Article

There's Your Trouble

Considering the Dixie Chicks controversy, with hindsight 20/20

"It was early 2003. The Dixie Chicks were easily the biggest girl group in history"

Hmmm - Shouldn't the words "Country Music" be in front of the history?  The Supremes has the most number of Number One hits and the Spice Girls have sold the most records.   Not to mention TLC and the Pointer Sisters.   Easily?   I would say "not even close".   

 

The article often mentions the "off-handed comment". It wasn't an off-handed comment. It was a direct statement in front of a capacity crowd. This type of disrespect for the office of President of the United States has become commonplace as of late, but still doesn't make it acceptable - and in 2003 was almost an atrocity. Politics aside, I am a fan of the Dixie Chicks. They had a swagger and a style, blended with amazing harmonies and vocal layering that made them the huge act that they were. A slam against our President, on foreign soil no less, derailed that. It was no off-handed comment.

It may not have been an off-handed comment but the response was absolutlely insane. To say it's embarrassing that a terrible President is from your home state is a simple statement of one person's truth. For that person to get death threats for it shows a depravity in patriotism that is so typical of many Americans whose hubris is idiotic considering how wrong our country often is. And those self-righteous "patriots" are the very people that have now saddled us with the worst President of our history and making many of us ashamed to be Americans. That's not a disrespect for the office of Prsident but a disrespect for the man who holds that office and by his actions is disrespectful of the office.

One's personal truth is allowed to be kept to one's personal self. I appreciate you taking the opportunty to denounce our current President in the midst of a discussion about a failed band, but that is as expected. We could argue all day about the merits of all past Presidents and most likely, by your nature,  you will oppose every utterance I produce. I did not vote for our current leader, and am not happy that he wound up there, but he's who we've got - and we've got eight more years of him (unless the quality of the Democratic candidate improves). How stupid you are depends on which side of the fence you are standing on. Of course, by your standards, the other side is wrong. You are correct that Maines' statement should not have resulted in death threats, but "self-righteous" lands in the extremes of both sides of the fence. Bottom line is that she thought she would be cool by saying she was embarrassed that the President was from her home state. Instead, she brought an incredibly talented and popular band to a screeching halt. Call it "patriots". Call it "hubris". When the people speak, voices are heard. They voted in your President. They shut down the Dixie Chicks. Welcome to America.

 

Wow! One's personal truth should be kept to oneself? And here I was under the delusion we had freedom of speech but I guess it's as the Clash said, "You have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it." But that's a bit of hyperbole for I am free to spout my nonsense on an obscure site like this and since I'm a nobody it's not very dangerous. I just brought up our current political situation because I thought it was a reflection of the same kind of thinking that brought death threats to a young woman speaking her mind who was "dumb enough" to do so given her celebrity and the potential reaction. Wecome to America indeed! In my 67 years on this planet Obama was the first President I was actually proud of. And since the current resident of the Reich House is partly a backlash against Obama it makes me so sad and mad that I have a hard time functioning.  Once again, I'm a stranger in a strange land. If only my grandparents had never left Sweden. Of course I wouldn't then even exist but that would be preferable to witnessing this madness.

Actually, I said "One's truth is ALLOWED to be kept to one's self". But in true fashion of someone that would ignore facts to make a point, you chose to insert your own meaning into it. Why celebrities feel the need to try to push their personal agenda on their fans is beyond me. If you are so uneducated that you look to celebrities to form your opinion, then it certainly doesn't surprise me that in your 67 years on this planet you have only found one President to be proud of - or that it coincides with the same President that was more elected by the outpouring of celebrity endorsement, personal charisma, and media bias than by his experience in leadership of any kind. But, back to the Chicks... Freedom of speech is something we all enjoy. Freedom of speech in no way indicates freedom from the repercussions of whatever blather you choose to spew. Maybe they don't teach that in Sweden.

Sorry but I fail to see much difference between, "One's personal truth is allowed to be kept to oneself" and "One's personal truth should be kept to oneself." It seems to me they have the same meaning.  But on second thought, why on earth would one need permission, would one be "allowed" to keep one's truth to oneself? Surely, in even the most restrictive dictatorship, one is "allowed" to think whatever they want as long as they don't vocalize it. And I've never let a celebrity tell me what to think--I either agree with them or I don't. And if you think speaking your mind means you should except the repercussions of being killed for it, than all I can say is I disagree. 

