An Open Letter to MAGA

Hey, guys...

Well, it's a little more than three weeks since the election.  Your boy Trump gets to be President again.

Notice I'm not congratulating you.

I don't need to, because y'all are doing enough self-congratulation for both of us.  A lot of gloating and snickering, too:  Gloat, gloat, gloat, ha, ha, ha, nyah, nyah, nyah, blah, blah, blah.  There has also been some truly venomous spewing from various right-wing social-media personalities, like that funny little guy who shouted "Your body, my choice" at the women of America.  Wow, that didn't end so well, did it?

Or the Faux Noise--oh, excuse me, Fox News--personality who exulted that he would be laughing when "illegal immigrants" were dragged from their homes.  I believe that Jesus was right in saying that "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Which makes me glad I can't pry into that guy's heart, because I would be reaching for the strongest cleaners and disinfectants in my janitorial arsenal.

And then there was the social-media mass message to a lot of Black people, directing them to report for "cotton-picking" duty at the nearest plantation.  The FBI and the Justice Department are both investigating;  as of this writing, they have no clear idea who is behind the texts.  Some of those messages went out to middle school students!

But I digress.

So, election done, Trump goes back to the White House.  And you think you've won.

But you haven't.  None of us have.  In fact, when you pulled that lever for Trump, it was actually the flush lever on a gigantic toilet tank, and that sound you're hearing right now is the entire country going down the sewer line.

Far from "owning the libs,"  well...how can I put this?....

That bridge was never for sale.  Death Valley is only beachfront property if you like beach with no ocean.  You just handed over your money for a bag that contains a large rock instead of a pig.

In short, you've been had.

"Prove it!"

Okay.  Those tariffs?  They won't "punish" China or any other country, because the country doesn't actually pay the tariff to the U.S. Government.  The company that imports the goods does, and then they pass on that cost to the consumer.  In fact, if there is a middle man between importer and retailer, they will add to that original cost, and the retailer will add yet more, so that by the time we buy those tariffed products, they will cost far more than the addition of the tariff should account for.  Plus, if fuel is also being tariffed, the transportation of other goods will go up, adding to the general misery.

Trump promised to lower the costs of groceries and fuel.  With a 60% tariff on anything from China, a 25% (threatened) tariff on anything from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% tariff on anything from everywhere else, he is doing the exact opposite!

Here are a few examples:

Pharmaceuticals, both for humans and animals - Many are made in Ireland or Europe.  So at least 10% higher prices on those (25% if they're made in Canada).

Fruits and vegetables - A lot of those are grown south of the border, so 25% higher if it's from Mexico, 10% if it's from further south than that.

Electronics - China, mostly.  That new iPhone is going way, way up!

And on, and on, and on:  Contact lenses, aluminum, paper and paper goods, wood, chainsaws, books (if printed elsewhere;  lately I  have been seeing a lot of "printed in China" notations on book jackets), roller chain, clothing and more clothing...oh, and crude oil, 60% of which we get from Canada.  (They're pretty pissed at your boy Trump, by the way.)

And even with things made here in the USA, many of the parts and materials come from somewhere else.  Ford is just one of the auto manufacturers who imports parts for their home assembly lines (one new van's sticker says that some of the parts come from Turkey!)

Another example?  Okay, how about...

...Project 2025?  Yeah, that thing that Trump said he had nothing to do with, hadn't read, didn't want to read.  Well, it's for real, and it will happen.  Or at least as much of it as he can get away with.

If you've never heard of this steaming pile of bullshit, then let me tell you a little about it.

It was written up by the Heritage Foundation, a highly-conservative-leaning (I would say toppled over) think tank that exists only to promote extreme conservative policies in government.  An earlier edition of the document was presented to Ronald Reagan, and it shaped some significant aspects of his administration.  Remember the "Star Wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative - shooting down ICBMs with other missiles) debacle?  A Heritage original!

