It's possible that things will continue to diverge - we'll be required to get on our elbows and knees to worship someone's imaginary Zoroastrian magic spirits, and children will be taught in public schools that only sacrafices to volcano gods can make the harvest fruitful, but we'll also have our Sopranos and hard core porn. Because theocrats may be able to grab the mechanisms of government control, as we can see by what happened on the Ohio school board this week, but in the end, the entertainment culture they despise is profitable because it is popular.
In other words, perhaps it's even worse, in that the theocrats will only be able to control the most important aspects of society, but at least we'll have something entertaining to watch on cable while they burn the world down in their apocalyptic rampage.
while I didn't have time to really read your entire post (I'm on vactation in Beantown) my comment would be as follows:
I am totally ok with the market demanding that Springer be removed etc...i.e. he isn't drawing enough of an audience to warrant keeping him on the air while dealing with the negative effects I am not ok with the current indecency hearing etc that are going entirely too far...its parental responsibility folks.
I think the split on that specific issue is going to be between broadcast and non-broadcast media, for all the obvious reasons.
Actually, Springer's show being cancelled locally may be the best thing that happens to his Senatorial/Gubernatorial aspirations. I wish he'd just chuck it altogether.
And yes, I wonder how the "war" will break down. The Civil War was the last of the birth-pains of the Modern Era in American history - I suspect that the culture war may be that for the next era.
WF
From your post, one could assume you don't think liberals are trying to force their views on everybody else. Gay marriage, anybody?
Not Todd,
Do I force my existence on you when I breathe?
Not Todd, you don't have to like gay marriage. You personally don't have to RECOGNIZE gay marriage.
However, my gay friends have no choice but to recognize a LACK of gay marriage. Does that make sense?
On the whole, true liberals (not the occasional Neo-Stalinist that makes it out of his/her holding pen) believe in EXPANDING rights, opportunities, etc. We don't interpret gay marriage as "forcing our opinion on you," but rather as "giving another group the same rights we have."
WF
Let me amend my remarks slightly:
...but rather as "making sure another group has the same rights we have."
WF
Is anybody being forced into a gay marriage? (I get the point but it brings up an odd sort of shotgun wedding scenario.)
Perhaps he's onto something. Maybe we should force gay marriage onto some republicans, via time in prison. Key Lay would be a good start - he'd be the belle of the ball.
OK, I'm going to sound a discordant and uncharacteristic note here.
I'm starting to think that the whole culture war thing is starting to get way out of hand. Nixon was the master of wedge issues, and Rove believed that he could do well at it too. While I think (and hope) that this is going to backfire on Rove, I have to think that this is all going to far.
Check out this link by Andrew Sullivan. http://andrewsullivan.com/
main_a...artnum=20040229
I often disagree with Andy, but he makes a lot of sense on this one. Brian's anticipation of violence during the election season are in line with the note that is struck here. At some point, there is going to be a real space for a "uniter". My guess is that for the next presidential election, someone that is calm and seems uniting will end up president--that means no Frist or Hillary. Maybe that would be the chance for the third party.
Anyway... enough of that.
Commenting by HaloScan