The reason Obama was elected wasn't because of celebrity endorsements but because enough voters who were sick of what Bush II and the Republicans did, like their revenged-fueled invasion of Iraq, turned out to get them out of office. And the reason Trump was elected was that a black President so fueled racist resentment that racists voted for a fellow racist (as a recent study has concluded--not that all Trump voters are racist but that enough racists voted for him to get him elected.)

I admired Obama because he was an intelligent and articulate President and the first real progressive elected to that office in my voting lifetime. I certainly didn't agree with everything he did but that's politics. What we're seeing now is beyond that and something so ugly as to be loathsome.

I don't know why you brought up Sweden since I said my grandparents came from there--not me. I'm just so ashamed of being an American right now (and most of my adult life) I just wish they'd never left but they did for some very real problems in Sweden for people in their economic class at that time. My parents were Republicans until the day they died but I'm quite certain they would loathe Trump too because they were moral people.

Christ. You're thick. Okay, I'll try to spell it out simply for you. "Should" implies a rule or standard that I expect them to keep their personal truth to one's self. "Allowed" offers them the choice to keep it to themselves or not. However, if they choose to exercise their freedom of speech, they should accept whatever repercussions come as a result. Certainly, death threats are an extreme end of this, but you seem to like to only deal in the extremes, so, should she have said something so inflammatory as to receive a death threat - and no, it doesn't make it right to make such a threat - she should accept that that there was a possibility that it could happen. And, by the way, she didn't get killed for it.

That you believe that Trump is a racist, or that any previous elections only came to fruition because of racist sentiment, only reinforces the argument that you are easily swayed by media and celebrity.

President Obama was articulate, classy, passionate, charismatic and the best public speaker since Reagan. That got him elected. Once in office, his inexperience was glaring and as result nothing got done. He was a failed President that will go down as a top ten solely because he was the first black President, which, ironically, is inherently racist.

I am not a Republican. I lean fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. And you are correct, currently Trump is not displaying the characteristics that will drive a successful Presidency. However, he is not a politician - the very thing that got him elected - and is still finding his footing (hopefully). It is a new approach to the Presidency, having a businessman and not a politician in the White House, and will take time for people to figure out. He certainly needs a handler, and one that will take away his ability to tweet. It is still far to early to determine if he will result in being one of the worst Presidents in history, but despite the over glorification, President Obama will likely reign near the bottom as well.

I can understand, with the way you view things, why you would be ashamed to be an American. Good thing is that there are boats and planes nowadays that can take you anywhere else that you might be proud to live. Like most celebrities that shared your sentiment, though, I'm betting you like it here too much to leave.

 

 

 

Talk about thick, look in the mirror man. This will be my last attempt to get you to understand where I'm coming from even though you claim to know already but couldn't be more deluded. Obama was "unsusscessful" because the Republicans did everything they could to make him fail without regard to what's best for the country but what's best for their own interests in nothing but power and money and making sure the first black President "failed." Mammon is the god of America--not Jehovah no matter how much rhetoric goes into claiming otherwise. Anyone who understands government would know putting a businessman in the White House was the worst possible idea because a successful government depends on cooperation and compromise but business--especially Trump's style--is nothing but us against them  which follows his America first policy much like all those who preached America first during WWII before we got attacked and entered the war. How often I've heard the phrase from business men, "It's only business--don't take it personal," which is another way of saying, "Fuck you, don't get in the way of me making more money." You think I wouldn't leave this country if I could--I can't afford it. The moving expense alone is more than I can afford. Besides, with America's influence throughout the whole world there is no escaping it really. And in today's political climate I would fear for my life just being an American in another country. You act like we should just be like the "good" Germans when Hitler got elected and except it as the will of the people and move on. You say you're not a Republican so why in the hell are you defending this dangerous buffoon who the Republicans put in the White House. Surely anyone who isn't an outright racist by now should realize what a vast mistake was made and be doing everything to get him out of office or at least root for those trying to do so. I really don't get you at all. Especially if you're proud to be an American then stand up for its professed values instead of defending the politicians trying to undermine them.  You seem to have faith that Trump can be schooled to be successful when it's so obvious he cares for nothing outside of himself--a narcissistic egomanaic does not make a good President. So I'm done. Let's just agree we live in different universes. I know I'm an outsider and a man with no country so I don't know why I've bothered trying to talk to you but when I'm insulted as much as you have insulted me I get defensive.

