Thursday, January 15, 2009

Ode to the Chicks

So, I've been double posting my weekly Smile Politely column to my Open Salon blog. This week's entry is: The Pop Icons of the Bush II Era, where I give some love to the Dixie Chicks.

And, it made "Editor's Pick" over at Salon. Woo hoo! I'm now batting .500, which means it might be time to retire.


Fingtree said...

Very very good article Dan! 'Biggest Respects' to the Dixie Chicks. Their forthright candor is truly American. For all of those who believe that throwing shoes at our President in Iraq displays progress towards democracy in that country, the Dixie Chicks should and have always been vindicated. They were wrongly ostracized by an ignorant, chauvinist and biased blinded public.

mennomom said...

Ditto! Way to go, Dan!

Robert Sievers said...


I don't want to burst your bubble, but I think it more likely Salon took it because of its politics, not its quality.

Don't get me wrong, you are a good writer, but if you wrote a piece on the wastefullness of a $160 million innauguartion party in the midst of an economic crisis, I don't think you could get published even if you were Shakespere.

Adam said...

Yeah, 'cause Salon clearly takes all liberal submissions regardless of quality. Right. And of course it fit the 'voice' of the site. But to imply that that is all that is needed is silly.
It was a great article, well-written and funny.

David Wright said...

Bob, come on. If you want to complain that the media jumped on Bush's inaug and gives Obama a free ride, you may have some case. But Bush's 2nd inaugural cost 40-50 million, and it was in the middle of a war and was hardly an historic occasion (though it was amazing he gor reelected given his bumbling. I know you'll discount this source but I think it makes an interesting point about cooking the books on such things.


David Wright said...

And another thing, Bob. This red herring strategy of argument is so tiresome and one that pundits on both sides follow all the time. Stick to a topic and explore its depth. If you want to shift the focus, you need to establish a supposition from the original article that justifies you tangential shift.


Robert Sievers said...


First, I am in no way suggesting Dan's article got published because of politics alone. One of the reasons I read his material is because it is funny, if often misguided. However, my point is that geting published by a site like Salon requires more than good writing, it requires the "correct" kind of politics.

As for changing the subject, I didn't want to, but I figured if I waited for Dan to write an article on the wastefullness of the Obama inauguration party, it might be a little while.

Besides, I thought this thread was about freedom of expression, and that is exactly what I am doing. Somehow, people here aren't as excited about my criticisms as those of the Dixie chics. Maybe it's because I can't sing country music.

Adam said...

"I don't want to burst your bubble, but I think it more likely Salon took it because of its politics, not its quality."

I'm glad to know that I apparently read that incorrectly. Evidently it does not say what it says. Good to know.

Dan S said...

Well Bob, if that will make you feel any better, I'll promise to burn your book if you say things that offend me. :) I can't promise death threats though.

And thanks for pointing out that liberal sites publish liberal content. I'll keep that in mind it the future.

And I read the article Dave pointed to about the inauguration expenses. Bob, why aren't you outraged that the press has been so lazy in reporting the real figures of both the Obama and Bush' inaugurations?

Fingtree said...

Being the scary domestic Muslim terrorist that Obama has been made out to be within the conservative outlets of media, Bob will be there to tell us; "I told you so" when Obama deliberately blows up the White House.
What's the matter Bob? Your conservative media outlets won't publish your material? Dull, predictable and ordinary is something to be, perhaps it's time you burst your own bubble and get out of the box.

Robert Sievers said...


As a matter of fact, I am outraged at the lack of true journalism in the media this past year. And I do support your right to burn my book. After all, if you buy it, it is yours to do with as you see best. :-)

Fingtree, your calling me predictable is so predictable. Also, your tired out routine of use of rediculaous hyperbole is unhelpful as usual. I'll give you only a 6/10 on that one though, a little weak.

Fingtree said...

Darn! It hurts being called out predictably for my predictability. Especially from such a superior religious bully like yourself. I hope everyone else here will confess that we secretly slavishly support every opinion of your superior substance. I hope the rapture doesn't come to soon, I would love to meet you before Jesus personally calls you to his side, he needs you. I'm sure your tight arse is very attractive to God's bi-sexual son. Predictably, that's why you are the homophobic you are.

Robert Sievers said...


Good job implying your superiority by claiming that I claim superioty.

Fingtree said...

Thanks for the pat on the behind I take a draw from my hyperbowl, close my eyes listening to the Dixie Chicks....aaaahhhhh~

Anonymous said...

Bob, Dan, et al,

I don't mean to burst all your bubbles, but Salon didn't "publish" this article.

It was on Open Salon, which is a blog hosted by Salon where anyone can post anything. Even you, Bob.

It might not make editor's pick, however, unless it's sufficiently liberal.

Dan S said...

Anon, I never said it was published by Salon. All I said was that it made editor's pick.

Yes, anyone can post there. Some article's are editors' picks. Salon is liberal. The sky is blue.

Tim said...

Dan, what Anon said.

Yes, you never claimed that it was published by Salon. (And Bush never claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11.) But many of your readers were under that impression:

"...I think it more likely Salon took it..."

"...Salon clearly takes all liberal submissions regardless..."

"...Dan's article got published..."

And you did nothing to correct them during the discussion, adding things yourself like, "...liberal sites publish liberal content..."

Bob then went on to decry the state of "true journalism."

The whole discussion is based on an errant premise. The article in question was never published by Salon, at least not in the sense that the word "published" in being used in this thread.

If you're going to get into a debate with Bob about media and journalism, don't you want to correct his original false premise? Did you not notice his misunderstanding, or are you just too polite to correct conservatives when they get the facts wrong? :)

It's great exposure and a great opportunity to make editor's choice. Keep writing!

Dan S said...

Ah, what does it mean to "publish"? It used to mean the printed word somewhere. That means I was "published" by my church newsletter, since paper was involved.

I don't think this Open Salon pick qualifies as "published," but then again, it is more than pressing a submit button. And yet, there's a caase to be made that it was "published" on the front page of Open Salon. Sure, anyone can write a blog there, but only editors determine who gets to share the front page for a day.

It's a small success, no more, and I didn't intend for it to be interpreted otherwise. It isn't like being published in Salon itself, but at least some editor who is not a personal friend marked it as worthy for other people to read.

So, yes, I can be as pedantic as anyone, and in a discussion of why and how a liberal site chooses content to highlight/pick/feature/mark/present to others, "publish" is a valid way to discuss it.