|
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
|
|
| |
Steal These Links
Sorry, in deadline hell this week and unlikely to post anything coherent. So, allow me to link to a few things I would have written if I had thought of them first. Digby, at the end of a typically great piece on the shamelessness of scorched-earth Republican tactics, writes:
The Republicans are rejecting reason in science, economics, rhetoric and governance and therefore we cannot expect that rules based upon a rational assumption that they will be applied to both sides equally are even relevant. We fight each battle anew. It's never over. Nothing is settled. This is why they hate the courts. Reason and finality are their enemy. These are the "I Know You Are But What Am I" Republicans and they have taken us into a new world of post enlightenment reality. We'd better get used to it.
This is similar to a point I tried to make a couple of years ago in a post called “The Proud Tower” and it’s worth making fervently and often.
I am beginning to think that the antidote for the conservative “medieval values” message is to turn up to volume on the corrupting seductions of modernity. Every time you have sex and don’t have to worry about becoming a parent, thank a liberal. Every time you earn a paycheck and don’t have to give 10% of your after-tax take to The Established Church, thank a liberal. Every time a 20-year old kid stuck in some dead-end town follows her dream of moving to the big city and putting the boring, oppressive past behind her, thank a liberal. Because really, those are the things the theocrats really want to put a stop to.
Also, a belated tip of the EA cap to a few sites out there that have been really supportive of my work here, and offer thoughtful commentary on these same kinds of issues. Toast at Two Glasses works himself up into a satisfying rage now and again, when he’s not posting about beer and basketball. The gang over at Real Art (and Politics and Culture) search far and wide for good tidbits on which to offer their pithy spin. They are really worth a read. Walker at Delivering Hope runs a fine shop and has been waiting patiently for a permanent link on my template. Updates coming soon – I promise! And finally, I would be remiss here at playoff time to not give a shout out to Paul, Nussbaum, Chunkstyle and the crew over at SuperSonicsSoul, the unofficial online home of the (extremely unlikely) Pacific Norhwest (Thanks, Dave!) Division Champion Seattle SuperSonics, and the only place where I comment regularly anymore.
9:05:11 AM 
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
|
|
| |
Orcinus Sighting
Last night, two dozen-odd souls braved the summer heat to hear mighty Dave Neiwert read from his new book, Death on the Fourth of July, at the Elliot Bay Bookstore in Seattle. Dave, known to the blogosphere as Orcinus, has been documenting hate groups and hate crimes in the Northwest for many years.
Death on the Fourth is an account of an incident that took place several years ago at Ocean Shores, WA, where a group of Vietnamese-Americans were harassed, fought back, and ended up killing one of their assailants. Neiwert uses this incident as a springboard to discuss the broader subject of hate crimes laws and the actions that communities – especially rural communities – need to take to prevent the low-level terror and intimidation caused by violent racist thugs. I picked up a copy of the book and will have a more detailed review at some point. At the moment, I am entombed in Neal Stephenson’s cinderblock-scale opus, Quicksilver, and it may be a while before I see daylight.
Following the reading, I joined Dave and a few friends for drinks and conversation at a local watering hole. Kicked around several subjects, from the possibility of a Bush defeat to the recent nomination of a genuine racist ideologue, James Hart (R-Tenn) to run for Congress. We also discussed the newest hunk of literary sewage to make ripples in the cultural pond, Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment, which speaks in glowing terms about one of 20th century America’s darkest moments for civil liberties, the imprisonment of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans during World War II. As it happens, Dave has already been researching this subject for another project and is spoiling to tear Malkin a new one (in an intellectual matchup that would make “Bambi vs. Godzilla” look like an even-money bout). However, on receiving his review copy, he is somewhat concerned about treating an obvious act of political exhibitionism with more scholarly seriousness than it deserves. For a taste of what the odious Ms. M is in for should Dave decide to let loose, check this.
9:43:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, August 07, 2004
|
|
| |
Paying the Bills
It seems from the rankings and referrers that EA has been drawing some new eyeballs lately. So let me give a big EA shout-out to a few of the folks who have been kind enough to comment and recommend this page recently:
All of these offer fine commentary and interesting perspective and are well worth a look. Thanks again to the authors for spending a few minutes splashing around in my little pond.
9:47:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, July 09, 2004
|
|
| |
Watching the Scoreboard
I've been blogging for almost 2 years now and am largely broken of the habit of checking my rankings on the Salon community site, but I still occasionally check my referrers to see where the hits are coming from. Imagine my surprise this morning to see venerable old EA nearly topping the list with 900 hits and counting (!), thanks to an incredibly kind and generous reference from mighty Dave Neiwert, aka Orcinus.
