Lack of secure retirement income sources, I think. Social Security payments from the government probably won't even cover rent for most, let alone other living costs.

This, by @arliecoles.bsky.social, gets closer than anything I've seen to addressing Sutton's history, though there are still many unanswered questions about whether Sutton ever renounced Reconstructionist theology or political views:

livingchurch.org/history/cons...

The fact that he had to change "arsenal of democracy" to "arsenal of freedom" is pretty telling in a few different ways.

Not to be pro-Pete, but he absolutely would win in a landslide in South Bend if he went back there. Shaun knows less than nothing.

I mean, the Boring Company already did that, right? Right?

Critical race theory fits particularly well with Reformed theology along those lines.

You expect this intellectual laziness from activists like Rufo, but a guy like Trueman presents himself as a thinker who actually knows things. He undoubtedly does know things about Reformed theology. Critical theory, not so much.

One reason conservatives are underrepresented in the humanities is that so many "conservative intellectuals" promote lazy critiques of political ideas they dislike that supposedly stem from some figure like Hegel (in the linked essay), Kant, or Dewey. Not that Lefties never do the same, of course.

Stumbled across this *interesting* post the guy made about his dating preferences. The extended rants about mentally ill women are certainly intriguing...
web.archive.org/web/20080205...

Between Johnson not knowing much of anything, Trump not knowing about Project 2025, and Roberts not knowing about Fuentes, I think we're seeing another—doubtless very different—Know-Nothing Party.

Wyndham Lewis would've gone crazy with this framing up to, like, 1936 or a little later (Pound would simply have kept going with it)

(would've called it "Hitleritis" or something. fewer syllables)

All that to say: I think the "[politician] derangement syndrome" label can genuinely highlight a departure from careful reasoning and acquiesence to epistemic polarization by critics. But it can also (and currently does) attack legitimate criticism of leaders of truly evil personal character.

Yes, his warmongering and policing was Islamophobic, but I think he also really meant the "religion of peace" rhetoric. There's something very different about leaders who openly characterize minority groups and political opponents as "the enemy within." That removes us from the realm of debate.

However awful the effects of his actions, George W. Bush seems to have been well-intentioned, which I think put him within the realm of political action and debate. For one thing, his response to racial diversity was to (he thought) try to expand prosperity by increasing homeownership.

There is a real issue of when to draw a line and say "we've left normal politics now, this isn't a matter of discussion but of rejecting evil." I think that the political leader's intent is actually important there.

When I re-watched the monologue yesterday, I was like "wait, who is this guy," and it turns out he's even more only known for the monologue than she is.

I just re-watched "the video" yesterday. Not saying the guy was right to say what he said on C-SPAN, but the whole thing was so unbelievably bone-chilling and awkward.

I remember feeling real whiplash with Covid (M.Div./MA enrollments up!) then the tight labor market (enrollments down!). I wonder if the percentage of non-ordination track seminary students rises a lot during bad labor markets, or maybe more sense a "calling" during them?