Cinnamon Stillwell

I’m the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum that focuses on Middle East studies. I was a political columnist for (San Francisco Chronicle online) from 2004-2008. I've written for the American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, Family Security Matters, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, The Jewish Policy Center, J-The Jewish News Weekly of N. CA, Intellectual Conservative and many others. More info at

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

When Awards Becomes Politicized

My new column at SFGate:

When Awards Becomes Politicized

Covers the Oscars, Grammys, Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog was just awful. You are not a 9-11 conservative, you are a reactionary chicken with your head cut off. Do us all a favor and go spread your hate and bile and ignorance over your you conservative friends and come back when you have something thoughtful or poignant to say.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:34:00 AM  
Blogger TllGurl said...

Apparently you've not heard the album "Taking The Long Way". Maybe you should.
The Dixie Chicks put out a very good MAINSTREAM album and the NARAS members (which is comprised of people who are fellow recording artists from across the genres of recorded music) thought so as well.
Had "Taking The Long Way" not been a good album, it would never have gotten any awards.
Please. Ignorance is not becoming.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:42:00 AM  
Blogger TllGurl said...

By the way, when kd lang was ostracized by the country stations for, of all things, being a vegetarian and being public about her dislike of meat (!), she went more mainstream as well. AND she won Grammys with her album "Ingenue".
The best thing that happened with these artists was that they were forced to go beyond their original genres.
The Chicks were really good before they met Rick Rubin.
He brought them to a whole new level and a wider audience.
Good on 'em.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow. that article is quite a piece of work--did you pass it by limbaugh and o'lielly for their approval or did you just take their talking points and string it together for this "column"?

sounds like you're waayyyyy jealous of all these successes of "liberals." boohoo--you didn't get the pulitzer b/c the judges are liberal. it couldn't possibly be because your work sucks and has no journalistic (or other) value.

as for your point about liberal cartoons winning more pulitzers: hey, maybe it's because liberals are funnier! they don't have giant sticks up their asses and have better things to do than bash gays and proselytize. you'd probably feel better if you took yours out once in a while.

go back to your cave with the other ignorant lowlifes. hope "not ready to make nice" is playing on an infinite repeat loop.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Augusto said...

Wow, Cinnamon, it seems like you struck a nerve here by the number of angry comments! Way to go!

Talk about "big stick up their *sses"...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, awards don't mean much when everyone is getting one. Awards are like stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, if one spends enough then one will be rewarded. However, your assessment of all awards and accolades is hardly commendable.

Can you tell us who you would have win the Grammys, Emmys, Oscars or Nobel? You certainly took your time dismantling every award winner you found to be frightening to right wingers, thereby furthering the politicization. How about this; why don't you try noting something positive like all the wonderful right wingers who have won noteworthy awards? Why must the majority of your posts spew negativity?

I've given your prattlings an ounce of credibility because on occassion you actually say something halfway reasonable, but then you keep going.

But, Cinnamon, you've inspired me; if your ignorance can reward you with a column in a paper then anyone can be so rewarded. Perhaps you deserve a Pulitzer but only if the price is right.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservatives don't win very many awards because as a group, they tend to be "challenged creatively". Creativity is about questioning everything and whether it works or can be improved, or if a solution to the problem can be found. Being creative is not about turning back the clock. Often, very good and creative artists will go back instead of forward, for various reasons and will be severely criticized for that choice, not because it is not successful or right for that person, but because it's often the lazy way out intellectually and creatively. Conservativism is not about challenging anything other than those who are easily trampled on in the first place. That fits not only the artistic realm, but also the business world and the political world.
Conservatism is an intellectual fig leaf for selfish behavior.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! Why do liberals "react" by getting so angry?
I was truly astonished to find someone else in San Francisco who shares my views. Not only was I infuriated by another overly politicized Grammy awards ceremony, but I was also utterly disgusted by Natalie Maines’ lack of class during here acceptance speeches.
I especially love your point about how “the group has fashioned itself as the victim of a campaign of censorship, rather than acknowledging that consumers have simply been exercising their right to express themselves with their pocketbooks” – that’s the beauty of capitalism.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous ronanca said...

