Fighting Over a Toilet

Tweet

There's a big brouhaha going on over North Carolina's new law that prohibits people using public restrooms based on the gender they claim instead of their biological gender. Bruce Springsteen announced Friday (April 8) that he was canceling his show in Greensboro, NC on Sunday (April 10) over the law. On his web site Springsteen said he was going to show "solidarity" with the "freedom fighters" in North Carolina -- and not show up. Oy. I don't know where Springsteen's head is (maybe he's giving himself a colonoscopy). His canceling his concert isn't hurting anyone who's supporting the law that he objects to. In contrast, it's harming tens of thousands of his fans, many of whom planned a road trip (you think I'm the only one who road trips for concerts? No, I just road trip for people you've never heard of! ), meaning they bought tickets for planes and/or hotel rooms that aren't refundable. Worse, although the law was passed in March, Springsteen waited until two days before the show to cancel it. Why couldn't "The Boss" keep his contractually-obligated show and, in the process, use it as a "rally" to speak against it? Instead, he's irritated a number of fans who feel he's punishing them, not the politicians who passed the law he objects to. It seems odd that Springsteen would get into a fight over a toilet. I also have a problem with his selective objections. He's playing in Ohio in a few days. Ohio law doesn't allow transgender people to "pick a gender, any gender," but it's not "in the news," so he's not objecting by canceling. He played Milwaukee, which is in Wisconsin, where there have been countless battles between the governor and unions. No objection to the laws on the books, no objections to the "rights" being taken away by the state, he just showed up and sang. In February he played in Kentucky, home of Kim Davis, the infamous county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples based on her religious beliefs. He didn't object, he just did his job. I've seen highly political musicians in my day. In 1990 I saw Billy Bragg, who spent every non-singing moment trashing the U.S. (I have serious problems when Brits come over here and tell us how we should run our country, because (a) his country isn't in that great a shape, and (b) American singers don't tour England, telling them how to run their country.). I've seen Steve Earle, who is a passionate advocate against war (the term "anti-war" is ridiculous IMO -- the only people who want war are the dictators in power, not those poor soldiers who are going to be on the front line, getting shot at!) and capital punishment. I think they certainly have a right to free speech (well, as I said, except the people from other countries), but I am not allowed to talk about religion and politics at work. These people seem to forget that they are getting paid to do a job (they put "musician" on the occupation line on their tax returns), and yakking about politics "on the job" may cost them half of their audience (and that's true whether they're supporting a conservative or a liberal [see my recent discussion about people objecting to Loretta Lynn saying she's supporting Donald Trump]). When Springsteen talks, a lot of people listen. I'm sure that there are fans who are writing the North Carolina legislature along with the ticket agency to get their ticket refund. But I also think that there are much better ways to make one's point. Springsteen making his political point in a far better manner: