|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 7, 2012 10:08:06 GMT -5
You've probably heard about the controversy around Kelly Clarkson's support of Ron Paul. People pointing to his newsletters published in the 80's and 90's with allegedly racist sentiments, although Paul called the comments terrible and that they were written by someone else. Apparently Kelly's internet sales got a bump at first, then went below normal, and might be down overall. Kelly wrote: “Man, my eyes have been opened to so much hate tonight,” Clarkson wrote. “If y’all ever disagree with something I say, please don’t feel the need to attack me. I will listen to what you say and any articles or viewpoints you have when you say it with respect. Being hateful is not a healthy way to get people to see or hear you.” “If you don’t agree with me simply unfollow me,” she added. “It’s really that easy.”Kelly Clarkson has got it right, even though I disagree with her politics. It's all about being civil and listening to what others have to say. I am a liberal but I talk with and listen to and respects others who are conservative or not quite as liberal as me. Unfortunately, there are too many people out there who don't want to listen to your point of view and who see you as a threat to their ideas and who will villify you at every turn instead of listening to what you have to say. Most of the intolerance I see comes from the conservative side of the political fence though some liberals are just as intolerant. I live in a very conservative state and the majority of the people who are conservative are nice, friendly people. That said, there's still a large number of conservatives in this state who are of the 'my way or the highway' variety. They're the ones who get angry when you speak your mind if you're a liberal and think you should just shut up, but it's okay for them and those who think like them to speak up and speak out, because they feel their views make up the majority rather than a minor point of view.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jan 7, 2012 13:38:00 GMT -5
i believe the intolerance is about equal on both extreme sides. it is refreshing to hear that just because a person/people have a different opinion that you that you would consider/be civil in listening!!!!!! if you are a new member sliderocker; welcome. i do not recall seeing you on the old forum. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Jan 7, 2012 13:41:09 GMT -5
i believe the intolerance is about equal on both extreme sides. it is refreshing to hear that just because a person/people have a different opinion that you that you would consider/be civil in listening!!!!!! if you are a new member sliderocker; welcome. i do not recall seeing you on the old forum. eddiejinnj You're right Eddie... I've seen it on both sides.. not just one side.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jan 7, 2012 19:36:26 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
It's all dumb, anyway. The rights of freedom of speech are absolute, no matter who uses it. If you don't like the other guy's/gal's politics, then don't go to their shows or buy their CDs. But don't make an a** of yourself saying you weren't warned ahead of time. Linda's politics have never been a state secret. And I do believe Linda got a good laugh out of the whole controversy, driving the Fox News, AM talk radio, and right-wing bloggers nuts.
It should be said--getting back on track to Linda--that a lot of support came Linda's way following the Dust-Up In The Desert, largely from the Brits (Elton John; Sting; Keith Richards), but also from her old band the Eagles, who nixed their planned 2004 dates in Vegas in protest.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 8, 2012 0:27:06 GMT -5
i believe the intolerance is about equal on both extreme sides. it is refreshing to hear that just because a person/people have a different opinion that you that you would consider/be civil in listening!!!!!! if you are a new member sliderocker; welcome. i do not recall seeing you on the old forum. eddiejinnj I am new to the forum and thanks for the welcome. When it comes to politics, I think we need to listen to all sides, including those we don't agree with. The country is all of us, which is why we must always be willing to compromise. No one is going to get their way 100% of the time, whether they are liberal or conservative. But, I believe there's enough room to make everyone happy except the ones on the extreme side of either political ideology. But, what they don't get is that their politics don't play with the majority of our citizens, whether they're liberal or conservative, and they're always going to be on the outside looking in because of that intolerance. Much like Jann Wenner's intolerance of certain musical artists preventing those artists from being nominated for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is an example of extremism. Wenner's intolerance costs the hall paying customers - one would think he'd want to get as many visitors as possible, but he'd rather do it his way and make the hall suffer for his big-headed ego. They lose just as much as the fans because of his extremism. What a pity they don't have a way to kick him out of the hall permanently!
