|
Subject: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:28 AM In the wake of Michelle Shocked's now famous hate filled rant at a San Francisco concert on Sunday, I've published an open letter to her on my blog, The Song and the Sigh. You can read the letter here. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Eddie1 Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:45 AM Well said Dan. Eddie |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Uncle Tone Date: 19 Mar 13 - 06:20 AM Sad. MS is obviously going through some sort of crisis. Tone |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 06:56 AM But if she has made a conscious decision that she is going to use the stage to espouse beliefs that are hateful and damage groups of people, she probably should not be charging money for a concert. If she wants to sit on a panel at a conference or go to a religious festival, I think in that context she should say whatever she wants. But I do think that doing it as a bait-and-switch at a concert performance is really unfair and not showing respect to people. Hmm. Interesting in the light of the recent conversation here about a certain folk singer using his gigs to propagate his anti-abortion views. I suppose he is more subtle. Or less honest...sheesh, let me just have a think... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: bobad Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:02 AM "....the tone of the conversation became extremely religious and she began talking about the two things most important to her being Jesus Christ and freedom. Then she talked about how she had just come from a prayer meeting the night before, and the people in her prayer meeting were really worried because these are the end times, and they're the end times because Prop. 8 is going to lead to ministers marrying gay people with a rifle to the head." That about says it all - another mind taken over. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:13 AM Well Steve, if the folk singer to whom you refer, is the one I think you mean. Then I believe there is at least one venue, that refused to book them, and there may be others. Let's face it, if people who advertise themdelves as entertainers and musicians, start to use their entertainer's platform as a political one, then I for one want my money back. WHETHER I AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT! |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Lavengro Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:14 AM Hi Dan, I hadn't heard about this outburst until I looked at your link and was more than a little suprised by MS's comments, and they are not views that I personally share. It must be a bit of a body blow for her fans? Imagine Steve Earle giving a talk on the benefits of the Capitalist system from the stage of one of his gigs! However, speaking as a left wing type person, I am disturbed by the fact that a gay man decides he doesn't like what he is hearing, and so uses his position to censor what is being said. To me there seems to be a bit of a glut of this type of action by the left at the moment and it disturbs me. Why? Because someone who claims to be a liberal, and then won't allow for other opinions to be held and voiced is (IMO) the polar opposite of liberal. Of course I don't have the full transcript of what MS said, so it may be that she stepped over the line into incitement to hatred? In which case the effect of that was already "self policed" in that people were voting with their feet. However my general point stands. It's okay to disagree, it's not okay to cut people off at the knees when you disagree with them. Great blog by the way, I will be back. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: bobad Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:21 AM There IS a difference between free speech and hate speech. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:01 AM I think there's a wider issue surrounding people who achieve a public platform for quite legitimate purposes who then choose to spout about matters way beyond their purview. I mean, the sort of thing that I spout about down the pub or when I'm shouting back at the telly, only they are doing it from a platform they obtained by means unrelated to the subject their pontificating. The Archbishop of Canterbury sounding off about banks (or, indeed, all those bishops in the Lords) or Prince Big-Ears burbling on about architecture, sort of thing. "Film stars" and "pop stars" seem particularly prone to appointing themselves gurus of this, that or the other, with the connivance of the media, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: bobad Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:08 AM Janis Ian comments on Shocked's diatribe: "Well, that's too bad. As a performer with 45 years of shows behind me, I've had walk-outs when I sang about interracial couples, and when I sang about AIDS, and walkouts more recently when I sang about gay marriage. I am the first to argue that I have a right to sing and speak about those things on stage, just as the audience has the right to walk out, object to the management, and ask for their money back if they feel deceived. Our country is in large part founded on the concept of free speech - the right to speak your mind politically and socially. But there is a huge difference between "Free speech" and "Hate speech." It is sad when a talented person chooses to use that talent in the service of their own misplaced rage, and their disappointment in their own life. I often wonder if people like this die and meet God, who will smack them upside the head and say "Did I really LOOK like I needed your help?!" And isn't it odd to see someone who was so woman-identified turn a 360 degree like this? Then again, 'Hell hath no fury...'" Janis Ian |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:34 AM I always knew I liked Janis. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Blandiver Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:52 AM There IS a difference between free speech and hate speech. Too right. Free speech engenders freedom - hate speech quite the opposite. One of the supreme ethical ironies of our time. If it were up to me I'd mute the fascists, racists & homophobes period in the name of a greater freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bat Goddess Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:57 AM I've pretty much ignored Michelle Shocked since a May 1996 concert at The Music Hall in Portsmouth, NH. She spent most of the concert complaining about the sound system (which had been praised by Mel Torme not long before) and the size of The Music Hall. Then she broke off mid-song ("Graffiti Limbo"), ranted against the audience for their "lack of diversity" and ran off stage to her tour bus. She said she was disappointed in her audience. Well, the audience was left with a pretty sour taste in its collective mouth about HER. It was HIGHLY unprofessional. But considering her recent "performance", I'd say she's been confused about herself for a long long time. Well written open letter, Dan. Linn |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Paddy Dzell Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:58 AM "There is a difference between free speech and hate speech" Nope.Free speech isn't free speech if it is in any way curtailed. This term "hate speech" simply means something that you don't agree with, or that most people don't agree with.And that's irrelevant to the concept of free speech. Free speech means say what you like - but be prepared to argue your point and take the consequences. We do not have freedom of speech, sadly - what we are allowed to say IS limited by what others think about it...and who gave anybody else the right to dictate what I can say? How long before that applies to freedom of thought also? Paddy |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Blandiver Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:02 AM If your speech is directed to the hatred of others then I think it's only fair freedom for any reasonable person to tell you to put a sock in it. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:06 AM I looked at the list of bookings she'd had, they were small venues. At 51, it can't have seemed like there was much of a future for her. Now, however, she's earned herself a place on the "very lucrative Christian Music" circuit, which was pretty much created by "born-again" pop stars. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:11 AM Artists have the right to speak their opinions - I was onstage on Saturday night singing "Everything Possible" and talking in favor of marriage equality. A few people in the audience didn't like it. But nobody walked because I did it in a way that was respectful and didn't put anybody down. What Michelle did wasn't express her personal views; it was insult her audience and speak hatred - her word. As Janis says, it's too bad. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:26 AM Steve ~~ I think there is a difference between bishops using their position to make political points which are not faith-related, and Prince Charles giving his opinion [which he never claims to authoritative, or more than just a personal opinion] on certain trends in modern public architecture [note that 'public'] which he finds uncongenial - as do many people for whom he is thus a spokesman. It is not as if he had, or claimed, any authority to forbid it; but he does seem to me to have been effective in modifying the more 'brutalist' trends which many people regretted seeing take over so much of previously attractive cityscapes. "Nope.Free speech isn't free speech if it is in any way curtailed." One of those questionable 'progressive' shibboleths. Is it OK to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre? Or what do you think, Paddy Dzell, of the provisions against prejudiced statements aimed at stirring up racial hatreds in the various Race Relations Acts; whose invariable support by those in general most opposed to any sort of censorship in any other context has always struck me as one of the great paradoxes... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:27 AM I've never heard of this person |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Acorn4 Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM Seems like a bit of a John Lennon moment - only in reverse! |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: PHJim Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM GUEST,Lavengro wrote: "However, speaking as a left wing type person, I am disturbed by the fact that a gay man decides he doesn't like what he is hearing, and so uses his position to censor what is being said. To me there seems to be a bit of a glut of this type of action by the left at the moment and it disturbs me. Why? Because someone who claims to be a liberal, and then won't allow for other opinions to be held and voiced is (IMO) the polar opposite of liberal." Dan Schatz didn't censor Michelle Shocked. No one did. Neither he nor anyone else on this thread censored her. I haven't even seen anyone call for censorship. Disagreeing with someone else's opinions or statements is not censorship. Saying that someone should not have made the statements is not preventing their free speech. Walking out on a performance that you don't want to hear isn't censorship. Refusing to hire someone or provide them with a vehicle to express opinions with which you do not agree is not denying them free speech. Mr. Schatz, Ms. Shocked's audiences, owners of venues and radio stations and you and I have every right to disagree with Ms. Shocked's opinions and to express our disagreement. That's free speech. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:43 AM Quite astonishing and outrageous! Of course, I don't necessarily believe that free speech or referenced to personal beliefs, politics etc should be the sole preogative of "the left" or "the politically correct" but there is a difference when it comes to "hate filled speeches" and such similar propoganda. I don't really follow her music these days but really enjoyed her early stuff. It was of the time and I don't intend to chuck out all her old albums although I am unlikely to go and see her in concert now. