When the Slate fray stops being active, perhaps today, it is too bad. It was a good platform to address the material covered as well as discuss it and other matters with other people. Using inferior posting software to comment to individual articles is not quite the same thing. I enjoyed my time at Slate, but will stop reading after the "fray" ends. The actual content isn't that good any more or at least anything that will compel me to come or anything. Political Jack, an alternative some fraysters will use is not what I'm looking for. It is merely a message board. This is fine, but I like responding to specific articles and the overall format used. This even after the "star" system was discontinued. Twice being a "star" poster was nice, though perhaps a violation of my "no titles of nobility" principles.
Blogs continue to provide a means to do what the Slate Fray offered. You have blog posts to respond to and the ability to interact with others. The threading on certain blogs (let's say Daily Kos) even offers a type of "threadjacking" possibility to address other issues. Blog threads in general often don't quite address what the person was talking about. This can be equally interesting and annoying. For instance, here, "Shag" often cites some article he is reading that might interest people. That's generally positive or neutral, if somewhat non-germane. But, Slate fray provided a platform for freestanding posts on issues not connected to the article. Not linked to the article, it would receive less hits, but still it might interest someone. It was a good system. But, not meeting Slate's needs any more.
The blog linked discussed a pledge to support the "whole Constitution." I discuss the matter there, including how "support" doesn't mean you never criticize some provision, nor does it mean agreeing with a specific interpretation. Thinking the 2A only protects state militia does not mean you don't "support" the Second Amendment, even if you are wrong. The same applies to constant talk of people "inventing" stuff, when what is really meant is that you don't agree with their interpretation. One is a debate over interpretation, the other is a matter of bad intentions. It is a tiresome matter that so many do not seem to recognize the difference. And, one side (often, quite vocally, the so-called Tea Party -- which I find a stupid name) saying they are the real slim shady here (obscure reference), that they are the ones who really support the Constitution, when in fact they reasonably can be said to want to change major aspects of regularly accepted understandings of it, is particularly hard to take.
[Sometimes, people are wrong, sometimes too sure of themselves, but there is a lot of stuff to discuss, so that is going to happen.]
But, trusting the bona fides of your opponents is sometimes not popular these days. Nor is polite debate. See, e.g., taking guns to protests or trying to shout down people at town hall meetings. Or, last night on Rachel Maddow, we heard about how Gov. Christie (R-NJ) is seen by some as a savior in the Republican presidency race. Partially, it is a matter of him seen as not just a kneejerk troll. He appointed a Muslim to the courts, after all. RM focused on his attitude -- well he is from NJ (it's okay, I'm from NYC), right?
I personally don't appreciate jerks and he comes off as that sometimes. He ran against some leaving a lot to be denied rich guy last time, so him winning was not quite a slap against the whole Democrat brand. He does (sadly) represent the national Republican brand in that they are unpleasant sorts. To be honest, going beyond his image, Christie is someone who probably is a member of the "adult caucus," which seems lacking on his side. So, he needs a hook to be attractive to the base, and his "take no prisoners" approach (including being nasty to teachers and such) helps. The Koch Brothers also like him, so he has some support from the richer than God class.
Still, I hope Jon Huntsman is the face of the future.
Blogs continue to provide a means to do what the Slate Fray offered. You have blog posts to respond to and the ability to interact with others. The threading on certain blogs (let's say Daily Kos) even offers a type of "threadjacking" possibility to address other issues. Blog threads in general often don't quite address what the person was talking about. This can be equally interesting and annoying. For instance, here, "Shag" often cites some article he is reading that might interest people. That's generally positive or neutral, if somewhat non-germane. But, Slate fray provided a platform for freestanding posts on issues not connected to the article. Not linked to the article, it would receive less hits, but still it might interest someone. It was a good system. But, not meeting Slate's needs any more.
The blog linked discussed a pledge to support the "whole Constitution." I discuss the matter there, including how "support" doesn't mean you never criticize some provision, nor does it mean agreeing with a specific interpretation. Thinking the 2A only protects state militia does not mean you don't "support" the Second Amendment, even if you are wrong. The same applies to constant talk of people "inventing" stuff, when what is really meant is that you don't agree with their interpretation. One is a debate over interpretation, the other is a matter of bad intentions. It is a tiresome matter that so many do not seem to recognize the difference. And, one side (often, quite vocally, the so-called Tea Party -- which I find a stupid name) saying they are the real slim shady here (obscure reference), that they are the ones who really support the Constitution, when in fact they reasonably can be said to want to change major aspects of regularly accepted understandings of it, is particularly hard to take.
[Sometimes, people are wrong, sometimes too sure of themselves, but there is a lot of stuff to discuss, so that is going to happen.]
But, trusting the bona fides of your opponents is sometimes not popular these days. Nor is polite debate. See, e.g., taking guns to protests or trying to shout down people at town hall meetings. Or, last night on Rachel Maddow, we heard about how Gov. Christie (R-NJ) is seen by some as a savior in the Republican presidency race. Partially, it is a matter of him seen as not just a kneejerk troll. He appointed a Muslim to the courts, after all. RM focused on his attitude -- well he is from NJ (it's okay, I'm from NYC), right?
I personally don't appreciate jerks and he comes off as that sometimes. He ran against some leaving a lot to be denied rich guy last time, so him winning was not quite a slap against the whole Democrat brand. He does (sadly) represent the national Republican brand in that they are unpleasant sorts. To be honest, going beyond his image, Christie is someone who probably is a member of the "adult caucus," which seems lacking on his side. So, he needs a hook to be attractive to the base, and his "take no prisoners" approach (including being nasty to teachers and such) helps. The Koch Brothers also like him, so he has some support from the richer than God class.
Still, I hope Jon Huntsman is the face of the future.