We kick off the new year by entertaining a question that has puzzled many scholars and wise sages for years upon years: what is Appalachia? We know there are many definitions of Appalachia and the discussion is a controversial one, but in this episode, we discuss the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) definition of Appalachia and why we use it while acknowledging that other definitions exist and are valid.
Want more exclusives and to support our work? Join our Patreon for as little as $1/month.
Diving into what Appalachia is, or what some people consider it to be
Chuck Corra: What is Appalachia? No one knows. We’re going to give you some context. We’re going to give you some information. So just so you know, you don’t have to turn off the show right now after that answer, but if you’re looking for a definitive answer, you ain’t gonna find it here. Sorry. It’s a debate. It’s a, and look, you’re a debate champion.
You would know, you can spot a debate a mile away.
Big John isner: Boom saw debate
Chuck Corra: He knew, he sniffed it out. He sniffed it out. He didn’t even have to see it. It is obviously up for debate and, you know, I think you come across 10 different people from Appalachia and they’ll probably have 10 different definitions for you.
So what we’re going to do. As we’re going to talk about one that is sort of, I guess, forms the basis for how we view Appalachia, at least from a geographic perspective and at least how a lot of people know it, but just know I want to just lay the foundation here real quick. Number one. We’re not experts.
We’re not historians, we’re just trying to give some info and contextualize Appalachia.
Chuck Corra: We are not historians. We are not journalists.
I’ve not done years of research on this. Cause I’m just anticipating the people who are like Appalachian studies PhDs. That’ll say “but wait, you didn’t consider this.” And that’s fine.
Big John isner: If we make look, if we make a mistake, I promise you, you can respectfully DM us and tell us and we’ll fix it.
There seems to be this misconception that when we make a mistake..
Chuck Corra: I mean, look, I do a lot of the research and I try to be accurate. Right. But we make mistakes. I’m not, yeah, no, I’m not infallible. Hell no.
Big John Isner: But there seems to be this misconception that you have to like all caps, scream it across Twitter that we made this mistake. Just DM us. Tell us we’ll fix it. We’ll even credit you.
Chuck Corra: Yes. Happy to do it. Happy to do it. Just don’t put us on blast and call us, you know?
This is a baseline of view of this, but we wanted to contextualize it because, you know, throughout the two-ish years that we’ve been doing the show and 114 episodes, we have referred to Appalachia and we’ve, we’ve, we’ve referred to it in a certain geographic context based on the Appalachian regional commission.
Definition and map, which is what we want to kind of talk about because we, we, we feel like we need to give a little bit of context to that and understanding of it and its flaws and our thing about it. Appalachia is defined in many ways. It’s defined geographically, it’s defined politically and it’s defined culturally as a region.
All of those are. And all of those are open to interpretation. And we are not saying that anyone is correct. One geographic feature though, I think is a through line throughout, is that the Appalachian mountains, which we won’t really get that much into cause we’re not geologists or geographers or mountain knowledgist or mountaineers But they stretch all the way from Canada, Alabama.
So a lot of this sort of encompasses generally speaking geographically that bunch of mountain range, but culturally it’s way more difficult to say where Appalachia begins and ends and that’s even a subjective thing in and of itself. So. Same. We’re talking about today at Appalachian regional commission.
John you’re very familiar with it. It was a, it’s a unique federal state partnership created by Congress to address economic disparities and Appalachia. A little bit of a data latcha for you. 423 counties are part of it across 13 states and spans 206,000 square miles from Southern New York to Northern Mississippi.
And it includes rough. Isn’t it? Four 20, I think it’s 4 23, at least. That’s what the websites. Oh,
Big John isner: they must update it then. Cause it was four 20 for the longest time. Cause I used to just make the joke. Joke about pot. Yeah.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. 420. I just checked. Wow. All right. Cool. Don’t know what those three are, but yeah, it’s at 423, excuse me.
423 counties across 13 states spanning 200, 6,000 square miles from Southern New York to Northern Mississippi clues, roughly 26 million people. And a little over 40% of the population is rural, which is twice the U S average.
Big John isner: Yeah. And it’s, I always am. A little taken back at the 40% because I actually think it should be considered higher.
I think that part of what they consider not to be rural, many other places would consider it rural. So I do, I have always found that statistic to be a little low.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. I was a little surprised by it too. And I think probably part of that is that some things like Pittsburgh, entire city and metropolitan area of Pittsburgh is included in there as well as like a bunch of other places with larger populations.