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Elmore Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM Saw her do a set once on a "Woodsongs" telecast. Much of the set had a religious undertone, but she sure as hell could sing. I'm afraid that for some people organized religion may be hazardous to their career, and their mental health. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Paddy Dzell Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:55 AM Hi M - of course it would potentially be a foolish/wrong thing to shout fire in a crowded theatre - especially if there were no fire! But my point is that one should have the right to so shout - and then be exonerated or berated for it according to your particular point of view...and its consequences. I don't agree with the provisions in the Acts you refer to either. People have the right to say and think what they like, even if I don't like it. If I find what you say offensive, I'll say so. Otherwise it's all hypocisy - For example many folks wanted to ban the BNP from being allowed to put their views across because they, the BNP, are in their view fascists. Which is exactly what they accuse fascists of! You either have freedom of speech or you don't... not some free speech (like being a little bit pregnant). And if you decide to sacrifice some freedoms of speech for political/moral/whatever reasons fair enoug - but the problems multiply. For example, who decides what is "acceptable" speech or , as Janis Ian put it "hate speech"? Quis custodes custodiet? If one believes in the right to freedom of speech (and don't forget I also referred to its obvious extrapolation, freedom of thought) then that means everyone has the right to say whatever - no matter how abhorrent you think it. And if you don't want that - then you legislate to prevent it. Welcome therefore to the world we live in. But if we do legislate - and we have - , then we don't have free speech and so we shouldn't pretend or claim that we do. All I'm arguing for really is a bit of intellectual honesty! |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Blandiver Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:08 AM Freedom of speech is akin to freedom per se. Are we only truly free if we can go forth and violate the sanctity of another's freedom & their right to happiness? Of course, we are not. Same then with speech. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Elmore Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:09 AM You can say, write or sing what you want, but you better be prepared to pay the price, as a lot of people found out during the McCarthy era. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:11 AM "Free speech" has always been recognised as a relative term, of course. In some places it is, or has been, freer than in others. But has there ever been a society in which it was totally free? Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me. But then, of course, there are anarchists ~~ or those claiming to be. But how they would fare in a community with no laws and restrictions is, as ever, a worthwhile speculation... So with absolute 'free speech' with no sort of relativism involved. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:16 AM "Dan Schatz didn't censor Michelle Shocked. No one did" .,. PHJ, I don't think anyone suggested that Dan did, or intended to. The accusation was surely made about the concert organiser who interrupted to put a stop to it -- ...the operator of Yoshi's interrupted Shocked's performance to announce that, as a gay man, he could not allow the show to continue and she would have to leave the stage... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:53 AM Actually, Paddy, you're wrong. There is a legal distinction between free speech and hate speech, neither of which have much to do with this, actually. In point of fact, Michelle Shocked was performing in a club(which is private property), and the owners (who, incidentally, paid her) can ask her to leave at any time for any (or no) reason. That doesn't happen very often, of course, because in a club, everyone works pretty hard to make sure that the patrons have a good time. The bottom line is that the folks in this club paid money to enjoy themselves, and the performer stood up and said some things that were pretty much calculated to make them upset. And so it goes... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:57 AM Well, Michael, that self-appointed arbiter of architecture, Prince Big-Ears, gets to come on telly and pontificate to millions about it - because he's the Queen's lad. Not because he's an eminent architect or historian or anything. There are blokes down my pub who understand architecture a damn sight more than he likely does, yet they'll never get on the telly to tell us what theythink! Free speech uncurtailed is all fine and dandy, but millions of people get their free speech curtailed because they are stupid enough not to famous by dint of accident of birth, no more, and thereby have easy access to mass media. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:02 AM A line in the above posts realy caught my eye - Let's face it, if people who advertise themdelves as entertainers and musicians, start to use their entertainer's platform as a political one, then I for one want my money back. Now, fair enough, this is a perfectly valid view that should be metered out with an equal hand. Unfortunately, and I am not including the writer of the line in this because I do not know him or her, there are a huge number of people who will only apply this to those who oppose their own views. Folk music has always supported the views of the left. I cannot think of a folk club I have attended or a concert I have seen that does not include some element of a politically left wing view. Now, that suits me as it is closer to my own views than others, but we should all understand it is not the only view. If we all wanted our money back if there was any political comment where would Ewan MacColl, Peggy Seegar, Woody Guthrie, Billy Bragg, Show of Hands, John Tamms and many others be? If not in the poor-house they would certainly not be as comfortable :-( Although I do not support Ms Shocked views, I would certainly support her right to voice them in any way she chooses. And likewise with Vin Garbutt, who, for some reason, some people seem afraid to name. To the person who would not book Vin because of his views on abortion, you are missing a damn good for no good reason. Whether you hold his views or not, he is not trying to force anyone to do anything. Just to make his views known. Pretty much like Ms Shocked seems to have done. Has anyone has ever walked out of a concert because the performer supports gay marriage? Did it make the news if they did? How many times, at folk clubs or concerts, have you heard a plea to overthrow the government or destroy capitalism? Have you ever boo'd the artist or walked out if you have? If there is one thing that puts me off folk music it is the one-sided belief that we should all be anti-establishment, left-wing, downtrodden, working-class activists. We are not and this attitude is just as biggoted as anything reported above. But it will not put me off listening or supporting folk music because I still love it for itself. Off the soapbox now :-) Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Wesley S Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:11 AM A few passages after the bible calls homosexuality an abomination - it pretty much says the same thing about tattoos. I wonder if Ms Shocked plans to have hers removed? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: katlaughing Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:18 AM thanks, Dan.. i had not heard of this. it certainly is sad and thought provoking. well-wrtten, too. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Paddy Dzell Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:22 AM |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:23 AM Well, Dave, there is certainly a debate to be had about whether we are biased against free speech that goes against our politics. A bit of head-scratching and conscience-mining there would no doubt be apt. In that other thread in which Vin Garbutt and his anti-abortion preachifying was discussed, I did mention that there are one or two other folk singers whose political side I'm definitely on but whose gigs I've avoided because of the unsubtle and anti-artistic manner in which they choose to deliver their message. I tried to illustrate what I think is a good way of making your point via the poetry of song lyrics using a passage from a Woody Guthrie song. And I said poetry, not base appeals to sentiment or emotion. When I go to a gig I want to see the artist in full flow on good form. In no way does that disallow them from putting across their points, but they would be well advised to do it artistically without jabbing their audience in the eyes. That's what we pay good money for, not to hear polemics and ranting. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Uncle Tone Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:31 AM "Let's face it, if people who advertise themselves as entertainers and musicians, start to use their entertainer's platform as a political one, then I for one want my money back." That rules out Woody then. tone |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 13 - 11:38 AM I agree with Dave The Gnome to extent. There does seem to be double standards as to which opinions are acceptable to be voiced at a gig or held by folkies. Those "of the left" appear to be acceptable and hate filled rants against prominent Tories including Margaret Thatcher generally go by unchallenged. I am certainly not a supporter of her views and it is very likely that I wouldn't get along with her very well on a personal basis. however, I don't see the need for such venomous attacks. It is quite legitimate for all people to discuss and even promote their views as long as they don't "cross the line". That applies to all sides of the political spectrum and beyond. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Blandiver Date: 19 Mar 13 - 12:00 PM But then, of course, there are anarchists ~~ or those claiming to be. But how they would fare in a community with no laws and restrictions is, as ever, a worthwhile speculation. If I may quote Mikhail Bakunin on this very issue: 'I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation.' This is the fundamental tenet of Anarchism; it's a high ideal for sure, but essentially an optimistic one. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 19 Mar 13 - 12:20 PM I have to admit I find it incredibly ironic to hear folkies talking about how artists shouldn't promote their political views onstage. I'm thinking that that leaves out Utah Phillips, Pete Seeger, Jean Ritchie, Tom Paxton, Woody Guthrie, Joan Baez, Janis Ian.... Let's be careful about double standards. Otherwise some of us will never work again. At the same time, I never heard these artists attack whole groups of people. Sure, I've heard them complain vociferously about Republican policies, and maybe I've even heard some of them call a President or two some names - but not like this. Not "God hates you." So while I'll defend to my last drop of life Michelle Shocked's right to say what she did, I maintain that it's not the same as these other artists. She crossed a line. She may have also created a dangerous situation, and I'm not sure how I feel about the venue shutting her down in the middle of the show. That may have been the safest thing to do. Offering folks their money back was definitely the right thing to do. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Lavengro Date: 19 Mar 13 - 01:16 PM @bobad I know. Hence me saying: "Of course I don't have the full transcript of what MS said, so it may be that she stepped over the line into incitement to hatred?" If "stepping over the line" means something to you other than going too far or exceeding the bounds, I apologise. To me it is a commonly understood turn of phrase? @PHJim PHJim said: "Dan Schatz didn't censor Michelle Shocked. No one did. Neither he nor anyone else on this thread censored her. I haven't even seen anyone call for censorship." No, I know, and nowhere did I suggest that was the case. But MtheGM has already pointed that out. Personally I come from one of the only two ethnic groups that were murdered purely on the grounds of their ethnicity during the holocaust, so I have a bit of an issue with hate based intolerance. I have no time for people who allocate their energies to hating others on the grounds of their race, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, age etc. I also spend no small amount of time volunteering in organizations that promote tolerance. I am sorry to waste space on here talking about myself rather than the topic, but I feel that there has been (by some) a misunderstanding of my post. Lavengro |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Mar 13 - 01:30 PM The folk revival was pretty closely tied to "left" political movements, from the labor movement to civil rights, and the Vietnam war. A lot of times,union halls, churches and coffeehouses that were used for organizing were also used for concerts. One of the reasons that folk music never became a lasting part of popular music probably had to do with the strong political orientation of many of the performers. The point being that, politically, you knew what you were going to get when you paid for your ticket. Michelle Shocked, however, has cultivated a "gay" audience and basically, told them off. It was obviously deliberate and planned. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 13 - 01:48 PM Yes, Steve: I know that HRH has the luck to find himself in a position where he can promulgate his views. But I can't see anything untoward or culpable in his doing so. So ~~ he's lucky & your friends in the pub who 'know as much on the subject as he does' aren't. Nothing to stop them trying to make a political or journalistic career, say, so they can. If they would rather do something else, that's up to them. I was lucky enough [still am, part-time] to become a theatre, folk, & book critic, to have an outlet for my views. So I expressed them. Why not? Prince Charles didn't have to work so hard to establish himself in a position where he had outlets for his views: but, I repeat, why should that disqualify him from expressing them, or make them unworthy of attention? It is the quality of the views that matter, not the means by which the expresser obtained the platform to express them. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jack Campin Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:08 PM So. Two suggested explanations: I'm afraid that for some people organized religion may be hazardous to their career, and their mental health. or she's earned herself a place on the "very lucrative Christian Music" circuit, which was pretty much created by "born-again" pop stars. It says something about this kind of religion that the only explanations we can think of for its appeal are madness and greed. Which was Dylan in his Christian period? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: pdq Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:18 PM From a biography of Karen Michelle Johnston... "After repeated attempts at running away, she left for good when she was 16 years old. Finishing High School in East Texas, and after four semesters at Junior Colleges in Jacksonville and Dallas, she headed for Austin, where, with single-minded determination, she put herself through the University of Texas, receiving a Bachelor's Degree in Oral Interpretation of Literature in 1983. After graduating, she hitched her way to the West Coast, where she wound up playing guitar and mandolin in a street band. At one point she suffered a bad trip on LSD, and ended up high for three days. Wandering around in a paranoid daze, the police attempted to stop her for questioning. She panicked and ran. After a harried chase, she was taken to a mental hospital and subdued with Thorazine. A few days later her father arrived and took her home to Dallas. From there she headed to Austin, where an old friend let her sleep in his bookstore. The shop hosted a songwriter's group, and Michelle began to participate. During her stay she experienced an LSD flashback, and, unaware of what was happening, confused the hallucinations with a spiritual vision in which she envisioned herself as a warrior in the midst of battle. Concerned friends called her father, but this time he wasn't interested in helping out. After a short stay with her mother, it was decided she would be committed to the psychiatric ward of Dallas' Baylor Hospital; the same hospital she was born in. The decision would result in a mother/daughter estrangement that would take decades to heal. Throughout the stay she was heavily medicated, at times unable to understand where she was or why she was even there. Under the guise of occupational therapy, patients were instructed in such basic tasks as weaving yarn around Popsicle sticks and gluing beads on paper. At a hearing to determine whether she should remain hospitalized long term, doctors diagnosed her as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. When a psychiatrist commented that she was 'under the influence of literature,' she readily agreed with the assessment. 'I had just recently graduated from University, where my major was Oral Interpretation of Literature.' The comment smacked of anti-intellectualism; she was reading the classics, not escapist or fantasy-based stories. A month into the stay, her mother's hospital insurance coverage ran out; 'so I was 'cured,' and they released me.'" |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: katlaughing Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:40 PM lavengro, no need to apologise...it's how we get to know one another. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:40 PM So, Michael, what about those bishops in the Lords who, by dint of their membership of the God Squad, get to influence the way the country is run? And please note that I didn't say we should shut Big Ears up. Nah, let him get on with it. More fool him and the more of us who know he's a fool. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:50 PM Well, yes. A real winner, even back then. For those that don't know, occupational therapy is not about job training, it's about rehabilitating fine motor skills, which apparently worked, because was able to play the guitar. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:27 PM "I didn't say we should shut Big Ears up"--- "...matters way beyond their purview... Prince Big-Ears burbling on about architecture, sort of thing..." .,,.,. I can't see tho, Steve, that you have said anything to disqualify him from commenting. I mean, why "burbling"; you might agree or otherwise with the views he expresses, but that belittling 'burbling' is a desperately & grossly tendentiously pejorative question-beg on your part, in no way invalidating what he says, but somehow implying that he has, for reasons you sedulously avoid sharing with us, not intelligence equivalent to that of the egregiously brilliant Steve Shaw to appreciate the points at issue. You make no concession to the fact that architecture, uniquely among the arts, affects everyone because, unlike all the others, being exposed to its manifestations is not voluntary, or needing to be sought by the participant, but unavoidably visible to all. Which means that anyone has a right to comment on its effect, and those fortunate enough to have a public platform to do so should be judged by what they say, not by how they contrived to mount that platform in the first place. You may think Prince Charles a fool, though, I reiterate, you have produced not a shred of a reason for such an opinion ~~ I wonder what would be his view of your capacities and intelligence? He happens, among all else, to hold an Upper Second degree from Cambridge - and don't try to be smartarse about that: Cambridge examiners don't just give II.1s away to anyone: his brother Edward came nowhere near getting so good a result. & what may be your qualifications, just out of interest, that you appear to think give you the right to speak so slightingly of his capacities and opinions? I have already expressed my agreement with you about bishops, who are quite a different case, so why drag them into it again? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bat Goddess Date: 19 Mar 13 - 04:01 PM The point being that, politically, you knew what you were going to get when you paid for your ticket. Michelle Shocked, however, has cultivated a "gay" audience and basically, told them off. It was obviously deliberate and planned. I don't think it was a violation of free speech to stop the concert. Her audience paid money to see ENTERTAINMENT, to hear her sing. They didn't come to be insulted, railed at, and told God probably hates them. And she was being PAID to entertain. This is VERY different from going to see a performer whose political or social views you know -- whether you agree with them or not -- but who is going to give the audience their money's worth. Even if you don't agree with the words of a song, you can enjoy the performance. Michelle Shocked has a history (see my comment about the 1996 performance) of being rude to her audience and unprofessional, including stopping the performance itself in the middle of a song. I agree with Dan that she is obviously not comfortable with herself and is probably even more in conflict with herself than with anyone else. My major objection isn't with what she said (though I very much disagree with it) but that she was unprofessional and treats her audience very badly. Linn |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 13 - 05:44 PM Don't know where I read this - might even have been on another thread? Disagreement is acceptable Disagreeable is not! Eddie |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Johnny J Date: 19 Mar 13 - 06:20 PM MtheGM says "You may think Prince Charles a fool...........He happens, among all else, to hold an Upper Second degree from Cambridge" Personally, I don't believe the man is a fool although his degree wasn't in architecture. Incidentally, I also have a 2:1 Honours degree plus a few other qualifications. I say this NOT to brag but I would also wish to point out that, unlike Prince Charles or Michelle Shocked for that matter, I do not have a platform from where to spout my views on whatever subect I choose..whether they be sensible and acceptable or otherwise. Members of The Royal Family and celebrities in general have this opportunity and, by all means, let them have their say but they should remember that they are in a privileged position and behave responsibly. In the case of Ms Shocked's outburst, the audience didn't have the right of reply or the opportunity to go up on stage and say their piece. They could only to vote with their feet.... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 19 Mar 13 - 06:37 PM Michael, for the record, anarchy is not chaos, but order without control... Michelle Shocked has the right to say what she wants. When she abuses that right by using hate speech, she creates the bed she then has to lie in, and chances are in this case it will be a very uncomfortable bed. With rights come responsibilities - another central tenet of anarchism. Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship. - Voltairine de Cleyre |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Mar 13 - 06:57 PM Well expressed letter, Dan.....I was not pleased to hear(read)her rant, but only because I thought it was rather a tacky way she expressed herself. One can only imagine what it was like for her to be free to be over her homosexuality!...can you imagine what it must have felt like to her, when the popular notion is floating around that it is 'genetic', and no way out? All the more power to her...but I hope in the future she could be just as direct..but a bit more 'diplomatic'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:27 PM Personally, I don't believe the man is a fool although his degree wasn't in architecture. Incidentally, I also have a 2:1 Honours degree plus a few other qualifications. I say this NOT to brag but I would also wish to point out that, unlike Prince Charles or Michelle Shocked for that matter, I do not have a platform from where to spout my views on whatever subect I choose..whether they be sensible and acceptable or otherwise. Members of The Royal Family and celebrities in general have this opportunity and, by all means, let them have their say but they should remember that they are in a privileged position and behave responsibly. In the case of Ms Shocked's outburst, the audience didn't have the right of reply or the opportunity to go up on stage and say their piece. They could only to vote with their feet.... I agree. Sadly, such people's egos have been massaged to such an extent that they actually do believe in their guruhood. Witness McCartney and his veggieness and Bono with his simplistic pontificating about world poverty or whatever he thinks he's rattling on about. I've got no issue with them expressing their views but a good dose of appropriate humility would dictate that they kept their gobs shut. Still, if they want to spout, well who am I... