Iran’s Dissident Soccer Players Banned for Life
Banned for Life
One of the more noteworthy twists in the Iranian political crisis was the moment when several players on Iran’s national soccer team showed up for a World Cup qualifying match wearing green armbands in solidarity with the opposition. Since state television couldn’t very well refuse to cover the game, it was a rare opportunity for dissidents to get national TV coverage. And now the players in question are done for:
According to the pro-government newspaper Iran, four players – Ali Karimi, 31, Mehdi Mahdavikia, 32, Hosein Ka’abi, 24 and Vahid Hashemian, 32 – have been “retired” from the sport after their gesture in last Wednesday’s match against South Korea in Seoul. [...] Karimi is one of Iranian football’s best-known stars, having played for the German club Bayern Munich. Ka’abi played for Leicester City for several months during the 2007/8 season. Hashemian and Mahdavikia play for the German teams Bochum and Eintracht Frankfurt. [...] Iran’s hardline media have since linked the protest to the arrest on Saturday of Mohsen Safayi Farahani, who headed the country’s football governing body under the former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. He is one of several dozen opposition politicians, intellectuals and journalists to have been detained.
One of the things The Lives of Others does very well is illustrate how a dictatorial regime that prefers to stay in power through “soft” methods can use the threat of destroying people’s careers. Instead of being put on trial and executed, becoming a martyr for the cause, you can just be rendered unemployable in the field of your choice in a decision nobody has to publicly defend but everyone understands. You become, then, not an imprisoned hero, but perhaps just an apparently pathetic person—in the movie it’s a theater director who can’t direct—a cautionary tale rather than an inspirational example.
61 Responses to “Iran’s Dissident Soccer Players Banned for Life”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Man, what a bunch of cowards govern Iran. They’re afraid of green colored arm bands, old women and even little girls.
In the meantime, ,MLS is expanding. Perhaps some of these players could join American teams?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Eloquently described.
What a bunch of bastards.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
This is probably the stupidest thing the regime could have done. People will put up with a little repression, but take away their soccer stars, and they will be pissed. I don’t see how this does anything but backfire.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The brave protesters who face loss of job, imprisonment, injury and death won’t succeed in ousting Ahmadinejad, but I’m hopeful they will not have suffered in vain. They have provoked the regime itself to destroy what little was left of its pretense of legitimacy and display itself unmistakably as a plain old fascist dictatorship, and we can hope that sooner or later that will prove fatal to it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
that prefers to stay in power through “soft” methods can use the threat of destroying people’s careers.
No chance, of course, that career threats operate in the US as a method of policing political behavior.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
This, of course, means that the Iranian national team will be a lot worse than it might be. Which means that the Iranian national team will be completely, ludicrously destroyed in international competition. Which means that the Iranian national honor will be besmirched and degraded. Which honor was supposedly the whole point of the hardliners’ politics.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
These players will be cleared to play in Europe by FIFA, or failing that, by the European Court of Human Rights. Iran could be banned from international play if it persists in this policy, and probably will be.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“One of the things The Lives of Others does very well is illustrate how a dictatorial regime that prefers to stay in power through “soft” methods can use the threat of destroying people’s careers. Instead of being put on trial and executed, becoming a martyr for the cause, you can just be rendered unemployable in the field of your choice in a decision nobody has to publicly defend but everyone understands.”
Interestingly, that is precisely how behavior and thought are controlled right here in the U.S.
Take the MSM for example. Doesn’t the above perfectly describe why a guy like David Gregory is the little pussy he is? Hell, they got rid of Phil Donahue when his show was his cable network’s #1 show and CBS even got rid of Dan Rather, an anchorman icon. If their jobs weren’t safe, how could a little punk like David Gregory’s (or fill-in-the-blank) possibly be safe either?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
see ‘Lives of Others’ if you haven’t already.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
No chance, of course, that career threats operate in the US as a method of policing political behavior.
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m sure Ashleigh Banfield enjoys hosting Hollywood Heat for TruTV.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Makes me think of the 1950s US Hollywood black-listings. This doesn’t only occur in theocracies and dictatorships.
