Love/Hate Mail
“Devil” worship
Many thanks to Jim Ridley for objectively and intelligently dissecting last week’s fallout from Steve Earle’s “John Walker’s Blues” (“Sympathy for the Devil,” Aug. 1). He rightly pointed out The Wall Street Journal’s editorial as among the least incisive of the bunch (second only to the New York Post’s). The notion that Earle needs some sort of career boost, or even more ludicrous, the idea that Earle wrote the song to land on the charts, could only be put forth by individuals who have a very limited view of his music, not to mention the world in general. The fact that something as seemingly benign as “John Walker’s Blues” (the complete lyrics can be found on the Internet) could ruffle so many feathers says a good deal about the media’s inability to deal with the complexity of post-9/11 America.
David Kennedy
DKennedy@thinkfast.com (Houston, Texas)
More Earle defenders
Just want to compliment Jim Ridley’s stellar, clearheaded piece on the hullabaloo about Steve Earle’s “John Walker’s Blues” (“Sympathy for the Devil,” Aug. 1). Earle has gained his place as a dissident folk songwriter both by working hard for many years and by simply being an American. If talk radio nincompoops can waste entire days ranting about semi-informed nonsense, then surely Steve Earle can take the time to write a song that actually tries to understand how and why someone could become so alienated by their own culture. As Ridley points out, isn’t that the folk tradition? Woody Guthrie wrote a lot more than just “This Land is Your Land.”
The comparison between the reception of this song and that of Springsteen’s “Paradise” from The Rising was also welcome. I agree with Mr. Ridley that while Earle’s career is doing fine, thank you very much, he’s certainly no saint and certainly not above seeking some publicity—but this isn’t a case of that. Why exactly is Earle being demonized and Springsteen lionized? Each is a perfectly valid songwriter and artist. Each writes and performs some of the best work in his genre.
Does it have something to do with public image? Columbia Records certainly seems to be spending a lot of money to inform everyone that Springsteen’s latest is a working-class masterpiece on patriotism and loss rather than a tidal wave of corporate hype. Or does it have something to do with the fact that so few people ever listened to any of the lyrics to “Born in the USA”? Do they still have some mistaken impression of Springsteen as a flag-waving, butt-shaking doofus and not the smart, critical writer that he is? If that wasn’t evident in the Reagan era, it certainly was after Sept. 11, when the song blared from every football and hockey game in the country (along with Mellencamp’s “Pink Houses”).
When it has been convenient, the public has co-opted protests songs. Maybe Earle’s not pretty enough—maybe he’s too outspoken on too many touchy issues. With the American political climate as paranoid and fearful as it is, it’s of the utmost importance that we not only defend artists like Earle, but also that we take the time to actually listen to the songs, explore the issues and most importantly, explore our own convictions and fears.
Clay Steakley
claysteakley@comcast.net (Nashville)
Unsolicited etymology
Shambolic is indeed Britspeak for disorder, but more than mere disarray is implied (Political Notes, Aug. 1). Shambolic means resembling a shambles. Originally, a shambles was the board on which meat was cut and displayed and, later, the slaughterhouse whence it came. By degrees the word has “morphed” into broader and stronger imagery: a scene of carnage.
The Economist is not normally given to hyperbolic language, but when a respected and insightful journal feels it can convey the Tennessee situation only in these terms, it’s time to worry. Our tax structure remains unreliable and unfair, yet all but one or two of the candidates in the recent primary outdid themselves in their vehement opposition to an income tax. Sure, that gets them elected, but let them have no illusions that “unshambling” will not be necessary sooner or later, and this will call for some very tough and unpopular decisions.
T. Mark Hodges
tmhodges33@aol.com (Nashville)
Talk about a leap
Liberals of various stripes have tried to use the recently revealed corporate accounting scandals to further their own long-standing agendas. Liberal Democrat politicians are trying to lay the blame on the current administration. Others are trying to use them as an indictment of capitalism itself.
Bruce Barry’s column that assigns some blame to business schools is just another case of a liberal jumping on that bandwagon (The Nation, Aug. 1). Barry uses a lot of verbiage, such as “the social institution of commerce” and “the social dimensions of commerce” to advance the notion that business schools should teach socialist ideology .
This is nonsense. There is nothing inherent in an advocacy of, or belief in, free market capitalism that applauds, excuses or supports financial misrepresentation. Teaching socialism isn’t going to keep anyone disposed to committing financial chicanery from doing so. Corporations aren’t the only entities that are accountable for financial reporting or that have engaged in financial chicanery. Government and nonprofit organizations have been (and are) guilty as well.
In fact, the federal government’s financial reporting and representations are far more screwed up and fraudulent than even the worst examples in the corporate world. Prime evidence of that is the so-called Social Security “trust fund” that is essentially nothing more than a bunch of worthless IOUs the government wrote to itself and is calling an “investment.”
The way to deal with people breaking the law is to prosecute and punish them—and that’s all. Trying to turn business school students into good little socialists isn’t called for and wouldn’t work anyway.
Gilbert Martin
GMartin45@aol.com (Smyrna)
Matt didn’t pay this guy
“Desperately...” is not dead, just renamed. Matt Pulle’s insightful piece on the fall of Channel 4 cut to the quick (“Bad News,” Aug. 1). The never-ending live shot “dog licks” of long-over news scenes would be hilarious if they weren’t so stupid. Dark courthouses and empty streets add nothing to the story. Wake up, Channel 4. And, the anchors’ candid comments were astounding. Their contracts must be airtight.
C. Jon Johnson
CJJ@TNFinancialResources.com (Nashville)
Comments (0)