you actually contradict yourself here. you say the dixie chicks have no right to portray themselves as "the victim of a campaign of censorship", yet you mention the fact that some country music radio stations boycotted their a result of something they said from the their own their own paying fans!
if that's not censorship i'm not sure i understand the concept.
also you could very well be right about the fact that the awards they received are political in nature, but you offer no evidence and don't once mention the quality of their album nor the musical merits of their competitors. at least tell us those that you believe were most deserving of the awards. did you prefer the chili peppers album or was it all about gnarls barkley and timberlake for you this past year?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Album is undeniably teriffic and the fact that Natalie made one little comment, well that's just the cherry on top. The problem with self professed conservatives is, they have no objectivity. ergo, to credibility. which explains why they hate the science that created the cars they drive, the produce they consume, and the textiles they wear.

and as tllgurl said.
Ignorance is unbecoming.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your column is just more lame conservative garbage. I can't believe you get paid to write this stuff you're fed with a spoon. Sad.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Dan said...

I stopped watching the Grammys 30 years ago, when A Taste of Honey ("Boogie Oogie Oogie") beat out the other nominees-- Elvis Costello and The Cars-- for best new artist. Who cares about the Grammys?

I'm not concerned that the award shows are politicized (and, by the way, they've *always* been politicized--e.g., when "Gentlemen's Agreement" won Best Picture 60 years ago for its portrayal of anti-Semitism in America).

However, I *am* concerned that the news shows (e.g. Brit Hume and Fox) have become so politicized.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow talk about denial...give some credit where credit is due never ceases to amaze me that all accomplishments by people against you conservatives always happen to be accidents or part of some conspiracy

hmm let me call myself former liberal turned conny post 9-11 that will attract attention!

cons always writing sensationalist pieces because they have no factual material

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

isn't the song title "not ready to MAKE nice?" great research.
are you a s.f. native, cinnamon?
it is citizens like you that have ruined the city i was born and raised in. glad i left.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad to read that other readers found your article as ridiculous as I did. I think a major point that conservatives miss when bashing the "liberal elites" is that there's a reason that a correlation exists between educational achievement and liberalism. The reason is that a very large proportion of conservatives are troglodite morons. I know of what I speak. I was raised in the cultural backwater of far-northern California, where conservative thought is a given in most circles. These people care nothing for science, art (other than the Thomas Kincaid variety), or intellectual pursuits, and thus pay no attention to Pulitzers, Nobels, etc. So when you whine about the conservatives thanklessly battling in the scientific or cultural wilderness, don't forget one thing: more smart (or at least educated) people are liberal, and more rednecks and other such idiots are conservative. In the world of the cultural and intellectual elite, people like you will always be the minority. Thank god!!!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger mrheasfca said...

As opposed to responding to each right side view of the "left-leaning" rest of us, I would like to ask one simple question. How many times has an artist used the images or feelings of 9/11 simply to sell albums? If you advocate your view that Awards shows have become politicized, I would suggest you also advocate for a boycott of all of those 9/11 products, as well.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:34:00 PM  
Blogger Lew Waters said...

You can always count on the vitriol from leftists hiding behind a keyboard.

That the Dixie Chicks were given an award from their peers, is fairly meaningless. Yes, their fellow musicians voted for them, but what counts is fans. It is fans that buy the CDs and tickets for concerts.

BTW, boycotting or refusing to carry their music isn't censorship. It is someone else exercising their rights under the same freedoms the Dixie Chicks claim to have.

If "they Aren't Ready to Make Nice," who cares? They are just a commodity like all others and sooner or later, become a flash in the past. They come and they go.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is something about snotty little posts like Anonymous's (Ah! Which Anonymous?) that make me want to reply: "The correct way to say it is: 'It is citizens like you that have ruined the city in which I was born and in which I was raised in.'"

