Reruns and Sequels
Staying on message in the Fray.
Readme Rerun? They're not exactly lining up for Michael Kinsley's scalp in the Fray, but there's a certain Gray Davis phenomenon working in ReadMe. Traditionally supportive posters generally agree with the premise, but they're bored with the message and, like historyguy here and JohnMcG (not so historically sympathetic) here, they fault Kinsley for "recycling" the same formula. Zathras, who "think[s] the latest Bush tax cut is a really bad idea" would like to see Kinsley do more than basically rewriting the same "gotcha" column nearly every week while occasionally throwing in some new snarky comment to make it look different….I want writers like Kinsley to make an effective case for doing something else. If they can't do that they may as well join all the writers from Us and People writing about Laci Peterson. ChasHeath here and again here -- and Science here -- offer the campaign manager's "on message" strategy of repetition, that it's important to re-iterate a point over and over to be heard amidst the cacophony of opinion, to which historyguy replies: "With so much Republican hypocrisy and double-talk", there's no need for reruns. He could easily find a different aspect to criticize each week. J_Mann assumes his role as the Fray's devil's advocate, offering up a defense of the tax cut here, aided by Thomas, who isn't roleplaying here. Early Fray B.O. Returns: In Assessment, ChrisSuellentrop posits that The Matrix is " a utopia, a geek paradise." Rob_said_that begins the debate, suggeting that Suellentrop: has missed the point of geekdom's fascination with The Matrix. It's not about knowing something's rotten at the core of this elaborate techno-construct. It's about all those old values from the '60s—the power of the Individual Who Believes In Himself, the commune as viable social model, technology as nurturing B. F. Skinner Box, achievement without effort (remember drugs?) and a dash of messianic narcissism—updated for the 21st Century. In short, it's a jerk-off dream world, a masturbatory fantasy—so how is it a mystery that geeks would like it? TheMeek has definitional problems with "geeks" and "nerds" here, citing the piece's Kevin Warwick quote as backup. Mdem, as a born again Christian, finds solace in the film; he's followed by Enigmus who evokes the Buddhist angle, as well as AttilaTheHun here – giving credence to the question: in the taxonomy of geekdom, where do religious folk fit in? Finally, bartman22 feels that Neo "doesn't want to destroy the Matrix. He just wants people to understand it so they can play with it and enjoy it as much as he does. He's an evangelist for the product. Neo's not a Luddite. He's an early adopter." He continues, alluding to teaching his 3-year-old son the piano, and the distinction between the technicality of geekdom and the spiritualism of experience…KFA9:25 a.m.
Thursday, May 1, 2003
B.A. vs. B.S.? In a commentary on the SARS epidemic in Culturebox, Duncan Watts suggests that "had it not been for this exaggerated sense of fear, we might have a truly frightening situation on our hands." Baltimore-aureole comes after Columbia University sociologist Watts, citing that the article "illustrates why those with humanities degrees shouldn't necessarily be entrusted with mathematical or scientific issues." She lays out her argument with some of Watts' own numbers, including:
Watts argues that the 91% mortality rate for ebola makes it far riskier than SARS' 1-2% mortality rate. that ENTIRELY misses the point, which is:
To get Ebola, you have to make 5 plane connections, travel down the Zambesi river by dugout canoe, then trudge on foot to an isolated village. To get SARS, all you have to do is come in contact with someone who visited Hong Kong.
B-A concludes that it "seems all too easy (and typical) for a sociology expert to claim that concerned travelers are hysterical."
For this, she evokes indignation from the Fray. "Did you even read the article?" asksarthegall:
Watts may be a professor of sociology, but one area of active research he's involved in is studying "power-law networks." These are mathematical models (specifically, the mathematical construct known as a "graph") of random phenomena commonly known as "small-world" or "preferential attachment" phenomena.
Temaj here suggests that B-A misread the piece: "[H]e agrees with you about the dangerousness of SARS vs. Ebola." B-A responds, feeling that the article's conclusion still begs the question, "Which is it? overreaction, or a good thing that we're not picking Hong Kong for a vacation?"
Keith_M_Ellis takes umbrage at B-A's "gratuitous swipe at the rigor of sociologists":
something that's incredibly ironic considering that you didn't bother to read the article or, perhaps, understand it. ... [T]he writer has demonstrated expertise in epidemiology as is evidenced, for example, by his paper in Nature. By the way, last I checked, Nature wasn't a humanities journal.
