Archive for category Commentary
Grocery Bag Facebook Covers
Posted by Bill Storage in Commentary on June 20, 2025
Kids once covered their schoolbooks with grocery bag paper, doodling on them throughout the year and collecting classmates’ comments. These covers became a slow-developing canvas of self-identity, boredom, and social standing – much like Facebook. Both blur the line between private and public, offering semi-private spaces open to public inspection. A book cover was yours but often unattended, visible to anyone nearby. Facebook hovers in the same in-between, diary and bulletin board at once.
That blur compressed identity into a single, layered plane. Book covers held class schedules, cheat notes, band logos, inside jokes, phone numbers, and the concealed name of a crush, all flattened together. Facebook’s feed mirrors this: baby photos beside political rants, memes beside job updates, a curated mess engineered for engagement. In 1986, no one called it branding, but the Iron Maiden logo or perfect Van Halen “VH” drawn on a cover was a quiet social signal – just like a profile picture or shared article today.
The social graffiti of book covers – “Call me!,” “You’re weird but cute,” “Metal rules” – anticipated Facebook’s comments and posts. Both offered tokens of attention and belonging, sometimes sincere, sometimes performative. Kids chose what to draw and whose notes to welcome, just as Facebook users filter their image through posts, likes, and bios. Each reflects a quiet negotiation of identity in public view.
Over time, both became dense with personal meaning and then, just as quickly, obsolete. A book cover ended the year torn and smudged, legible only to the one who made it. A Facebook timeline erodes too, its posts losing context, its jokes aging badly, its relationships drifting. Each fills the lulls – doodling during study hall, scrolling in a checkout line, with the detritus of distracted expression.
They’re ephemeral. Book covers were tossed or folded away with report cards and Polaroids. Facebook timelines slip backward, pixel by pixel, into the digital attic. Neither was meant to last. But for a moment, each one held a scrawl, a sticker, a lyric, something etched, then left behind. They’re the digital brown paper wrappers for an inner seventh-grader, still expressive, distracted, insecure, and trying to leave a mark before the bell rings.
NPR: Free Speech and Free Money
Posted by Bill Storage in Commentary on May 6, 2025
The First Amendment, now with tote bags – because nothing says “free speech” like being subsidized.
Katherine Maher’s NPR press release begins: “NPR is unwavering in our commitment to integrity, editorial independence, and our mission to serve the American people in partnership with our NPR Member organizations. … We will vigorously defend our right to provide essential news, information and life-saving services to the American public.” (emphasis mine)
Maher’s claim that NPR will “defend our right to provide essential news, information, and life-saving services” is an exercise in rhetorical inflation. The word “right” carries weight in American political language – usually evoking constitutional protections like freedom of speech. But no clause in the First Amendment guarantees funding for journalism. The right to speak is not the right to be subsidized.
By framing NPR’s mission as a right, Maher conflates two distinct ideas: the freedom to broadcast without interference, and the claim to a public subsidy. One is protected by law; the other is a policy preference. To treat them as interchangeable is misleading. Her argument depends not on logic but on sentiment, presenting public funding as a moral obligation rather than a choice made by legislators.
Maher insists federal funding is a tiny slice of the budget – less than 0.0001% – and that each federal dollar attracts seven more from local sources. If true, this suggests NPR’s business model is robust. So why the alarm over defunding? The implication is that without taxpayer support, NPR’s “life-saving services” will vanish. But she never specifies what those services are. Emergency broadcasts? Election coverage? The phrase is vague enough to imply much while committing to nothing.
The real issue Maher avoids is whether the federal government should be funding media at all. Private outlets, large and small, manage to survive without help from Washington. They exercise their First Amendment rights freely, supported by subscriptions, ads, or donations. NPR could do the same – especially since its audience is wealthier and more educated than average. If its listeners value it, they can pay for it.
Instead of making that case, Maher reaches for historical authority. She invokes the Founding Fathers and the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. But the founders, whatever their views on an informed citizenry, did not propose a state-funded media outlet. The Public Broadcasting Act was designed to ensure editorial independence – not guarantee permanent federal funding. Appealing to these sources lends NPR an air of legitimacy it should not need, and cannot claim in this context.
Then there’s the matter of bias. Maher praises NPR’s “high standards” and “factual reporting,” yet sidesteps the widespread perception that NPR leans left. Dismissing that concern doesn’t neutralize it – it feeds it. Public skepticism about NPR’s neutrality is a driving force behind calls for defunding. By ignoring this, Maher doesn’t just miss the opposition’s argument – she reinforces it, confirming the perception of bias by acting as if no other viewpoint is worth hearing.
In the end, Maher’s defense is a polished example of misdirection. Equating liberty with a line item is an argument that flatters the overeducated while fooling no one else. She presents a budgetary dispute as a constitutional crisis. She wraps policy preferences in the language of principle. And she evades the real question: if NPR is as essential and efficient as she claims, why can’t it stand on its own?
It is not an attack on the First Amendment to question public funding for NPR. It is a question of priorities. Maher had an opportunity to defend NPR on the merits. Instead, she reached for abstractions, hoping the rhetoric would do the work of reason. It doesn’t.
If the Good Lord’s Willing and the Creek Don’t Rise
Posted by Bill Storage in Commentary on June 30, 2025
Feller said don’t try writin dialect less you have a good ear. Now do I think my ear’s good? Well, I do and I don’t. Problem is, younguns ain’t mindin this store. I’m afeared we don’t get it down on paper we gonna lose it. So I went up the holler to ask Clare his mind on it.