BTW, I'm glad you left, too!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to be "snotty," but one shouldn't correct the grammar of another post unless completely sure of one's own grammatical correctness. Did anyone else catch the extra "in" in that last post? If you did, you, like me, are a nerd with too much time on your hands!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:01:00 PM  
Blogger diurnalist said...

Thanks for the laugh!

There is nothing more satisfying than reading supercilious tripe from enraged leftists who cannot abide differing opinions and cannot counter them with reason.

Keep up the good work Cinnamon.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:03:00 PM  
Anonymous GM Roper said...

Ronanca: "you actually contradict yourself here. you say the dixie chicks have no right to portray themselves as "the victim of a campaign of censorship", yet you mention the fact that some country music radio stations boycotted their a result of something they said from the their own their own paying fans!
if that's not censorship i'm not sure i understand the concept.

Ronanca, you are absolutely correct; you do not understand the concept. Boycotting is not censorship, stations have a right to play what ever and whom ever they choose. If a station is a country/western station and changes to a classical music station, does that mean that country/western is being "gasp" censored? Of course not.

Censorship is by a government agency, a board of censors for example of some sort in an act to delete or prevent from being used. A station refusing to carry the chix is a commercial decision, a political decision but not censorship. You really should learn the difference.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marya, thanks for the correction. Any thoughts on my point?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:01:00 PM  
Blogger maryatexitzero said...

The reason is that a very large proportion of conservatives are troglodite morons. I know of what I speak.

If you 'know of what you speak' it would be a good idea to know of what you spell. Troglodyte

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anita said...

First of all, all awards are meaningless. I mean, really, come on! Marisa Tomei won an Oscar award for My Cousin Vinnie. Judy Dench won an Oscar for 10 minutes of work in a film a year after she was passed by for Mrs. Brown, one of her best roles to date. And Julia Roberts beating Ellen Burstyn?!?!?!? I won't even go there.

And really - Milli Vanilli?!?!?!

So, let's not get our panties in a twist because we don't agree with the Grammy committee. It's all meaningless! Especially, as Cinnamon states, "even though sales were much lower than their [the Dixie Chicks] earlier albums." This, of course, insinuates that the album with the most sales should win. OK, Britney, get outta rehab and back onstage - you've got quite a few Grammys coming your way!

However, despite the fact that I disagree with absolutely everything Cinnamon states in this article, I do think it's fabulous that the Chronicle gives transexuals (crossdressers? drag queens?) a forum for exercising his/her (their?) opinions. I had never read anything by Cinnamon, so after reading his/her ridiculous article about the egregious mistake made this year by the Grammy committee (even though she didn't even mention Milli Vanilli - gross oversight), I clicked the link to come to this website, checked out his/her picture, and then then name hit me...Cinnamon!!! Of course!!! I've been to enough drag shows in the Castro; I don't need to be hit over the head!

So, yes, I just think it's just wonderful that San Francisco is just such a great place for giving opportunities to people with gender issues (sorry if that's the wrong word). Kudos to both the Chronicle and Miss (Mr.?) Stillwell. I may not agree with his/her words (or the glasses, makeup, or hair), but DAMN IT, I will defend to the death his/her (its?) right to say them!!! Stillwell, the song is, "I'm not ready to make nice," not "I'm not ready to play nice." I'm not a journalist, but I did take Journalism 101 back at San Diego State and one thing I remember is that people will not take you seriously as a journalist if you do not get your facts right. Also, as Tess McGill once said (in Melanie Griffith's only Oscar nominated role), "If you want to be taken seriously, you must have serious hair." I think if you can get these two pointers under your belt, you're on your way to becoming a really great cross-dressing (cross-gendered? drag?) journalist!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus, Mary! I guess I am a troglodyte moron. I need to take more time before I hit "publish."