I would love to know what the Dixie Chicks think about Trump.

If Obama was inexperienced WTF would you call Trump?  

Impeached would be my best guess.

Correct. Trump is inexperienced, which is why I didn't vote for him. Last I checked, he has not been impeached, so no, I would not call him that.

Seems to me that Trump is a bull who brings his own China shop and that by his behavior, he frequently embarrasses himself and disrespects his own office.  That is thick.

Or "seems to me that Trump is a bully".    The collective "we" elected a President who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.  We've hit bottom and Trump will be on the lowest rung of Presidential respect when history passes final judgement.  Trump's rule will go down as an ugly orange greasy footnote in American, World, history. 

I'd add that the vitriol aimed at the Dixie Chicks might just having something to do with women speaking their minds about a white President. Where was the outrage when Ted Nugent said "Obama can suck on my machine gun".  But then again maybe there wasn't as much outrage because Ted Nugent is an obvious moron not to be taken seriously. 

And yeah, how did Bush's War turn out? Maybe the ladies were right?

 

The collective "we" elected a President who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. That's how bad your candidate was. Put up a better candidate next time and maybe you will win.

In 2003, I was surprised that upwards of 80% of Americans were conned into thinking it was right to take out one of the only secular governments in the Middle East in response to an attack from 19 Muslim fanatics (15 of which were from Saudi Arabia).  

Then November of 2016 happened. 

Now I realize why Repuglicans win.   They count on Americans to be just as stupid as we are.         

Liberals continuing to stand behind the rally cry that the the other side is "stupid", or that American who elect a Republican President are "stupid" is exactly what got Trump elected. Americans were stupid enough to elect our President. Who was stupid enough to back the only Democratic candidate that couldn't beat him?

It probably was stupid of the Democratic Party to give Hillary her chance at the Presidency after decades of Republicans demonizing her beyond any semblance to reality. I didn't care for her either but given the only two viable choices she certainly was better than what we got. If she had won we would now be in an endless Republican effort to thwart her every move and blame everything that goes wrong on her. Perhaps it will be better in the long run to see just what a mistake this "experiment" was.

I may be thick, but I think you're sick for defending those who voted for this...insult-to-the-world. May you and all those who support him get well soon.

A) I thought you took your ball and went home.

B) You didn't put up a candidate that could win, so you lost - and are now in an endless Liberal effort to thwart his every move and blame everything that goes wrong on him.

I don't support him. I support the office, but yes I support the democratic process that got him elected. If you don't like it ...well...we've covered that.

 

 

I support the office, not the orifice. I don't support the democratic process (as it stands).  Say, what you want about Hillary as a failed candidate but she got more votes than Trump did (despite his claims to the contrary and allegations of massive voter fraud).  He sits happily in his playroom coloring the Electoral Map denying that he got fewer votes than the candidate he "defeated". That's not my idea of Democracy.  If he is your idea of a President, or of a businessman, there is really nothing left to debate. 

It makes zero difference who got more votes. In the United States that isn't how we elect a President. If it was, every President would be elected by New York, California and Texas.

AGAIN, he is not my idea of a President. I didn't vote for him. And, yes, whether you like it or not, he is an extremely successful businessman. 

 

He inherited a shitload of money and declared bankruptcy numerous times but I guess it depends on your definition of success. How many times did the truly successful business men such as Jobs, Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Allen, and Cuban declare bankruptcy? He's simply a large scale grifter/con-man.  

Au Contraire Colonel, I agree with you.  Democrats are by far dumber than Repuglicans because they don't understand the game we play in this country.   Repuglicans understand you have to win elections in order to govern so they vote in greater numbers, go to the polls every year not just every four years and pull the level for everyone with an R by their name.  “Educated” Democrats have not figured this out.   

I also have little hope Democrats will wise up to that.  In fact, they don’t even understand that you should JOIN the party in order to influence the party.   It is especially true with the treatment of Debbie Wasserman Shultz.   The last I knew, her job duties as the Chairperson of the Democratic Party was to get DEMOCRATS elected, not independents.   So when it is brought up that she “favored” Senator Clinton, my response is “duh”.       