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM Some of you guys just can't talk about anything you haven't rehearsed, can you? Have the common decency to start your own thread when "An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked" doesn't interest you, and you want to shove the thread into being about homosexuality, religion, the royal family, "free speech" or any other garbage fight that's been done-to-death here. Please. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:37 PM Michael dear boy, I have no more right than you or anyone else to adjudicate as to Big Ears' opinions, which is probably a good job as I'm unlikely to get the chance to expound mine on the Beeb. Architecture and organic husbandry (though I believe there are dubious aspects to his involvement in the latter) are an idle rich man's hobby horses in his case. It would be utterly amazing had he no useful opinions on either, given that he's had all the time in the word to indulge these passions of his. He isn't that bright though, is he. He couldn't really not get that degree, could he. When I got my degree in 1972 I had no family influences to bring into play... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:42 PM Whoa, Jeri. We are generally keeping to the spirit of the thread by discussing people who apparently use their position to talk about topics which are beyond their purview. I think the topic has stayed on track better than most, so far at least. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:46 PM "He couldn't really not get that degree, could he, without a bit of pressure from Dad and whoever was prime minister at the time." Apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: frogprince Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:49 PM Michelle Shocked has in the past either actually known herself to be homosexual, or gone through a youthful period of confusion as to her orientation. I doubt that any of us can know for certain which. She has "progressed" from that to a state of a best very questionable mental health and an apparent inability to behave appropriately socially. Isn't it wonderful when a person can be "set free" like that! gfs, how many people were you, as a counsellor, able to do that for? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: frogprince Date: 19 Mar 13 - 07:53 PM ...at best... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,DrWord Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:33 PM different musician, similar situation: when I mentioned a certain female Maritime fiddler, my daughter, who lives in that part of the world, showed immediate signs of revulsion|disgust. She said that she had been earwitness to an off-stage remark by N.M which was virulently homophobic. Current thread: I'm Shocked at her remarks. Kudos to Dan for his open letter. keep on pickin' dennis |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Big Al Whittle Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:35 PM Of course Prince Charles is a twit. 'Of course one wonders what we are leaving to our grandchildren' he said in his posh mutter the other day on telly. Well in your case Charlie, Buckingham Palace and an attic full of Van Dykes. he really does see no connection with his huge wealth, and the fate of poor people. Eye of a needle....ring any bells Charlie boy? Michelle S. is obviously bonkers. After dancing round onstage with Billy Bragg, dressed as a gay activist - she comes up with this load of crap. Bit like David Eycke. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 13 - 08:43 PM I've always enjoyed the music of Michelle Shocked, although I admit I haven't followed her much in the last ten years or so. I really loved her Arkansas Traveler album, but I haven't heard anything she's done since. Never in my life, would I have dreamed that she would turn out to be such a homophobe. It has always seemed to me, that if there is one place in the world that should be a safe haven for homosexuals, it should be San Francisco. Rome should be safe for Catholics, Mecca should be safe for Muslims, Jerusalem should be safe for.....everybody. And San Francisco should be safe, completely safe, for gays. But lately, the anti-gays seem to be making a bid for San Francisco, and that's upsetting. And I say that with knowledge that my Catholic church appointed an anti-gay bishop to San Francisco. That should not have happened. And I still can't believe that enlightened California would pass Proposition 8, the initiative outlawing gay marriage. I thought we would be the first state to make gay marriage legal, but we have passed two anti-gay election initiatives in the last twenty years. I am embarrassed by both my church and my state. -Joe in California- And yes, Prince Charles is a twit, but that's none of my business, since I'm not British. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Lonesome EJ Date: 19 Mar 13 - 10:49 PM She could earn a few bucks appearing at Chic-Fil-A "Family Saturday"s. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:08 AM ...yes, Prince Charles is a twit,---- .,,. What your basis for this assertion? Knowledge of him? Qualification to make such a judgment? Your 'biznis' or not, Joe: justify or withdraw. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:19 AM Calm down, Michael now. The man is not of this planet, what with his wacky, bee-in-bonnet views on architecture and his questionable running of his vast estates. He's reached near-retirement age with nothing to do (except walk down lines of cheery fenced-in natives, waving and asking "and what do you do then?" because Mumsie has hung on for so long. He treated the feckless ingenue Diana like merdre from the night before he married her, and he reckons he has to be seen to be doing something or other that looks beneficent-ish. All-in-all, "twit" is a fairly mild way of characterising someone from whom a few decades of silence would have been welcome and who I'd personally reserve a stronger word for. Perhaps, in the cause of economy, with just one letter different. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:22 AM Apologies for the alien bracket! |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:59 AM Well, must admit cannot defend treatment of poor Diana, whom he should never have married; but not entirely his fault that marriage to the one he should have married delayed till recently by wrong sort of pressure from his father [whom I personally regard, along with the insufferable late Margaret, as the really bloody one of the lot of them] et al. Have nothing to say either as to some of the eccentricities like talking to plants - tho its benefits constitute a superstition held by many gardeners of my acquaintance. But the architectural views strike me as perfectly tenable, representing some quite widely-held views. Cannot regard them as in any way twittish or misplaced. Still ~ assure you, Steve, I am perfectly calm. Still wondering tho about basis of Joe's expressed contempt. Joe? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Mar 13 - 08:09 AM Doesn't he also conduct symphonies with a real baton in front of his wardrobe mirror? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 20 Mar 13 - 08:43 AM Um, thread drift much? Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Mar 13 - 09:36 AM True Dan ~~ but one of the familiar hazards of the forum, no? To be honest, Steve blushblushblush so did I, when young. Didn't everybody? Isn't that what fantasies & bedroom mirrors are for?! ☝ ♪♪♪♩~M~♪♪♪♩ ☝ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Mar 13 - 10:31 AM 'He couldn't really not get that degree, could he. When I got my degree in 1972 I had no family influences to bring into play..." "He couldn't really not get that degree, could he, without a bit of pressure from Dad and whoever was prime minister at the time." Apologies'. ,.., Bit of a slow burn, but honestly can't follow the point you were making here, Steve. He had to get the appropriate entrance A-level grades, like anyone else; sit the same papers for his degree as all the other students in his faculty. What had his father & the PM to do with his succeeding in these things, just as, as you say, did you & I without any paternal or prime-ministerial influences to bring to bear? Do you imagine Prince Philip & whoever it was sitting in the exam hall leaning over his shoulder & whispering the answers in his ear*? Or what? Genuinely no conception of what you are on about... ~M~ *The size of which is quite irrelevant BTW; your fatuous, facetiously iterated "Big Ears" is a pathetic infantile silliness way beneath you of which you should really be ashamed. Oh for such times as when such impertinences would have resulted in your own, doubtlessly small but perfectly formed, aural appendages being painfully removed... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Johnny J Date: 20 Mar 13 - 10:42 AM "He had to get the appropriate entrance A-level grades" See http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/biography/education "The Prince, the first Heir to The Throne to sit public examinations, took his GCE O Levels at the age of 16, passing English language, English literature, Latin, French and history - and later mathematics. He took his A Levels in July 1967, getting a B in history and a C in French, also gaining a distinction in an optional special paper in history." I am still not suggesting that the man is stupid but it can't be said that he lacked any opportunities. Very few of us here would be able to attend Gordonstoun and many have far better qualifications who wouldn't have a hope in hell of being accepted into Cambridge University. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: katlaughing Date: 20 Mar 13 - 11:31 AM i was set to disagree with jeri until i read on. while i am enjoying the material, it has gone from being an "aside" to taking over the thread with rudeness to boot even with a kind reminder from the OP. pick an old thread to add to on the subject of your choice" or help this one get back on track. thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:16 PM Thread drift is a tradition on this forum, as all well know. Often regrettable, it nevertheless is sometimes necessary to correct misapprehensions which may be tangential, and so it happens. The main thread still continues, as it were in parallel, so no-one is any the worse off IMO. Wherefore, Johnny J: Your point is a valid one; but the grades you have looked up, tho many others may have had better ones, were nevertheless well within the minimum specified by the University as prerequisite for admission; and if nobody who has not got 3 straight A's or whatever is to get in nonetheless, what would be the object of establishing & publishing such minimum requirements in the first place? Having been admitted, the Prince justified his place by achieving a perfectly respectable degree result, as good as, or better than, those of most of the higher previously qualified candidates who were his Cambridge contemporaries, did he not? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:13 PM *SIGH* Well at least it keeps the thread current. I've been amazed at the resonance this letter seems to have had - and the many fruitful conversations in various forums it has led to! Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:33 PM Here's Michelle's reaction to all the hoo-ha as of 4 hours ago: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/03/19/michelle-shocked-anti-gay-ti She apparently tweeted that she was "... abiding, letting everyone's true colors show before I undertake a personal response to each & every tweet." and "Am neither against a woman's right to choose nor gay marriage". Really? And "everyone else's true colours? I always wonder - IF she offers an apology - whether she's genuinely sorry for the intolerance and pain caused, or just for the trouble she's got herself into, and the harm she's done her career? It often rings pretty hollow. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:56 PM Maybe she was exercising her 'right to choose' not to pursue the homosexual lifestyle any longer, and it was a burden lifted from her. Nobody HAS to be locked into forever...but it is amazing, that people who claim to be 'liberally minded' feel so betrayed..when it is really none of their business, who she fucks or why..is it? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 20 Mar 13 - 04:09 PM I've seen comments on your blog about her being bi-polar. It's entirely possible, and people should think about how much control she really had. But... maybe entertaining a whole audience-load of people who've paid to hear her and have an idea what to expect isn't the best career for a loose cannon. Not if she's going to use their patronage to bitch-slap the lot of them. I remember the incident Bat Goddess mentioned. I don't really care much about this, because I'm not ever going to try too hard to hear her music. I think many of her fans won't try any longer. It's one thing to just piss off people who may not have liked you much to begin with, and another to betray those who though they were on the same side. People want a reason to forgive though, so who knows what will happen in the future. I suspect she won't be big in San Fran for quite a while. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Mar 13 - 04:44 PM Charles a twit? Well, as I said, I'm an American and really have no opinion nor right to an opinion. I just found it interesting that Charles came up in a discussion of Michelle Shocked and homosexuals. Sorry if I offended you, Michael. I was just being goofy. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Don Firth Date: 20 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM Worth a read. I have never met a "cured" homosexual who was not psychologically screwed up in one way or another. And, as a matter of fact, a follow-up study on a group of "cured" homosexuals verifies my observation. For the vast majority in the study, after "therapy," simply reverted to their former behavior. A large percentage bailed out, gave up sexual activity entirely, and became celibate. And more than a quarter of the sample began to suffer from serious anxiety and depression. There were six suicides. So it would appear that Michelle Shocked might be one of "the cured." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: bobad Date: 20 Mar 13 - 05:28 PM Hmm....Sincere or an attempt to salvage a career? Statement From Michelle Shocked: "I do not, nor have I ever, said or believed that God hates homosexuals (or anyone else). I said that some of His followers believe that. I believe intolerance comes from fear, and these folks are genuinely scared. When I said "Twitter that Michelle Shocked says "God hates faggots," I was predicting the absurd way my description of, my apology for, the intolerant would no doubt be misinterpreted. The show was all music, and the audience tweets said they enjoyed it. The commentary came about ten minutes later, in the encore. And to those fans who are disappointed by what they've heard or think I said, I'm very sorry: I don't always express myself as clearly as I should. But don't believe everything you read on facebook or twitter. My view of homosexuality has changed not one iota. I judge not. And my statement equating repeal of Prop 8 with the coming of the End Times was neither literal nor ironic: it was a description of how some folks – not me – feel about gay marriage. The show, and the rant, was spontaneous. As for those applauding my so-called stance that "God Hates Faggots," I say they should be met with mercy, not hate. And I hope that what remains of my audience will meet that intolerance with understanding, even of those who might hate them. Folks wonder about my sexuality, but denying being gay is like saying I never beat my husband. My sexuality is not at issue. What is being questioned is my support for the LGBT community, and that has never wavered. Music and activism have always been part of my work and my journey, which I hope and intend to continue. I'd like to say this was a publicity stunt, but I'm really not that clever, and I'm definitely not that cynical. But I am damn sorry. If I could repeat the evening, I would make a clearer distinction between a set of beliefs I abhor, and my human sympathy for the folks who hold them. I say this not because I want to look better. I have no wish to hide my faults, and – clearly – I couldn't if I tried." |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:06 PM Now, THAT's an interesting development, bobad. Did Michelle Shocked have a history of attacking gays, or is this a one-time thing that was misinterpreted? The plot thickens....or does it? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:28 PM So she's more or less denying that she said it? In spite of the fact that the entire audience heard her, and must have recorded it on their phones & stuff? It's gone viral and YouTube's bound to be full of it (haven't the heart to go look). Or is she so divorced from reality that she thinks no one will pick up on the disconnect? Or really believes she didn't say all that stuff? A zillion witnesses can't be wrong, surely. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:31 PM Froth: "I have never met a "cured" homosexual who was not psychologically screwed up in one way or another." That's nothing!....Ever talked to a recovered alcoholic in AA about alcohol??? ....So what??..we need a new name to call people??...ummm...alcohala-phobes maybe, huh? Get over it..The cracks in the 'movement' might just be starting to show! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:37 PM It's interesting to me that a Mudcatter played at one of her shows in Toronto a few years back. While he was congratulated by a few folks from here he garnered many fewer posts congratulating him than this thread has saying whatever. That tells me much about this place. http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/michelle-shocked-hatemonger-misunderstood-provocateur-005432281.html?fb_action_ids |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM I do wish she'd stated her defense sooner. Still not sure which to believe. Only film footage would really tell us - but is there any? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:26 PM Max changed our policy and we now allow anonymous messages, but I think the anonymous message posted at 6:37 PM is particularly cowardly. I suggest that rest of us should ignore it, if the poster does not have the courage to include his/her name when posting such a slanderous message, not that it's all that clear what the poster is talking about. -Joe Offer-
|
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Morris-ey Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM No one causes offence; people choose to be offended. Why should anyone care what a singer says and, if you do you have the walk out option, don't you? Otherwise perhaps those who argue for equality here might tell us all what not to think and what not to say... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:53 PM Guest, Morris-sey; "Otherwise perhaps those who argue for equality here might tell us all what not to think and what not to say..." Well they do all the time, and VERY blocked, hardheadedly. They have NO tolerance for ANYONE who thinks outside their little boxes, and unless you repeat some sort of 'liberal mantra' over and over again, without thinking, of course, then you are branded, either a 'racist' bigot, homophobic, or Tea Partier...all in the name of independent thinking and equality!! The 'so-called' liberal left, at present, and in this country, are more closed minded and stubborn about it than virtually ANYONE I've met in my life! To them, it's perfectly OK to have a 'Gay Rights' Parade in public, not giving a rat's ass of who they may offend, even going as far as 'shock value' in offensiveness to heteros...but if a recovered homosexual speaks against homosexuality, from experience, mind you, they go into a full tilt blown tizzy fit! They expect you to burn incense to EVERY little cause, even bogus ones, that attaches themselves to what used to be real liberalism....and if ya' don't go along with it..well, you might as well be looking at a lynch mob out your window! I think Michelle Shocked exercised he free speech, much the way the real liberals did in the '60's....but what today's 'so-called' liberals don't seem to clock, is that THEY are the establishment...and if you rock their boat, they have aggressive 'remedies' for you, that would make the old Goldwater radicals applaud with absolute glee! OK..you can close your minds, and go back to sleep.....dream of who you can hate enough.. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 20 Mar 13 - 08:38 PM "Slanderous"?! How the fuck was that slanderous? I wish you had ignored it, Joe, but you obviously wanted to call attention to it. MS seems to have also just been looking for attention. The sad fact is that more people know about that rant and will remember that rant than will ever know her music. One becomes known for their abilities in their chosen field or their personalities. My only reply to that is that I might miss saying "good job" on the occasion of someone playing a gig. There are quite a few threads I don't post to. I also don't think numbers of people who respond matter much. Jerks write more than respectable folks, anyway. If it were me, I'd rather one knowledgeable person said something than 1,000 impersonal-but-kind people said "Wow. Cool!" Morris-ey, you said "Why should anyone care what a singer says and, if you do you have the walk out option, don't you?" Well, yeah, that's what happened, isn't it? I don't understand what you're saying. Me, I've heard a few of her songs, and I'm pretty sure I liked them. But I'm not a fan. I don't have to decide whether I think she believed what she said or not. I also know that nothing I say will have any effect one way or another, except for here, at Mudcat. I don't want it to. Her rant will either affect her career or it won't. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,hg Date: 20 Mar 13 - 11:04 PM Random thought from a drop-in I'd like to hear Janie's take on MS but the quotes from her biography suggest she has ongoing emotional troubles of some sort. Wow, Max changed the anon policy,,,why? Charles is not a twit. I wish queenie would make him king. she's a bit of a control freak. Why vilify a folks singer just because her views are unpopular and not cool? We're only allowed to be liberals????? The brits are still trying to drown us out..... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Mar 13 - 11:33 PM I think this thread is what is sometimes termed a "moral panic". Strange that in these days of Smart Phones and all that no one seems to have put up a video clip of this incident on YouTube - there's a audio clip, but I couldn't make out too much. I wasn't trying too hard. She does seem to have gone on rather. One lesson,maybe, is never try to say anything complicated to an audience. And avoid any kind of irony except possibly in the British Isles or Australia... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 20 Mar 13 - 11:43 PM Good point about the Smart Phones, McGrath. It seems impossible that it wasn't videoed. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,hg Date: 20 Mar 13 - 11:52 PM I just listened to and read the "rant". I don't know if she usually talks that much in her gigs but she does sound aus though she is having a breakdown. How sad for her to have the whole world watching and judging it. She needs compassion. It is most probably a breakdown. or in the jargon, a psychotic break. My two cents from forty years of mh work. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:25 AM As others have pointed out, Michelle Shocked has released a statement apologizing for being unclear, and saying that she meant to portray how other people felt about the lgbt community. Audio of the concert has been released that is very confused. I've added an update and details to my initial open letter to her. I am willing to take her word for what she meant to say. In my letter I tried to be very careful in my initial letter to speak from a place of concern, rather than judgment. Hearing the audio, I remain concerned. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Mar 13 - 04:26 AM Do people in the throes of a mental meltdown have enough self-awareness to do "irony"? (Genuine question, not a sarcastic one, but it's fair to ask.) I picked up on the film-footage issue too, and have been wondering the same thing as McGrath and Stim, ever since I read her own side of the story - though I don't understand why she took so long in preparing it. Why didn't she defend herself at the time? At least via a spokesperson. Everyone could see the internet exploding around her. She could have helped herself a lot when she saw how her rant was going down with her listeners by stopping her speech right then and explaining herself. It takes something to make an audience of fans who have paid money to see you to walk out in droves, and it's pretty hard to miss as a reaction. Why wait for days to give your side of the story, while the internet explodes around you? I know it's illegal to live-record concerts, but that's never stopped anyone, so the lack of footage is strange. But apologies/explanations made late, under duress, can also be done for the sake of saving face (or one's career) so there's a motive there too. Since I didn't see her make these statements, I am suspending judgement and cutting her lots of slack. But these are fair questions, so I can't say I'm 100% convinced. Roshomon, internet-style. Wow. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Mar 13 - 06:34 AM Listening to the audio I'd call it more of a ramble than a rant. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Mar 13 - 06:44 AM Anybody got a link? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: TheSnail Date: 21 Mar 13 - 07:17 AM Entire recording: Michelle Shocked Homophobic Rant at Yoshi's San Francisco |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Mar 13 - 07:59 AM Oh dear. I see what you mean. It really is a ramble and not a rant. It sort of sounds like she was winging it and the whole thing just went south. It does come across like she sincerely believes the things she said, though. Whatever her mental state, she does seem to mean it - I'm so sorry this happened - she really is a fine talent. One thing this incident has done is to make me remember how good she is. I wish she could have just jumped into that final song much sooner and cut the chat, and probably none of this would have happened. People seem to have already been a bit unhappy about the tweet-to-music ratio anyway. Oh woe. :-[ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Mar 13 - 09:15 AM "It does come across like she sincerely believes the things she said" But which bits? Where she says "From their vantage point -- I really shouldn't say their -- 'cause it's mine too,", or where she says. ""I am sick of Christians filled with hypocracy, hiding behind the symbol of a cross" ? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Mar 13 - 09:29 AM It sounded to me like when she was saying God thinks or God says or God loves, that she was speaking form her own viewpoint, tone of voice too. But as you say, it isn't really clear and I don't have time right now to go back and try to unpick it. It certainly seems to have struck the people who were sitting there listening in person as being sincere. Did it come across to you as though she didn't mean it? In which case why would she say it at all? But it's not clear so I can't feel sure about anything.I can only go by what it sounded like to me. Like everyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:21 PM As I said, I remain concerned. She sounds like someone trying to talk about her faith, but very uncomfortable with herself. It is possible to reconcile being "the world's biggest homophobe" (which she has in the past claimed to be) with supporting legal rights for lgbt people. And it's possible she doesn't really know quite how she feels. But the questions I raised in my letter about her groundedness, and the extremes she seems to go to to define herself against what other people perceive her to be, seem to hold. So I'm glad to believe she meant what she says she did. But I'm not so sure she knows what she really feels, or what to do with it if she does. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:36 PM I'm just a shallow ignoramus who lives in the great unwashed midwest and, both physically and mentally, out where the buses don't run. I say that because there is no good reason to have anything I say trouble your life. On that same basis I can't see how anything MS has to say means jackshit to me. Why there is this hoopla about her is also beyond me. With the exception of Harpgirl's comments regarding a possible/probable breakdown, this here be much ado about the milkmaid's elevator grease. Prince Chuckie was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a golden brick in his ass. He is who he is and again......who gives a shit? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:45 PM And btw......Let me be like one of many twits around here who tend to piss me off with their "recalssifying." Gawdferbid a thread is in the wrong category and their precious damn reading time is wasted because a BS thread was in the music section. MY turn..... THIS SILLYASS THREAD IS DEFINITELY BS!!!Sorry Dan, you're a good guy but your poor thread is NOW almost nothing but the purest of BS.Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Morris-ey Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:49 PM Tell you what Dan, don't be concerned. All you seem to be saying is that you cannot reconcile what you believe to be her state of mind with what you believe as a person of faith. There is no dichotomy in having an opinion and at the same time supporting the law - we all do it most of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Mar 13 - 12:56 PM When somebody's expression of religious belief becomes indistinguishable from a reaction to bad drugs, they need to re-examine what they believe in. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Mar 13 - 01:56 PM I'm a bit puzzled by how Prince Charles drifted into this thread. The only point of possible relevance is that from time to time he says something that stirs up a kerfuffle in the press. Generally actually the row tends to be for saying something quite sensible, for example rubbishing some unpleasant building people are trying to inflict on the public. Over the years he's got more and more like PG Wodehouse's Lord Emsworth. I can't really see why anyone should hate Lord Emsworth, but he gets otherwise sensible people frothing at the mouth. ...................... As for Michelle Shocked, I can't see any particular inconsistency between supporting rights for a group of people and yet tending to dislike them. (If those are her views.) I am inclined to feel that way about people with certain political views... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Dan Schatz Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM Don't ever change, Spaw. :) Morris-ey, what I believe and what Michelle Shocked believes are very different things. I am a Unitarian Universalist whose theology is a mixture of Humanism and process theology with influences from Taoism. Michelle is a member of a very conservative Christian church. But I work in the realm of religion, and I have been a hospital chaplain in central Virginia - so I've worked with people from every possible faith, including ones far more like hers than like mine. I've seen grounded and ungrounded people from all of them. What I can't reconcile is her apparent state of mind with someone who is spiritually and emotionally grounded - whatever the faith. TO BRING IT BACK TO MUSIC - All of this brings up a question about performance. We've talked about it a little, but in pretty basic ways - whether performers should bring their political beliefs into their work, etc. But a deeper question is how we approach performance in general. We may challenge our audiences at times, but we still need to try to engage them, or we're just talking to ourselves. That means thinking about what we want to say and and how we want to say it. Utah Phillips is a great example - he always sounded like he was talking off the top of his head, but in fact he was carefully rehearsed. (He said someone had told him it was more important to be likeable than good - so he made sure he was likeable. Fortunately he was also good.) Others have a different approach, but still make sure to engage. Pete Seeger once changed the heart of a man who had come to a concert armed and prepared to kill him. He was able to do this because he engaged his audience. It seems to me that we run into trouble when we lose sight of performance as relationship and just start talking to ourselves. I feel very lucky to have seen Michelle Shocked live early in her career, when she seemed just happy to have her music out and to sing some amazing songs. And I'm glad to hear her say she doesn't really believe all those terrible things, if only because it means I don't have to feel icky when I get out those old records and listen to them again. Dan |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 21 Mar 13 - 02:10 PM If I could feel that way about watching Mel Gibson movies, I'd watch Mel Gibson movies. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 21 Mar 13 - 03:01 PM McGrath ~~ Nearer to Ukridge than Lord Emsworth, I should suggest. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 21 Mar 13 - 10:42 PM Thanks for posting, Snail. After listening, it seems clear that she was rambling in a way that only had meaning to herself. That's about as polite as I can be. It is worth noting that even though she was incoherent from the beginning, the audience applauded her and shouted out approval. It may be that people have been oblivious to the fact that they were listening to the mad ramblings of a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic for years, simply because they thought she was affirming their social and political beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 Mar 13 - 03:45 AM I'm not quite sure whose social & political beliefs you mean. The audience's? They thought she was affirming *theirs*? Not in that city (i grew up near there). Didn't you hear her read out or refer to a tweet someone had sent her where they said, "You can't say that shit in San Francisco. That would not have been a right wing audience and there were probably a fair number of gays present, considering the strong gay population in SF. And we weren't hearing approval at the end. I think the (sparse) applause was just sad sympathy for the artist we all know she can be. And earlier on they seem to have thought she was joking. Or have I picked up your meaning all wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 Mar 13 - 03:54 AM Typing one handed in the dark on an ipad is crap. Close quote mark should go after SF in the You can't say that shit remark |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bert Date: 22 Mar 13 - 05:58 AM How Prince Charles saying something sensible about architecture can be in any way related to this, I simply cannot see. The state of architecture today is deplorable with very few exceptions. At one end of the scale you have most modern buildings which confirm the theory that 'If you can draw a shoe box, you can be an architect' At the other end of the scale you have outrageous deformities. At some place in between there are architects who can incorporate beauty into their work, but they are few and far between. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 13 - 06:31 AM "Max changed our policy and we now allow anonymous messages, but I think the anonymous message posted at 6:37 PM is particularly cowardly. I suggest that rest of us should ignore it, if the poster does not have the courage to include his/her name when posting such a slanderous message, not that it's all that clear what the poster is talking about. -Joe Offer-" Precisely the opposite, Joe. When that Mudcatter did the gig in Toronto very few people here took the time to congratulate him. The green-eyed monster. THAT is what told me something about Mudcat. Few musicians who do well are congratulated by others on this forum. The Mudcatter who did that gig was and is a good friend of mine, so take your post and shove it up yours. My post was in no way directed at the Mudcatter I referred to--and you know it! |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MartinRyan Date: 22 Mar 13 - 07:10 AM This really is becoming a very unpleasant place to visit... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 Mar 13 - 07:58 AM :-( |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,bankley Date: 22 Mar 13 - 09:33 AM here's an email that I sent her this morning. "Holy shit Michelle, I'm glad that you didn't take a swing at Muslims and the Prophet. You'd be singing the Fatwa Blues. Hidin' out, peaking out the window from behind heavy curtains like a coke head, readin' Rushdie and perhaps listening to old Sinead O'Connor tapes. But I gotta tell you, as a free thinker and borderline atheist, I find your biblical references kinda vexing, and would like to put in for a refund in case someone don't claim theirs. Just tryin' to lighten the mood here. love RB" |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Mar 13 - 10:58 AM You completely misunderstood what I was saying, Bonnie. I will try to say it another way. Michelle was rambling incoherently at the beginning, but the audience didn't realize it, and they were shouting out affirmations, and applauding(the audience). This was because the audience thought she was being wise, politically correct and clever, and all that stuff. I am suggesting (and I hope you get it this time, because I am not going to explain it again) that, given the fact that she has a long history of mental illness, a lot her "wisdom" "sophistication" might have really been incoherent ramblings. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 Mar 13 - 11:01 AM > and I hope you get it this time, because I am not going to explain it again What Martin Ryan said |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 13 - 11:46 AM I couldn't see why Prince Charles had been pulled into this thread either, Bert. Rather like King Charles' Head with Mr Dick in David Copperfield. My impression from another look at the transcript is that in a highly confused way Michelle was saying that people in the religious tradition to which she adhered ("it's my viewpoint too") had real fears about stuff to do with "gay rights", and while she didn't agree ("Christians filled with hypocrisy") with them people oughtn't to hate them for it. She certainly didn't get it across too well, if that was what she meant. She'd have been better stick to songs. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Mar 13 - 12:04 PM Bonnie, that was meant to be an amusing rejoinder, perhaps I should have put a ;-) on the end of it. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: dick greenhaus Date: 22 Mar 13 - 12:09 PM For Chrissakes. "Freedom of Speech" is only a guarantee of government non-interference. It does not apply to a paid performer in a private venue. People pay admissions to be entertained. When the level of political preaching interferes with that entertainment, the performer is cheating the audience---as has happened in this case, and in the case of Seeger concerts and Guthrie concerts I have attended. The solution is simple---vote with your feet. An entertainer who doesn't entertain is entitled to absolutely nothing, however well he or she sings. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Mar 13 - 01:41 PM "Entitled" in what sense, Dick? If such a performer is singing for an agreed fee, presumably they will submit their invoice and receive their fee at the end, even if some of the audience have left because they were not being sufficiently entertained? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Morris-ey Date: 22 Mar 13 - 02:00 PM Generally speaking, if I pay to hear an artist I expect that he/she/they will do what I expect them to do; generally speaking, if artist(s) perform below my expectation I will either stay or go; if the artist(s) use the platform to spout political or religious views I disagree with then I will either heckle or leave. What I won't do is write a letter or accuse them of being deranged... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Mar 13 - 03:57 PM If you listened carefully to the recording, MtheGM, you would have heard the financial arrangement for the evening, which was that MS did not receive an advance or guarantee, but was to receive the gate--however since the manager offered refunds, there would be no gate, which was why she, likely ironically, discussed passing the hat. It is worth noting that, while the manager gave the audience back the money that MS was to receive, he made a point of letting the audience know he still expect them to pay their bar tabs, so his act of magnanimity didn't cost the club anything. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Gibb Sahib Date: 22 Mar 13 - 05:36 PM It seems like MS was saying that her religious beliefs, which at this point are her guidelines, tell her that homosexuality is wrong. However, she wants to have as much compassion for people as possible...without violating those guidelines. Trying to reconcile "competing" values. I see worse bigotry than this all the time. At least she is trying to reconcile. It seems that, in her view, telling her to not believe homosexuality is sin but "you can still be a Christian" is hypocrisy. You'd be saying, "Don't be a Christian" - saying of which might be construed as a type of bigotry itself. In a way, she "came out" as a Christian and chose a difficult place to do it. I personally have no temptation to believe in Christianity, so it is a very clear issue for *me* that homosexuality is not a sin. However, for people who subscribe to some manner of Christianity, and who think deeply about what that entails, it seems like this would be a conflict needing sorting. Again, I can't say since I'm not a Christian, but I imagine that if I was one of this stripe (fundamental-ish) and was presented with the argument that "God loves everyone," I'd feel like that was too easy a rationalization, and need more soul searching or something. I might be worried that I was sitting on the fence. It seems naive to be surprised to find that someone in the world thinks homosexuality is wrong. (!) |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Mar 13 - 06:50 PM The thing is, Gibb, Michelle Shocked has made a big deal about her connection to the progressive movement, and especially her career-long advocacy for LGBT issues. Is it naive to be surprised when someone like that starts quoting the Westboro Baptist Church in a San Francisco club? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Gibb Sahib Date: 22 Mar 13 - 08:02 PM I don't think so necessarily, Stim. I think the surprise would quickly dissipate, however, after learning MS has been "born-again" for quite some time now, and after considering (as you pointed out after a fashion) that people may have been projecting some of their own values onto her earlier. Immediate surprise would be followed by a step back to see what was going on, rather than outrage...people getting "born again" seems to happen a lot in the old USA. A "good Christian" woman, "church going"...perhaps even married to a man...might suddenly come out as gay. It would be a surprise, too, but I think I would rather quickly shrug my shoulders and think, "hmm, ok, that happens. Better not to make too big a deal of it." The reaction seems to be more about how some of her audience feels than who MS is. Let's be glad her beliefs don't seem to extend to any direct action or violence, but rather seem limited to her confession that she is trying to be honest. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 13 - 08:52 PM A very confused and ambiguous confession, listening to which suggests she is very confused herself. (Which would be very understandable.) People often feel very uncomfortable when things aren't neat and simple. It would have better been done through the medium of song where people are more comfortable with confusion and ambiguity. Or in some context where she could have explained things more clearly. Talking to an unprepared audience like that was bound to work out badly. . |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 13 - 09:43 PM Actually I'd disagree that free speech is only about government interference. There. Are plenty of other situations where freedom of speech can unfairly be restricted - by employers for example. But that doesn't apply in this case, obviously enough, since walking out in protest is itself in fact an expression of a kind of symbolic free speech. Shouting down a speaker is a grey area. There are definitely situations where I'd say it would be an infringement of a right to speak. But that wasn't what happened in this case. She did have her say - and of course it was a concert, not a debate. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Mar 13 - 10:22 PM The thing is, Gibb, even the Christian denominations that have a problem with the gay lifestyle don't either believe or say what she said. That is a slogan that is used by the Westboro Baptist Church(who are not affliated with any other Baptist Churches), and who are generally regarded as a hate group. Everybody (especially everybody in San Francisco) knows this. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 13 - 11:37 PM "That is a slogan that is used by the Westboro Baptist Church" What slogan? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Gibb Sahib Date: 22 Mar 13 - 11:57 PM I know the slogan ("God Hates Fag[gott]s") is associated w/ WBC. I believe MS said that as a gesture of ironic self-awareness. I believe she *was* indeed expressing her belief that, as per a reading of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. But she realized the irony in her saying it and/or the potential for her "confession" to be distorted. (e.g. the headlines that say she "went on a homophobic tirade.") But this is all by way of trying to dissect and analyze the details of the talk, which I think is fruitless — being that it was (as McGrath and others are saying) so very confused and confusing. I'd speculate that one reason why it was all so confusing is because she didn't know how to or was nervous about making the confession, given the potential for people to over-dramatize aspects of it. She probably figured that as soon as she said "I think homosexuality is a sin, 'cause my Bible tells me so," that people would jump on their phones etc and start with "OMG, MS just basically said G H Fs, she as bad as WBC, etcetc"...and so she tried to preempt that with the self-aware statement. I could be wrong. I still don't think it's worth trying to analyze it that closely, unless one really has something invested in this. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 13 - 05:57 AM FROM www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/michelle-shocked-controversy-continues-damning-430166 "I love me some Jesus and I love liberation," she says a few minutes in. "And I did not know how I was gonna come to San Francisco and authentically represent..." She trails off, not for the last time. Soon, she is talking about one of her role models, Georgia O'Keefe, and how the non-believing artist's ashes being scattered on her favorite mountain is evidence of God's existence. "So it's not too late," she says. "You can jump into this Jesus game any time." Then the rough stuff begins. "I was in a prayer meeting yesterday," she tells the then still-supportive crowd. "You've got to understand how scared folks on that side of the equation are. From their vantage point -- I really shouldn't say their, because it's mine, too -- we are near the end of time. And from our vantage point, we're gonna be ... I think maybe Chinese water torture is gonna be the means, the method. Once Prop. 8 is instated, and once preachers are held at gunpoint and forced to marry the ho-mo-sexuals" -- she says the word "homosexuals" almost in a parody of a Southern accent -- "I'm pretty sure that that will be the signal for Jesus to come on back." The confused murmurs begin. "You said you wanted reality!" There is some nervous laughter and applause. "If someone could be so gracious to tweet out, 'Michelle Shocked just said from stage, God hates faggots,' would you do it now?" The laughter gets more nervous and dies down to silence as Shocked seems to wait for patrons to actually send out this tweet. Responding to the first of what will be many cries of confusion from the crowd, Shocked says, mirthfully, "You're confounded!" A man is heard loudly telling her that there's "gonna be a looooot of talking about that." "I ain't scared," Shocked responds. "This is not a tribunal. This is one woman's opinion. And it's fun! It's a lot of fun. I am so committed to loving each and every soul in this room. But I could not come here and ignore you. I could not come here and pretend that I was above the conversation. And