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Cinnamon, just wanted to let you know that another 'troglodyte moron' thinks your facts about the awards are totally accurate and completely true. (I wish they weren't - but alas, the Dixie Chicks have shown they are.)

By the way, could you also explain another set of facts to the irate commentators? I.e., the fact that many of them seem to think boycotting is the same as censorship. It's not. Boycotting is letting anyone say anything they want, however they want, on any record they want but choosing not to buy that record. Censorship is not letting them make the damn record at all.


(Oh, and by the way, post 12:22 - you spell 'troglodyte' with a 'y'. Look it up in Webster's. But I warn you, he's a moron too.)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anita said...

Oh, and one more thing. Please see the attached article. Again, I am no expert, and I do believe we have a right to buy only what we want to, but even John McCain, one of the GOP's little darlings, said at a Senate Commerce Committee meeting that radio's ban of the Dixie Chicks music was causing the "erosion of the First Amendment."

So, to all of you who think it's simply "boycotting" and not censorship...well, I am sure the line is just not that clear. The Republican controlled senate, at the time, felt that the subject was at least worth visiting.

Again -- Facts First!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the person who misspelled troglodyte. I suppose he without stupidity should cast the first epithet. HOWEVER, would one of the erudite conservatives out there care to comment on Cinnamon's opinions regarding Pulitzer and Nobel prizes? I think they are far more stupider than her opinions regarding the Dixie Chicks (I think Anita adroitly expresses why we shouldn't care about awards shows). By the way, Anita, you stooped pretty low in the latter half of your post, but it was hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:32:00 PM  
Anonymous ronanca said...

gm roper, with all due respect, the radio stations did not boycott the dixie chicks because of a commercial decision. at least not the ones we are talking about here. as soon as the bush comment became public, the stations went after them, i think there may have been cd burnings or some such nonsense too.
ms. stilwell even says in her article "as a result, (of the comment) some country music radio stations boycotted the Dixie Chicks' music"
now this in my mind is a form of censorship, you know, the part that talks about "suppressing unacceptable parts". (oxford american)
it happens all the time on radio with profanity etc. being censored, but boycotting based on free speech is also a form of censorship, no matter how valid you think that is.
of course these stations are entitled to do it, but you can't say, as the blogger does, the band has no right to claim to be "victims of a campaign of cenorship".

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Midna said...

We have a similar situation where political opinions trump merit here in San Francisco, where a talentless hack named "Cinnamon Stillwell" has a job writing a column for SFGate. Obviously feeling they needed to cozy up to conservative interests, they hired a conservative writer, without requiring talent, truthfulness, or even truthiness - just hackneyed right-wing smear machine talking points, and a ton of snark.

Too bad there's not an analogous outfit for judging writers like NARAS is for the recording arts to bring attention to quality writers, instead of those, like the previously mentioned Stillwell, who are limited in ability and intellectual honesty.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:16:00 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

I have been a fan of the Dixie Chicks long before the political controversy. They are superb and accomplished musicians which is a lot more than you can say for most of today’s groups. Their genre of music is not for everyone, but they got the recognition they well deserved. Most popular mega-groups today are light-weight musicians and often heavily rely on computers and mixing boards to make their sound. Much of what you say in your column about Hollywood and entertainers is true, but the Dixie Chicks run counter to all your points. The Dixie Chicks will be around for a long time. Nashville occasionally promotes some good artists, but their right-wing political slant is ignorant and nauseous.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:13:00 PM  
Anonymous GM Roper said...

Ronanca: "but you can't say, as the blogger does, the band has no right to claim to be "victims of a campaign of cenorship"."

Of course I can, they have not been forbidden to say anything they have wanted to say and they have found a market in the left leaning commercial area. But my refusal to buy, or to buy and burn their CD's or a stations refusal to play their music (even using Cinnamon's "boycott" - by the way, look up the term boycott, "A boycott is the act of abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest or as a means of coercion.") is not censorship. That is the wrong term. It is economic coercion perhaps, but censorship it is NOT By the way, the left wanted to "boycott" Apartheid South Africa and many want to "boycott" Israeli products, does that form, in your opinion "censorship" and if so, are you for it or against it?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it...when the Dixie Chicks are boycotted, consumers are "exercising their right to express themselves with their pocketbooks", but when they win an award, it's "less about music than about politics".

