Johnny E Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 "We live in fictitious times. We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 I'm disappointed. I waited close to twenty four hours to see how this post would turn out, and this is all I get? BOO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 It was a hoot watching the Oscars. I enjoyed watching everybody try to hold back. You could see how much pain they were in not getting to say anything. When I saw Michael Moore win, I knew it was going to be good. I bet the academy was squirming all night knowing that he was going to get a chance to get up there. I was just waiting for the big hook to come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Since this is the non-jazz music forum, I was expecting a discussion about Oscar Levant. My bad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Mixed message from me. Michael Moore is a creep. He's on my side of most political discussions, but I think he's a creep. I think he was on the money with his speech last night. BUT I bet he didn't run it by the other film makers he brought on stage. For that I am embarrased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Lightning Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 What Chuck said. I don't trust evangelists, even if their heart is in the right place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 This thread is going to move! :rsmile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 How you do this! Is a MIRACLE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 The interesting thing is that Moore got a standing-O when he won, but the minute he opened his mouth he was met with a whole bunch o' boos. I've never before seen anyone alienate an otherwise supportive audience so quickly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 My wife claimed that it wasn't the time or place for that, but then again when is the time and place? It seemed rather silly to have all these actors patting themselves on the back while American and British soldiers and Iraqi people are dying. I think it was a needed shot in the butt... the whole place was trying to pretend nothing is going on in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 10-4 Big B3'in' Jim! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutty Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Now that Rush Limbaugh has lost weight, it appears that Michael Moore is the world's most annoying politically biased fat man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonF Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Now that Rush Limbaugh has lost weight, it appears that Michael Moore is the world's most annoying politically biased fat man... I was told that Rush Limbaugh has great fun calling Michael Moore "fat". Man, how quickly times change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 How you do this! Is a MIRACLE! Mr Sangrey! Your avatar? I'll have you know that I used those words in my handle on the BNBB long before this board came about! You may have dropped the words, inquire within, but those are my words! MINE!! Intellectual property! You shall hear from my mouthpiece, I mean lawyer, posthaste! If They have avatars at the new, improved Norah Jones site, can I borrow it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 The interesting thing is that Moore got a standing-O when he won, but the minute he opened his mouth he was met with a whole bunch o' boos. I've never before seen anyone alienate an otherwise supportive audience so quickly... Yeah, but you weren't there the day we thought the boss said RAISES for everyone, and then held up a box labeled "Sun Maid"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted March 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 The interesting thing is that Moore got a standing-O when he won, but the minute he opened his mouth he was met with a whole bunch o' boos. I've never before seen anyone alienate an otherwise supportive audience so quickly... That's because they're all chicken-shit. It's safe to give a standing O when he wins, thereby showing your support for his politics in a dual context. But as soon as he starts talking specific they sit their ass down in fear of getting black listed. Oh and by the way, just because Arnold, Bruce and Charlton booed loudly, it doesn't mean that the crowd was mixed. We all know that 99% of them agreed but were afraid. Did anyone hear the end part of his speech? “When both the pope and the Dixie Chicks are against you it’s only a matter of time before you’re on your way out.” Or something like that. Brilliant! On the subject of the Dixie Chicks: Channels of Influence By PAUL KRUGMAN By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here. Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration. The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control. Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation. Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television. Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire. There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf? What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Did anyone hear the end part of his speech? “When both the pope and the Dixie Chicks are against you it’s only a matter of time before you’re on your way out.” Or something like that. Brilliant! Wow, there's a low stump to jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 (edited) That was a very interesting article, Johnny. Much to think about. This is strange: I just went over to the Dixie Chicks website, and for the hell of it, tried to register and post a note of support. When I submitted my info, a message popped up that someone already registered with the login name of Joe Gloss. Okay...so I changed it to Joseph. Resubmit. Now a message tells me that someone already registered with my e-mail address! What the fuck! Edited March 26, 2003 by Joe G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here. Yeah, yeah, yeah; and to those of us familiar with American history, it reminded us of The Beatles and Lennon's comments, or maybe "Disco Destruction" at Comiskey in '79. Ah...those were the days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 I saw "Chicago" the other night.It deserved those academy awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 I saw "Chicago" the other night.It deserved those academy awards. I haven't seen it yet, but want to. The wife's dragging her legs over it; I'll have to use up one of my "my turn to pick the movie" cards. Darn; I like to save those for something really odd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Mel Brooks' History Of The World Part One featured the Inquisition as a musical. I may have liked that, but I won't be watching Chicago any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 (edited) Mel Brooks' History Of The World Part One featured the Inquisition as a musical. I may have liked that, but I won't be watching Chicago any time soon. I'm with Noj. I'll take Inquisition: The Musical instead. I think if I hear that "and all that jazz" loop that they kept playing at the Oscars, one more time.... aaaarrrgh! I never was a big fan of musicals anyway, though, I'd bet money that I'll end up watching it with my wife sometime. I'll console myself by cracking gerbil jokes during the movie. Heck, I'll probably end up liking the movie anyway. Edited March 27, 2003 by AfricaBrass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Personally, I think the best way to "watch" the Oscars is to read the "who won" list in the paper the next day anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Personally, I think the best way to "watch" the Oscars is to read the "who won" list in the paper the next day anyway... It would be a lot more entertaining that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.