Someone pointed out to me recently that I must have been busy, since nothing happened here for a couple months. Well, I don't know if I'm less busy, but there's some things going on in the world that I'm having trouble sorting out. Read on, if you wish, and swing by for a slice if you care to discuss.

Harry Shearer had perhaps the best insight into the recent Palin resignation on last week's "Le Show": "The crucial difference between . . . politics and showbusiness is that in politics you have to read your negative reviews and answer your critics." This, I think, is the real difference between those politicians who we say get bad press, and those who we think are media darlings. There's plenty of articles and opinion pieces critical of the current US president, but he's very good at elegantly ducking tough questions. Watch a White House press conference some time, this guy is good. Also, his team is good, and by spreading ownership of major initiatives around, it seems like half of the Hill is figuring out responses to criticisms as fast as they come out.

Consider, as an alternative to this rather elegant criticism anechoic chamber, the family-friendly sitcom. In these series, when offense is given, it is typically the responsibility of the offender to deal with the hurt feelings. If there is mutual offense, then per our Western Humanist value set, all parties are responsible restoring harmony. Occasionally, there are characters who come along to show that there are people who don't share these values, and they are roundly condemned and held as an example of what not to do. If you feel like I'm describing a Fox News or MSNBC broadcast, you may be on to something.

Is it terribly surprising, then, that a generation of people used to watching conflicts resolve themselves in favor of the character with whom they identify have problems with civil discourse? That they would have trouble believing that it's important for people with whom they identify (say, likable politicians who come on TV after the sitcoms) to engage with people who don't share those common values? These canned conflicts remind me of canned pie filling, overly sweet with all of the flavor beaten out of them. Other periods in history have had their problems, and you will never hear me say that any particular technology "ruined" humanity (although coal-fired power plants are doing their darnest right now). This, however, is the problem of our age in the United States today.

I could be completely wrong. Certainly, despite having an uncomfortably close view of the transition of the GOP from the "elites" to the "Right," I don't have all the answers. Ted Koppel put it well in a Talk of the Nation appearance when he described an "Age of Entitlement", all people have the ability to choose a news outlet that presents everything from their point of view. As a frequent reader of the BBC, Economist, and Reuters news services and NPR station member, I want my information presented with a Western Humanist slant that is extremely cautious about saying which side it "right" (with the exception of the self-professed "mouthpiece of global capitalism" that ironically argues very well for certain social programs). I will not get into the post-modern nihilistic navel-gazing and question if my view is necessarily better because, frankly, wisdom comes not from reinforcement of beliefs but questioning and learning the limits of them.

This is a painful process. Human history, and the fall of representative governments especially, is full of people turning away from the pain in favor comfortable mediocrity (read The Challenge and Promise of a Catholic University for a lot good essays on the subject). It can't be made less painful, but a good pie makes it easier to sit down to deal with difficult issues, just promise to be civil about disagreements at my table.