Ahh, I see. When you agree with something, it's the American way...but when you disagree, it's some political conspiracy.

Paranoid much?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:17:00 PM  
Blogger diurnalist said...

Anita said:

"I do think it's fabulous that the Chronicle gives transexuals (crossdressers? drag queens?) a forum for exercising his/her (their?) opinions."

So let me get this straight. You're insulting Cinnamon by calling her a drag queen/transexual? Otherwise why would you say it? Rather like cartooning Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima, another favorite of bigoted leftists.

Perhaps you need some sensitivity training.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:24:00 PM  
Anonymous JoLinda said...

I freqently read Cinnamon's blog but never realized (until Anita pointed out) that Cinnamon is gender-neutral. I question why someone would identify with the right-wing who has gender issues...especially in San Francisco. But, then again, there's Ms. Spears.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anita said...

Urinealist, I said I thought it was GREAT that the Chronicle provided that forum. Great is good (well, actually GREAT is great). But, it's a positive thing. Imagine how awful it would be if the Chronicle didn't provide that forum.

And since when is it an insult to call someone a drag queen or a transexual? (I am sorry, I don't know which wording he/she prefers)? I have friends who do drag, and I think they'd be hugely insulted. So, Urinalist, ultimately, I think YOU are the one insulting Cinnamon. And being insensitive. I think it's wonderful that people can be who they are here and personally, I don't know if San Francisco is the right place for someone with your sensibilities.

And I won't even TOUCH your comment about Aunt Jemima and Condoleeza Rice.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:59:00 PM  
Anonymous ronanca said...

gm roper...not sure why you're bringing israel and south africa into this! i'm sticking to the content of the article, which i am criticizing.
but i take your point and i will agree to disagree.
i'm not sure how the dixie chick could have been prevented from saying what she said. it was a live concert.
the censorship happened later. the stations refused to play the band's tracks based purely on the content of something that she said, with which they obviously disagreed. this, again, for me, is censorship. it is the suppressing, by economic coercion (your term), of an objectionable viewpoint.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt if there are any country music fans in San Francisco. Country music fans are patriotic and they support our president. San Francisco is full of nuts fruits and flakes, the kind of people that support the Chicksie Dicks. Natalie Maines is not only stupid, she's ugly.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:02:00 PM  
Anonymous JoLinda said...

As a black woman, I am totally offended by your comment Urinalysis about Aunt Jemima and Ms Rice. What has that got to do with someone being a drag queen or transexual? Are you saying that drag queens and trannies are not proud of who they are? You're too much. BTW, are you in Ohio?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinnamon sounds like a burlesque dancer or prostitutes name. Between that and your writing, how on earth is anyone supposed to take you seriously? THIS is the conservative voice for the Bay Area? Tragic.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a black transgendered person of
Jewish orgins who loves the Dixie Chicks I am totally offended by you all being totally offended. White males who vote republican do not deserve to live in the beautiful city of San Francisco except to jump off the nearest bridge. Long live the Babs!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinnamon; Your article about the Chicksie Dicks was right on. I never knew there were so many country music fans in San Francisco.
How come all these homosexuals are insulting you by calling you a transsexual?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article only proves how us open minded people who are so much more properly educated we are here in SF than all those red necked, bigoted, jew loving, global warming causing, war mongering republicans. Why those morons would never allow a peace loving, educated, leftist to write a blog in there wonderful city with threat of force. We in SF once again show how we respond to those with little brains with such compassion. Che Rules!!!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone have any naked pics of the
chicks? How Hot!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the peace loving leftist wanted to write an article in a conservative town, He'd have to write better and make more sense than the moron who wrote the previous comment.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How dare you call someone a moron! You must be a hateful, bigoted republican. Go to hell and get out of my beautiful city you uneducated low life.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure that you weren't born or educated in San Francisco. You couldn't cope with your surroundings, so you moved to my city and brought your perversion and warped politics. Why don't you get the hell out of my city!!!!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it a hate crime just for a republican to live in San Francisco? I mean they are all so bigoted and hateful. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they all just went away and moved to oklahoma or someplace awful like that.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your comments show alot of intolerance for people who disagree with your politics. You're a hypocrite. I was born, raised and educated in San francisco. Iv'e seen outsiders destroy this town.
P.S. I'm not a republican

