|
|
|
Midnight In An Amish Gay Bar
Commentary by Joe Spann
Dangerous Letters
"No...It's nothing like chicken!"
- Sawnee Bean
Oh! You're here already! I'm sorry I wasn't here when you arrived, but October is always a really busy month for me. This is always the time when I prepare my Halloween decorations and, since I make everything by hand, that takes up a lot of my time. I hope you didn't have to wait too long.
Were there any Amish when you came in? No? Did you at least get to see the stool fall over? It's a trip, isn't it? Did you get yourselves anything to drink while you were waiting? Yeah, I've noticed that too. All there is to drink in here is Heiniken and Coors on tap, plus some unlabeled bottles of what I think is moonshine, which I think it best to steer clear of!
I have been giving some thought to writing a letter to the owners of the bar about the beverage situation, particularly since it's becoming apparent that we're never going to meet face to face. Plus, I've been feeling that I really should try and properly introduce myself to them. After all, they really should know who it is they keep running away from each month! Perhaps when they realize that I really don't mean them any harm, they might stop running off and we will finally get to see a real live gay Amish!
Actually, letter writing has been much on my mind of late, and I've even had myself an interesting little experience recently over a letter that I wrote to my local newspaper, The Commercial Appeal. When I was growing up, there were four critical lessons that I learned from my family: When to duck, when to run, when it was best to spend the night outside, and writing letters will always get results! Since the first three lessons involved physical safety, I tended to consider them more valuable than the letter writing thing and it was only after I had become an adult that I realized just how powerful letters can be.
Over time, I began to see writing letters would get results that a simple phone call would not. You see, letters are physical communications. They exist in three dimensions and, unlike spoken words and telephone conversations, they continue to exist long after the information contained in them has been received. One can always deny having a conversation, or claim to have forgotten a phone call. A letter is much harder to dodge. This is the very basis for the old saying, "Put it in writing".
My skills in letter writing have served me well over the years, since, in the age of the telephone, it was an art form that had largely ceased to be used or appreciated by the general public. Whenever I had a complaint with a product or service, I would never call a company except to ask for a name and an address. Once I had that information, I would fire off one of my "literary nukes" which invariably got the results I was looking for. Also, I frequently had employers who would quickly learn to value my ability to compose letters, especially nasty, vaguely threatening ones, and it was not uncommon to be asked to write for them.
However, as strange as this might sound, until two years ago, I never wrote a letter to a newspaper! You would think that someone who prides himself on the quality of his letters would be forever bombarding his local newspaper to express is opinions to the community. For some reason, I never did. It wasn't until a small riot took place in Memphis as the result of a KKK rally downtown that I was finally motivated to write. Shortly after the riot, every half - wit who could get in front of a television camera or put crayon to paper began sounding off about how the citizens of Memphis were a bunch of knuckle - dragging, slack - jawed racists. Infuriated by these blanket condemnations of my town, I wrote a sarcastic letter expressing my opinion of these jerks and e - mailed it to the Commercial Appeal.
Because my letter was so sarcastic, I never really expected it to be published. So it came as quite a surprise when the CA called me and asked if they could publish it! Naturally, it was a real ego - boost to have my very first letter to a paper published, so I quickly agreed. When it was published a week later, they had removed most of the really caustic bits, as well as some of the points I had made. This didn't really bother me, since other writers had made the same points that I had made and the core point of my letter remained intact. I also knew that papers have to be able to edit letters for content and because of the limitations of space, so I was fairly happy with the experience.
Several months passed before I got another urge to write and that was on the occasion of "Slick Willie's" famous non - apology to the American public for shaking his finger in our faces and lying about his tawdry little adultery with Monica. Now, I don't really care what Slick does with his pecker or who he does it with, nor do I care if he lies about it. However, committing perjury - lying under oath, is inexcusable under any circumstances, and for him to get up on his hind legs and shake his finger in my face was unforgivable! I fired off a letter to the paper that was short, sweet and to the point, saying that if he had a single honorable bone in his white - trash body, he should resign. Again, this letter was published with only one sentence omitted. I was now 2 for 2.
Roughly a year passed before I wrote again, this time concerning "The Blair Witch Project". Shortly after it's release, a very unhappy movie goer wrote to the paper complaining about how terrible he thought the film was and felt that he had been duped by Artisan Entertainment's publicity campaign to promote the film. He believed that the FTC should regulate film advertising the same way it does other forms of advertising.
Now, you can probably guess my reaction to that idea! Add to that the fact that I thought "The Blair Witch Project" was a brilliantly conceived and executed film, my itch to write again was overwhelming. The letter, in a nutshell, was basically that you could never create an objective criteria for the "accurate" promotion of an artistic creation, and that getting the FTC involved was a fairly bone - headed notion. I also stated that the writer needed to grow up and get over it. So he saw a movie he hated - so what? Welcome to the real damn world!
Once again, the letter was published. This time, it was published just three days after I sent it, and it was completely intact. "Wow!" I thought, with more than a little self - satisfaction, "I'm 3 for 3! They couldn't wait to publish this one! I must be really good at this!"
This year, however, my bubble got burst in a big way! In case you hadn't noticed by now, I'm something of a political animal. Politics are a constant source of fascination for me and even the most hum - drum of Presidential elections are a source of fun. This year, as always, the issue of tax - cuts have been an important feature of the campaign, and I've taken quite an interest in Bush & Gore's opinions on the subject. After a while, I developed my own personal take on the issue, and decided that this would make a good subject for another letter to the paper. So, earlier this month, I sat down and composed the following letter.
* * *
The Politics of Envy
I believe the time has come when the citizens of the Mid - South must consider the value of a political position that demands that it's adherents commit the deadly sin of envy.
One of the proposals that has been put forward by George W. Bush is a broad tax cut, which he justifies by stating that the budget surplus represents an overcharge of the tax payers and that at least a portion of it should be returned to them. Al Gore, on the other hand, has been nearly apoplectic over this idea, claiming that it will "unfairly" benefit only the wealthiest one per cent of taxpayers.
I'm afraid that my response to Mr. Gore's complaint must be, "So what?" I am unpersuaded by this argument, because it evades the underlying issue of Mr. Bush's proposal, which is that tax payers are being over - charged. I would ask the readers of this paper to consider the issue from another perspective.
Something that we should all keep in mind is that the government is a publicly supported service industry. With the exceptions of scale and variety, it is much like any other service industry in the private sector. A public servant is really no different than, say, a carpet cleaner or a house painter: All provide a useful service.
But let's consider a hypothetical situation: Let's say that you have hired a carpet cleaner to do the rugs in your home and discovered afterward that you had been overcharged for the job. Suppose, for a moment, that after listening to you the cleaner said, "I'm sorry, but I can't possibly do that! You see, you're one of my wealthier customers and giving you a refund wouldn't be fair to my less affluent clients. Their feelings would be hurt and, besides, you don't really need the money back, do you?"
Now, what would you really do in such a situation? Would you say to him, "Gee! You're right! I was just being selfish and petty! Here, let me give you some more!" Or would your response be, "Who cares what they think? It's my money and I want it back! Cough it up!" I suspect that if you are a normal human being, your response would be the latter.
No service industry in the private sector would survive a week with such an attitude, yet this is the position that Mr. Gore is taking with us. He says that if he cannot "target" these cuts, then no one should because some will benefit more than others.
There will always be someone who is financially better off than yourself, just as there will also be someone who isn't doing as well. If you give in to the corrosive and debilitating emotion of envy, as Mr. Gore would have you do, then you will discover a very unpleasant truth: If you would deny a tax cut to those who have more money than you, then those who have less will be able to demand that you get nothing either.
Envy is a poor basis for political policy.
* * *
That was the letter in it's entirety. I have to admit that I was a bit proud of myself when I had finished it, since I believed that I had really gotten to the root of Gore's "Populist objections to Bush's tax proposal. I e - mailed the letter to the CA on the morning of Oct. 7th, expecting my usual pre - publication call sometime within the next few days.
Imagine my irritation when, a full week later, I had not received the call! I didn't know what to make of this! I believed that I had written a letter that was at least as good as any that the paper was currently publishing, so why were they ignoring it? After thinking about this, I had to come to an unfortunate conclusion: I was expressing an opinion they didn't want to publish.
Now, It is important to understand that the CA, like many papers, is liberal in it's orientation, and it invariably sides with the Democratic party on matters of public policy. For example, this year, when the state government of Tennessee was considering imposing a state income tax, the paper took a strident, pro - tax position. It is always amusing to me when they publish the odd letter that accuses the paper of being "right - wing", since only those who are so far to the left that they vigorously masturbate in front of huge photographs of Stalin and Mao could consider the CA "conservative"!
Anyway, I really wanted them to publish this, so I began thinking about how I might make it more palatable to them. I finally decided that perhaps they were having a problem with my reference to "sin" in the first paragraph. Liberals really have trouble with words like that, especially with the current occupants of the White House. I also was curious to see my theory tested, so I deleted the first paragraph and sent the letter again on the morning of Oct. 16th.
Would you believe it? Not two hours after I sent this edited letter, I received the call! The man I spoke to, however, was obviously not happy at having gotten it. "Are you Joseph Spann?"
Well, "Good Morning to you too!" I thought to myself. "Yes, I am."
"Did you write a letter to the Commercial Appeal?"
"Yes, I did."
"Did you intend it for publication?"
Well, why the Hell else would I write you a letter? "Yes, I did.", was all I said, however.
"Thanks for writing." - CLICK!
No "Goodbye", no "Have a nice day", no "Kiss my ass, you right - wing extremist!", just CLICK! Well, it seems that I had put my finger on their problem! Avoid any reference to "sin" when writing to the paper in Memphis!
It also appears that you should also avoid defending tax - cuts, since, two weeks after that little exchange, the letter still has not been published! Damn, my perfect score's blown to Hell! I have to admit that I was really bummed about this. After all, for the first time someone was actually ignoring a letter that I had written. My talent was being slighted!
But, I then had a small revelation! Although I was frustrated that my viewpoint was not going to be presented in the pages of the CA, it had, nonetheless, been proven to be effective. I had written a letter that the staff of the paper could not bring themselves to publish! I had gotten under their thin liberal skins and there was certainly a measure of satisfaction to be had at that!
And, let's not forget, I have this place, where I can spout off anything I choose about anything I want! Even though fewer people will read what I have to say, It certainly isn't like I've been "silenced".
Anyway, that was my latest little "adventure". Now, I really need to get busy and write that letter to the owners! I just wonder, though, what the proper salutation to a bunch of gay Amish would be. I could be tacky and start it with something like: "Girl Friends!".
What? Oh, forget it! There's no way I'm going to start a letter with the words:"Yo, Bitch!"