Here is some of what Project 2025 wants to do:

• It proposes ending a number of government departments, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education.
• It advocates privatizing NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the parent agency of the National Weather Service.  This would be a disaster, both for people who depend on those free TV/radio/text weather bulletins (tornado/severe thunderstorm/hurricane watches and warnings) and for scientists who study both weather and volcanic activity...oh, you didn't know that was part of NOAA?  It is.  Say goodbye to the nice public service, y'all.
• It strongly advocates removing experienced people from government agencies across the board and replacing them with party loyalists.  This is insane...but it's already happening.  Or have you not been paying attention to the people Trump is choosing for his Cabinet?  TV personalities.  Congressfolk who are actively hostile to the agencies they will control.  People who are totally unqualified to oversee their own households, let alone a government department.  And if they are confirmed, or if Trump persuades the Senate to stay out of session and allow those candidates in without confirmation ("recess appointments"), then you can bet this new Cabinet will sweep their various departments clean of anyone who has the guts and the ability to do their actual jobs.  In short, it will break the government.
• It opposes any efforts to mitigate climate change, and favors the "drill, baby, drill" mentality.  (Note:  Fossil fuels are a finite resource.  If current demand increases at the same rate as we discover new reservoirs of oil, gas and coal, these resources might last another hundred years or so.  If technology is developed that can extract said resources from more difficult-to-reach sources, it might be longer.  But eventually, it will become more efficient [and profitable] to focus on renewable energy than on fossil fuels.)
• It proposes the end (or significant reduction) of what a lot of the GOP calls "entitlement" programs, like SNAP, WIC, TANF, Social Security, SSI, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, the ACA...basically, any program that helps the poor, elderly, and/or disabled.  The proposal is larded with a bunch of pious rhetoric about how Democratic policies have created a "culture of dependency,"  but what the removal of these programs will do is leave a lot of vulnerable people out in the cold...literally.  There will be more homelessness, more poverty, more illness, more hunger, than we have had in decades.

And, oh, so much more.  The end of abortion, and the restriction of birth control;  restrictions on LGBTQ rights, including ending gay marriage;  removal of any teaching of Black history, including the truth about slavery and systemic racism;  getting rid of PBS, and indeed any government-funded media;  slashing of USDA programs that help farmers;  mass deportation of immigrants;  et alia, ad nauseam.

The entire doc is online, if you want to either read it there or download it.  But expect it to become a "banned book" pretty soon.

Some kind of Christian...

A big part of Trump's rhetoric (and another part of Project 2025) is about how the USA is a Christian nation.

We are not.  We never were.  Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, and they didn't want the new government to favor any one religion over another.  The Constitution forbids it, and also fobids any religious test for government officials.  What the Founders did want is for everyone to be able to worship (or not) as they choose.  That seems to line up with Jesus' attitude;  rather than call down fire from Heaven on a Samaritan town that wouldn't allow him in, He went elsewhere to stay.  And then later, sacrificed Himself for the sins of all the world...including everyone in that Samaritan town!

However, Trump has plenty of support for his views, from a loose aggregate of people known as "Christian Nationalists."  They think all our present troubles stem from our country having "fallen away from God,"  and they think if they just put the Ten Commandments in schoolrooms, institute school prayer, teach Biblical morality, and put Christians into positions of power, we will be blessed and everything will be perfectly hunky-dory.

Couple of problems with that, folks.

Problem the First:  It is impossible to force people to be born again.  The Holy Spirit must draw someone to Christ, or it just doesn't stick.  If you try to legislate morality, or require proof of faith in people, I can promise that what you will get is the form of Godliness that has none of the true Power thereof.  That's if it doesn't make people actively hostile to Christ.  I've already met plenty of folks who want nothing to do with Him because of the actions of some of His followers.

Problem the Second...this guy you elected....Didn't Jesus say something about knowing a true Christian leader by his/her fruits?  By how well they showed forth His values and teachings in their lives?

