Comments on: While I’m Here http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/ America's favorite blog Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:23:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: David http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23391 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:10:36 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23391 Murray, you've seen Ann's tattoo? I assume that means Harold has as well. Might this have ramifications for the Grand Tourney at County Grouseland for the hand of Lady Ann the Lovely? Sidebar question: Are birthmarks considered the handiwork of God's tattoo parlor? Murray, you’ve seen Ann’s tattoo? I assume that means Harold has as well. Might this have ramifications for the Grand Tourney at County Grouseland for the hand of Lady Ann the Lovely?

Sidebar question: Are birthmarks considered the handiwork of God’s tattoo parlor?

]]> by: Murray http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23389 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:45:19 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23389 Having seen Ann's Tattoo, I can attest that it is very nice. Back almost 20 years ago my youngest son insisted on getting an earring. I told him that once he turned 16, if he still wanted one, he could have it. By that time he had already met my now daughter-in-law and he is glad it hadn't happened, because she said she wouldn't have gone out with him if he had. Having seen Ann’s Tattoo, I can attest that it is very nice.

Back almost 20 years ago my youngest son insisted on getting an earring. I told him that once he turned 16, if he still wanted one, he could have it. By that time he had already met my now daughter-in-law and he is glad it hadn’t happened, because she said she wouldn’t have gone out with him if he had.

]]> by: Just Jay http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23378 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:10:06 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23378 David (#77) We here in Washington are fighting the pharmacy fight at the moment. There is a store here in Olympia that has been the target of a long boycott because they refuse to sell Plan B. The state pharmacists want language that allows them to refuse to fill otherwise legal perscriptions because of moral objections. As an aside, why is it always birth control and morning after pills that are objectionable and never Viagra or Cialis? Just wondering. I personally am conflicted about the boycott. On the one hand, I admire the store's owner for sticking to his guns regardless of the financial cost, on the other I disagree with his position. Jay David (#77)

We here in Washington are fighting the pharmacy fight at the moment. There is a store here in Olympia that has been the target of a long boycott because they refuse to sell Plan B. The state pharmacists want language that allows them to refuse to fill otherwise legal perscriptions because of moral objections. As an aside, why is it always birth control and morning after pills that are objectionable and never Viagra or Cialis? Just wondering. I personally am conflicted about the boycott. On the one hand, I admire the store’s owner for sticking to his guns regardless of the financial cost, on the other I disagree with his position.

Jay

]]> by: David http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23366 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:09:53 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23366 hedera, there's a fascinatingly arbitrary aspect to Fanny's antics. Has the same democratic quality as some of my experiences with various bureaucracies. We get mistreated without regard to race, creed, national origin, political affiliation, or relative degree of coherence. hedera, there’s a fascinatingly arbitrary aspect to Fanny’s antics. Has the same democratic quality as some of my experiences with various bureaucracies. We get mistreated without regard to race, creed, national origin, political affiliation, or relative degree of coherence.

]]> by: hedera http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23357 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:45:07 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23357 Aw, come on, Fanny - it wasn't THAT bad! Lemme out.... Aw, come on, Fanny - it wasn’t THAT bad! Lemme out….

]]> by: David http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23354 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:59:02 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23354 Ann, I disagree somewhat. I think I am looking at it from a combination of our popular sense of free speech as a cultural norm (which admittedly has a checkered history) and the extent to which one of the Bush administration's defacto agencies, Clear Channel, went to attack the Dixie Chicks. Yeah, Natalie opened her mouth and they took her chances, but Clear Channel, which owns the majority of radio stations in this country, systematically prevented airing of Dixie Chicks music (Country Music Television did not knuckle, and instead played both Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith videos) and organized events at some of their radio stations to destroy Dixie Chicks cds. While I agree with you from the standpoint of the Constitution and the law, nonetheless the Declaration and the Preamble, which are not law - unless the Declaration can be viewed as the first attempt at fostering the notion of international law - are extremely important statements regarding what we are about as a nation and have a quasi-Constitutional role in our culture. And I do see great value in what was done to reassert the viability of artists who would dare challenge the President. Remember also that Clear Channel "urged" their stations not to play "Imagine" after the 9/11 attacks. I don't think the line is completely distinct between the strict legal notion of protected speech and the popular (populist?) notion of the right to speak one's mind without having one's songs censored from the publicly owned airwaves, even if those airwaves are leased to private corporations. This is not the same as someone having the right to refuse to buy an artist's records. It would be if record stores refused to sell Dixie Chicks cds, or drug stores refused to fill certain types of prescriptions. I don't know the criteria for showcasing an artist. Is it sales, attendance at the artist's concerts, or the wishes of the board? I do think the community of music professionals, especially as given voice by Don Henley, viewed the honors bestowed on the Dixie Chicks as a way of saying singers/songwriters, who in significant measure depend on getting a fair shake in getting their music played on radio stations, must not be blacklisted by the likes of Clear Channel, which is making a fortune off the public airwaves. My only disappointment would have been if the awards to the Dixie Chicks could not also stand on the musical merits of the album. Rambling David now slides his little cyber-soapbox back into its virtual cabinet. Ann, I disagree somewhat. I think I am looking at it from a combination of our popular sense of free speech as a cultural norm (which admittedly has a checkered history) and the extent to which one of the Bush administration’s defacto agencies, Clear Channel, went to attack the Dixie Chicks. Yeah, Natalie opened her mouth and they took her chances, but Clear Channel, which owns the majority of radio stations in this country, systematically prevented airing of Dixie Chicks music (Country Music Television did not knuckle, and instead played both Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith videos) and organized events at some of their radio stations to destroy Dixie Chicks cds. While I agree with you from the standpoint of the Constitution and the law, nonetheless the Declaration and the Preamble, which are not law - unless the Declaration can be viewed as the first attempt at fostering the notion of international law - are extremely important statements regarding what we are about as a nation and have a quasi-Constitutional role in our culture. And I do see great value in what was done to reassert the viability of artists who would dare challenge the President. Remember also that Clear Channel “urged” their stations not to play “Imagine” after the 9/11 attacks.