But yeah, I mean, you know, it’s still, it’s extremely high amount. And so I think. What forms the basis of this? So the reason why we’re talking about Appalachian regional commission is that they’ve come up with what we know now as the map of Appalachia. The one that we often refer to them will include a link to but the Appalachian regional commission is sort of an interesting animal and it came about because so many states governors of the Appalachian states were wanting to.
Find a federal resource to help because Appalachia, as it’s known today was very economically devastated. And John, so when we talk about the reasons for this for Appalachia and why it struggled so much, what are some of the things you know, that come to mind for you?
Big John isner: You’re talking about overall. Why have they struggled? Yeah.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. Why is the region struggling?
Big John isner: But I live here I don’t know why I said why, why do they struggle? I struggled. Well, part of it is obviously environmental. We talk about it all the time. Energy also energy plays a massive factor into it, but you have this area I’m trying to think of how to say it.
You have an area that’s not quite flat, so there’s a lot of struggle there. A lot of struggle there. It’s tough to connect.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. Unlike where I’m at, currently in Florida, where the highest point of natural elevation is literally 345 feet.
Big John isner: Yeah. I mean, that is just hilarious. Yeah. I felt the same. Like it blew my mind the other day.
When I was. Looking at Minnesota about how flat Minnesota is compared to West Virginia. And which explains why they’re able to clear snow as fast as they can. But like when it, when it snows like three inches in West Virginia, it’s a massive headache because clearing it is insanely hard comparatively.
So there, I mean, and people overlook that they overlook those little things on, you know, how many, how much resources it takes to take clear road in West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky. I mean, it’s insane
Chuck Corra: to your point. One of the reason when you think about it. So the Appalachian regional commission came about in late 1965, and this whole discussion started in the.
If you think about in the fifties, when you have a mountainous region like Appalachia, it makes it super tough to farm in many places. And also connect like con the, the interstate highway system was coming about. But Appalachia was a extremely difficult place to connect highways to because of all the mountains and all the valleys and hollers and all that stuff.
So it was a huge part. And like today we don’t really think of. Quite as much, but back then, that was a huge impediment, anything happening and it isolated so many people part as you alluded to was a capitalistic aspect that, that made people poor and, and isolated, which is a company’s attain. And I actually didn’t know a lot about this till I was researching different companies and individuals attained a mineral rights and timber rights and began extracting all the resources and actually displaced a bunch of people, remove them from their land.
Which was interesting. Like I knew that that happened, but I didn’t know quite to the extent. And so by 1950, all parts of Appalachia that we know of today were distressed. And so when you think about it, Because it’s a broad, diverse region. There were different reasons for that, the north, which just like Pennsylvania Northern Ohio that was a place that benefited from the industrial revolution.
And it started a downturn in factories began closing and people were displaced a lot and central Appalachia, which is where we’re from, where we live coal industry effected by adverse competition with cheap oil and natural gas. Hmm. Sounds familiar. And along with terrible infrastructure because they couldn’t reach a lot of people and out migration that suffered the most.
I think central Appalachia is probably the one that, that part of the region that suffered the most more so than the other ones. And then the Southern part of Appalachia, which it was helped by the Tennessee valley authority when they harness the power of the Tennessee river. But the economic growth was slow due to the preexisting poor communications, health and education systems.
So. This whole region has its own unique problems, but it was all of it was economically devastated. And so like when, when doing this research kind of distill it down to two big overarching themes that I noticed that played Appalachia in the 1950s, when this commission came about, which was isolation and out migration, meaning people leaving the region John does that sound familiar?
I would say,
Big John isner: so seeing that we have people leaving all the time. Look, let me explain to you how bad this is right now. Chuck, the burger king on the south side, Parkersburg closed permanently due to lack, due to lack of foot traffic or lack of traffic.
Chuck Corra: The one that’s a crush from the Dunkin donuts.
Big John isner: No, no, no, no.
That one’s there though. Sorry. The one in petty Ville, I guess, is what it would be where Walmart. Yeah, close permanently.
Chuck Corra: Doug damn that’s bad. That’s real.
Big John isner: They equate it. And I know that’s like a joke, but it should tell you, like for years Parkersburg, that area was able to sustain a ton of things. Like, you know, little things like burger king, shit, they have a Starbucks, right.
But like, they’re not getting people over there. Like it’s just not happening because there’s so many people leaving. In groves. I mean, if you were to look at our graduating class, for instance, in Parkersburg West Virginia, I would argue probably only 60 ish percent is still in Parkersburg, which I think is relatively low.
