A weekly spin through the Fray.

Poems Fray: Benjamin Gantcher's narrative poem, "Insomniac," didn't attract a lot of fans, save Catnapping444416 here, who appreciates how Gantcher "describes the way sleeplessness almost hurts his skin...how it messes with the order of things," and Ted_Burke here who writes that "this poem kept me awake." Seamus takes on the work most aggressively with a close read of the first five lines here. Off the syllabus, Geoff won over PF with "Poet's Disclaimer," as did shannpalmer for "Director of Special Pops." Leave it to PF's unofficial muse, MaryAnn, for stellar criticism and sound advice.

Everyday Economics Fray: Why do gays toke? A lot. Schadenfreude points out that Steven Landsburg approaches the question "from an economist's viewpoint. I suppose a Freudian would just shrug and say that it's all part of the pattern of oral fixation." Schadenfreude brings up a host of other salient points, as does Sissyfuss1, who feels that Landsburg is overlooking the fact that since smoking is more common among men, "the smoking habit among gays is self-reinforcing. If most of your prospective partners are smokers themselves, you have little incentive to cut down on your habit." KellyAnn brings up the point that "the overwhelming majority of adult smokers started as teens," and that "[t]he question might more appropriately be framed as what is it about gay teens that leads them to smoke at such a high rate." HoundDog here and bp294 here take up the different sides of a singular argument. And e-coli's post is a scathing indictment of Landsburg's methodology and issues the author the Pepsi challenge.

Chatterbox Fray: Yes. Chatterbox.  Tim Noah has a full week with five columns in five days, and Fraysters respond accordingly en masse. As an adjunct to Noah's column on the prospect of Dirk Kempthorne as EPA Chief, WatchfulBabbler illuminates the Fray on another interesting Bush administration EPA appointment. BeverlyMann maintains that a Kempthorne appointment will "help lift the shroud" of the administration's true intent and help the "Dems…explain to the public" Bush's dubious environmental policy. But Thrasymachus suggests that this could energize "the Green Party base while scarfing up a huge trough of industrial contributions must seem like a win-win situation to the Republicans," while Deej thinks this proves that "the Bush administration is so sure of securing themselves a second term," that it's taking a free pass with Kempthorne. To the California recall, where Fraysters jump on Noah for making a Zugspitze out of a zit in regards to the 'bot's " Nazi Problem." EFriedemann is "apathetic about Schwarzenegger," but is satisfied with the fact that "Schwarzenegger has chosen … to do yeoman charitable work instead" of a wholesale denunciation of his father and nation's leaders, many of them close family friends. MoscowMike finds Noah's piece to be a "repugnant screed," and shouts to the missus, "Quick, Myrtle, grab ol bessie, we'es a-huntin nazzies!" Miguel feels "Ah-nold's charity, educational and humanitarian work speaks volumes more than a thousand verbal denunciations of Killer Kurt would," but is nevertheless "deeply troubled by his continued embrace of the Evil Waldheim," and finds an "obvious double standard" among conservatives who choose to look the other way on this one. AdamMorgan writes in defense of Noah, "I think the point is that any connection, however informal, with those who participate in genocide must be severed, as an example of the strict barrier that must be maintained between those who should be included in society and those who must always be excluded."

Jurisprudence Fray: Dahlia Lithwick's "Saving DNA for a Rainy Day" and JFers discuss the legal ramifications of throwing the book at genetic material. The_Bell generally agrees with several of Lithwick's points, but "draw[s] short of Lithwick's allegations that DNA's only apparent viable role — at least for now — is as a tool for the defense and never the prosecution." Here, Gene-2 spins a web encompassing seemingly every side of the debate on admissibility of DNA evidence, while Adam_Masin takes an even more skeptical position on its credibility here and concludes by asking rhetorically, "Rather than indict what amounts to a description of a person (but not the person), why not just lengthen the statute of limitations?" Destor23 writes that "One could argue that the statute of limitations is more important with regards to DNA and related genetic identification technologies because our understanding of biotechnology is in a state of rapid flux right now. DNA collected a decade ago was collected using methods and standards that might well be outdated now and that might seem comically primitive twenty years from now…" Finally, to Lithwick's invoking the old adage that "it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to try an innocent one unfairly," Vepxistqaosani2 asks, "Why is it better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted? Why not 100, or 5, or 2 -- or all of them? If we simply stopped prosecuting people, we could be assured that no innocent person would ever be troubled ... at least, not by the state." … KA10:50 a.m.