I don't have the standing to determine Trump's status with God.  But his fruits are as rotten as that bag of oranges you left in the car a month ago (so that's what that weird smell is).  As such, it seems to me that no Christian should be listening to what he has to say...which reminds me again that if  "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,"  aren't y'all worried about the hatred in this man's heart?!?

We need to talk about Elon!

Okay, what the fuck is this guy doing in Trump's administration?!?

He's not an elected official, or a trained diplomat, or anything other than an extremely wealthy--Oooh.  Okay, I get it now.

Elon Musk seems to have insinuated himself into Trump's orbit for good.  Your guy has already trumped up (snicker) a brand-new government agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, of which Musk is co-chair.  You can bet that the "inefficient" parts of the government will be the parts that help us all (another way to fulfill the requirements of Project 2025).  But we will still have a bloated military, and those Congressional and Presidential salaries will still be fat as ticks.  Count on it.

So, there you have it.

You got what you wanted.

In a couple of years--assuming we still have anything resembling a free country--you can come and tell me whether you want what you got.

Pot Shot

Welp, It Happened...

...Somebody took a pot shot at Donald Trump.

It was at a rally yesterday in Butler, PA.  The guy shot at Trump's head and mostly missed;  the bullet nicked his ear.  Another attendee, however, wasn't so lucky - that person was killed.  The Secret Service killed the shooter and hustled Trump off the stage.  Trump himself didn't look too rattled - he raised a victory fist as he was taken away.

So Trump is just fine.

At the time, though...

At the time it happened, I had no clue what was going on, because I was working.  I would have known nothing for a lot longer if a shopper hadn't been talking about it on her cell phone;  when she got off, she was checking updates and saying,  "There's going to be a war if they don't cut it out."  It didn't take too much skull sweat to know which "they" the shopper was talking about.

And damn, was I scared.

I don't like Trump at all.  His policies are senseless and cruel, and his personal character is about the same.  Having him back in the White House would be a disaster for our country.  But as President Biden said, right after the attempt (as opposed to watching it all on TV for three hours),  "Political violence is unacceptable."  I want to beat Trump at the ballot box and send him away to obscurity and prison, not make him a martyr (he's already slated for prison;  one down, one to go).

But if the termite-ridden MAGA branch of the GOP started blaming us Democrats...what then?  Would they start doing drive-by shootings on any house with a Biden-Harris sign in the yard?  Kidnap and kill our pets?  Honestly, I was hoping that my house would be intact when I got there after work.  Because at the time, I had no data to work with other than "Trump got shot."

Now we know...kind of...

The FBI got right to work on the case, and it only took them a few hours to find out that the shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks, from Bethel Park, PA.  He was 20 years old, a registered Rebublican whose first vote was in the 2022 midterm elections, and an extreme gun enthusiast (he was wearing a Demolition Ranch tee shirt at the rally).  Why he chose to take a shot at Trump, I don't know yet.  Neither does anyone else...but the conspiracies are flying already.

I will write more when I know more.  Stay tuned.

That Facepalm Moment...

People Say the Darndest Things...

Well, it happened again.

I had to counter another round of dis/misinformation.

This time, it was to a customer.  He was browsing, and I asked if I could help him.  He said no, he was just looking around.  He had decided to shop at our store from now on, and would no longer be shopping at our rival because they were putting out Pride merch in honor of LGBTQ+ Month.  He complained that the LGBTQ community were "shoving it in our faces," that doctors were gender-changing little kids who had no idea what was happening, and that drag queens were doing strip shows in libraries.  When I pointed out that the queens were merely reading books to the children, and that the aim was to get them to love reading (as any Story Time reader is trying to do), he backtracked and said that "children were going to drag shows."

I'll pause a moment to allow my readers to slap their palms firmly onto their faces.  Okay, hands down as I continue...