But I will take issue with your idea of having a “businessman” run the country.   We’ve determined Coronel that your area is too out of the way and it is not profitable for us maintain the roads, fund the hospitals and protect it.  Also, your Grandmother in the Nursing Home getting Medicaid?   She’s lived a good long life but we don’t see the ROI in keeping up payments.   We will place her by the curb with her items in a box at 5pm.   And by the way, we are looking at the next round of cuts and your Mother is on the list.   We’re very sorry, here’s two weeks severance for her.    Then, of course, there are businessman who bankrupt three companies and stiff contractors and shareholders of tens of millions of dollars.         

Running the country “like a business” is another one of those specious ideas that we have in our heads that is complete BS.        

       

 

A) Repuglicans. Brilliant. You guys are champion name callers. 

B) My grandmother is dead, but thanks for bringing that up.

C) Putting a businessman in the White House may or may not be a good idea, depending on who that businessman is. I agree that it is not Trump, which again is why I didn't vote for him. But the reason a businessman is in the President is because the political system had come to a screeching halt. Furthermore, it was a cyclical disaster that continued to churn up the same names that everyone was already tired of. Lastly, thanks to the abuse garnered by the media, social media, celebrity influencers and all other forms of disrespect to the office, many candidates that may make a great national leader don't apply. Simply not worth it. There is an entire voting segment that is fiscally conservative while being socially liberal - myself included. Where is that candidate?

D) is for Dixie Chicks, who have completely left the building (as far as this conversation about Dixie Chicks goes).

 

A couple points because I understand I am not going to win someone over who has been brainwashed by over 30 years of Repuglican talking points.  Studies have shown that the mere repetition of BS makes it more plausible to people.  

You may try and assuage your conscious that you didn’t vote for the Reality Show Con Artist (who never wanted to win and only wanted to cash in) but you are wrong.   From your statements, it sounds like you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton and if you didn’t, you voted for the fraud.   You’re hiding behind our electoral system so you can’t get around that US Elections are binary choices.    And for the first and only time I will quote Geddy Lee – "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".    Don’t give me this wishy washy perfect candidate cr*p.   There are none.   There are no perfect "businessmen" either.   Lincoln wasn’t perfect and George Washington isn’t coming back.  You made a choice for the Reality
Show Con Artist and now you have to live with the consequences.  

As for gridlock, Repuglicans are the ones who stated in 2009 that they wouldn’t work with President Obama and their goal was to make him a one term President.   He also saved the economy from the black hole it was in and passed Health Care for the first time in our countries history.   In fact, he was confident enough in his bill to have a year and a half of committee meetings, allowed industry review and input and it passed with the approval of the AMA and other health organizations.   Repuglicans designed by 13 Senators in a back room with no public scrutiny because there can be no public case for it and has been opposed by every organization that has anything to do with health.   They are designing a WEALTH CARE bill to give tax cuts to their masters.    Repuglicans are a protest party, not a governing party.   They show no interest in the responsibility or accountably of running the Government.   That's why they make people cynical about Government.   If you don't have a strong government, then business holds greater sway.   You better hope the Volkswagon's and GE's of the world have your interests in mind.         

There is a also a word for a party that won’t even hold hearings on a foreign power attacking the US election system – TREASON.        

Also, and I could write a book about this, but we HAD a candidate who was socially liberal and fiscally moderate.   She was the wife of the last President who handed over a budget SURPLUS that was squandered by a Repuglican President.    It’s funny how deficits only matter when Democrats are in power.  

Lastly, from your comments about “celebrities” and the Dixie Chicks political stands, I can see you are one of the Americans that the Repuglicans count on to vote their fears and resentments rather than their self interests.   All through history, the goal of the “elites” has been to keep the Middle and lower classes at odds with each other.   It reminds me of pre World War 1 Europe where all the working people in Germany, France and England had much in common but were persuaded to hate each other because of nationalism by all the cousins – literally COUSINS – who ruled Europe.    So keep hating Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks and George Clooney.   Mitch McConnell thanks you for that.       

Sorry. It looks like you took a lot of time to write a bunch of words, but I stopped at "A couple points because I understand I am not going to win someone over who has been brainwashed by over 30 years of Repuglican talking points."

