Reader Comments from The Fray:
Surowiecki and Smith talk a lot about focus, yet neither does anything about it. I'm trying to find some sort of connection between Holly Golightly, the drowning or Russian sailors and Bob May. Sadly, I am missing the conventions which at least gave people something specific to talk about. These strings of non-sequiturs make me feel like I did upon stepping out of an "installation" at the Witherspoon Gallery where I had gone to "experience" a ton or so of dirt. Blink... blink... blink.
--Charles Roule
(To reply, click here.)
[From the Fray Editor: This is the complaint Jim Surowiecki noted in the Tuesday entry. No input from Obi-Wan Kenobi yet, Lee, but there was this splendid defence:]
The one great thing about the "Breakfast Table" is precisely its lack of focus, or rather its lack of predictability. One week two analysts focus like lasers on a hot (to them!) topic. Another week two laid-back correspondents thrash about with the flotsam and jetsam filling their minds from their current reading. Often it's a combination of both. The whole conceit is that they're sharing breakfast, reading the papers and tossing comments back and forth. This is one of the few things an online magazine can do that the mainline media simply cannot mimic. Keep up the good, unfocussed work!
--Gary
(To reply, click here.)
[And there was more praise for the "Breakfast Table" writers: after Monday's discussion of the increased interest in prostitutes in today's culture, Pollyanna wrote "let me say how pleased I am to find some men who are apparently not titillated, fascinated, or disarmed by the concept of pretty young hookers." In the same Fray thread Tench Coxe said "I blame Bill Clinton" and got this response:]
We have been putting unchaste women on pedestals for centuries prior to Bill Clinton being president and will continue to do so after he leaves. Europe is not as "prissy" as America pretends to be. They use sex and nudity in their commercials, ads, magazines and no one is hanging their heads in shame or thinking two hoots about it like some in America are. Their children see it, but here we use our children as an excuse to stop it. We need to take a look at ourselves and understand what is really bugging us about Clinton and why. Bill Clinton is having sexual relations just like any other male in the United States, except a bunch of people want us to think it was done in a degrading manner. And on our time. Was it? Why was it? Because you know? Because he was caught? Because you felt he lied about it? I haven't met one male or one female yet that I haven't caught in a lie about sex and sexual relations. Bottom line: it ain't my business and niether was this. What was my business was the laws on health care Clinton was signing and the money he released to the states for health care. What was my business was the bills he signed in relationship to cutting welfare roles which cut my taxes. What was my business was him signing the minimum wage bills that passed finally.
Whores and their allure have been written about in Shakespeare sonnets, the Bible, in Roman and Greek times, in paintings, in music/operas, etc--put on pedestals and seen as trash all through the History of the World. You don't have to like it, but you cannot say they just came during the past 8 years. Ya can't blame Clinton for that.
--Unique Vision
(To reply, or to read a longer version of this, click here.)
To Unique Vision:
Er, I wasn't blaming Clinton for the hooker part, but for the idea that someone talking her/his way out of something is a role model. And who is better at doing that than Clinton? And, sadly, who has done more to become a role model in that fashion? The hooker part is a whole 'nother story.
--Tench Coxe
(To reply, click here.)
It's no surprise an editor of Talk magazine finds nothing to do but mock the idea of having a spiritual life [Tuesday]. He's a pimp himself, a purveyor of chat and gloss and emptiness passing for something worth buying.
--T
Actually, I've never read Talk magazine, so what am I saying? How unspiritual of me! I was just assuming. Now I feel bad for insulting Mr Smith, perhaps unjustifiably. Sorry. But I do think there is way too much mockery of the idea of spirituality, and too little of it indeed, in America. Even the prevailing religions are anti-spiritual, in the sense that spirituality would actually transcend the exclusivity of their clubs.
--T
(Post timed three hours later)
(To reply, click here.)
When we were in St Petersburg, our charming Russian guide cajoled us very sternly not to feel sorry for the Russians, so we are happy to comply. We don't all want the same things, fortunately, & if Russians don't find America to their liking, ca va. We here in Seattle are inundated by immigrants, Russian & otherwise, & we wouldn't mind a bit if the flood would ebb a bit. This country was specifically designed to have no religion, which had caused so much bloodshed & pain in Europe, & we like it that way.