Here is what I told my dis/misinformed customer, in no particular order:

1) Pride Month (the informal name) is primarily about information.  Its intent is to clear up all the stupid stereotypes and show that all the "letter people" are just people, with the same rights and privileges as anyone else.  Also, learning about people who aren't like you removes fears and stigmas that are based on bad info (like the kind my customer was repeating;  he also mentioned a school in a nearby town that had supposedly put a litterbox in a kids' restroom for a child who said she was really a cat.  That internet rumor has been going around for so long, with a different school in every repeat, that I wonder how anyone can still believe it).

Now:  Are there "letter people" who go overboard?  Yes, there are.  The parades can bring out the flame, for sure.  And that can drown out the voices of those who just want to live openly as a valued citizen of our nation, without being subjected to hateful slurs and physical violence.  But the outrageousness doesn't change the need for acceptance, just as the riots during the BLM protests don't change the need for radical improvements in our policing system.

2) Re drag shows - the queens and kings are not strippers!  A drag show is a chance to flaunt inner beauty by dressing up to the nines.  Some of the performers cosplay as their favorite divas (or divos), but many have their own original personae.  It's actually really fun and the people look absolutely fabulous!

And as for children going to the shows, I did some research and found that one of the venues in our nearby city does allow youth 13 and up into the show.  Because of the humor and adult-themed jokes expressed by the performers, attendance by anyone younger than that is not recommended.  However, the proprietors say that it's up to the parent.  (Kind of like a PG-13 movie.)  Another place - the oldest and most famous venue in the city - will not admit anyone younger than 21, since they serve alcohol.  A third is a designated Safe Space for youth in crisis...and I really doubt that an abused teenager seeking help is going to be damaged by seeing a few people in drag, especially if those people are helping him get out of a bad situation.

3) Doctors are not performing gender surgery on little kids!!!!  I have a friend who had gender dysphoria, and it wasn't until he grew up that he was able to get a truckload of counseling and then begin his treatments.  Most of the stress involved came from the way other people reacted to his revelation of who he was inside.

What sympathetic parents are trying to do with their kids is help them identify who they are, then help them live it as best they can before they come to an age when they can safely do something about it.  So a trans girl will dress like a girl if she wishes (clothes have become more unisex) and use a family/unisex restroom.

("But how can they know when they're little?"  asked my customer.  Well, how does anyone know who they are?  They just do.  "But teaching about all that gender stuff just confuses the kids."  But it also helps a kid realize that the way they feel isn't some weird mental illness.  The confusion will shake itself out with the help of those sympathetic parents.)

The customer admitted, after I had told him all this, that he needed to do research before he repeated everything he heard.  But he did say that if we ever started displaying Pride flags, he would shop elsewhere.  Which is his choice.

I Hate Liars. Don't You?

 Truly A New Low...

I get a lot of unsolicited text messages.  Mostly, this is because I put my name on both my state and national "don't-call" list.  Unfortunately, there's a loophole, because there is no such list for texts;  so I usually just glance at strange texts, delete all the organizations I don't recognize, and let it go.

But over the last two days, I have gotten a couple of texts that really disturb me.  The anonymous sender says that "left-wing organizations" are "collecting your data" for nefarious purposes.  After this, s/he instructs me that if these people ask for my name, address, and signature, I should "decline to sign."

A second such text makes it sound even scarier:  "out-of-town strangers" collecting the data for "left-wing extremist" groups.  Again, there is the "decline to sign" instruction, and I am further urged to "protect yourself from fraud and theft!"

Are These People Serious?!

Now, I have signed quite a few petitions in my day.  Most of them have been for ballot initiatives, which are a way for the people of a state to get a law passed when the state legislature won't do it.  Things like Medicaid expansion, the legalization of recreational marijuana, and the reformation of highway funding are several things that have gotten done only because We the People of my state started a ballot initiative.  

