The simple answer is r-n-r is rock ‘n roll.

As for Seany, well, I must do that one again some time in the near future.

2. A small question: r-n-r? To what are you referring?

3. A larger question: what “crap” do you speak of on Hannity’s radio program? And what evidence do you offer that he wishes for anyone to surrender their rights, to Bush or otherwise?

I was not implying about what KAC initially did, I was referring to their new title, which has nothing to do with anything besides speaking the truth about that blowhard [idiot]. Seriously, Hannity is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He wants Americans to surrender their rights at all costs that are of benefit to his mighty Bush leader.

As for the initial KAC title, I personally think that Seany is one of the few people out there that is deserving of what came his way. The man has simply gone too far for too long w/ the crap he pulls on his radio show. All that KAC did was give the guy a very needed reality check.

The music that lies inside that KAC album reveals the truths about today’s America and what Degal has to say is exactly how I feel about the state of our country as well.

I am so glad that band did what they did. I know you hate r-n-r Doug, but it’s about time someone started using music as a political forum again.

Doug, when the smoke clears, it will be the music that’s most remembered, not Hannity.

I have become a big fan of that band you have never heard of, AKA Kids Against Combs. Your coverage of them saddens me.

Couldn’t you get the joke in the album title? Seriously, the band uses Democracy Subverting and then dips down to a product of 5th grade name calling and you can’t catch on to that? Sad.

Well, I imagine you’d be one of those people glad to read about this:

Here:
hardcoremusic.biz/main/content/view/158/2/

and here:

theshatteredmonkey.com/news/

Maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough for you: my list ultimately affects no one but myself (well, and the bands that lose out on a single sale because they manage to sufficiently tick me off, so much so that I refuse to buy their albums).

Musicians are free to make whatever they wish of their art form, I’m free to pay attention or ignore them as I see fit. In the Stones’ case, they’ve now made the “I shall ignore them in perpetuity, at least until they show evidence that they’ve completed their recto-cranial impaction reversal surgery” list.

The Kids Against Combs story is a different matter entirely. Their initial album title fairly clearly constituted incitement to harassment, IMNSHO. That sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed. Their second title, while ultimately childish and immature is at least within the bounds of the law. If they were to pursue the harassment angle, I’d fully support Hannity suing them into oblivion.

Ultimately, it’s a “tree falling in the woods” situation: If the Stones whine about neocons in the form of a song and no one comes to hear them, etc.

Once again, thanks for stopping by.

(Amusing aside: The replacement for “Hannity” suggested by the spellchecker was “annuity”. Heh.)

I don’t have a side, and I think the practice of choosing sides is an anti-intellectual practice.

I don’t believe that for a second.

I asked the question so I could determine whether you are actually making a list, and whether you are including only the artists you disagreed with. Since your approach is biased – by your admission – there is no reason for intelligent people to take you seriously.

My verbiage was drawn from two sources: Laura Ingraham’s recent book, Shut Up and Sing and Frank Zappa’s three volume compilation Shut Up N’ Play Yer Guitar. I am not sure whether Ingraham actually ripped the title of her book from Zappa or whether she was/is even aware of his existence. It’s immaterial. The principle is the same.

More art = more open to new ideas = more liberal (see definition of liberal in your dictionary). The reason the industry is “dominated” by liberals is because they are artists and thats what they share in common. The industry is far from dominated by liberals. Those who speak their minds are usually leftist activists (of which there are many).

Note: I clearly said “lefties” and did not refer to “liberals”. You are attempting to play a cute word game by conflating the modern political definition of “liberal” with the classical definition.

What evidence do you offer to refute the notion that the entertainment industry is dominated by leftists? By your own admission, you conflate “artist” to mean “liberal”.

I have never – ever – seen real criteria that qualify people to speak about politics. Never. Post some studies, some reports, whatever – it doesn’t matter. Political people will post only what suits their point of view, anyway. And that is the point – no one is any more qualified to discuss politics than anyone else, so what you’re really saying here is “i dont like what you said, so shut the f*** up.”

I’m saying no such thing. I’m saying that people aren’t paying Mick Jagger to pontificate, be it in spoken word, print or song, they are paying him to entertain them. If he wishes to allow his audience to become further self-selecting by alienating a considerable portion of the United States’ population, so be it. I’m saying that, from my perspective, Jagger has proved himself to be a buffoon of the first order and thus worthy of completely ignoring. The fact that he and his band mates haven’t produced a decent song since the late ’70’s makes the decision to ignore/boycott them even easier.

No doubt you see these artists raising these issues as “whining.” You probably don’t see what you do as whining, though it is essentially the same practice. And if these things are true, that makes you a hypocrite – reason #2 not to take you seriously.