I don’t think the line is completely distinct between the strict legal notion of protected speech and the popular (populist?) notion of the right to speak one’s mind without having one’s songs censored from the publicly owned airwaves, even if those airwaves are leased to private corporations. This is not the same as someone having the right to refuse to buy an artist’s records. It would be if record stores refused to sell Dixie Chicks cds, or drug stores refused to fill certain types of prescriptions.

I don’t know the criteria for showcasing an artist. Is it sales, attendance at the artist’s concerts, or the wishes of the board? I do think the community of music professionals, especially as given voice by Don Henley, viewed the honors bestowed on the Dixie Chicks as a way of saying singers/songwriters, who in significant measure depend on getting a fair shake in getting their music played on radio stations, must not be blacklisted by the likes of Clear Channel, which is making a fortune off the public airwaves.

My only disappointment would have been if the awards to the Dixie Chicks could not also stand on the musical merits of the album.

Rambling David now slides his little cyber-soapbox back into its virtual cabinet.

]]> by: George http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23353 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:44:25 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23353 My time in the Navy was not just an adventure, it was a job. My time in the Navy was not just an adventure, it was a job.

]]> by: dee http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23350 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:39:31 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23350 Ann makes a very good point. I felt the same way when there was a big whoop-de-doo over Eminem's anti-gay lyrics. Everyone at the Grammy's was tripping over him- and herself to say that while of course they didn't agree with what he said, in the interest of "free speech" he had a right to say it. Well, hell, of course he did. Didn't mean we had to listen or <b>showcase him at our awards show</b>. Any performer who takes a stand runs the risk of alienating all or part of the audience. That's the risk you take. If it's important enough to you, maybe the voice of your conscience will override that of your accountant. Ann makes a very good point. I felt the same way when there was a big whoop-de-doo over Eminem’s anti-gay lyrics. Everyone at the Grammy’s was tripping over him- and herself to say that while of course they didn’t agree with what he said, in the interest of “free speech” he had a right to say it. Well, hell, of course he did. Didn’t mean we had to listen or showcase him at our awards show. Any performer who takes a stand runs the risk of alienating all or part of the audience. That’s the risk you take. If it’s important enough to you, maybe the voice of your conscience will override that of your accountant.

]]> by: Ann http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23347 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:37:22 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23347 First of all, some of my best friends have tattoos. Well, not really--but <b>I</b> have a lovely one. Second, while I agree with the political sentiments expressed by the Dixie Chicks, their right to free speech was not in danger. Our constitutional rights apply to our relationship with the government, which never, to my knowledge, tried to silence the Chicks. First of all, some of my best friends have tattoos. Well, not really–but I have a lovely one.
Second, while I agree with the political sentiments expressed by the Dixie Chicks, their right to free speech was not in danger. Our constitutional rights apply to our relationship with the government, which never, to my knowledge, tried to silence the Chicks.

]]> by: cooper http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23342 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:41:41 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2007/02/08/while-im-here/#comment-23342 When I was toying with the idea of joining the Navy during one of my low points in the early '70's, I took the tests, physicals and what-not that was required. After ala that was tabulated, the recruiter smiled at me and said I could be anything in the Navy I wanted to be. I thought for a moment and said "I want to be an Admiral." The interview spiralled downhill from there... When I was toying with the idea of joining the Navy during one of my low points in the early ’70’s, I took the tests, physicals and what-not that was required. After ala that was tabulated, the recruiter smiled at me and said I could be anything in the Navy I wanted to be. I thought for a moment and said “I want to be an Admiral.” The interview spiralled downhill from there…

]]>