The way it works is that canvassers either go door-to-door, set up a table in a public space, or just approach people and ask them to sign their petition.  They have to explain what the petition is for, and they are not allowed to accept any kind of donation or gift from those with whom they speak  (I know this because the last petition I signed was on a chilly day, and I tried to buy the workers a coffee...which they politely refused).  If they can get enough people to sign the petition by a given deadline, it becomes a ballot initiative and will be voted on in the next general election.

And yes, they do need your name and address, because they have to prove that all the signatures they get are from residents of the state.  Only state residents are allowed to determine whether there is enough interest in an issue to put it on the next ballot.

Let me make this absolutely clear:  Your identity cannot be stolen just because someone knows your name and address.  And if your signature were another way for someone to defraud you, then signing your name on those touch screens at the store or at the restaurant would be way more dangerous than signing a piece of paper with lines all down the page.

So, What's Really Going On?

Funny you should ask.

There are two hot-button issues in my state right now:  "school choice" (a.k.a. vouchers) and abortion.  The GOP super-majority in our legislature is really on board with a near-total abortion ban, and they're practically drooling at the idea of defunding public schools and siphoning the money into vouchers that supposedly give parents a choice in the way their kids are educated.  Private schools are supposedly better than public schools, with better curricula, better teachers, and safer environments, so hey!  Instead of that run-down public school where the teachers are paid peanuts and the textbooks still call Myanmar "Burma" and the nerds get swirlied on a regular basis, a parent could use public money to send her little one to that fancy private academy where he will do so much better!

Except, those private schools can accept or reject whomever they want.  A transfer student from a public school would still have to meet the private school's standards for academic performance and good behavior.  Paid tuition or not, any kid who couldn't keep up his grades or stay out of trouble would be expelled.

Moreover, it might be a lot harder to get to and from a private school, especially in a rural area.

And lastly, those vouchers would make it impossible for public schools to improve.  It's like giving someone else a transfusion, but being expected to put in a full day's work while doing so.  It's crazy!

But the GOP love the idea.  To gain support, they have focused on a bunch of non-issues, like "woke" ideology, trans- and homosexual infiltration, critical-race theory, "bad" books in school libraries, etc. 

So, in defense of public schools, some (yes, left-wing) groups have gotten together and are now circulating a petition to keep public schools funded.  If it makes it to the November ballot, the entire state gets to finally decide the issue for themselves.

The same thing is happening with the abortion ban.  The petition is circulating, and if it gets enough signatures, we will decide in November whether to allow a woman to choose to abort if she needs to, or if she is too young, or if her life is at stake, or if it's a rape/incest/abuse case...and also, whether that woman and anyone who helps her is a criminal.

Now, the anti-choice crowd - the Right to Lifers, the conservative religious groups, and so forth - are up in arms about abortion.  The only thing they think about is "saving the unborn."  That would be all fine and good if that were really the case.  But most abortions are done within the first trimester;  the embryo isn't viable--it cannot survive outside the womb.  One of the reasons that the six-week ban is so stupid is that many women wouldn't even know they were pregnant yet!  (A woman can miss a period for several reasons other than pregnancy;  stress, medication, and malnutrition can all affect a woman's cycle.)  

And once a pregnancy reaches the viability stage, the only reason an abortion is done is because of a fatal birth defect, such as a missing vital organ, or because the life of the mother is in danger.  Needless to say, such late-term abortions are very rare, and only a few doctors are trained to perform them.

Besides which, no woman is getting an abortion on a whim.  It's a tough choice, and any woman in that position has already thought seriously about what to do.  It should be her choice, not the government's or that of some misguided religious group.

However...

....The right-wing coalition is perfectly free to oppose these initiatives.  And they might just win.

But they aren't being honest about it in those "decline to sign" messages.  When they, or anyone allied with them, conceal their true position by fear-mongering ("They're stealing your data!") about things that have nothing to do with the real issues (vouchers and abortion), then they have lost the moral high ground.  They are, in fact lying to you.  And I really, really hate liars!

Do You Feel Like I Do?