(aha, SomeCallMeTim got there before me)
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
And I forgot Froomkin! You can be an icon (Rather), extremely popular (Donahue) or you can just be very good at what you do as well as being a huge draw, like Froomkin, but if you get too progressive, your job is at risk. Meanwhile, when was the last time you heard of a member of the MSM being canned because they were too conservative?
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I’m with fostert. Theater directors is one thing, soccer stars a whole different thing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The Unbearable Lightness of Being also deals with this subject in post-1968 Czechoslovakia.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I agree with Fool at 8. Why does Matthew think so many pundits in the News Media say so many stupid things? How does he think TV anchors become millionaires?
I thought Jennifer would have explained this to Matthew by now, given that he has a mortgage. Maybe she’s waiting until Sara become pregnant.
Although Jennifer has a Mean streak. She may just lay Matthew off and then ensure only Marty Peretz has a job opening.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Huh, think of how the American people would have reacted to a similar stunt here. I mean, what if a country music act criticized the President in London, and the largest radio station owner (who by coincidence is a major political donor to the same President as well as the employer of the main mouthpiece for the party of said President) issued a virtual ban on that artists’ records. Because chart standings depend heavily on Radio airplay, such an artist would suddenly be dropped from the charts, thus endangering their recording contract (which is dependent on chart standing).
Thank goodness American politicians don’t employ such tactics…
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
In all seriousness, one of the increasingly prominent elements of “movement conservatism” is de facto bans or boycotts of entertainers, sports stars, writers, etc. for insults (perceived or otherwise) of the precious conservative soul.
All one has to do is look at Andrew Breitbart’s appalling Big Hollywood website for proof. Those losers rant and rave every day about how they want to exact revenge on whatever actor pissed them off on that particular day. Debbie Schlussel loses her shit whenever a movie fails to explicitly condemn Islam (even if such condemnations have nothing to do with the plot of the movie).
Imagine if McCarthy had Fox News as a resource…
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous poster:
Huh, think of how the American people would have reacted to a similar stunt here. I mean, what if a country music act criticized the President in London, and the largest radio station owner (who by coincidence is a major political donor to the same President as well as the employer of the main mouthpiece for the party of said President)
Bad analogy – you’re stretching – seeing as how we were at war and the Iranian government is doing the repressing not some radio station owner. Nice try though. I always laughed at the drama queens who felt they were being persecuted by Bush. Too bad he’s no longer here to kick around.
I’d say these Soccer players layed more on the line than the Dixie Chicks.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
These players will be cleared to play in Europe by FIFA, or failing that, by the European Court of Human Rights.
UEFA’s the governing authority here, and yes, if they’re allowed to leave Iran, they’ll be welcomed in domestic leagues.
Iran failed to qualify for the 2010 World Cup — that was their last qualifying match — and you could speculate on what the regime might have done had the results either got them the qualifying spot or sent them to the third-place playoff. It’s easier for them (though still immensely cowardly) to end the players’ international careers now, when the next big qualifying tournament isn’t for another four years.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Nice try though. I always laughed at the drama queens who felt they were being persecuted by Bush.
You’re right, if your income depends largely on your music being heard on radio stations and the company that controls most of the radio stations in the country unilaterally decides to not play your music anymore because you criticized the president, you should just suck it up and stop being a drama queen.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
seeing as how we were at war
We’re not anymore? Mission accomplished!
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Well, it seems that the soccer players will remain employable outside Iran. I still admire their gesture.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I imagine that those players will be able to play abroad, so careerwise they may not suffer that much. Their families in Iran may expect harassment, though.
I wonder if the authorities are thinking of taking action against the squad’s coach: After all, he could have substituted them. On the other hand, maybe they thought that doing that in the middle of an important match for Iran’s WC prospects might have backfired.