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is wrong with Oklahoma? We like queers and all, why my brother rode on a greyhound bus with one once and said why he was kind of funny talking, he seemed sort of nice. Offered to lend him a hand even.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you even listen to their music and the other music they were up against? My guess is not.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as country albums go, Taking The Long Way really wasn't much of one. After their first two albums, they've veered away from their pop country sound; in their efforts to become overearnest, they've lost a lot of the things that made them fun. Has it made them better artists, perhaps, but certainly not better country artists. There are many ways you can define what constitutes a great country album - whether it's more along the lines of Alan Jackson's Like Red on A Rose or The Duhks' Migrations - but none of them would encompass this last Dixie Chicks album.

The Grammys have never been about rewarding best-selling artists. For years, their choices in most categories have been out-of-touch with reality and popular tastes. But now, because they pick the Dixie Chicks for every award possible, they're now relevant again?

Maybe, but not with regards to music.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Lisa said...

All of these comments about Cinnamon are ridiculous. If you knew her like I do, you would know that she is a loving, caring individual. Spewing your hatred towards her doesn't gain any of us anything. In the years we were together, she provided me nothing but love. She just has different policical values but that doesn't make her a bad person. I hope you all understand that.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lisa, was that before or after she had her sex change?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:36:00 PM  
Blogger Lew Waters said...

Lisa, you should know that the left can't stand in the arena of ideas, so they strike out and try to demean any that disagree with them.

To be verbally attacked by the left is almost a badge of honor as we know they do it because they can't refute what we say.

It also shows me their average I.Q. isn't quite as high as they think.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:39:00 PM  
Blogger AJ Lombard said...

Beyond being sick of people's first instincts being to shower the Dixie Chicks with negativity at a time when they have not been able to escape it. . .

We live in an age of saturation. Whatever it is, no matter its original merit, it can be destroyed by overkill. One need look no further than America's current impression of what "patriotism" means. It means forgetting about flag ettiquette, it means being so pro-America that your strippers have to wear hot pants with the American flag on them, sacriligious as that may be.

So, yeah, the award thing has gotten out of hand. As somebody who tries to balance cynicism with positivity, I prefer to look at a few things before I dismiss the value of an award:

First, many of the major awards that dictate the relevance of a given entertainment career have been around long before awards ceremonies became a commodity. So, if some flash-in-the-pan cable network decides "We need an awards show too," that doesn't detract from the value of what made 50+-year-old awards meaningful.

Awards are regarded as self-congratulatory, but somebody has to lose. What you are seeing is people with high levels of commercial talent competing against one enough for the highest honors in their craft. I find it disappointing that we're such a jaded society that we can't stand to see people getting honors for what they do unless we expressly approve of them for whatever superficial reason or another.

The Chicks did not win so many Grammys for political reasons. They won them because they have been Grammy winners for years, and with that in mind, the Recording Academy was likely very upset with having its finest representations slandered for four years. The message that was being sent was that no matter how fickle-minded American pop culture gets, the Recording Academy will never be distracted from reliable purveyors of fine art just because the tide of popularity has shifted.

If they had, you can bet your bottom dollar Stevie Wonder would not be winning a Grammy in 2007.

