<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Slate Magazine - Best of the Fray</title>
    <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2076861/?from=rss</link>
    <description>Recent posts from our readers forum.</description>
    <copyright>2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:57:42 EST</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:57:42 EST</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>120</ttl>
    
    <item>
  <title>A heaping helping of posts from our reader forum</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2070227/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2070227/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  It is overstating things to call deterrence games a kind of advertising—Now with even more massive retaliation!—but the Best of The Fray is nothing if not systematic overstatement. Can Iraq be deterred, or is Richard Perle's war necessary? Fraysters Beverly Mann's ghost and John took opposite sides, both compellingly.Like a schoolyard bully, America may be compensating for its weight problem. Peter Marshall noted that whatever the aim of the Bush administration's campaign against obesity, our cultural value meal still includes a biggie size order of self-esteem. (Happy Canadians contends that even American advertising is lazy.)What chance does a teeny-weeny $195 million campaign stand in the face of HBO's svelte-pregnant hidden persuader extraordinaire, Sarah Jessica Parker? In a post-9/11 New York, hollins argues that Sex and the City has traded its upfront UHB-fab consumerism for product placements. (Later posts let us know Carrie Bradshaw has always had a thing for McDonald's—and yet so thin!)Still, Ender sees hope, and it's cheap. For two bits, you can start the great conversation of democracy all over again, now that our coins offer some American ad campaigns from the past. Subj: Give Deterrence a ChanceRe: "Assessment: Richard Perle"From: Beverly Mann's ghostDate: Aug. 23, 2002 11:52 a.m.The premise for the argument for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is almost entirely that Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. But the premise doesn't account for the critical difference between the retaliatory capacity of his own people (zero) and the retaliatory capacity of the United States and of Israel (devastating) in response to an attack on themselves or on a defenseless third country or people. Back in the 1980s, when Hussein was chemically poisoning the Kurdish population in Iraq, the United States should have intervened with a threat to retaliate in kind. Had we done so, we likely would have the evidence now that Hussein is as susceptible to credible retaliatory threat as were the succession of leaders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Or, alternatively and only remotely plausibly, we—and the rest of the world—would know that we have little rational choice but to invade Iraq and overthrow his regime. [Find this post here.]Subj: Not a Chance I Would TakeRe: "Assessment: Richard Perle"From: JohnDate: Aug. 23, 2002 1:40 p.m.No one seriously believes that Hussein will use his military forces to launch an attack on U.S. interests (precisely because of our retaliatory capability). But … are you assuming that out of fear of our military capabilities Hussein will zealously and effectively work to ensure that his weapons (or his weapons know-how) will not fall into the hands of raging, irrational, self-destructive terrorists? Is small pox technology, for example, as safe in his hands as it is in the hands of, say, the Canadian military?I don't think that you can work in intimate association with terrorist organizations, acquire the means to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and yet keep a solid wall between the two activities. And that's the problem that a war with Iraq would address.  [Find this post here.]Subj: Fat FashionRe: "Chatterbox: A Sluggish War on Indolence"From: Peter MarshallDate: Aug. 22, 2002 6:54 p.m.Today, I saw on some morning TV show that some designer has come out with a new series of flattering fashions for fat kids, and there was a parade of grossly obese kids blubbering down the runway, showing off all the self-esteem that having fashions for them can inspire. That's what the money is doing in this country, and you can bet they're on the winning side.Don't fight the fat. … Flatter it and make it feel worthwhile, even kind of special. Wrap it up in political correctness—these are great kids, and we need to recognize that real people look like that, and everyone's good looking, and they deserve to be recognized as beautiful too. Right? ...<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2070227/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>best of the fray</category>
  <author>J.D. Connor</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:57:42 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Sexy posts from our reader forum.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2069434/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2069434/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  Perhaps it is a sign of the August news lull, but the normally innocuous "Explainer" caught thousands of angry posts for its discussion of Charlton Heston's right to bear arms. (There were warning signs: Earlier, history guy had accused Slate of using Explainer to snipe at a troubled competitor.) There were some defenses of Slate's article, but they were lackluster.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2069434/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>best of the fray</category>
  <author>compiled by J.D. Connor</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:34:17 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>The best posts from our reader forum.