Friday, August 8, 2003

Uncomfortably Numb: Christopher Hawthorne's narrative slideshow, " The Om Factor," elicits one of the best Arts & Culture posts of the summer from Thrasymachus. T. finds a vacant anonymity in the works generated by the Om "movement":

But OMchitecture's not a reflection of feeling. It's a reflection of Novocained numbness. It's reminiscent of modern architecture, but in its original form modern architecture was exuberant. . . this. . . isn't. It seems all about not being noticed, and not engaging in dialogue because, feeling nothing, it has nothing to say.

Read more on why T. feels that "[w]e shouldn't build too much while we're in this mood," here and here. CaptainRonVoyage counters with the notion that, in the larger contour of architectural progression,

"Omm" is probably not a major new movement, but "Wow" architecture was no major movement, either.

On the spatial aesthetics of Om, CRV goes on to write that

The "Om" buildings in the slideshow contain some really wonderful interior spaces that invite exploration, meditation and interaction with other people, things the "Wow" buildings often didn't bother with…

While CRV lauds the interior focus of the Oms, T. responds here, stating that

I'm not entirely sure of that. . . for every person who will ultimately live (or work) in a given building, there are literally thousands of people who will have to live (or work)with it.

CRV decides that he and T. "may be able to strike a consensus." Find out how here. RTev, here, insists that Wow structures, such as Koolhaas' new Central Library in Seattle (n.b. FrayEditor recently toured the site) don't necessarily betray function.

Spledid_IREny authros a post true to her name with " Modesty that call attention to itself." She poses this critically inciting question:

If, as Frank Gehry says, "architectural excess" is "dead in the water," what subtlety is there in buildings that one knows are there, but are advantageously invisible?

MaryAnn takes a stab at Spledid's question here, with a smart follow-up from Splendid here.

In response to a pithy top post  here from newly starred TheQuietManthat suggests Wowchitecture was "the architectural equivalent of the NASDAQ rise to 5000," twifferthegnu  wonders if

Om would have been the replacement [for Wow] without 9/11…

To comment on whether Omchitecture is profound quietude or self-consciously flashy  restraint, please dig in at Architecture Fray.

As I Recall: When we last left the Sacto High Student Council election, America's favorite 'bot hadn't yet performed his Electoral Anschluss on Leno. CaptainRonVoyage scribbles the best analysis in his political notebook in Kausfiles Fray titled, " Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Tocqueville?" CRV observes that

As more and more weirdo candidates enter the race, the publicity factor increases, thereby increasing the incentive for more PR-seekers to enter the race in a kind of bizarre B-list feedback loop. Thus it seems pretty safe to assume that every oddball candidate that enters the CA recall race probably brings in more votes to retain Davis than they do for themselves. This may be the CA Dems' version of the Iraq "flypaper" strategy…

More CRV:

Nobody mentioned also that by faking out everyone with his announcement, Arnold effectively screwed his buddy Dick Riordan worse than the job he did on Lou Ferrigno in Pumping Iron I. 

For up-to-the-minute updates on the circus, visit Mickey Kaus' blogging ticker at Kausfiles.

MichaelRyerson finds the prospect of 'Nazi' entering the "political lexicon" curious. Of Schwarzenegger and Tim Noah's piece on the 'bot's Waldheim worries, MR writes

Regardless how appropriate the allusion may be, when people in these parts observe some one is acting like a Nazi or goose-stepping or jackbooted or brown-shirted, the resulting cries of 'hyperbole', 'thoughtless', 'repugnant' ring forth from the aggrieved. Well, does Arnold have a problem? Reading Timothy Noah's latest column in Chatterbox it would seem The Austrian Oak is rooted rather deeply in the soil of the Fatherland.

While MikeBeers is no fan of the recall or the 'bot, he has to "call a spade a spade. Waldheim was a big deal. This is not."

AdamMorgan is "shocked Coleman had the $3500" to file, prompting CRV to suspect that "Todd Bridges had to knock over another bank" to foot the bill.  This thread is here, if you have the urge to yuk it up at the expense of NBC's most forlorn cast in network history… KA2:00 p.m.

p.s. Department of Astral Affairs: TheQuietMan and James enter the orbit this week. Congratulations.

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Touch of Gray: The_Slasher finds it "hard to imagine what could make one sympathize with Gray Davis, until one looks at those who are out for his scalp." Granted, "It's pretty hard to imagine a better example of a reason to loathe today's Democratic Party than the aptly-named Gray Davis," but that said, Slash would "vote to keep him in office" if he were living on the cliffs of Mendecino. Find out why here.

Naturally, Neocon is an unequivocal Davis-detester. In response, he asks Slash:

Do you really believe that Davis's popularity has fallen to 20%, and that the recall petition has succeeded because of the behind the scenes machinations of all those sly Republican con artists?