These chicks aren’t chicken
Last week I had the misfortune to be driving a van through the rural outskirts of Huntsville, Ala., and was desperately scanning the radio for something worth listening to when on came the local Rush wannabe talking about, yep, Natalie Maines. Quoth he, “Honey, weah tryin’
to forgive you, but you just won’t let it go.” At that point I naturally hit the button again, but had I known Mr. McCall’s review (“Exorcising Demons,” May 25) was coming, I would have gotten the fellow’s name, as it appears they have something in common—including, but not necessarily limited to, an inability to understand that she couldn’t care less about your forgiveness.
Now you’d assume from this opening I was a fan rushing to the Chickies defense, but you’d be wrong. I never liked them—I thought they were this decade’s Mary Chapin Carpenter. Despite substantial presence, skill and talent, I found them a tokenist, fake-edgy act allowed into the mix to “prove” that country’s power brokers really don’t regulate the content’s POV as rigidly as they in fact do. I thought “Earl” was a phony-assed piece of cutesy crap that reeked of being written on a computer in a Green Hills condo, despite its transparently counterfeit display of “attitude.”
Mr. McCall, I profoundly disagree with your review. I deeply respect these gals for publicly refusing to make nice with the troglodytes who crushed their CDs with tractors in a bizarre Dogpatch Jesus-hadi version of an Islamist book-burning. I don’t even care if the record’s any good. If they want to devote an entire CD to what the Brits call a “piss-taking,” trashing the legions of yes-men who went along with this obscenely shameful and un-American episode, I say more luck to ’em. Somebody needs to say it. It’s not like we can look to the local media. I hope they sell previously untold millions and embarrass all the business-as-usual hacks such as yourself in the process.
Maybe someday these same Deliverance types will publicly burn your writings for failure to worship Bush like a little tin god and you’ll get a clue. Um, maybe not.
JEFF PITCHER firstname.lastname@example.org (Nashville)
I’m disappointed by the review of the latest Dixie Chicks album (“Exorcising Demons,” May 25). We live in a country where freedom of speech is assumed to be a fundamental pillar of our way of life. But when a reviewer accuses the Chicks of carrying bitterness about censorship and abandonment by the industry, by default supporting that censorship, then I fear the notion of free speech has truly become myth.
LYNN WILSON, M.ED. email@example.com (Nashville)
I’m completely mystified as to why, in her latest editorial “All About ‘Pelvic Orthodoxy,’ ” (May 25) Liz Garrigan is so indignant that Bishop Choby would rather Dan Maguire not speak on Church grounds. Choby is, after all, a representative of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Cafeteria Catholic Church, and therefore cannot be giving tacit approval to people who publicly go against Church teachings. Even though Maguire was to be speaking on one Church tenet he does hold, it doesn’t follow he should be allowed to speak on Church property, because that would imply the Church supports everything he’s doing, when in fact the opposite is true. He is certainly free to speak anywhere else he wants, and since this is exactly what happened, what’s the big problem? This whole incident could have been avoided if the parish priest who cleared the event, Father James Mallett, had done his homework. But as Mallett later emailed Maguire that “I am unfamiliar with most of your work,” it is clear he dropped the ball on this one.
I’m also at a loss to explain Garrigan’s hateful editorial tone, especially concerning Bishop Choby’s open letter to the Register
. Let’s see, a Church official is unhappy that a speaker who openly disagrees with some Church beliefs will be speaking to a Church group on Church grounds. This is a surprise to her? Such a letter is akin to a call to “the Inquisitioners”? Isn’t that a bit over the top? Garrigan, along with another Catholic she quoted, George Barrett, seem to be under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is a democracy. It is not, and never has been. There is only one being in charge, and that being is God. I don’t remember God, whenever He was speaking through any of the various prophets and disciples in the Bible, or even His own Son, ever saying anything along the lines of, “These are My commandments—if that’s OK with you, of course.”
Now if Garrigan feels the current Church hierarchy is misinterpreting what God wants them to do, she, along with Barrett, Maguire and anyone else who feels they’ve got it right, can go and found their own church. Or they can find another established church more in line with their beliefs. But if she wants to remain a Roman Catholic, I suggest she ask God to help her reconcile her troubles with Church teachings in a way more positive than venom-filled editorials like this one.
KERRY CICOTTE firstname.lastname@example.org (Nashville)
Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University—a Jesuit institution. He is respected internationally for his work to bring peace and social justice to the poor and powerless. Thank you for speaking truth to power (“All About ‘Pelvic Orthodoxy,’ ” May 25).
A. REGINA SCHULTE email@example.com (Burlington, Wis.)
What women want
I’m not going to argue the Scene
’s review of Collected Stories
(“A Novel Idea,” May 25). Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would, however, like to correct inaccurate statements about Tennessee Women’s Theater Project. We’re a new company and it’s crucial that people understand what we are and what we are not.
The review quotes me as saying, “You can probably be assured that when we produce a play, there will be more women on stage than men.” I never said that. I said if theater holds a mirror up to society, why do I not see as many women’s faces in that mirror as I see around me? I said our productions will have at least as many women as men.
Mr. Brady refers to “the company’s feminist slant.” TWTP can be described neither as feminist theater nor as having a feminist slant—I’m not even sure what those labels mean! We strive to illustrate that women can speak as credibly as men to the human condition. At 51-plus percent of the population, women are
the human condition. Seems I failed to communicate that to Mr. Brady.
MARYANNA CLARKE firstname.lastname@example.org (Nashville)