Thursday, December 27, 2007

Post Holiday Stress Disorder

because what I learn from the MSM and left blogistan, is that:

1) Time Magazine really loves strong men and autocratic leaders, even if they aren't really good for a country.

2) The ideal entrepeneur is a person who is good at manipulating other people into doing the work for him, so he can take all the credit and benefits arising from his manipulation.


The religious shift in America away from Christian self-identification strikes me as a demographic shift of at least equal importance to the growing income inequality gap, the rise of the creative class, and even to large the influx of Latino and Asian immigrants around the country....

I have to admit, I just don't get why few other seem to be talking about this one. Demographically speaking, this is a generational gap at least equal to anything that separated the Boomers from their parents.
Well, yeah, but let me introduce you to the work of Robert Wuthnow, a sociologist who has made a career studying just these issues. Let me introduce you to the work of T.S. Eliot, who saw this going on 60 years ago. Let me introduce you to the people in mainline churches who have made careers talking about this very issue to pastors, seminarians, congregations, anyone who will listen and has seen this happening and is concerned about it. Frankly, the issues mentioned: immigration, rise of the "creative class," even income inequality, are just buzzwords in the "national discourse," which is neither national nor a discourse (I thought blogs had already established this point?). So, speaking as a pastor and a someone concerned about the fate of the church, I'm glad church demographics is not part of the "national discourse." The "national discourse" is rich white men on both coasts talking to each other about what matters to the country, without ever asking the country's input (except via polls and election returns) and, largely, withouth the country listening (except for left blogistan, and what percentage of the country are they, really?). For this proposition, I give you "Exhibit A". By the time a topic gets into the "national discourse," its pretty much a spent force (so much safer that way, when nothing about the narrative really has to change!). Which, further, means that if it really matters to the people involved, they already know about it, and don't need the MSM telling them what's going on (I thought left blogistan had established that, too!).

And what gets said in the "national discourse" has always struck me as having about as much impact and making about as much sense as a Congressional resolution. It may be disturbing that our putative leaders are engaged in such nonsense, but at least it means that, for that amount of time, they did no real harm. Which isn't saying much, really; is it?

And speaking of the national discourse:

4) Thanks to technology, we can get a Presidential candidate who still argues about the causes of the Civil War on Meet the Press. (Video, if you want to watch this being said, is here.) Ain't the internet grand? What did we do before it came along? Watch football?

5) We can still do that, thanks to the tireless efforts of Sen. Leahy. Apparently he can do nothing about Alberto Gonzales or his toady of a replacement; he can't take a decisive stand to reinstate habeas corpus, shut down Gitmo, or protect American privacy rights, but he can make sure people in New England get to watch a football game. This is the kind of leadership we need in Congress today.

No comments:

Post a Comment