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 8, 2012 0:44:42 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: It's all dumb, anyway. The rights of freedom of speech are absolute, no matter who uses it. If you don't like the other guy's/gal's politics, then don't go to their shows or buy their CDs. But don't make an a** of yourself saying you weren't warned ahead of time. Linda's politics have never been a state secret. And I do believe Linda got a good laugh out of the whole controversy, driving the Fox News, AM talk radio, and right-wing bloggers nuts. It should be said--getting back on track to Linda--that a lot of support came Linda's way following the Dust-Up In The Desert, largely from the Brits (Elton John; Sting; Keith Richards), but also from her old band the Eagles, who nixed their planned 2004 dates in Vegas in protest. Very dumb but it's an underlying problem of how nasty and intolerant our politics have become. It's a problem because it's why we have mediocre politicians who would rather play it safe and give you thirty second feel good soundbites or negative attack ads about their opponents than tell you what they want to do and how they're going to be different from the opposition. But, the extreme far right crazies really turned their attention on Linda after the Vegas incident. They trotted out their usual hateful rhetoric, calling her Hanoi Linda, a traitor, accusing her of treason and a lot more stupid rubbish. It was some scary, scary stuff and I worried about the possibility that one of those crazies would end up harming Linda, or possibly even killing her. I thought those people just needed to get a grip and go back to school and learn about freedom of speech. Maybe they'll wise up one day but I seriously doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jan 8, 2012 11:39:32 GMT -5
When it comes to politics, I think we need to listen to all sides, including those we don't agree with. But after listening to, for example, Michelle Bachmann, over and over, and coming to the conclusion that she's a nut, a fraud, and a liar to boot, I feel comfortable tuning her out, knowing that I am not going to be enlightened in any way.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jan 8, 2012 12:20:34 GMT -5
When it comes to politics, I think we need to listen to all sides, including those we don't agree with. But after listening to, for example, Michelle Bachmann, over and over, and coming to the conclusion that she's a nut, a fraud, and a liar to boot, I feel comfortable tuning her out, knowing that I am not going to be enlightened in any way. Bachmann is a total looney tunes extremist who won't listen to other points of view or listen to reason. One can still listen to those who won't listen themselves but listening doesn't mean you have to give them what they want in exchange for listening. Bachmann doesn't realize or doesn't seem to care she could accomplish so much more if she were willing to compromise. It would be better for her to go home from congress knowing she accomplished something than to go home with little or nothing to show the voters because she was too stubborn to give in just a little. Then again, she said prior to her rpesidential run she wasn't going to run for her congressional seat again, so if she's a woman of her word (which I seriously doubt), she's out of Washington after this year. And if that happens, can't come a moment too soon.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 9, 2012 2:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 9, 2012 9:49:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 9, 2012 17:33:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 10, 2012 10:17:27 GMT -5
Given the attitude of those running the joke that is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Smokey probably wouldn't have had any luck if he had insisted that the Miracles be inducted right along with him. Another thing about those hall inductions that's often not reported is that although the artist or band is being honored and are honored guests and don't pay, their family members and friends have to buy their own tickets to the event. Tickets which can cost $3000 or more. You'd think the hall would include the family members of the inductees and not expect them to pay, but in the past, the hall have required family members to pony up for the privilege of seeing their loved ones inducted. And that's a disgusting thing to do to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 10, 2012 10:44:21 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Of course that's totally ridiculous. And who knows, maybe it's another reason why Linda herself, while she might consider the honor of being inducted (if it indeed happens while she's still breathing), is reluctant to re-associate herself with Jann Wenner. He's almost as big a shyster as the Colonel.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 10, 2012 12:12:04 GMT -5
Nothing about Wenner surprises me anymore other than the fact he doesn't recognize his blatant hypocrisy. Anti-establishment yet pretty well established and entrenched in the establishment he suspposedly loathes. Someone you think is a Democrat and supports Democratic values and platforms yet who likely could be a Republican. He's made millions from Rolling Stone, so there would be no need for him to insist that family members of inductees to the R&RHoF pony up $3000 a ticket to see a family member inducted, yet if he didn't set the policy, he goes along with it. And his dislike of certain acts is such that rather than disqualify himself from the nomination process when it comes to those acts being considered, he gathers up the group of voters who think like he does and blocks the acts from being nominated. Linda's in some pretty good company of artists and bands who meet all the requirements for eligibility, nomination and a chance to be voted upon but who run afoul of the petty, petulant little weasel from Rolling Stone. The Colonel would probably be very happy with Wenner's money grabbing ways but he would probably chide him for excluding certain acts as by excluding those acts, he deprives himself of the money their fans would probably be willing to spend on the hall just to see whatever exhibits they'd have on hand to "honor" those acts.