Another thing I wonder about is if we’ll see a large stream of Iranian exiles/emigres once this is all over.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Bad analogy – you’re stretching – seeing as how we were at war
This is dishonest, moronic or fascistic – pick at least one, more than one more than one may be correct.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Instead of being put on trial and executed, becoming a martyr for the cause, you can just be rendered unemployable in the field of your choice in a decision nobody has to publicly defend but everyone understands.
Kind of like being an IG investigating Americorp and going after a big supporter of the Presidents and being fired against a law you co-sponsored a year ago.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
At this point it seems pretty clear that the regime could’ve saved itself a lot of trouble by overturning the election results and installing Mousavi, regardless of who actually won the election in the first place. The actual policy differences between him and Ahmadinejad aren’t that large anyway. But now Khamenei, the Guardians, et al have dug themselves a hole they can’t easily get out of without appearing to concede a major defeat.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Except that the Iranian government did not return their passports after they returned to Iran.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
This is dishonest, moronic or fascistic – pick at least one, more than one more than one may be correct.
facetiously fascist? flippantly fascist?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I mean it was so oppressive and harsh living in Bush’s American. All of those Dittoheads riding around on motorbikes saying mean things.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Except that the Iranian government did not return their passports after they returned to Iran.
Yeah I imagine these guys knew exactly what would happen unlike some of the commenters here.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
During a London, England concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, “we don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas” (the Dixie Chicks’ home state).[2] The statement offended people who thought it rude and unpatriotic, and the ensuing controversy cost the group half of their concert audience attendance in the United States and led to accusations of the three women being un-American, as well as hate mail, a death threat, and the destruction of their albums in protest.[3]
As of 2009, they have won thirteen Grammy Awards, with five of them earned in 2007 including the coveted Grammy Award for Album of the Year for Taking The Long Way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks
SO oppressed.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Poptarts, they don’t have to have been “oppressed” for it to have been a completely insane overreaction and a good parallel to what these players are going through, even if the players are going through it to a greater extent.
As for their success since then: it may shock you to learn that winning Grammies and being popular among New York Times readers is not a surefire path to success for country acts. They went from being one of country’s most popular bands to losing their core audience and canceling concerts. Whether or not this is “oppression” it’s completely ridiculous and scary, all the more so because people like you will defend it on the grounds that we were at war.
Oh, and no one anywhere thinks you’re smart.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
They went from being one of country’s most popular bands to losing their core audience and canceling concerts. Whether or not this is “oppression” it’s completely ridiculous and scary, all the more so because people like you will defend it on the grounds that we were at war.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
They went from being one of country’s most popular bands to losing their core audience and canceling concerts.
Not oppression. People are not obligated to buy their records or go to their concerts. Period. It’s called the free market. If she had said she hates Chevys, and all the people who own Chevys decided to not buy their records or go to their concerts, would that be oppression? Now if Bush would have revoked their passports and never let them record or tour, you would have a point.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Wait a minute PopTarts, if the Dixie Chicks exercised their Right to Free Speech ten days BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, how can you retroactively justify the Clear Channel blacklisting under the premise that “we were at war”. No, we weren’t. Especially since at the time of the offending exercise of Constitutional Rights to Free Speech, Iraq had not actually attacked the US.
Frankly, if you want to be picky, there was never a Formal Declaration of War ever passed by Congress during the Bush years. We had a sidestepping “authorization to use force” that circumvented the War Powers Act as well as the Constitution.
But, back to the issue at hand. Much like the Iranian soccer players, the Dixie Chicks’ careers were effectively ended by the political establishments.
By the way, Poptarts, when your ID is Poptarts, it’s pretty rich for you to be complaining that I’M posting anonymously?
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
First off I gotta agree with the right wingers on this one, what the Dixis Chicks went through isn’t remotely close.
But Judd on the IG thing you are as usual completely full of shit.
The real story is that the independant oversight board made up of Dems and Reps unanimously voted to fire the guy and asked the White House to do it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
They went from being one of country’s most popular bands to losing their core audience and canceling concerts. Whether or not this is “oppression” it’s completely ridiculous and scary, all the more so because people like you will defend it on the grounds that we were at war.
I was joking about “being at war” and agree it’s ridiculous but this all says more about country music fans than anything else.
Some of these country music fans probably had relatives going to Iraq. Did you ever think about that? I just didn’t find the climate of Bush America that stiffling.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Judd, it’s not exactly the “free market” that caused the Dixie Chicks’ bank accounts to fail. The Clear Channel radio monopoly effectively banned their music from mainstream commercial radio. The conservative talkers on Clear Channel AM stations were advocating boycotts and fanned the emotions that actually led to death threats against the artists.
It’s not an expression of the “free market” when a de facto monopoly organizes and implements a blacklist on behalf of a Presidential administration whom they gave campaign contributions to.
Anyone who works or has worked in radio could tell you that the Clear Channel monopoly has been disastrous for the entire industry as well as the musicians trying to claw for airplay. Hell, go to any major city and check out the ownership groups of the stations. Chances are you will find only two or three companies owning a near totality of the market in question. So don’t give me this “free market” bullshit.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
37. Well, Pop, thanks to Stop-Loss, ignoring the existence of PTSD, and stretching the military too thin, the same country music fans who were fretting about their loved ones going to Iraq in 2003 have had three, four, even five more occasions to fret since.
The part of this narrative that should give you pause is at the same time the media and corporate wing of the Republican Party was organizing a disproportionate boycott of a country music act, the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls without a warrant and reading American’s emails.
WAY off topic, but on topic. Given that the eavesdropping of American citizens’ communications went WAY beyond fishing for Al Queda, has anyone bothered to ask the 2004 Bush campaign team if they used such “intel” to spy on the Kerry campaign?
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Mahdavikia! I didn’t realize he was one of them. Classy player.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Did anyone read the part where I said it doesn’t have to have been oppression to be a right-wing corporate hit job? Or the part where I said that the Iranian soccer players are experiencing similar treatment to a greater degree? Jesus Christ is it tiresome arguing with you people.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Judd, it’s not exactly the “free market” that caused the Dixie Chicks’ bank accounts to fail.
I disagree. Again, there is or was no obligation to play their music, in fact, it was probably a smart decision to NOT play their music because they pissed off the majority of the country station’s listeners, why would you play a band that your customers didn’t want to hear. Thus, FREE MARKET. Just because it had a political angle to it does not mean they were oppressed. Remember, the people not buying their albums and not going to their concerts were also expressing thier free speech.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The part of this narrative that should give you pause is at the same time the media and corporate wing of the Republican Party was organizing a disproportionate boycott of a country music act
Disproportionate to you. Again, free speech, baby.
the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls without a warrant and reading American’s emails.
Do you mean the same program Obama voted for and is continuing?
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Mehdi Mahdavikia is an Iranian hero for having scored the winning goal in the 1998 World Cup match against the US.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Judd, while I agree that no station is obligated to play anything, in the case of monopolistic operations like Clear Channel, they are the ones who set the market as opposed to reacting to it.
Moreover, it is somewhat of a stretch to consider their blacklist of the Dixie Chicks for a rather mild political comment to be a spontaneous reaction to the “free market” when the conservative AM talkers on Clear Channel syndicated shows were themselves whipping up the fury against the Dixie Chicks as well calling for boycotts.
To say that Clear Channel simply acceded to the “will of the people” also requires ignoring the substantial financial support Clear Channel had given Republican campaigns in 2000 and 2002. There was just a little too much coziness between the political establishment in 2003 and the largest entity in radio broadcasting to claim that this blacklist of a musical act for a perceived political offense was anything other than a Top Down operation as opposed to the “grassroots” efforts the revisionists pretend occurred.
Maybe it’s not “oppression”, but it is certainly pretty creepy that the political establishment of 2002 had a corporate wing that was able to effectively destroy the commercial career of a perceived political opponent.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Judd,
Yes, “disproportionate”. One sentence, “I am ashamed that the President is from my home state” and that somehow justifies a near total ban of an artist’s music on commercial radio? So, yeah, I’d say that was “disproportionate”.
As for the NSA warrantless wiretapping, a lot of us aren’t particularly happy that ANY Democrat, let alone the President, voted for it. Explain to me again just what justified the government eavesdropping on journalist’s phone calls, spying on NSA employee’s girlfriends, and reading Bill Clinton’s email? I think that a full and open hearing to show the American people just what was done in the name of “safety” would be very enlightening. Remember, the same people who have no problem with the government recording our phone calls are the same clowns fretting about the Census.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
To say that Clear Channel simply acceded to the “will of the people” also requires ignoring the substantial financial support Clear Channel had given Republican campaigns in 2000 and 2002.
Do you mean the same Clear Channel that also hosted many Air America shows during that same period? Clear Channel is about making money, The Dixie Chix pissed off their customers, therefore, no more Dixie Chix.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
So, yeah, I’d say that was “disproportionate”.
Obviously, others disagreed with you. They can still do that, can’t they?
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Explain to me again just what justified the government eavesdropping on journalist’s phone calls, spying on NSA employee’s girlfriends, and reading Bill Clinton’s email?
I think you’re listening to too much Randy Rhodes.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
In the “green arm band” game, Iran needed to beat South Korea in order to qualify for the 2010 World Cup. It was a HUGE game for Iran.
Watching the game was a strange and fascinating experience. There was something about the absurd, perfect timing of it. Seeing the green arm bands, realizing that tens of millions of Iranians -on all sides and levels of the political spectrum- were glued to their TV sets, desperately praying for victory, and knowing that as the game started the Iranian players had entered the crucible, there was an cruel beauty to it all.
South Korea had already qualified and freed-up, they played with reckless abandon for much of the game. Iran’s players played tight -for obvious reasons- and South Korea had the run of play and most of the good chances in the first half, hitting the woodwork twice and forcing Iran’s goaltender to make two very clutch saves.
Iran got the first goal, though, early in the second half. Unfortunately, in classic soccer fashion, shortly thereafter they rolled up like a turtle. For the last 25 minutes Iran settled for getting 11 men behind the ball, the defend to the death strategy. This, of course, allowed South Korea the freedom to relentlessly attack. Ten minutes from stoppage they hit the woodwork once more, and with just eight minutes left, South Korea got what seemed to be an almost inevitable equalizer off a free kick rebound.
The game ended in a 1-1 draw, a crushing result for Iran, now out of contention for 2010. Did this result have immediate repercussions politically? It’s possible. Would the four Iranian players, including their captain and best player, have been “retired” if the team had won -and therefor qualified- with their future services desperately needed?
I know one thing, I found myself rooting for them. For Iran. It seemed like a victory in a normally trivial but suddenly vital soccer game could have a tremendous positive impact on world events. Alas, it was not to be.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Oh, and as far as Clear Channels donations. I’m pretty sure their is only one party that is advocating completely detroying AM radio through the fairness doctrine. So why would they want to see them get elected. Although, I’m sure you’re just as concerned about the unions only donating to the dems as well, and they got a couple of car companies out of the deal.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Judd, the incidents of NSA employees using their positions to listen in on Americans’ phone calls and intercept emails for reasons other than national security have been widely documented above and beyond Air America.
It is disingenous to say that Clear Channel was simply bowing to the wills of their customers when they pulled the Dixie Chicks records, but that isn’t very credible when they were the direct employers of several conservative radio talkers who were driving the fake “outrage” on their programs at the same time as this phony baloney “don’t piss off our customers” boycott.
Would you have been in favor of a massive boycott and radio blacklist of Johnny Cash records if his views about the Iraq War had become public knowledge in the months before his death?
What am I saying, of course you would. Modern Conservatives are nothing more than thugs who justify anything in the name of their alleged principles. I think when it comes down to brass tax, the neo-con hatred of Iran isn’t because of Iran’s religious radicalism, it’s a *jealousy* that the mullahs have been able to maintain a theocracy uninterrupted for nearly thirty years.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Ah, the Fairness Doctrine canard. As a near 20 year veteran of radio, the thing about the Fairness Doctrine is that it is basically unenforceable. The amount of effort and expense it would take to monitor AM broadcasting for content enforcement wouldn’t justify bringing such a regulation back.