I blog as a hobby. I pay for my hosting myself, I post no ads, I take in no revenue. I do it as a way to amuse myself and hopefully others will find it amusing as well. If not, c’est la vie. I’m still out the hosting dollars each and every month either way. If you want to view it as “whining”, so be it.

I don’t see them as whining, I see them as sullying their “art”. The vast majority of their fans will go to shows, buy CDs, etc. in order to be entertained, not annoyed by petty pontification. It’s the exact same problem that plagued the Beastie Boys’ last album.

They have every right to say whatever they want, just as I have every right to heckle from the gallery and shout “Shut Up and Sing!” They have the freedom to make their records, I have the freedom to not buy them.

This is like the liberal media myth. I’m almost 100% certain that the people who actually make the decisions about what gets released and played are probably conservatives. If not, then somehow these liberals have gotten the Republican government to play ball with them in granting whatever powers are needed for them to arrest people via invasions of their privacy.

Not quite sure what you’re referring to here – which invasions of privacy? Are you speaking of the idiotic RIAA/MPAA policies of prosecuting their customer base? I’m right with you on that one – the DMCA is one of the worst pieces of law ever passed by Congress, and that’s saying a lot.

As to who’s running the shows and what their ideologies are, please explain to me why, if the vast majority of those types are conservative, the TV/Movie/Music industry donated at a 69%-31% (Dems/Repubs) rate in this last election? The donations to Congress were along those lines as well. In this last election cycle, the top 20 recipients of Entertainment dollars consist of 18 Democrats and 2 Republicans. I fail to see how any of this indicates a Rightward leaning in the upper echelons of the Entertainment Industry.

I suppose its possible they just saw the government increasing its own power to invade privacy and jumped on the bandwagon…

Once again, what are you referring to here?

They’re not terribly talented. And they tend to inhabit a genre of music where the creativity level is so stifled that only the straight pop genre can outdo the stagnation. These artists chose their path.

I’ll not defend Keith as anything more than a purveyor of pop country pap and I’ve never been a big Charlie Daniels fan. That being said, I’ll gladly take trite pop-y country over “creative” musical diatribes any time. To each his own – pontification set to a beat is a big musical turn off for me.

I don’t have such a list, because that would be peurile[sic] and ignorant. If you love America and the rights we stand for, you shouldn’t feel an obsessive need to direct other people on how to use the rights we grant to them. Especially merely because you are a crybaby who didn’t agree with their choices.

I’m not directing them to act in any fashion other than that which they feel is best for their careers. However, I retain my right to think they’re idiots to throw away a reputation and a sizable portion of their audience in order to spew what I view as despicable drivel. They’re welcome to their opinions, just not on my CD player/MP3 player/radio.

That said, response to follow.

I don’t have a side, and I think the practice of choosing sides is an anti-intellectual practice. I asked the question so I could determine whether you are actually making a list, and whether you are including only the artists you disagreed with. Since your approach is biased – by your admission – there is no reason for intelligent people to take you seriously.

“However, it should be plain to you that the reason that the SUAP list is so heavily populated by lefties is that the entertainment industry is dominated by people of a similar intellectual/political bent,”

More art = more open to new ideas = more liberal (see definition of liberal in your dictionary). The reason the industry is “dominated” by liberals is because they are artists and thats what they share in common. The industry is far from dominated by liberals. Those who speak their minds are usually leftist activists (of which there are many).

I have never – ever – seen real criteria that qualify people to speak about politics. Never. Post some studies, some reports, whatever – it doesn’t matter. Political people will post only what suits their point of view, anyway. And that is the point – no one is any more qualified to discuss politics than anyone else, so what you’re really saying here is “i dont like what you said, so shut the f*** up.”

No doubt you see these artists raising these issues as “whining.” You probably don’t see what you do as whining, though it is essentially the same practice. And if these things are true, that makes you a hypocrite – reason #2 not to take you seriously.

“so merely by playing the averages you’re going to end up with far more Lefties in need of a good tongue-lashing than Righties.”

This is like the liberal media myth. I’m almost 100% certain that the people who actually make the decisions about what gets released and played are probably conservatives. If not, then somehow these liberals have gotten the Republican government to play ball with them in granting whatever powers are needed for them to arrest people via invasions of their privacy.

I suppose its possible they just saw the government increasing its own power to invade privacy and jumped on the bandwagon…

“Plus, no one in the trade rags seems to listen to, let alone give the time of day to Right-leaning artists and actors.”

They’re not terribly talented. And they tend to inhabit a genre of music where the creativity level is so stifled that only the straight pop genre can outdo the stagnation. These artists chose their path.

“But by all means, if it’s that big of an issue to you, add Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith to your list.”

I don’t have such a list, because that would be peurile and ignorant. If you love America and the rights we stand for, you shouldn’t feel an obsessive need to direct other people on how to use the rights we grant to them. Especially merely because you are a crybaby who didn’t agree with their choices.