Something similar happened last year when a barb I threw at the Wall Street Journal editorial page came to the attention of the egregious James Tarranto. A single link in his “Best of the Web” column sent 10,000 crazed wingnuts my way. Among Dave’s many virtues is that he draws a considerably higher-class crowd. Thanks bud, next round’s on me.
So for those of you visiting for the first time, welcome. Hope you like what you see. And for regular EA readers, please go check out Orcinus, an absolutely essential and content-rich site that tracks frightening developments on the far right. And by all means, buy Dave’s new book!
1:58:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 03, 2004
|
|
| |
Keeping Washington Blue
Anyone who wants to descend from the clouds for a glimpse at the nitty-gritty hard work that goes into local political organizing should check out EA reader Ivan's fine new blog over at the Daily Kos Diaries. Ivan promises ongoing reportage on the efforts of grass-roots activists and district-level Democratic organizers to reach out to promising constituencies and mobilize support for progressive candidates and causes in Western Washington. Go Blue!
9:35:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 19, 2003
|
|
| |
Blogversaries
Salon began hosting blogs in July of 2002, so a lot of the early-adopters are starting to cross the one-year mark these days. Among the notables celebrating blogversaries this week are two personal favorites, Rayne Today and Different Strings. Both are essential daily reads full of great challenging insights, links and laughs.Both are also likely to be the sites of excellent exchanges of comments and discussion threads.
Blogs are great as bullhorns for personal views, but they achieve a whole different level of richness and value when they blossom into communities and facilitate the exchange of ideas. Rayne and Kriselda have both worked consistently toward achieving the evolution of the Salon blog-pond (and its friends and supporters) into something bigger than the sum of its parts. Speaking for myself, blogging is better and more rewarding because of their work. Happy blogversary, ladies! Wishing you many more to come.
8:28:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
|
|
| |
Blog of Note
Nathan Newman, proprietor of an excellent news-and-views blog, was kind enough to drop me an appreciative note and add me to his blogroll, for which, much thanks! Go check out his and be awed and informed.
12:24:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 18, 2003
|
|
| |
Comings and Goings
As Emphasis Added closes in on its one-year anniversary, we note with interest the changing circumstances of two notable contributors to this site.
First, conservative stalwart and newly-minted papa Brian Duffy will be taking some parental leave from his job to help raise his young daughter – an opportunity afforded him by Bill Clinton’s advocacy of family leave policies, against the stiff opposition of “pro-family” Republicans.
Likewise, the irrepressible “Mépriser” (or, if you prefer, “m’épriser”) will be doing his bit for his country, shipping out on a supply vessel carrying the implements of war to the Persian Gulf. The occasion of this 45-day tour of duty, complete with overtime pay and free Anthrax vaccination, comes courtesy of the policies of President Bush, to whom Mépriser affectionately refers as “Pig Boy Grunt.” Regrettably, Mépriser will enjoy only limited Internet access while on board, so he will likely miss the opportunity to engage Duffy in their usual measured and reasoned debates.
1:33:45 PM
|
|
Nevermore
Here at EA, we note with regret the announcement that the Raven, Salon blogger par excellence, has decided to call it quits. This is an unexpected, unexplained, and above all unfortunate development, as this blog's author consistently provided insightful, worthwhile content and commentary with the very highest standards of professionalism and presentation. On a personal note, though I never met The Raven, we corresponded frequently and I have the inescapable feeling that if we ever found each other shoulder-to-shoulder at some bar, far away and years hence, we would fall into easy conversation (and rack up a hell of a bar tab by the end of the evening). We'll miss the daily doses of tart observation and commentary, but I have the feeling this is au revoir, not adieu, to our fine feathered friend.
10:35:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
|
|
| |
Laugh While You Can, Monkey-Boy!
Some links for today.
9:06:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 13, 2003
|
|
| |
Stars and Gripes - Behind the Link
In case anyone is interested how this particular item got posted, it arose from a “dare” by our pal Duffy. Here’s the whole story.
Duffy wrote:
I dare you to post this on your "blog" for your constituents consumption. Maybe you can also explain why Kosovo was ok, but Iraq is not. I think it just highlights the true problem that the left has with this- the power of GWB and having the US flex its muscles in the self interest of protection. In other words the left is just anti-America. You could just throw it out there and solicit response.
I responded:
I will post this link when I get a moment, although personally I am fed up with the argument that people who work in Hollywood somehow have fewer rights than other citizens to speak out about issues they care about, or that their participation in public debates automatically reduces the credibility of whatever side they take. There are idiots everywhere you look on all sides of these things, and pointing to the idiocy of anti-war movie stars is a cheap way for the WSJ to avoid the more substantial issues.
