The Fray hates Everybody Loves Raymond.

What's happening in our readers' forum.
Nov. 23 2002 2:07 AM

Why does The Fray hate Raymond?

Plus, wine marketing and Katyal's response.

Everybody in the Fray loves Brad Garrett: Nothing has inspired more TV fraying than Virginia Heffernan's subtitular remark that Everybody Loves Raymondis "Seinfeld for Catholics." W.V. Micko parses the difference here:

Seinfeld's whack jobs were too crazed to be scary, and I laughed myself to tears. But "Raymond?" "Raymond" is Seinfeld's final episode, over and over and over again: strange, creepy, suffocating and depressing.

Anya Fanya kicks off a great thread of future Heffernan articles. Her best: Touched by an Angel: CSI for Baptists. The Max Fischer Players cannot bring himself to love Raymond: "too many Remington Steele flashbacks whenever Doris Roberts is on screen."

And they gave my red hat to a donkey!: While Zathras and Lee agree with Michael Steinberger that Beaujolais Nouveau is worth skipping, they are on opposite side of the paradox of the mass market. Zathras defendsFrench negociants for raising American interest in wine:

The truth is there would be no American market, or at least not nearly as big a one, without this kind of wine, not just from Beaujolais but from California and Chile as well. You just don't see great crowds of really knowledgeable wine drinkers besieging wine shops in November to get the hands on the latest Nouveau; what you see instead are casual wine drinkers and some who are just beginning to drink wine.

Lee thinksthat interest has destroyed the French tradition it was built on:

The original idea of the "new wine" releases was to generate excitement about what the wines of a year would eventually be, once they matured a bit. Bicycle messengers would race down from the vineyards with bottles of new wine for fans of a particular vintner. The tasters would evaluate the new wine and decide whether it was going to be a good vintage, and make up their minds about how many cases they would purchase.

Of course, something this charming, this quaint, this provincial, would get commercialized and marketed in America, land of Wal-Mart ... 11:50 a.m.

I got your conspiracy right here: As promised, Neal Katyal offers detailed answers to Jurisprudence Fraysters's questions about his piece on conspiracy here (the links are active in the version posted at the bottom of the original piece). The meatiest part of the answer comes near the end, when he sorts out his advocacy of a broad use of conspiracy in criminal cases and his opposition to the increasing use of military tribunals:

[T]he permissive rules surrounding conspiracy prosecutions emerged in the context of our particular criminal justice system, with its emphasis on the right to counsel, juries, grand jury presentment, individual rights, cross-examination, Brady disclosures, and the like. What I fear today is that the broad rules surrounding conspiracy doctrine can be used to justify the indefinite detention of people in military brigs. These permissive rules surrounding conspiracy only work with a vibrant power to test the government's claims, and it appears that such testing is out of the question for those indefinitely detained. That is the worst of every world … 6:55 a.m.

82_horizontal_rule

Thursday, Nov. 21, 2002

  Slate Plus
Slate Archives
Nov. 26 2014 12:36 PM Slate Voice: “If It Happened There,” Thanksgiving Edition Josh Keating reads his piece on America’s annual festival pilgrimage.