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2069131/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2069131/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  The question "Who speaks?" resonates across The Fray—from politics to culture, whenever the question of representation arises, or whenever the Fray Editor has to yoke together a week's worth of posts.But this week, "Who speaks?" became more a question of whom is being spoken for; that is, a question of populism. The Fray barked at William Saletan's attack on Gore's "people vs. the powerful" from both sides of the aisle. Then, in a strange twist, the "Chatterbox" Fray found new support for the populist campaign in Timothy Noah's analysis of federal spending trends.Meanwhile, over in the Arts &amp; Life, Business, and Technology sections, the iconoclasts were out in force, taking down the disposable heroes of our plutocracy. The Fray threw stones at Allen Iverson's sad-boy image, Bruce Springsteen's own aging vox, the struggle by video-gamers for cultural cred with reviewers, and the recent spate of Golem fiction. Subject: Rhetoric and RealityRe: "Ballot Box: What Gore Doesn't Get" From: d Date: Aug. 5, 2002 4:12 p.m.No, [Saletan,] you're wrong. Gore's poll numbers went up when he switched to a populist message, and he pulled ahead in the race, eventually winning the popular vote by a 500,000 margin. Any rational analysis would suggest that Gore's personality, Clinton's impeachment and the butterfly ballot cost him the election, not his rhetoric. Both candidates were arguing about a narrow set of domestic issues (prescription drugs, social security, et al.). The reason Clinton wasn't as strongly anti-establishment was that Congress was controlled by the Democrats in 1992. Al Gore had to protect his flank against Ralph Nader to win the toss-up states, which he was largely successfully in doing—though he fell short in Florida and New Hampshire. [Find this post here.]Subject: The Messenger, Not the MessageRe: "Ballot Box: What Gore Doesn't Get" From: Dallas Date: Aug. 5, 2002 4:58 p.m.Gore was right on the message. All you have to do is look at how the executives were treated at Enron and Global Crossing versus the employees who weren't allowed to sell their stock. On issue after issue Gore was correct—his Social Security proposal is the prime example.The problem wasn't the message then but the messenger (Gore) who kept changing the script. The Republicans made stick the charge that Gore was constantly re-inventing himself. In other words, Bush made Gore the issue and that is exactly what the media focused on. [Find this post here.]Subject: Iverson Is Diggity; Mac Is WhackRe: "Ad Report Card: Allen Iverson, Spokesthug"From: Qui TamDate: Aug. 5, 2002 8:41 a.m.The Iverson/Reebok ads demonstrate an approach that Apple/Mac ads should have tried. No wonder Reebok's revenues are up: Every adolescent in America identifies with the misunderstood, bad-but-not-really-a-bad-guy, ain't life awful? image presented by Iverson. (This also suggests that Iverson is much cagier than we suspect.)Who wants to identify with the finger-kissing, nerdy, totally uncool artistes of the Mac ads? Don't they all look like people who listen to Moby and drink lattes? [Find this post here.]Subject: What Will Bring Us Together?Re: "Music Box: The Poet Laureate of 9/11"From: sabinal Date: Aug. 6, 2002 4:23 p.m.I was hoping that this review would not include the schmaltz that I read, but unfortunately, it did. I am thoroughly chilled at the marketing of a trauma like 9/11—how one album is supposed to "heal" or how some art is supposed to "bring the country together." Rubbish. If we were not together before we will not unite now. I have seen what I consider such advertising of things—from books to art to FDNY fireman's helmets—as blood money. Springsteen's heart is in the right place, but I think with the one-year anniversary of a fanatical terrorist attack of our nation [it] is in pretty poor taste.[Find this post here.]Subject: Subtext: The Inner GeekRe: "Number 1: WarCraft III"From: cmd Date: Aug. 5, 2002 12:03 p.m.There is a subtext to this story, and I can't tell if it's intentional or not, that the gaming industry doesn't get written about because pop-culture writers are too embarrassed by their adolescent D+D geekiness to dare discuss it in public. [Find this post here.]Subject: Literary Conceit GoooooodRe: "Culturebox: Idol Worship"From: Kassandra Date: Aug. 6, 2002 11:58 a.m.What exactly is the difference between a myth and a literary conceit? One is the expression of one person and the other is an emanation from Das Volk, is that it? But, so? Don't we want our literary types making new myths for us? And aren't emanations from Das Volk sometimes a little more than we want in the way of a Golem?[Find this post here.]Fray Notes:That's rich, er, richly: "Moneybox" has been busy churning through our corporate crisis. This has made for some difficult Fraying, as responses to different articles pile into one another. A newcomer to the Moneybox Fray could do worse than to read mfbenson's contributions (such as those here and here).Hitting for the cycle: Humanshield 15 shows what the "Sports Nut" Fray can do to a clever column when it puts its mind to it here; "a REAL critic" comes face to face with Full Frontal here.Sneetch news: Stars to Cicero, Jack Dallas, NoStar/ratSoN, and Qui Tam. They can stop by the Best of the Fray Fray to read their citations and pick them up.Crawford, Texas, here I come: Due to a prior engagement, there will be no Best of the Fray next week.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2069131/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>best of the fray</category>
  <author>J.D. Connor</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:03:47 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Hot posts from our reader forum.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2068686/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2068686/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  Things got hot all over Slate and all over The Fray this week. There were heat waves, heat kinks, sweaty guys at parties, and sweaty guys at parties drinking girly drinks, not to mention the usual flame wars.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2068686/?from=rss">more ...</a>]<!--AD BEGIN--><br clear="all" /><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/slate.rss/politics;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=9726" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/slate.rss/politics;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=9726" border="0" vspace="5" /></a><!--AD END-->  ]]></description>
  <category>best of the fray</category>
  <author>J.D. Connor</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:51:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Top posts from our reader forum.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2068490/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2068490/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  Between the nuclear nightmare headed to Nevada and the civic cesspool headed for Lower Manhattan, this was a week to wallow in the mire. Things got so bad that the bad things started merging with one another: Traficant became Moussaoui, the Kronos Quartet became the Fantanas. And everywhere, the self-evidently worst became the perfectly emblematic. It was a souped-up American version of poshlost.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2068490/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>best of the fray</category>
  <author>J.D. Connor</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:25:23 EST</pubDate>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss><!-- Total Time:4.622441ms --><!--SL-WEB09-->