I couldn't pretend that I was beneath it, either. I had to join it." One person is heard applauding. "Thank you for that one hand-clap. I do that all the time. As a matter of fact, I was in church a couple ... You know it's come to a bad point when the white girl is sitting in a black church, I'm clapping, and a man in front of me turns around and goes, 'That's irritatin'.' Hallelujah. I'd like to play you some songs. But…" A woman interrupts. "I hope you get wise, Michelle, and realize that there's nothing to fear. There's nothing to fear. Everybody is deserving of whoever your God is. It's love." "Can I respond to that off the microphone?" Shocked asks gently. "Respond to it on the microphone," someone calls. Shocked goes off-mike to shout: "I AM SICK OF CHRISTIANS FILLED WITH HYPOCRISY HIDING BEHIND THE SYMBOL OF A CROSS!" At this point, whatever point Shocked might mean to make about the hypocrisy of her fellow Christians, some in the audience are taking her yelling tone as confrontational. "Come on, show it," one woman yells, baiting her. "Show your true self. Come on." Others ask: "Can you clarify?" and "What are you so afraid of?" "I believe the word of God is just what it says it is: the truth," Shocked responds, not exactly clarifying. "But you cut your hair," a woman calls out. "That's not so good in the Bible!" "I'm just saying one thing. Just one thing," Shocked retorts -- and then loudly and emphatically recites John 3:16 in Spanish. After some cries for her to say what she has to say in English, Shocked finally starts playing her acoustic guitar for the first time since she emerged on stage almost 10 minutes earlier and launches into a narrative ballad that lasts nearly seven minutes. During a spoken-word section in the middle of the song, a woman starts shouting: "Have you become homophobic or am I just confused? I'm so confused. That's the most homophobic thing I've ever heard..." As she finished her song, she was serenaded by shouts of "Homophobe" and "Everyone should get up and leave. That was rotten, that was a horrible thing to say" and "You've been confusing." Rather than explaining herself, Shocked says, "I've got a question for you all. It's a sincere question. How are you enjoying reality so far? Sucks pretty much, doesn't it?" She apparently looks at her phone. "I just got a tweet. It says 'Don't come to San Francisco sayin' that shit.' Where do I go to say that shit?" "Uh, Arkansas," a man suggests. "Wow, that's so weird," says a woman in bemused disbelief. "You're so weird." "It is weird," Shocked responds with a chuckle. "Yeah, it is weird. This is not my choice." After a few more catcalls about Shocked's "reality" and cries of "Get her out of here," an announcer says, "I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for joining us tonight at Yoshi's." "You're pulling the plug? They're giving me the hook y'all ... I still got game." With the sound of much of the audience that is now chattering out in the lobby coming through the doors, a few remaining audience members urge her to continue, and she launches into an unamplified protest song about American values, which includes lines like "I seem to bring out the very worst in you" and "You yell at me and tell me it's my treachery." At one point in the tune, she is shouting and hoarse. The final kicker for those remaining: "I just want y'all to know that I didn't ask for a deposit for this performance. And I have pretty good reason to believe that when I leave here tonight, I'm gonna be told that I did not give anyone their money's worth. So now I would like to pass the hat and ask if you wouldn't mind putting a dollar in for the folk singer, for the busker, for the street performer." |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Mar 13 - 08:04 AM 'If you listened carefully to the recording, MtheGM, you would have heard the financial arrangement for the evening, which was that MS did not receive an advance or guarantee, but was to receive the gate--however since the manager offered refunds, there would be no gate, which was why she, likely ironically, discussed passing the hat'. .,,. Thanks, Stim, & Guest who printed such a usefully full summary. I must admit I had got a bit comatose by then & seem to have missed it. I am still not sure about Dick's 'entitled', mind. The labourer is worthy of his hire & all that; and if the boss isn't satisfied with the job he will presumably hire a different labourer next time. But that doesn't mean he can withhold payment this time, IMO. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 13 - 08:15 AM He can if the laborer didn't do the job |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 13 - 08:42 AM I suppose in theory she could claim that she was entitled to be paid the gate based on purchased tickets, and that the decision to pay back people walking out was a transaction made by the management which didn't affect that... Would it be any different in legal terms if it had been an audience walking out because, for example, a performer expressed other views that people found offensive? Which could include a very wide range of things. I'd think for that a performer would need to keep on performing at least until there wasn't a single person left in the audience. Which doesn't appear to have happened in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 23 Mar 13 - 09:28 AM After reading the transcript above (thanks, GUEST), I think the most important thing she said was what she shouted out: "I AM SICK OF CHRISTIANS FILLED WITH HYPOCRISY HIDING BEHIND THE SYMBOL OF A CROSS!" She said it off mic, because it was a sort of an 'aside' that revealed how she really felt. She was making it obvious to the more oblivious audience members, who were WAY more oblivious than she thought. The rest was mostly sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn't work once the derision starts. It was misunderstood because people these days should be assumed to be smart enough to figure out sarcasm when all they want is an excuse to get all "I'm better than you" on someone's ass. Hell, look at Mudcat. It's reality-TV way of thinking. You're either all-in or in an all-out-offensive. I think Ron's response is the most sensible thing that's been posted on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: meself Date: 23 Mar 13 - 10:11 AM I don't think I'm that much less understanding of verbal communication than the next person - but, reading that transcript, I have no idea what she was trying to say. I find it more bewildering than outrageous. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jeri Date: 23 Mar 13 - 10:43 AM I can understand that. A lot of it only makes after reading the transcript a few times and her explanation. Even then, I'd tend to react mostly to the confusing nature of it than the "third rail" triggers. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 23 Mar 13 - 11:27 AM That may be an important idea to you, Jeri, but from MS, it was just another catch phrase, tossed into a mix of other catch phrases, all of which have meaning to some people on their own, but which don't mean anything when tossed together the way they were. My point above, (which I think was a way better point than Ron Bankley's;-)) is that it's very easy for performers to toss out aphorisms that the audience will applaud, without really saying anything. Furthermore, the performer can be totally ignorant of the issues at hand, or even"Bat Shit Crazy", and people won't realize it, because they're saying what the audience wants to hear. My point being that we were thinking "We Shall Overcome", when it was really more like "Clair de Lune", and we didn't realize that when she started tossing those old peace movement canards around, it was time to duck. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: Jack Campin Date: 23 Mar 13 - 11:54 AM How do venues generally deal with performers that flaky? There have been quite a few alcoholic or otherwise addicted performers who managed to keep a career going despite sometimes being too drunk to turn up or too smashed to find the microphone. But I can't think of one who did it when the problem was public psychotic outbursts. Would anybody, anywhere book her now? |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Stim Date: 23 Mar 13 - 12:30 PM They handle them with kid gloves, and hope for the best. If the performer can keep it off the stage, they may be able to manage, but people who act out, even offstage, get a reputation that eventually catches up to them. Here are some famous performers who had severe psychiatric problems: Brian Wilson, Syd Barrett, Kurt Cobain, Sinead O'Connor, Ray Davies and Nick Drake. You know how it worked out for all of them.... |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 23 Mar 13 - 03:07 PM So despite quite a number of people listening to the tape and studying transcripts, no one can figure out what she was trying to say. Plenty of people in the room, who of course could only hear it as it happened, seem to have interpreted it in a way which they found offensive, but who knows if they were right in understanding her words in that way? It sounded to me as if she started out by talking about people with extreme religious views and trying to reconcile her religious beliefs, which she shares with them, with their attitudes. However it wasn't expressed at all clearly, and whenever she started trying to explain herself she got diverted by challenges from the audience, and the whole thing became very incoherent. I guess the lesson is, keep it simple. If you want to express complex and contentious ideas, especially to an audience which might be hostile, take the time to figure out very carefully what you're going to say and how you're going to say it. But even if she had presented a coherent and cogent argument which did not offend the audience, was that the time and place? A musician is there to perform music. An introduction to the songs and perhaps a bit of banter is fine, but the audience isn't there for a political discussion. If she has something to say, she can say it through her music. Just shut up and get on with it. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: John P Date: 23 Mar 13 - 06:08 PM Interesting thread. There was one comment early on that I can't let go: Paddy Dzell said: This term "hate speech" simply means something that you don't agree with, or that most people don't agree with. Sorry, Paddy, you are out to lunch on this one. I hear people say things I disagree with all the time without calling it hate speech. To me, hate speech is about bigotry: hating people because they belong to a group that you don't like. I will defend to my last breath anyone having the right to say almost anything they want to say. But if it is bigoted speech, I will also do my best to get them to shut up, and I will defend other people's right to limit the places in which they are allowed to say these things. If I owned a club and a performer started spouting bigoted hate speech, I'd pull the plug immediately. They may have the right to speak their minds, but not on my property or in a situation that has my name associated with it. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 13 - 08:39 PM And on that definition I can't see Michelle Shocked's confused spiel as qualifying as "hate speech". Though I can see that some people might have heard it as that. |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: rosma Date: 10 Apr 13 - 09:08 AM All through my folk-following "career" I have heard people on stage or performing from the floor saying things I didn't agree with, and asking (or even expecting) the audience (including me) to agree with them. My politics may have changed in that time, however subtely, but that's not the point. If I like the music I listen to it - if I don't I "switch off". If I took the views of everyone whose music I like too seriously, my music collection would be a lot smaller and I'd have had a lot less fun. I used to be a big MS fan, and I have lapsed more through laziness than aversion. I have seen her live on at least two occasions, and still wish I had had the presence of mind to see her at a small, free, gig in Reading UK soon after I first heard of her. Simon |
|
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Michelle Shocked From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 13 - 10:05 AM Have a feeling she may be doing more small, free gigs. |
| Share Thread: |