Then spread the word.  If you get deceptive "decline to sign" texts, or you have friends who have gotten them, then set the record straight.

Because it's not data collection those mystery texters are afraid of;  it's your taking a stand in favor of something they don't like.  So let's go scare the shit out of them, shall we?

The Ones who Never Return

 Another Reason I Hate Modern Country Music...

It's no secret that I can't stand the stuff that passes for country and western music music nowadays.

But it's not for the reasons you might think.

I'm not upset when country artists borrow elements from the rock and soul genres, or even rap and hip-hop, if it helps them tell their stories.  (Full disclosure:  I've never heard a country song using rap that was really effective in getting its message across;  it always sounds like they could have done it better using a more traditional format.  For one thing, their rhymes are weak!)

I don't bat an eye at rockers who "go country" or country artists who cross over to rock or pop.  There have been crossover artists since rock and country first became identifiable genres.  Glen Campbell, Anne Murray, and Kenny Rogers were equally lauded on both country and pop radio;  more recently, Cheryl Crow, Darius Rucker (Hootie and the Blowfish), and Shania Twain have successfully crossed over from rock to country and vice-versa.  The blend of Lil Nas X and Billy Ray Cyrus produced a really weird sorta-country, sorta hip-hop hit with "Old Town Road."  (Further disclosure:  I still think Lil Nas X got shafted by Billboard!)

Nope.  What really puts hay down my tank top is the subject matter.

In particular, the whole superiority thing.  As in, the home town or the farm is so wonderful and perfect, and the city sucks.  Jason Aldean's tone-deaf "Try That in a Small Town" is just the most extreme example;  there are plenty of others, like the one about the good ol' boy who went away for a while, but oh, he's back now and he's never, ever gonna leave!  Or how about the guy making fun of his ex's new boyfriend, who doesn't drive a truck, hunt, or fish, and who probably can't even change a flat tire on that hybrid?  (The song doesn't say he's a city slicker, but how many hints do we need?)

But worst of all is the trope about the girl who leaves the small town or farm to go to college or work in the big city, but finds that something's missing, so she comes back...and lo and behold, she finds that the blue-collar boy she left behind is all she really needs to make her life complete!  (These songs are always performed by men.)

I call "bullshit."

I am one of a pretty big group of both men and women who came from small towns or farms, and we could not wait to get free.  And we are never, ever, ever going back.

Why?  Well, when you are different - any kind of different - you aren't really accepted as a member of a small-town community;  there's very much of a herd mentality at work.  That's bad enough if you're an adult, but it's hell when you're a kid.  Smart kids, gay/trans kids, neurodivergent kids...they're going to have problems in a small-town or rural area, because most of the residents don't have the mental tools or experience to know how to accept those kids for who they are.  The good news is that if the kids get a chance to see what life is like in the outside world, they'll become less likely to suffocate in their given toxic environment.  They'll be looking for a chance to escape.  And when they do, they will have their own story to tell about that so-called "paradise" known to modern country as a small town!

Just once, I would like to hear a country song about one of the ones who never returned.

In fact, why don't I write one?

Maybe I'm a Mondegreen

I know, it's true

I just don't fit in

But it's not me, it's my situation

This is a monolinguistic town

And I got lost in translation

Or maybe I'm a mondegreen

A lost lyric that they don't understand

Try to sing it, but it comes out wrong

A faux ami in a foreign language

Sui generis 

A tribe of one

Always at war with all the rest

I just can't help that I'm not their kind--

It's time to leave this cuckoo's nest

Yeah, maybe I'm a mondegreen

A strange phrase they just can't believe they heard

But it's a wider world out there

And somewhere

There's a song that needs my words...

Okay, maybe more Natalie Merchant than Tanya Tucker...but think it over.  And if you are a small-towner yourself, maybe you can look at those "mondegreens" with more compassionate eyes.

A "New Yorker" State of Mind

Chosen...But why?