It may be even less than that.
Chuck Corra: I would argue. It’s probably less, I don’t know. It probably is
Big John isner: maybe 50, let’s go 50, 50, but it’s those numbers that should scare people. And this is, like I said, this is one little, you know, Example, but I mean, if you look at the numbers, we’re not growing, the entire area of Appalachia is not growing.
And in fact, we’re declining in population where, when everybody else is
Chuck Corra: growing, at least in West Virginia well, the 50, 50% of this podcast moved away from Parkersburg. So, you know, meets the statistics right there. Moved away. Well, yeah, you’re still in Appalachia though. But I mean, that’s a trend and I know that a lot of people listening to this show are also from Appalachia who have moved away, who are an ex-pat.
And I know, right. How dare me. I’m just, I’m going to go and punish myself after this, like Dobby the house elf, I’m going to iron my hands. And I think it would interesting to think about to NEMA, who we had on the show Wooster pointed out. A mid, a great point, which was what other reasons the country do you know of that has a dedicated group of people that leave that are ex-pats?
I mean, I can’t think of any and it’s because of the things like this and I mean, this is not to like dunk on the Appalachian regional commission. I mean, Well, John’s gun donkeys ice man, over here to bolster your point. And I thought this was super interesting between 19 50, 19 70, almost 75% of the 15 to 34 age group left central Appalachia for industrial cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland.
And I mean, 75%. It’s huge. It’s still happening
Big John isner: Yeah. And it’s incredible too, because if you look at the breakdown. Of where people are leaving as well. So like even areas. For instance, like if you were looking at the Northern part of West Virginia, right. When they leave West Virginia, they’re actually staying in Appalachia because they’re going to Pittsburgh, but they’re looking for those heat.
They’re looking for those huge cities. And if you look at the region of Appalachia that doesn’t really exist, and which is sad, because if you look back over time, Appalachia had the ability to grow some of these cities into what I would argue would be major cities in comparison to what we have now that didn’t work out, which is also again, why you continue to see.
Population loss. And like I said, when they’re leaving the region, if a lot of them, if you look are not leaving to go across the country, that’s not what they’re doing. They’re leaving to go to a major city or a major area near them and buy near them. I mean, a couple of hundred miles. I’m not, it’s still far away in terms of that, but they’re not leaving to go to California.
They’re leaving to find major areas. Those are still within reaching distance of Appalachia, which should throw up some alarms to everybody and say, wait a second. Why can’t that be?
Chuck Corra: Yeah, look, I mean, I would be foolish not to agree because I am living proof of that. I moved because of better. Paying opportunities and better just opportunities, in general, to start my career, start my life.
And you know, if you look at people, especially young people who graduate today, there’s not a lot of incentive to stay in many parts of Appalachia, particularly in West Virginia, where we’re from. There’s not a lot of high paying jobs. There’s not a lot of. You know amenities, maybe, I guess you’d call it.
I don’t know if there’s a better word than that, but those things aside from just job opportunities that make people want to move somewhere, to start a life, you know, different cultural influences, different experiences, those types of things, different opportunities, just outside of jobs in general, I feel like that’s something that.
Leaders in Appalachia have failed to consider at least some of them have. And that’s a big thing to consider. I mean, look like if your biggest reason for getting people to stay somewhere is personal connection or family. Like that’s, those are obviously extremely important, but that’s not good enough.
That’s not good enough to grow a
Big John isner: place. I don’t want to downplay what amenities really mean. But I think that’s what, and if you’re listening and you’re part of this, I, I apologize for grouping everyone together. Cause I hate when they do it, but that’s where I think some of the past generations have missed like boomers for instance.
Right. They don’t get the idea of why amenities mean so much. Right. Because when you have access to all these amenities, it tends to mean. You have a larger economic output and two you’re driving people into wherever you live. That’s why the amenities continue to increase, but they don’t see it as that.
They see it as like a, well, we don’t need it, but that’s holding the region
Chuck Corra: back, especially if like you’re, you’re young, you want all these other things, it’s there for you. You can get paid more. You can have a better quality of life. What’s the incentive to stay. That’s the thing,
Big John isner: easy to travel nowadays between, you know, versus what it was before.
So, I mean, you can, you can get up and move and I know it’s not easy cause I thought about it not too long ago, but like it’s not easy.