We set a spell. He et his biscuits cold, sittin on the porch, not sayin’ much, piddlin with a pocketknife like he had a mind to whittle but couldn’t commit. Clare looked like sumpin the cat drug in. He was wore slap out from clearing the dreen so he don’t hafta tote firewood from up where the gator can’t git. “Reckon it’ll come up a cloud,” he allowed, squinting yonder at the ridge. “Might could,” I said. He nodded slow. “Don’t fret none,” he said. “That haint don’t stir in the holler less it’s fixin ta storm proper.” Then he leaned back, tuckered, fagged-out, and let the breeze do the talkin.
Now old Clare, he called it alright. Well, I’ll swan! The wind took up directly, then down it come. We watched the brown water push a wall of dead leaves and branches down yon valley. Dry Branch, they call it, and that’s a fact. Ain’t dry now. Feature it. One minute dry as dust, then come a gully-washer, bless yer heart. That was right smart of time ago.
If you got tolerable horse sense for Appalachian colloquialism, you’ll have understood most of that. A haint, by the way, is a spirit, a ghost, a spell, or a hex. Two terms used above make me wonder if all the technology we direct toward capturing our own shreds of actual American culture still fail to record these treasured regionalisms.
A “dreen,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “a dialectal variation of ‘drain,’ especially in Southern and South Midland American English.” Nah, not in West Virginia. That definition is a perfect example of how dictionaries flatten regional terms into their nearest Standard English cousin and, in doing so, miss the real story. It’s too broad and bland to capture what was, in practice, a topographic and occupational term used by loggers.
A dreen, down home, is a narrow, shallow but steep-sided and steeply sloping valley used to slide logs down. It’s recognized in local place-names and oral descriptions. Clear out the gully – the drain – for logs and you got yourself a dreen. The ravine’s water flow, combined with exposed shards of shale, make it slick. Drop logs off up top, catch them in a basin at the bottom. An economical means for moving logs down rough terrain without a second team of horses, specialized whiffletrees, and a slip-tongue skidder. How is it that there is zero record of what a dreen is on the web?
To “feature” something means to picture it in your mind. Like, “imagine,” but more concrete. “Picture this” + “feature picture” → “feature this.” Maybe? I found a handful of online forums where someone wrote, “I can’t feature it,” but the dictionaries are silent. What do I not pay you people for?
It’s not just words and phrases that our compulsive documentation and data ingestion have failed to capture about Appalachia. Its expressive traditions rarely survive the smooshing that comes with cinematic stereotypes. Poverty, moonshine, fiddles, a nerdy preacher and, more lately, mobile meth labs, are easy signals for “rural and backward.” Meanwhile, the texture of Appalachian life is left out.
Ever hear of shape-note music? How about lined-out singing? The style is raw and slow, not that polished gospel stuff you hear down in Alabama. The leader “lines out” a hymn, and the congregation follows in a full, droning response. It sounds like a mixture of Gaelic and plain chant – and probably is.
Hill witch. Granny women, often midwives, were herbalists and folk doctors. Their knowledge was empirical, intergenerational, and somehow female-owned. They were healers with an oral pharmacopoeia rooted in a mix of Native American and Scottish traditions. Hints of it, beyond the ginseng, still pop up here and there.
Jack tales. They pick up where Jack Frost, Jack and Jill, and Little Jack Horner left off. To my knowledge, those origins are completely unrelated to each other. Jack tales use these starting points to spin yarns about seemingly low-ambition or foolish folk who outfox them what think they’re smart. (Pronounce “smart” with a short “o” and a really long “r” that stretches itself into two distinct syllables.)
Now, I know that in most ways, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, but beyond the dialect, I fear we’re going to lose some novel expressions. Down home,
“You can’t get there from here” means it is metaphorically impossible or will require a lot of explaining.
“Puny” doesn’t mean you’re small; it means you look sick.
“That dog won’t hunt” means an idea, particularly a rebuttal or excuse, that isn’t plausible.
“Tighter than Dick’s hatband” means that someone is stingy or has proposed an unfair trade.
“Come day, go day, God send Sunday” means living day to day, e.g., hoping the drought lets up.
“He’s got the big eye” means he can’t sleep.
“He’s ate up with it” means he’s obsessed – could be jealousy, could be pride.
“Well, I do and I don’t” says more than indecision. You deliver it as a percussive anapest (da-da-DUM!, da-da-DUM!), granting it a kind of rhythmic, folksy authority. It’s a measured fence-sitting phrase that buys time while saying something real. It’s a compact way to acknowledge nuance, to say, “I agree… to a point,” followed with “It’s complicated…” Use it to acknowledge an issue as more personal and moral, less analytical. You can avoid full commitment while showing thoughtfulness. It weighs individual judgment. See also:
“There’s no pancake so thin it ain’t got two sides.”
The stoics got nothin on this baby. I don’t want you think I’m uppity – gettin above my raisin, I mean – but this one’s powerful subtle. There’s a conflict between principle and sympathy. It flattens disagreement by framing it as something natural. Its double negative ain’t no accident. Deploy it if you’re slightly cornered but not ready to concede. You acknowledge fairness, appear to hover above the matter at hand, seemingly without taking sides. Both parties know you have taken a side, of course. And that’s ok. That’s how we do it down here. This is de-escalation of conflict through folk epistemology: nothing is so simple that it doesn’t deserve a second look. Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. Just ‘cause the cat’s a-sittin still don’t mean it ain’t plannin.
Appalachia is America’s most misunderstood archive, its stories tucked away in hollers like songs no one’s sung for decades.
etymology, humor, writing
2 Comments