I fully understand that everything Republican is talking points and everything Liberal is fact. It is the complete basis for every liberal argument ever. All the crap you've been fed over the last 30 years makes you, and only you, right. Everyone else is brainwashed.

"I am right. You are wrong." Lead with that next time and save yourself the trouble of rehashing the same tired one-sided argument.

 

Rudyjeep, you may have noticed some things about "The Colonel": He puts down liberals for calling others stupid then turns around and calls me "thick." You give him good examples of why it's so facetious to have a bottom-line businessman in government since it could affect the treatment of one's loved ones and he acts like you offended his grandmother. He claims to respect the office of President which apparently means to him you shouldn't critcize or put down a corrupt clown who disgraces the office every day of his existence so critcizing him is actually showing respect for the office. And then claims innocence because he didn't vote for him but can't agree that many of us feel the act of not resisting this regime (or at least supporting those who do) is a form of treason in itself. But I suppose if one thinks that "making America great again" means turning back the calender a century or two so white men rule and everyone else can go screw themselves then you would be inclined to respect the office.

You are really good at making up things that I said, and inventing things I claim to support.

Many, many things affect the treatment of one's loved ones, yet are necessary for the whole. 
You didn't offend my grandmother, you dolt. You offend anyone who is trying to make sense of your made up crap and run-on sentences.
 Who turned back the calendar a century or two? I know you wish things would become more racist, so you would have tsomething to support your drivel, but it hasn't happened. Where Rmutt and Rudyjeep at least make valid points - whether I agree with them or not - your emotional ranting is nothing more than exhausting.

I wasn't talking to you but I must say I have never been called "thick" or a "dolt" in my whole life until I had the grave misfortune to "meet" you. Funny how I was poining out how you constantly make up things and misrepresent what people say to you .  Like Rudyjeep wasn't talking about "your" grandmother in particular you ass. You don't call your drivel "emotional ranting"? I guess that's just a label for people who disgree with you.

Okay. You win. Whatever you said. I didn't even bother reading it this time. It doesn't really matter. It probably is 90 the same crap you've said before, just like everything you have posted earlier. So, okay. Whatever you said. You win. Now will you go away? And don't pretend like last time.

With the grand political debate declared over let's get back to the music and celebrate America's bright clean coal burning future!

 

The hypocricy and lying from the right would be galling if it wasn't so bold and effective Dennis.   They can do it with a straight face too.   Deficits only matter when Democrats are in office.   National Security concerns are only important if they effect Democrats.   Health Care should be a painstaking, open process.  The office should be respected - when a  Repuglican is in office.   The list goes on.    As I said before, repeating BS makes it more plausible and if there is one thing Repuglicans do much better than Democrats, it is communicate.    The Dems need to grow a pair and speak bluntly as well.   Not crudely but bluntly.       

Agreed. Eliminating the petty, eighth-grade name calling and childish communication tactics of the Democrats/Liberals and moving forward with mature, thought out points of reason would go a long way towards moving voters into their camp. Use of terms like "Dumpster Fire" and "Drumph" and "Idiot" and "Repuglicans" turn ears off as soon as they are uttered and the message never gets heard.

Both sides need to grow the fuck up. It's not limited or exclusive to one or the other. That is why we have Trump. A candidate from outside the bullshit that the binary political system has become. No good choices? Choose the wild card. It has to be better than what we've had. Unfortunately, until more people accept that a third party can produce viable options - instead of making the excuse that "it only gave votes to the bad guy" - we will continue to get the same crap candidates that the current system offers. See, the way it works is that if the third party candidate gets enough votes...they win. 

Change has to come from both sides and it's not happening with the current batch of old school politicians.

Aside from thick, dolt, ass and repuglican, this has been an interesting exchange.  Have to chuckle when I hear Trump say "drain the swamp".  Swamp?  It'a a jacuzzi!  The professional political class in both parties is exactly the same, clinging to their jobs like they are lifetime entitlements, lifetime annuities.  Neither side can claim purity, why try?