Chuck Corra: That’s doable. Well, and it’s becoming a re a necessity for a lot of people too. But moving on, I wanted to give a little bit of quick context to the background of how the arc got started, because that’s important to understand how we have the map of Appalachia today, which is something that you and I refer to a lot.
And I think it’s helpful in this discussion. So. 1950s, 1960s. This is when this started to really pick up some steam, local leaders, business groups. Local activists started petitioning the federal government for a need for federal intervention and help to better develop the Appalachian region. It was struggling.
Tremendously and economic development and they’ve viewed resource sharing of a region as a huge important benefit. So 1963, JFK established the president’s Appalachian regional commission and appointed. I think it was state governors, but also possibly members of congressional delegations. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, let me know.
But he appointed people with responsibility of creating legislation that would increase the economic develop. Of the Appalachian region. And so there’s many details to how the actual map was constructed, but the president’s commission identified certain criteria for the region. And in order to include in this in this economic area income gap, job gap, education gap, population shift, those are the four things four main things.
They were looking at four counties essentially to include in this because they have. I surveyed the region identified these four huge problems that was causing a lagging in economic development and keeping the region and poverty and, and. Not allowing them to progress. So when it came to the actual map that we know today, the big takeaway here is it is a political creation.
All right. Very important. The problem areas of the region were concentrated largely. They’re not totally along the Appalachian mountain range, so you can kind of see how that aligns itself, the political creation. So the original concept for the. It was based on the political necessity to draw a line specifically counties where the legislation should apply.
So there’s a little bit of politics added to that. Each state nominated a group of counties choices were criticized in the congressional committees though, according to the legislative history of this, because they included some counties where socioeconomic conditions were better than the U S average designers have led of the legislation, greed that the map should produce a compact region and some border counties.
This is interesting were added to bring in an additional congressional district. And the support of that and that congressional representative. So if you look at the map and you see those like two or three counties in Tennessee, that kind of stick up like a thumb, that was probably because they needed to get the representative for that district on board for the legislation, not, not positive about that, but that’s, that’s my assumption.
And some counties such as the county around where Roanoke is today, petitioned to be left out of this because their political leaders disagreed with the philosophy of the legislation. Lots of politics.
Big John isner: Look, I always say this all the time about John F. Kennedy. He is so monumental when it comes to Appalachia and I’ve always used this example because to be honest, the politicians at the national level, obviously don’t put much into West Virginia, Kentucky, those areas, unless obviously they’re in a Republican.
Am I froze on your end?
Chuck Corra: Nope.
Big John isner: Huh? I’m frozen on mine anyway. They don’t put. I guess value into it because of the low electoral votes. However, John F. Kennedy. Came, when he was running for president, he came to West Virginia and he visited all of the areas and he got to see poverty. That was part of the whole point was he wanted to see the poverty that goes on in West Virginia and Appalachia.
And that’s what helped inspire this was him seeing that and it was monumental In the history of West Virginia, that there are random places that have memorialized that one of them being the grand central mall in Vienna West Virginia, which makes no sense. But if you like, there’s an entire hallway and it has him visiting the city and visiting the areas and, you know, it’s, it was that big of a deal.
And I see it all over the state. John F. Kennedy is probably the, I guess, most loved. I w quote, liberal in West Virginia history. Like that’s how monumentally he was, because he gave a damn about West Virginia and Appalachia, which is again, why we, we constantly say like, politicians should do that.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. He was also trying to win a democratic primary at the time.
So that is, is also important to point out that it wasn’t just a sweetheart visit. But yeah, it was very important though, because you know him, what
Big John isner: I mean he could have ignored it after the fact he didn’t though. That’s my point,
Chuck Corra: politically, I don’t know. Politically could, at the time it was a really competitive.
Big John isner: I’m in fact after
Chuck Corra: he won. Right. What was important though, about him coming was he was JFK was kind of like a Brock. Obama was an oh eight. He had this like insane star power to him. And what, and that brought like media attention and eyeballs sales had a ton of money. And so that brought a ton of attention to this more so than there already would’ve been, which was, and I think the contrast was stark.
I mean, you have pictures of, JFK’s like, you know, finally quaffed hair, super nice suit standing in some of the poorest city poorest towns and hollers in West Virginia, really, I think painted a, a pretty important picture for people to see, because at that time, many people hadn’t even seen.
Images like that. So it’s not the, I’m not trying to underplay like what he did, but it was extremely important. Yeah.