The misinterpretation of the Fairness Doctrine by the Righteous Right involves Rush having to give over half his show to other points of view. Not true. In theory, what would happen is that for each hour of right or left wing radio, an equal hour would have to be given over to the other side. Considering that most AM talkers simply rerun Rush/Hannity et. al in the overnight hours, I suspect that the “left-wing equal time” shows would simply be banished to those death timeslots. Worst case scenario, the prominant AM talkers would go satellite anyway.
However, it is a fair argument to make that a nearly total broadcast schedule of syndicated partisan talkshows is hardly in the spirit of “localism” that is spelled out pretty clearly in the FCC Charter. You’d be hard pressed to find a major AM talker in any market that devotes very much time to local issues or local programming anymore. If you want to have some fun, read the public file of some AM stations, and see the ways they twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend they actually serve the local needs of the community when literally their entire programming wheel is Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck, and Art Bell’s show.
By the way, such a regulation WOULD be legal under the 1934 Communications Act, the one that says that the Federal Government gets to regulate the content of broadcasting on stations licensed by the government. That’s why DJ’s can’t curse. That’s why 1.3 seconds of a covered up nipple incurred a million dollar plus FCC fine. You might not like it, but it’s Constitutional (a couple decades of court precedent backs this up).
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Would you have been in favor of a massive boycott and radio blacklist of Johnny Cash records if his views about the Iraq War had become public knowledge in the months before his death?
Nah, I’m not a boycott guy. I like Cash’s music, so I’ll listen to it. I even watch Sean Penn movies, gasp! But I don’t fault anyone for not choosing to support an artist for any reason, as I’m sure you do as well. But maybe not, you know, I’m just a wanna be Mullah!
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Judd, I’m not a boycott guy either. That’s why NO corporate entity ought to be enaged in political blacklisting for any reason. Such things are too much of a slippery slope, in my opinion.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I know what the Fairness Doctrine is, and so does Clear Channel, that’s why they give to repubs.
That’s why NO corporate entity ought to be enaged in political blacklisting for any reason.
So, you’ll be against it when the next union sponsored boycott of Wallmart is organized or ACORN sponsors a boycott of something or other? Or the Rainbow Coalition or Sharpton want to boycott something? Your party is the master of such acts.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Clear Channel gives to Republicans because Republicans (with Clinton’s inexplicable help) relaxed the duopoly laws that enabled them to buy up nearly half of the commercial radio licenses in every major market. People who could give two figs about Rush Limbaugh warned of the consequences of radio ownership monopolies with that bill, and sadly, their fears were realized.
Aww..Judd…why is it that when conservatives begin to lose an argument based on the facts, they have to resort to invoking boogeymen. Rainbow Coalition? Sharpton? ACORN? Last time I checked, none of those kids burned any records like Clear Channel.
As for Wal-Mart, I’m sure the thousands upon thousands of small town mom and pop shops that were driven out of business by Wal-Mart never entered your little pea brain while you were typing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Aww..Judd…why is it that when conservatives begin to lose an argument based on the facts
What facts? Your argument seems to be that because the Dixie Chix were once popular that they must remain pupular regardless of their actions.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
That’s why NO corporate entity ought to be enaged in political blacklisting for any reason.
Here, I’ll give you your words again. And then I named 4 of the biggest users of that practice and they’re all on your side of the isle, but given your disagreement of that practice, I’m sure you will denounce them when they inevitelbly do it again. Right?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:19 am
[...] writstbands in apparent support of the anti-Ahmadinejad protesters. Now Iranian authorities “have taken revenge by imposing life bans” on four of those players, the Guardian reports: Most of the players obeyed [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am
[...] in apparent support of the anti-Ahmadinejad protesters. Now Iranian authorities “have taken revenge by imposing life bans” on four of those players, the Guardian reports: Most of the players [...]