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 10, 2012 15:12:35 GMT -5
What I think is really dumb, and I've mentioned this before, is that Wenner and most of his usual suspects of writers at Rolling Stone have, in the past, had some unbelievably nasty things to say about the Eagles, that they somehow represented the "corporatization" of rock during the 70s, etc., etc. Funny, then, that this zany band of desperados should have been corralled into Cleveland like they were in 1998, but Linda remains left out in the cold, even though Rolling Stone's reviews of her albums (aside from Dave Marsh's, but then again, that S.O.B. has never been happy with her) have, in the main, been relatively fair, and frequently very effusive.
Wenner really strikes me as being every bit as duplicitous when it comes to music and popular culture as the politicians he and his magazine rail against in print in each and every issue, while still claiming to be "anti-establishment" (which is kind of an anachronistic term long about now). This is especially true when it comes to the RRHOF, and it has a lot to do with his base of operations being New York, which often thumbs its nose at Los Angeles (though, to be fair, we here tend to do the same to them). It's a dumba** way of doing things, and Wenner, if he wants to retain any legitimate claims to being, he's got to be the one to stop it. He could do that (if he really wanted to) by inducting Linda into the HOF, as well as the other women I've mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 10, 2012 16:26:05 GMT -5
Erik and Slide, I think the whole thing IS really dumb. There is a piece in The New York Times today h ttp://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/bands-to-follow-their-frontmen-into-rock-hall-of-fame/?scp=1&sq=The%20Comets&st=cseabout the sideman/groups/bandmates be inducted now years after the band's lead singer was inducted and the Hall's attempt to "make it right." (excuse me, while I gag) It is kind of dopey that if Bill Haley is inducted that the Comets are not, etc. There is an interesting thread on this on The Motown Forum. I had asked the question about The Supremes and, at first, someone replied that Mary Wilson ALLEGEDLY told the RRHOF to only induct Diana Ross, Florence Ballard, and herself, not any other of the women who performed as Supremes. Then, if you read the thread, someone posts who said they worked at the RRHOF and that, basically, no one tells the RRHOF anything. And the poster goes on to explain some pretty egregious omissions, including among The Four Season, etc. soulfuldetroit.com/showthread.php?5012-Breaking-News!!!-The-Miracles-are-being-inducted-into-the-Rock-amp-Roll-Hall-of-Fame!!