Big John isner: And the funny thing is that those images later go on to like PBS and CB and CBS and NBC to be used to create stereotypes, snap latch. That’s the hilarious thing about this. They use these photos to like, describe what was really going on, which is true.
But then like later on, as you get into like the sick, the seventies, the eighties, the nineties, you see those pictures and they’re always followed up by these like huge stereotypes that we’ve talked about. So it’s just funny to see how it started, you know, how they treated it at first and then how they were able to get.
Ratings off of creating stereotypes.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. It’s all about the ratings, baby, you know it, so I mean, this is kind of like a very broad overview history of the arc. We’re not really going to go into like what they do and everything, but that’s kind of how we get this map of Appalachia that we often reference.
John, what’s your kind of takeaway on this? It’s it’s a controversial thing. It’s not really based on. Geography so much. It’s not based on culture. It’s totally a political map. Your take on it. Yeah. I mean, it was
Big John isner: used when it was initially created. If you look at like what they were originally going for that region probably made more sense, but if you look like the part of Mississippi that got in to the arc, it didn’t get any.
Simply because of where it was. It got in because the person in office at the time felt like if he could get the AR arc to recognize that area and to bring funds to the area, he’d win his reelection. It never, it never made sense to actually have that area of Mississippi. If you look, it doesn’t make any sense, but that was what went into it.
Were those political decisions. I personally think so. I don’t hate the map itself but I think that it provides at least some clarity now, whether or not it actually equates to what Appalachia is, that’s a whole different debate and people would argue, you know, that cultural. It’s probably a lot less, you know, a lot smaller, but my argument for why I liked the map so much is that it makes Appalachia more competitive for federal funding because of the, the amount of area that’s in, in, in it with the amount of senators and congressional members.
That’s a big, big reason to like the map. To be honest with you, it’s a huge political boost for Appalachia. They have more meaning. Imagine if the arc only was three states, it’d be ignored, but I can tell you that it’s not now there’s millions and millions and millions of dollars that go into arc that go to substantial projects like broadband, sewer, water, all of these different things.
And it’s created because of this program.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. If it was only three states, they would never have gotten. And this is like the reality of politics. They would have never gotten the support to pass this legislation through Congress because then everybody else from the other, well, it wouldn’t have been, I don’t know.
It might’ve been all 50, 47 other states at the time would have been like, well, why doesn’t my state get dedicated funding to something which that’s still happening. Yeah. That’s well, that’s why South Carolina was added to the list.
Big John isner: That’s why it’s important to arc funding comes up during, in the budget.
So like, it could easily be struck down. Like people could not want it, but it’s so powerful of a region in terms of, of politics that it continues to get brought forth and passes without, you know, much argument because it’s just now part of the budget.
Chuck Corra: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. And that’s, I mean, and that doesn’t, I think like it’s easy to look at this and be like, it’s a political map.
That’s not valid. And I understand that. And I’m curious to hear your take on it, but I don’t think it invalidates the idea behind it because. This was to address economically distressed counties and parts of the country. And I think for the most part, they all were, or at least the vast, vast majority of them more.
So I think, and, and many of them still are today. Now there there’s been significant improvement, no doubt and certain ones, but there’s. Like obviously so much of Appalachia that’s still struggling and it hasn’t gotten out of this economic rut. But so I don’t think that invalidates it. I think that there are a lot of people will say it does because it’s political and.
Fair criticism, I suppose. But what do you think?
Big John isner: It definitely doesn’t invalidate it because if you look at the counties, they could have looked they’ve could have included major cities in the arc to put more funding into these areas. And they didn’t. The biggest city is Pittsburgh, which at the time, yeah, it’s doing pretty well, but it’s also somewhat well, it’s going to see a decline.
So. Coming in to the NRC actually made sense. And it allowed to have at least one major city, a lot of their, like if you look at the actual breakdown, the counties tend to be small. They tend to be rural. Like we talked about and they tend to have low socioeconomic status. When you compare it to other areas, they could have easily.
Added in places like Nashville, which would have bumped up the population and made it look so, you know, substantially bigger than it would be, but they didn’t, they kept it the way that it should have been. Yeah. There are some states that may or may not need to be there, but you can’t tell me that like Mississippi doesn’t need arc help.
They do. Right. It makes sense. South Carolina, that part of South Carolina could use arc help. It’s not like they put in areas that didn’t need. Right. And you can make arguments
Chuck Corra: for them. Yeah. I mean, they didn’t include the Hamptons. Yeah. I
Big John isner: mean, come on, like, it’s sorry, JD. That all the way down to Florida, like yes, there are some states you could argue.