--Travler
(To reply, click here.)
[This post prompted a traditional Seattle diatribe against Californian immigrants, and also this reply:]
To Travler:
Well, I beg to differ with you. The Indians who were here and native of this land believed in their own ideals of faith. When the Pilgrims, the first European settlers of record, came to this country, they did come for religious freedom. To practice and believe in what they wanted to, not what the Church of England imposed on them. Europe is much older than we and are pretty much set in their ways. So is the Orient, so is Africa. We Americans are "babies" in the scheme of revolution and evolution of the world but because we are here under the guise of "freedom", we have to see that eventually if we don't accept one another, "freedom" will destroy us. So as folks continue to come here in our mere 224 years of Independence, they come here with their own religious beliefs, or are perfectly free to explore others. Where I believe this is tearing us apart is when the Anglo Saxon Protestants decided that their religious beliefs were the basis to begin America's rules and regulations. Even till today, we are all still very confused: fighting one another, confusing the difference between Character, Morals, Ethics, etc and confused in thinking that these make a better human being than another.
So you in Seattle, just welcome your new Americans. They are here for the same reason your family came here. And unless you are 100% Indian, you are not native of this land. Try to welcome the newest residents of the United States of America. You don't have to agree with them. But understand who we are, and what this land represents. More people will come here because of that. And because we are free, and promote those ideals of freedom, they will seek what your family has and generation after generation will be reared here and be free here. Just like you. Let others as well. That is why they are here too.
--America's American
(To reply, or read a longer version, click here.)
[From the Fray Editor: Other Fray posters this week have focused on basketball, golf, older women and Viagra, and sometimes--extreme focus--several of these topics at once.]
(8/23)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
When Congress Sends a Bill to the President, Do They Use E-Mail?
Gov. Haley Barbour's Strange Habit of Pardoning Murderers Who Work on His House
Slowpoke Directors Explained: Why It Took 12 Years to Make Avatar
The Surprising Reason Banks Are Suddenly Repaying Their TARP Funds
How Come You Don't Hear About the "War on Christmas" Anymore?
Jeff Bridges Gives the Performance of the Year in Crazy Heart
Reader Comments from The Fray:
Surowiecki and Smith talk a lot about focus, yet neither does anything about it. I'm trying to find some sort of connection between Holly Golightly, the drowning or Russian sailors and Bob May. Sadly, I am missing the conventions which at least gave people something specific to talk about. These strings of non-sequiturs make me feel like I did upon stepping out of an "installation" at the Witherspoon Gallery where I had gone to "experience" a ton or so of dirt. Blink... blink... blink.
--Charles Roule
(To reply, click here.)
[From the Fray Editor: This is the complaint Jim Surowiecki noted in the Tuesday entry. No input from Obi-Wan Kenobi yet, Lee, but there was this splendid defence:]
The one great thing about the "Breakfast Table" is precisely its lack of focus, or rather its lack of predictability. One week two analysts focus like lasers on a hot (to them!) topic. Another week two laid-back correspondents thrash about with the flotsam and jetsam filling their minds from their current reading. Often it's a combination of both. The whole conceit is that they're sharing breakfast, reading the papers and tossing comments back and forth. This is one of the few things an online magazine can do that the mainline media simply cannot mimic. Keep up the good, unfocussed work!
--Gary
(To reply, click here.)
[And there was more praise for the "Breakfast Table" writers: after Monday's discussion of the increased interest in prostitutes in today's culture, Pollyanna wrote "let me say how pleased I am to find some men who are apparently not titillated, fascinated, or disarmed by the concept of pretty young hookers." In the same Fray thread Tench Coxe said "I blame Bill Clinton" and got this response:]
We have been putting unchaste women on pedestals for centuries prior to Bill Clinton being president and will continue to do so after he leaves. Europe is not as "prissy" as America pretends to be. They use sex and nudity in their commercials, ads, magazines and no one is hanging their heads in shame or thinking two hoots about it like some in America are. Their children see it, but here we use our children as an excuse to stop it. We need to take a look at ourselves and understand what is really bugging us about Clinton and why. Bill Clinton is having sexual relations just like any other male in the United States, except a bunch of people want us to think it was done in a degrading manner. And on our time. Was it? Why was it? Because you know? Because he was caught? Because you felt he lied about it? I haven't met one male or one female yet that I haven't caught in a lie about sex and sexual relations. Bottom line: it ain't my business and niether was this. What was my business was the laws on health care Clinton was signing and the money he released to the states for health care. What was my business was the bills he signed in relationship to cutting welfare roles which cut my taxes. What was my business was him signing the minimum wage bills that passed finally.
Whores and their allure have been written about in Shakespeare sonnets, the Bible, in Roman and Greek times, in paintings, in music/operas, etc--put on pedestals and seen as trash all through the History of the World. You don't have to like it, but you cannot say they just came during the past 8 years. Ya can't blame Clinton for that.
--Unique Vision
(To reply, or to read a longer version of this, click here.)
To Unique Vision:
Er, I wasn't blaming Clinton for the hooker part, but for the idea that someone talking her/his way out of something is a role model. And who is better at doing that than Clinton? And, sadly, who has done more to become a role model in that fashion? The hooker part is a whole 'nother story.
--Tench Coxe
(To reply, click here.)
It's no surprise an editor of Talk magazine finds nothing to do but mock the idea of having a spiritual life [Tuesday]. He's a pimp himself, a purveyor of chat and gloss and emptiness passing for something worth buying.
--T
Actually, I've never read Talk magazine, so what am I saying? How unspiritual of me! I was just assuming. Now I feel bad for insulting Mr Smith, perhaps unjustifiably. Sorry. But I do think there is way too much mockery of the idea of spirituality, and too little of it indeed, in America. Even the prevailing religions are anti-spiritual, in the sense that spirituality would actually transcend the exclusivity of their clubs.
--T
(Post timed three hours later)
(To reply, click here.)
When we were in St Petersburg, our charming Russian guide cajoled us very sternly not to feel sorry for the Russians, so we are happy to comply. We don't all want the same things, fortunately, & if Russians don't find America to their liking, ca va. We here in Seattle are inundated by immigrants, Russian & otherwise, & we wouldn't mind a bit if the flood would ebb a bit. This country was specifically designed to have no religion, which had caused so much bloodshed & pain in Europe, & we like it that way.
--Travler
(To reply, click here.)
[This post prompted a traditional Seattle diatribe against Californian immigrants, and also this reply:]
To Travler:
Well, I beg to differ with you. The Indians who were here and native of this land believed in their own ideals of faith. When the Pilgrims, the first European settlers of record, came to this country, they did come for religious freedom. To practice and believe in what they wanted to, not what the Church of England imposed on them. Europe is much older than we and are pretty much set in their ways. So is the Orient, so is Africa. We Americans are "babies" in the scheme of revolution and evolution of the world but because we are here under the guise of "freedom", we have to see that eventually if we don't accept one another, "freedom" will destroy us. So as folks continue to come here in our mere 224 years of Independence, they come here with their own religious beliefs, or are perfectly free to explore others. Where I believe this is tearing us apart is when the Anglo Saxon Protestants decided that their religious beliefs were the basis to begin America's rules and regulations. Even till today, we are all still very confused: fighting one another, confusing the difference between Character, Morals, Ethics, etc and confused in thinking that these make a better human being than another.
So you in Seattle, just welcome your new Americans. They are here for the same reason your family came here. And unless you are 100% Indian, you are not native of this land. Try to welcome the newest residents of the United States of America. You don't have to agree with them. But understand who we are, and what this land represents. More people will come here because of that. And because we are free, and promote those ideals of freedom, they will seek what your family has and generation after generation will be reared here and be free here. Just like you. Let others as well. That is why they are here too.
--America's American
(To reply, or read a longer version, click here.)
[From the Fray Editor: Other Fray posters this week have focused on basketball, golf, older women and Viagra, and sometimes--extreme focus--several of these topics at once.]
(8/23)