STRIKE TWO for the Dixie Chicks — posing for a PETA anti-fur ad? What were they thinking? Here’s the money quote:

THE TRIO POSED in a field of flowers, wearing nothing but blossoms and their strategically placed instruments. A photo of the ad can be seen on the photographer’s Web site, sebreephoto.com.

It turns out that the Chicks are staunch animal-rights supporters, but at the last minute the group’s management put the kibosh on the ad.

“The Chicks themselves were lovely about the whole thing, but their management got worried that some of their fans were rifle-toting, Bambi-shooting types who would take offense at an anti-fur, pro-animal message,” says a source. “They forbid release of the ad because they were worried about backlash or boycott. They even tried to pay PETA $10,000 to say it never happened.”

Somehow, I think those “rifle-toting, Bambi-shooting types” will be buying CDs by some other artists from now on.

UPDATE: Meanwhile some people are muttering darkly of “blacklists” because of anger at antiwar celebrities. Hey — it’s not a blacklist when you piss off your fans. Calling it that just serves to underscore the combination of overentitlement and moral unseriousness that marks entertainers today. As Yvonne Zipp writes:

A boycott is not the same as a blacklist. No one is hauling celebrities in front of committees and threatening them with prison. Nor are they being told they can never work again if they don’t “name names.”

Entertainers are free to use their fame to promote their political views, and those people who don’t find them entertaining anymore are free to change the channel.

It’s called the free market.

Maybe that’s why so many celebrities hate that, too.

UPDATE: A reader emails:

“Somehow, I think those ‘rifle-toting, Bambi-shooting types’ will be buying CDs by some other artists from now on.”

In that case, I’ve got the perfect headline for you: “Pro-Blix Dixie Chicks nix pix for stix!”

I love it.