Today's entertainment world is constructed to invalidate the value of career musicians once they cease to make headlines. I personally am grateful for the handful of awards ceremonies I still do care about that honor talent over marketing and marketability.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A perfect example of the right's echo chamber: someone puts out a press release claiming that the Vicodin/Viagra Blimp has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Price, and now Ms. My Hubby Left Me spouts said assertion as actual fact.

I guess the right can be fed any random claim and they'll buy it hook, line and sinker.

It is factually incorrect to claim that Limbaugh has been nominated for a Nobel. One could say e.g. "allegedly Limbaugh has been nominated for a Nobel", but that wouldn't read so snipey now would it. Just like "allegedly Saddam was behind 9/11" or "allegedly the mission is accomplished."

Why isn't The Right better represented in the arts awards? See: Fox News, The Half Hour News Hour. Liberal bias, my ass. It's the artistic incompetency of The Right that keeps them away from the awards, not some "liberal conspiracy." If Borat won an Oscar (unlikely), I'm sure Murdoch & Co. would just quietly tuck it away since it's just a meaningless award by sycophants to sycophants.

No, wait, that's awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bremer, Powell, Tenet, etc. Never mind…

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Censorship is by a government agency, a board of censors for example of some sort in an act to delete or prevent from being used. A station refusing to carry the chix is a commercial decision, a political decision but not censorship. You really should learn the difference.

Oh puh-lease.


Main Entry: censorship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Yes, the Dixies Chicks were CENSORED by Clear Channel, Cox Radio et al.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course it's censorhip. What else could it be?

I'm a Clear Channel DJ. I've got my CDs lined up, I've made my playlist for the day, I've plugged it into my computer, ready to press play. My playlist looks like:

Garth Brooks: To Make You Feel My Love
Alabama: How Do You Fall in Love
Shania Twain: You're Still the One
Dixie Chicks: There's Your Trouble
Faith Hill: This Kiss

All this music is available to me since my station has bought copies of the CDs. (My station didn't exactly boycott the Dixie Chicks CD, if you get what I mean.)

I press play, the session begins. After Shania Twain, I press "Skip" because my bosses told me to. The next song you hear is by Faith Hill.

This is what happened with Dixie Chicks.

They were censored, plain and simple. They were suppressed as objectionable.

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. conservatives seem to patently obstruct change in this country and others, so when change takes place, and someone is rewarded, they cry foul. don't be so afraid--we won't take away all your money and guns.

Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:44:00 AM  
Blogger Lew Waters said...

They were suppressed as objectionable.

Call it what you will. No one twisted anyone's arms or forced them not to play their records or buy tickets to concerts.

They appeared on TV, magazine covers, all over, so they were hardly "suppressed."

I take it the left now will decide what music the American public will listen to? Is that your idea of the "fairness doctrine," forcing the American public to see, hear and listen to what they don't want?

Every day, the left takes us closer and closer to becoming the Union of Socialist States of America.

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not too worried about the left taking anyones guns. That would require the support of the military and law agencies who are filled with the same people that provide the vast amount of gun ownership. Even though they are all morons and ignorant they would probably fiqure out that they would be givening up their right to defend themselves from un reasonable government.

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't object to the word "censored" being used to describe what happened to the Dixie Chicks, but that sort of censorship does not violate the Second Amendment right to freedom of speech, as some seem to believe. The U.S. government did not censor the Dixie Chicks.

Radio stations have probably censored Michael Jackson and George Michael along with Natalie Maines. All three behaved in a way that disgusted their audiences. After this sort of thing occurs, the media have absolutely no obligation to try to repair such self-inflicted career damage by forcing the tainted artist on an unreceptive public. Natalie Maines deliberately offended her conservative fan base, and they responded by telling country music stations to stop playing her music, and at least some radio stations complied to avoid losing audience.

Not a freedom of speech infringement in sight.

Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:46:00 PM  
Anonymous The Watchdog said...

I agree 100% with Ms. Stillwell's observations. But, then, I'm not intimidated by the truth.

Friday, February 23, 2007 8:51:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home