I had an interesting letter show up in my mailbox last October.  It came from The New Yorker, offering me 26 issues of the magazine for the incredibly-low price of $26 (plus an extra $2 for my state's sales tax.)  After thinking it over, I decided to go for it.  Two weeks after sending off my check, the first issue arrived.

Now, four months later, I have decided not to renew the subscription.  Because really, it just isn't my thing.

Okay, don't get me wrong....

There is nothing wrong with The New Yorker.  The reporting is almost BBC in its calm staidness.  The humor is often provincial (meaning, if you aren't from New York, you may not get it), but the cartoons are cool.  And it always has something to expand my mind about some subject.

It's when it starts talking about the "arts" that it loses me.

There is a way of talking about art, whether it's literature, cinema, theater, dance, music, or visual art, that makes you want to learn more about it.  A way that assumes that some readers may not be familiar with So-and-So, but here's why this person, play, movie or album is worth a listen or look.  A way that uses common language to express those sentiments.

The New Yorker doesn't talk about the arts in that way.

Not a non sequitur, I promise!

I cannot stand Ann Coulter.  She's a mean girl, especially when she's talking about people and situations that she's never met or experienced.  But after reading almost 16 weeks of New Yorker reviews of new plays and profiles of trendy artists of various and sundry kinds,  I found Ann's brand of mean words infesting my thoughts:  Rarified air.  Ivory tower.  Out of touch with the norm.  Liberal elitism.  Bleah!

So what the hell does that mean?

Well, after a great deal of thought, I found that what it means is that The New Yorker (or at least its arts section) isn't written in my native artistic language.  My Language of Art boils down to a single phrase:  "I may not know much about art [of any sort], but I know what I like."  The New Yorker's Language of Art boils down to a different phrase:  "You should like (or hate) this."  The reviewers never seem to really give their own reasons for liking or hating a film or exhibit or whatever;  instead, the reader is made to feel as though they ought to like, or hate, the art or the artist--but the reasons given are so esoteric that only the "in-crowd" of artistically-fluent people will understand them.  I'll be the first to agree that art is in the eye of the beholder, and that this is not only okay but necessary;  but I refuse to let someone else define art for me...no matter how "ironic" or "iconic" it's supposed to be.

So I guess I'm not trendy enough for a magazine like The New Yorker.

Two different cities.

There are two different New York Cities that share space in my head.

The first is the one that N.K. Jemisin and other authors (and filmmakers) made me fall in love with.  That NYC is a mixed bag of folks from all ethnic backgrounds and walks of life, trying to live, love, and make a living;  a whole lot of little communities balled together in one city.  That was what I was hoping to see more of by subscribing to The New Yorker.

The other NYC is the one from The New Yorker, and I don't like it much.  I don't speak the language, and really, I bet that if I actually went to the city, a lot of real New Yorkers wouldn't speak it either.

The Trouble With Jason...

I've Heard This Song Before...

Back in May, a new track by Jason Aldean entered the 10-song rotation on the "Modern Country" channel that we play at our store.  It was called "Try That in a Small Town," and it sounds a lot like several other "country good, city bad" songs that have appeared from time to time...same jingoistic "respect the flag or else"-"the gummint's comin' for my huntin' rifle"-"good ol' boys are the only decent people" straw-man claptrap that I have heard before.  In this case, though, it all appears in one song, sung in heavy-duty aggro mode.

Jason says that the song is about helping your neighbor and having a sense of community.  But there's already a perfectly good song with that theme:  "You Find Out Who Your Friends Are" by Tracy Lawrence.  The best part of that song is that anybody, anywhere who has ever been down and out and been rescued by true friends can relate.  But "Try That" is a definite threat, not only against big-city criminals who might try to bring their mess to Jason's town, but also anyone who might be raising awareness of police brutality, mass shootings, or the evils committed under the aegis of the American flag.

This was my problem with the song as it is, mind.

Then Came the Video!