As for Kosovo, I believe the justification was that there was a genocide in progress at the time that needed to be stopped, and no means short of force was going to stop it. There’s also historical precedent for instability in the Balkans threatening the entire region of Eastern Europe (e.g., World War I), and so there was a long-term strategic interest in getting the problem fixed. That said, both Bosnia and Kosovo were basically European problems and should have been addressed by the EU without involving America. Clinton only got involved because European leaders practically begged him to. Historically speaking, it wasn’t the best use of US power, but no one called the Republicans a bunch of traitors when they lined up against it. There’s room to criticize a President who deploys American troops and still be true to whatever idea of America you happen to hold.
Saddam runs a bloody shop to be sure, but he’s not engaging in any activities at the moment that demand us to step in. When he did – as in Kuwait – there was justification (incidentally, I supported that at the time and still think GHWB did a fine job of it). As for his violence against the Kurds, including the use of poison gas, that was done with US support and encouragement, back when Saddam was our buddy in the mid-80s. Ask Don Rumsfeld – he was special envoy to the region at the time.
Duffy Wrote:
Thanks for posting that. Again, I feel that the ultimate reason for the opposition is the hatred for the ability of our free society and our markets to create wealth. That is the root of foreign oppostion and the reason the far left internally fight this. Can it not be said that eradication of any opposition in Iraq by Saddam is in a sense a form of genocide and thus no different than the reasoning for our involvement in Kosovo? Only lets also add in the potential that Saddam has with his defiant ownership of WMD. The potential alone should be enough justification, as I wrote the other day on your site. 3000 dead can easily become 3 million. How about the potential to wipe out all of Israel? The world has repeatedly demanded he give up these weapons, and he has repeatedly refused to do so. Why not just come out and admit your true reason for not wanting America to secure itself?
As for Rumy and the US-Iraqi connections in the 80's-obviously the world was a much different place, and our ties to a young Saddam were justifiable. The left continues to push the myth though that the US gave Saddam chem and bio weapons. That is completely false. Please document your sources that this occured or drop it. It intentionally misleads the debate.
I responded:
Cut the opponents some slack here. Our foreign critics are concerned about their own interests, not our wealth and freedom. Honestly, they have reason to be concerned, especially France, whose companies stand to lose billions if Iraq is invaded. US companies would put the same pressure on our govt if the roles were reversed, and would likely be as persuasive to Bush as TotalFinaElf is with Chirac. As they say in the Godfather, “it’s business, not personal.” However, it’s their problem, not ours. China and Russia also have their interests, perhaps not as benign, but competent diplomacy could have won their support. Germany’s opposition is, I believe, principled. Myself, I don’t think it’s a bad idea for Germany to maintain a pacifist outlook, even if it bites us in the ass sometimes.
As for the “far left” in this country – e.g., Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Susan Sontag, etc. – they probably do have some deep-seated problem with America as a capitalist country and a world leader, but they represent a tiny sliver of opinion, even among other lefties. Equating them with the Dem leadership is like saying David Duke or Pat Robertson represent the mainstream of the Republican party. Many others who oppose the war, including me, believe that occupying a country like Iraq is likely to create greater problems for US security at home and abroad than keeping Saddam in his box.
My “True Reason” for opposing the Iraq policy is I don’t think it will work – it is over-ambitious, too expensive, poorly-timed, and has been plotted by people like Wolfowitz and Cheney whose goals and visions for America’s role in the world are not consistent with mine or a lot of other people’s. I love America and cherish freedom, but in my view, we’re at our greatest when we foster cooperation and mutual interest, not when we bully, bluster, and preach. It is, as Bush says, a “difference of opinion.” Honestly, since it looks like we’re going no matter what, I hope he and all his supporters are right and it does make us safer – but right now, that’s an argument from faith, not reason.
My info on Iraq comes primarily from a book called Unholy Babylon: The Secret History of Saddam’s War by Adel Darish and Gregory Alexander (St Martin’s, 1991). Not a perfect source as it was obviously written in a hurry to cash in on the first Gulf War, but it is extremely well documented with respect to Saddam’s efforts to acquire WMDs in the 80s, and the diplomacy between the US and Iraq during the Iran War. It was well-reviewed by both the Economist and the Times of London, so I gather it is considered a balanced view. I wrote about it here.
I’m going to leave the link up there naked for a while and see if anyone bites, then I’ll post our back-and-forth on this.
And so I have. Enjoy!
9:33:38 PM
|
|
|
 |
© Copyright 2005 Rob Salkowitz.
Last update: 4/26/2005; 10:27:30 AM.
Emphasis Added Theme designed by Andrew Lueck and Rob Salkowitz. |
|