Dear Colonel--I hope you read this one because this is an apology. I've decided you are right--my political rants are emotional drivel and I've decided to stop. I've been depressed since November because to me 11/9 was the new 9/11. I woke up the day after the Presidential election feeling the same way I did after 9/11, like I had been sucker punched by people who hate everything I believe in and stand for. I felt like I was in Germany the day after Hitler got elected. So the only thing that has kept me going is believing that like Nixon, this man too would soon be run from office. But then you show up, an obviously intelligent person who isn't a fascist or racist and who didn't even vote for Trump but hold such respect for the office that you defend so fervently him and those who voted for him. I'm a child of the 60s so grew up feeling it is a citizen's duty to judge politicians and besides voting them out of office to resist them when they act contrary to one's own judgments. I feel it's almost unAmerican to just accept a President once he's in office if one disagree with him. But you have convinced me this is just an opinion and nothing else. If people like you are supporting Trump then I must admit we are probably stuck with him and his myrmidons for the next four years and I am frightened to death of the damage they will do in that time to our couuntry, to the world and to civilization. But since I can do nothing about it and arguing about it only depresses the hell out of me I will stop making political comments on this site and only go here for music which is what it is for anyway. I apologize for insulting you like you did me. That's not the person I want to be and I feel sick about it. 

Insults have belittled us both. iI hope you would accept my regret in this manner as well. 
How you continue to believe that you have to respect the inhabitant in order to respect the office is troublesome. That you continue to paint me as a Trump supporter only illustrates that you refuse to listen. What is most worrisome is that your side as a whole acts like this would be any different should ANY Republican have won. And that arrogance and disillusion (broadly, not specific to you) is a main contributor to the Trump election. That is clearly illustrated in the still tearful eyes of everyone who can't imagine how they lost. Hillary was the chosen one. She was a woman. Surely, after the first black man was elected it will be a shoe-in for us to get the first woman elected. But a life long politician with a checkered history herself was a poor choice for a country craving change. And, had she been elected, the same infantile slandering and name throwing would have been perpetuated from the conservative extremists. Fortunately, we have a governmental system of checks and balances that ensure that no leader will gain a unilateral power such that Hitler had (so those comparisons are also crap). Unfortunately, it is those very checks and balances that ensure there will never be much change in the United States going forward. Drain the swamp? If the swamp is the entirety of our political incumbents. I am all for it. New blood with new ideas is what we need. Those come from a third party that is largely ignored by those who embrace the banality of a two party system. Change is a long ways off. Lastly, nobody expects anyone to accept a President that you disagree with. To that end, our system was built so that you now have four years to find someone that can beat him. I recommend that if that is the outcome you would like, that you spend less of your efforts trying to impeach a President that has done nothing to be impeached for in his five months as President, and spend more time searching for the candidate who can dismantle him.

If, as indicated, you would prefer to stick to a discussion of music, as I too would prefer, I am all ears.

Sounds good to me and I'm sorry if you think I still think you are a Trump supporter because I don't, not really. But you are the only non-Trump supporter I've ever heard who holds him in enough respect to give him the benefit of the doubt.  (Most people seem to love him or hate him so you are unique.) I also hope our checks and balances saves us from the dire results I fear. Time will only tell and although I fear 4 years may be too long I've always been a pessimist so I hope you are right to not be so alarmed. I can also say that any Republican elected to the Presidency would have saddened me, especially with a Republican majority in Congress, but not to the degree that Trump scares me because of what he says.  I just long for more moderate Republicans to take back their party. I suppose one could wish the same thing for Democrats if we want to actually start solving problems rather than pointing fingers. 

Exactly. Needs to be tolerance and teamwork from both sides. I think Trump was as surprised to win as anyone. I truly believe he wanted to win, but he did not want to be President. Kinda like he had his bluff called. But he's there now. Hopefully, he will figure out that there are conventions by which things get done (and Twitter is not one of them) and something less scary will emerge from all of this. I also think it is the extremes - from both sides -  that are blasting the hate and fear propaganda. Those of us that operate on real world terms are just fine and will remain that way.

Now that we have all of that behind us, I have to ask the Colonel: what kind of banjo is that in your picture and do you play professionally?  

Just an old Harmony banjo. Been picking at it for a few years and still suck. My buddy has a firepit jam every once in a while and I can keep up, clawhammer style, as long as they stick to the five chords I know. But I love sitting on the porch with a glass of bourbon and plunking away at it. Relaxing and damned fun. Do you play?

No, I don't play any instruments at all.  Once summer ends I am planning to take a few guitar lessons to prove to myself that an old dog can semi learn a new trick.  I wish I'd learned as a kid.