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 11, 2012 0:55:52 GMT -5
What I think is really dumb, and I've mentioned this before, is that Wenner and most of his usual suspects of writers at Rolling Stone have, in the past, had some unbelievably nasty things to say about the Eagles, that they somehow represented the "corporatization" of rock during the 70s, etc., etc. Funny, then, that this zany band of desperados should have been corralled into Cleveland like they were in 1998, but Linda remains left out in the cold, even though Rolling Stone's reviews of her albums (aside from Dave Marsh's, but then again, that S.O.B. has never been happy with her) have, in the main, been relatively fair, and frequently very effusive. Wenner really strikes me as being every bit as duplicitous when it comes to music and popular culture as the politicians he and his magazine rail against in print in each and every issue, while still claiming to be "anti-establishment" (which is kind of an anachronistic term long about now). This is especially true when it comes to the RRHOF, and it has a lot to do with his base of operations being New York, which often thumbs its nose at Los Angeles (though, to be fair, we here tend to do the same to them). It's a dumba** way of doing things, and Wenner, if he wants to retain any legitimate claims to being, he's got to be the one to stop it. He could do that (if he really wanted to) by inducting Linda into the HOF, as well as the other women I've mentioned. Must admit I never understood why the Eagles were acceptable to the R&RHoF, yet they were derided by many rock critics (with Rolling leading the charge) who are members of the hall as being corporate rock. With the Wenner crowd, you'd think that group would've gone all out to have blocked them totally from being nominated or once nominated, pressured the other voters to reject them. But, I suspect the Eagles were okay with enough hall members to squeak by any objections from the Wenner bloc. Of course, maybe the Wenner bloc didn't hate them as much as they claimed but of course, given the immense wealth of the Eagles, the hall probably figured the members of the Eagles could've filled up several hundred seats with their family members. As I recall, the night the Eagles were inducted, all present and former members were on hand and all came up to the stage. When it came to being anti-establishment, I always thought Wenner was just paying lip service to the idea. I think he enjoyed having the power to make or break the acts, to decide who was or who wasn't rock and roll with his magazine. And far from changing things at the hall, I think he'd rather keep things as they are rather than change them. He's got a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and I just don't think he cares that much about credibility. He's the kingmaker and that's all that matters to him. If he can keep out Linda, the Moody Blues, Johnny Rivers, the Monkees, Connie Francis, even Pat Boone or any other act that he personally dislikes and which raises his blood pressure just to mention their name, he's a happy man. Meanwhile, he'll push for artists and groups that are questionable: they won't have the sales or the influence or any of the criteria they must meet, but because chairman Wenner likes them, they'll get a nod and most likely voted in. Wenner needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Feb 11, 2012 1:26:25 GMT -5
Erik and Slide, I think the whole thing IS really dumb. There is a piece in The New York Times today h ttp://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/bands-to-follow-their-frontmen-into-rock-hall-of-fame/?scp=1&sq=The%20Comets&st=cseabout the sideman/groups/bandmates be inducted now years after the band's lead singer was inducted and the Hall's attempt to "make it right." (excuse me, while I gag) It is kind of dopey that if Bill Haley is inducted that the Comets are not, etc. There is an interesting thread on this on The Motown Forum. I had asked the question about The Supremes and, at first, someone replied that Mary Wilson ALLEGEDLY told the RRHOF to only induct Diana Ross, Florence Ballard, and herself, not any other of the women who performed as Supremes. Then, if you read the thread, someone posts who said they worked at the RRHOF and that, basically, no one tells the RRHOF anything. And the poster goes on to explain some pretty egregious omissions, including among The Four Season, etc. soulfuldetroit.com/showthread.php?5012-Breaking-News!!!-The-Miracles-are-being-inducted-into-the-Rock-amp-Roll-Hall-of-Fame!! The Moody Blues corroborated what the source who worked at the R&RHoF said. Their fans were signing petitions and sending letters to the R&RHoF asking that the Moody Blues be nominated and inducted. The hall responded by telling the Moody Blues and their management that if they didn't get the fans to back off with the petitions and letters, the Moody Blues would never be considered. It's quite obvious that no one can tell the R&RHoF what to do, and that such things as petitions and personal letters pleading for this act or that act to be nominated and inducted fall on deaf ears. Rhino started a petition for the Monkees to be nominated at least, with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys being the first signer of the petition. Didn't matter who any of the signers were or that the Monkees have some heavyweight friends who are in the hall aready and who support them being nominated. Wenner hates them because they came indirectly from TV, end of story. Go away. But, Wenner's argument falls flat on its face when someone points out that Rick Nelson also came to music from TV in the exact same manner as the Monkees, so why was he acceptable while they were not? Wenner won't bother with a reply. It's very dumb and it's also the problem. They have their criteria which should be stringent enough that certain acts can't meet, yet when the act in question meets all of the criteria and then some are passed over because of the personal dislikes of certain individuals in the hall, what is the solution? As long as Wenner the hypocrite remains and thinks his stink smells sweet, those acts he hates are unlikely to see a nomination in his lifetime. And if by chance they should be nominated, he probably has enough clout with the voting members to keep the acts he doesn't like out of the hall. He is the problem.
|
|