However, the states that were included to me make economic sense.
Chuck Corra: Yeah. And just to. Book and your point, one of the reasons they didn’t include places like Nashville and Louisville, and some of those other big cities is because they, again, politics, they, I believe this is correct from what I’m reading from the legislative history is they didn’t think a that it could pass, but also it undermines the point of the arc and of designating a region like Appalachia that’s economically distressed because those cities can.
Bolster the economic output and don’t need as much federal help. And so there’s less of a reason to to, to have those. So I think like politically there was a reason to exclude them because this may not have passed or they may not have got as much money for it. And because there’s a whole thing about the highway system too, which I won’t go into, but yeah, it’s interesting too, how it came about.
And I think again, one of the reasons why we rely on this is just because it’s easier when someone says, what is Appalachia, where is Appalachia? We have a map that breaks down by counties. Helpful. Is it the most accurate thing? No. Is it the only definition of Appalachian? But it’s one that we use.
So I’m, I guess, to the people who say it’s, it’s invalid or it’s not Appalachia you’re wrong.
Big John isner: I mean, okay. When you go, when you look up the meaning of a word, right, you go and you find a source to find the meaning of that word. It’s not like the dude next to you on the bus gets to create the definition of.
An entire government entity formed this definition of Appalachia. Yes, we can argue till days then, but it is currently the only official definition of Appalachia. That’s it? So you can’t undermine that by saying like, wow, I disagree with it because that’s not the way it works. It’s, it’s defined for a reason.
You can. Argue that there’s things that shouldn’t be in it, but you still have, you can’t say it’s meaningless or useless, or we’re not even the correct definition because currently it is the only definition when it comes to, you know, fully sighted understood and recognized.
Chuck Corra: Well, don’t tell that to people on Tik TOK, because boy, do they have thoughts?
Man and they all suck too. So I’m not going to read any of them. Someone said it technically should be Scotland then which we won’t go into that. Yeah, I posted it.
Big John isner: I posted on our Twitter account. Oh God, here we go. If you had to describe where Appalachia is, how would you, cause I wanted to see how other people do it.
One of my favorite comments, which just, just says, it feels like you should already know where it is.
Chuck Corra: Jesus. Fuck. I fucking hate the internet so much. Some days I
Big John isner: replied. Thank you so much for that. That needed comment. The funny thing is no one, like no one mentions they RC. They do mention like rust belt, you know?
Let’s see, Southern Ohio Southeastern Ohio to north Georgia. And all the mountains in between plus all of West Virginia and some of Pennsylvania that’s okay. But again, if you look, everybody has a different definition.
Chuck Corra: Okay. So take away arc map. Good, bad and different. Should we keep using it?
Big John Isner: Yes, we should keep using it until it’s edited.
I guess. I think it’s good. It’s a good place to start yet. If we want to talk culturally, it’s a little different probably, but I think it’s a great place to start. It allows for a great share of funding to go to the region. And, and honestly, if you make it smaller, just because you want it to like, have this weird gatekeeping thing, it’s only going to hurt you when it comes to the political movement that the political power had had.
Chuck Corra: Yeah, I would agree. I think you know, until Jesus Christ himself comes down from heaven and decides what is, and isn’t Appalachia, I guess, you know, this is a good one. This is a good enough resource for me. And because it designates something, there’s just, again, there’s no right answer. And there’s no, I think the correct way to define it.
There are general things that are accepted. Because we don’t want it to be so fluid is like, whoa, you know, a loss goes up a watch of your think about it. But I think you know, what I think is good enough, that’s my take it’s good enough. Well, that’s that for that? We may do another one of these.
I don’t know for part two, we might, I’m going to tease it out, let you see next week. Yeah. So that’s already come on that, that’s it. So stop with all the questions. Stop slamming our DMS. Stop calling my phone at night, harassing my wife at work, trying to spray my dog with water to piss her off.
So you’ll get my attention. Stop it. Quit it. Stop big dog. Big dog does deserve better. Not a lot better, but definitely better than that. Yeah. Anyway with that, I guess we’ll close it out. Thank you. Hope you enjoyed this first episode of the new year and more to come. We’ll be back next week.
Appodlachia is a production of 18 Husky media. The show is produced by Chuck Corra. Nothing said on this show reflects the viewpoints of either Chuck or John’s employers and it never will.