I owe much to NPR, the Washington Post, and the "Now This News" YouTube channel for filling in the blanks for me on why everyone started calling the video--and by extension, the song--racist.  I already mentioned the implied "country good, city bad" vibe;  I could see that all the crime backgrounds in the video were urban.  The implication was that stuff like that never happens in small towns.  (This is complete bullshit;  I'll get back to this statement a little later.)

But what I did not know was that when it shows Aldean singing, the background is a courthouse where a lynching took place.  In 1927, an 18-year-old Black kid named Henry Choate was accused of attacking a 16-year-old white girl;  allegedly, he confessed, even though the girl never named him as her assailant.  A mob grabbed Henry from his jail cell, dragged him through town behind a car, and finally hung him off the courthouse balcony.  The courthouse in question--the Maury County Courthouse--is located in Columbia, TN, which was the scene of a "race riot" in 1946 (this is the white-supremacist term;  it was way more complicated than that, and it wasn't the Black people that started the trouble).  In the 1990's, it was the venue for a so-called "Good Ol' Boys' Roundup," which featured racial slurs and a pretend lynching.

Yikes.

The company that produced the video says that Aldean did not choose the video's location, and that the Hannah Montana movie was also filmed there (though I bet she never sang any racially tone-deaf lyrics against the background of a courthouse reflecting film of burning American flags).

That may be true, but...seriously.  You can Wiki both the Choate lynching (not the only one to happen there) and the 1946 confrontation.  The idea that the company didn't know Columbia's history rings false somehow.  It seems more like they didn't care.  Aldean obviously didn't;  he has consistently defended the song and said that calling the video racist is going too far.

But CMT pulled the "Try That" vid out of their rotation after the controversy heated up, and it makes me wonder if somebody there did some Wiki research of their own.  It's frighteningly easy to pick up a racist vibe from the video once you know Columbia's racist history;  CMT was doing the bare minimum of the right thing by pulling it.

Oh, and to all the Aldean fanfolk screaming about "cancel culture"...the Dixie Chicks (now just the Chicks) would like a word.  All they did to get cancelled was say they were ashamed to be from the same state as George Dubya.  Nobody I know was defending them when they disappeared from every radio station owned by Clear Channel.  So kwitcherbitchin'.

And Now, Back To My Comment...

Remember Aldean's implication that big-time crime didn't happen in small towns?  Remember, too, how I called "bullshit" on that?  Well, let me tell you a story.

Back in my hometown, there was a bachelor brother and his spinster sister, both middle-aged, who lived together in the same house.  This was in the 1980's, and things were still relaxed enough that hardly anybody locked their door unless they were leaving for a while.  The brother often came to our house of an evening, toting a case of cheap beer in the front of his overalls (he didn't own a car or truck, though he would gladly help you fix yours, or indeed help you with any odd job you needed) as a contribution to the evening's festivities (usually music played on the front porch).  His sister was a science-fiction fan like me, and we traded books and got together with the school librarian for road trips to large cities with book stores.  Neither sibling had a job, so I'm guessing one or both of them was on disability, or perhaps a military pension in the brother's case.  But if that was the case, they weren't getting much--enough for basic needs and a little beer (and book) money.

One day in the late 80's (I was away at college at the time), while the siblings were taking an afternoon nap, several teens from a neighboring small town (not city kids, mind you) walked right into the house looking for drug money.  They killed both of the siblings in their sleep, and got away with just a few dollars...not a hundred, or even twenty.  Less than that, and no jewelry or other saleable loot, since those people had none.

According to my mom, the whole town went up like a firecracker, with all kinds of threats if those punks ever showed up in town again.  The punks got caught by the county cops, they went to jail, and the only lingering effect of the murder was that now everybody locked their doors, even when they were home.

So, sorry, Jason.  Small towns do get their share of heinous crimes.  But you know what doesn't help?  Vigilante mobs.  All you get from those are lynchings.