This article included a photo of a protester waving a "Shut Up Dixie Twits" sign next to an American flag. You get 100 points for jingoism, minus several thousand for comprehension - but you'd have to look past several paragraphs to understand that. How many protesters were there? Twenty-five. Golly. How many paying fans showed up? More than 18,000. So why did this article attempt to portray local protesters as revitalizing the stomping of the Dixie Chicks?
Let's talk record sales. The Dixie Chicks' current album is now in second place on the Billboard country chart, up from third last week; it's No. 23 (up from 33) last week on the overall Billboard album charts. The Chicks didn't have to get "back on" the charts - they never left. While the Chicks' security has been threatened by rabid ex- or non-fans, the flap clearly hasn't hurt record sales. Obviously their fan base has increased since the "controversial" comment made by Natalie Maines regarding George W. Bush.
Further research shows that WQYK, the concert's sponsor, is owned by Infinity Broadcasting. But WFLZ, which organized this microscopic protest, is a Clear Channel station - the 800-pound media gorilla that has organized so-called "Rally for the Troops" gatherings meant as a slap at anyone questioning the Bush administration's motives for invading Iraq. Why no mention of station ownership, when the mere size of Clear Channel plus its political leanings constitute a far bigger controversy?
The next time the St. Petersburg Times is accused of being too liberal, this article could provide some defense. Otherwise it was a waste of space that insults readers' intelligence. There's a much bigger story here, and it doesn't involve a teacup full of protesters.
-- V.L. Dorrough, Tampa
Try more than name-calling
Re: Dixie Chicks.
Oh my, the priorities of some folks really puzzle me. If one decides to go downtown to hold a sign that takes issue with the scheduled entertainment, that is surely your right. But what is your issue? One can only guess, but there are a few: You're against freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? You feel everyone should believe everything they're told by the government without question? You really don't like pop country music?
I don't know, but it seems to me that if you're going to take the time, you would prefer to educate people on your own point of view rather than turning the streets into a name-calling session reminiscent of the fifth grade.
I truly hope that those with so much free time available also put it to more beneficial use, like volunteering for a charity, or being a Big Brother or Sister to needy kids.
-- Anthony J. Ferraro, Tampa
The people have spoken
Re: Chicks take licks from protesters.
Well, it's pretty bad when an "organized" protest by a major radio station only garners 25 protesters. Thank God the people have spoken (18,000 to 25), and finally said, "America is still a democracy, where free speech is encouraged and enjoyed, and the Dixie Chicks are perfect examples of the great citizens in this country."
If you don't like what the Dixie Chicks said, don't buy their music. But for an institution like a radio station to take a formal and aggressive stand against the Chicks, is a real shame and harks back to the McCarthy era, when major film studios black-listed actors. That's what happens in countries like Iraq. It shouldn't happen here.
-- Sheree Wood, Tampa
An exaggerated threat
About a month after the liberation of Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and I doubt they ever will be. Despite the Bush administration's swagger over an impressive military victory, this must be a point of growing embarrassment for the government. After all, the rationale and justification for the Iraq war was to remove the clear and present danger to the United States and the world presented by Saddam Hussein, even though no credible link has ever been established between the Hussein regime and al-Qaida. In hindsight now, it is almost inconceivable that Hussein actually had WMDs but chose not to use them to defend his regime or to strike a serious departing blow to the coalition forces.
Furthermore, if WMDs are never found in Iraq, it will essentially confirm what many have suspected all along: Hussein was nothing more than a tin pot dictator of a Third World country that presented no real threat to anyone but his weaker Arab neighbors.
I must admit, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and I am hopeful that we will help establish a more progressive regime and improve the lives of millions of Iraqis. Nonetheless, I cannot help feeling that to justify the war the Bush administration grossly overstated to the American public the level of threat presented by the Hussein regime.
I am not so cynical to believe that the primary motive for the war was to control Iraqi oil reserves. However, it would be foolish to accept that this was not part of the calculation. I believe the Bush administration's real motive in Iraq is to establish a strategic political and military foothold in the Middle East from which the United States can keep a close eye on Iran and sow the seeds of democracy elsewhere in the stark Arab landscape. From there, a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems like a real possibility. This is a defensible, and even noble, goal that should have been stated clearly and honestly. Unfortunately, the administration decided that deception was an easier sell.
