are you just trying to be difficut or troll for an argument? Why not post something meaningful instead of "duh well the drudge report doesnt have it on their website any more so it's obviously an error". I bet you think the Iraqi Prime Minister is erroneous as well... Maybe he didn't actually say any of this and CNN is just grossly misquoting him: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html

There is nothing to be ashamed of, especially since it sounds like you decided to give something back so to speak.

Are you saying I'm lying, and that it in fact was not up earlier? Yahoo changes it's top stories, which you just proved. If you look under the "more" section I'm sure you'll find a link there. But is that all you have? Is your only point "not everyone is reporting it"? Once again, I said it warranted military action "if" it turned out to be true. Why can you not quote that part? Do I have to quote myself? I guess I do... here goes... Please read it this time and try not to completely ignore what I have said: "I'll wait until I see this on NBC before jumping to conclusions, but if this is true (and I mean really true not "oops WMD" true) then Iran should be lit the f*ck up like a christmas tree. "

What conclusion did I jump to? Please elaborate? Apparently you can't even understand the word "might". Please read before you quote and jump to conclusions yourself. And if you are wary of the drudgereport, that's fine, as CNN and Yahoo both are running the story right now.