-- Douglas E. Robison, St. Petersburg
Press on with war against terrorism
The war on Iraq is almost over; however, the war on Islamic terrorism is not. We find ourselves in a war that has many new elements.
The response to eradicate the terrorism cells will require common sacrifice and a full range of economic consequences. During wartime our previous generations overcame such obstacles, and so shall we. We should never question the cost of war. Increasing numbers of Americans and world skeptics are in denial and fail to recognize that eradicating global terrorism plays a vital role in stabilizing peace and freedom for all Americans.
History has clearly shown us that war can ultimately bring peace. In keeping this in perspective, let's remember the following: During World War II the Americans, alongside their allies, generated a military victory that left a lasting impression on the world. They returned home from the war and became deeply involved in the public arena. Liberating the grateful was a huge success. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, it was the soldier who led the way to victory. Our soldiers also took the task of rebuilding. America does not conquer; we liberate.
Without hesitation, President Bush will carry out an effective plan to seek out and destroy terrorism networks. This will include those who provide financial support, training and harboring of the terrorist networks. Our commander in chief is firmly committed to strike fear into all the terrorist bases that are imbedded in the Middle East and parts of Europe.
It is my contention that eliminating the masterminds of global terrorism cells is just as important as confiscating weapons of mass destruction. We should never forget that our freedom was not given to us on a silver platter. May God bless America's freedom!
-- Joan Atkins, Palm Harbor
Puzzled by U.S. policies
Questions of an American:
Why are some Americans bashing free speech in the name of patriotism?
Why do some Americans believe that military victory in Iraq serves as proof that we were right for being there?
If Iraq was such a threat to the United States, why were the Iraqis so handily defeated?
Why do some Americans "buy" the switch in enemies from Osama bin Laden to Iraq? Then the changing justifications from eliminating "weapons of mass destruction," to eliminating Saddam Hussein to "freeing Iraq"? And by the way, where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Why do some Americans believe that you must support the president whatever he decides or does? Isn't that the kind of loyalty expected by Hussein and other dictators?
How do Christian Americans who support the war get past "thou shalt not kill?"
How do Catholic Americans who support the war choose George W. Bush's stand over the pope's?
Why do some Americans believe that speaking out against the war threatens our troops? Do they actually think the protests would modify the fervor of Iraqis defending their own lives?
Why do some Americans believe that protesting the war is the same as nonsupport of the troops? Doesn't the dream of stopping bloodshed support the troops?
What would Americans say if another country used the same justification for pre-emptive war - and against the U.N. majority?
These are questions that puzzle and haunt me.
-- Amy A. Gordon, Ellenton
Presidential self-promotion
Do we taxpayers dare guess what the costs were for President Bush to fly from Washington to San Diego, board an S-3B Viking Navy jet, slow down the USS Abraham Lincoln so that it delayed the sailors' reunions with loved ones, to give a speech that tells very little new information? Morale boost for the sailors? Coming home as soon as possible is the best morale builder there is.
Newspapers and television have all but guaranteed we'll be seeing images of this trip again when it's time for re-election, too. Self-promotion comes immediately to mind, and we paid for his trip!
-- Betsy Pheil, St. Petersburg
Will he remember the veterans?
President Bush wraps the military around himself these days, delays an aircraft carrier from returning from deployment so that he can make a speech and does photo-ops in a uniform. I truly wonder if he will be so thankful for a military when veterans' benefits are again placed in the budget, when thousands of veterans are denied benefits that other government employees receive, when promises made to veterans by recruiters are ignored.
Where is our president when it is time to stand up for those who fought our previous wars? Unfortunately our president has never experienced the hardships and separations of serving in the military nor has any of his Cabinet. Let us hope that the military veterans of this era are treated better than those of previous wars who are ignored by the present administration.
-- Roger Meissner, Sun City Center
How history turns
It's curious how history turns. I turned on the TV the other night and while channel-surfing came across live coverage on Fox of the landing of the Soyuz, which, thank God, came down safely. The show then went to a report of the rebuilding of civilization in Iraq, in which it was reported that three nations would be involved in governing this massive project: America, England and Poland.
Poland, which was a victim of Hitler's Nazi regime and a slave under Communist Russia, is now part of an international triumvirate which will rebuild the newly freed Iraq. This is, in a word, amazing.
-- Steve Petruff, Palm Harbor
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
