An attempt at blogging the PB's webcast

Blogging the PB's Webcast

Now UPDATED on Friday, Oct. 19 ... scroll down.

10/17: Like the "product placement" of the "Trinity Wall Street" mug.

The bishops intentionally gathered in New Orleans (I guess that's different than if they had unintentionally gathered in New Orleans). Of course, there is the main issue that we want to hear about, but she wanted to talk about the bishops humanitarian efforts and slap themselves on the back. Nevermind that the Church is suffering it's own breaking of the levees.

She has a black background which is so foreboding. The Archbishop of Canterbury is marginalized by placing him in context of "Anglican visitors" which is really strange. It's like he was just part of the bus tour from Milwaukee. Why is she dissing him that way? The whole point was his visit, not those others - that was orchestrated by Kenneth Kearon and the gang. What spin!! She looks drawn, pained even, older, bespeckled. Pinched.

Oh - a slam against Bishop Duncan - you know I can't even listen to this anymore.

Sorry.

Feel free to listen. Perhaps you'll get further than I did. I've heard it all before. What a spinmeister. She shows no emotion, nothing, she's like a robot that someone has switched on back in the black backdrop. Is this really the best The Episcopal Church has to offer? This is it? I'm so done.

LATER: Here's how an Anglican Church in London does weekly videocasting. You can see their intro video here. Not a black backdrop in sight. No sense of having to have a controlled environment either. And their joy shines through. Where is my passport?

EVEN LATER - FRIDAY, OCT. 19th: Take Two. Trying again, from a different point of view. Watching from from here or here. Roll tape.

First off she is focusing only at "all of you in the Episcopal Church" and she emphasizes that it is an international church. That's a significant point.

Act of Solidarity - an interesting political view, which is a hint about what role the Presiding Bishop is playing. And what I'm going to do is pay particular attention to the role the PB is playing in this video. She seeks to put it in the context of "listening to stories" while patting Episcopalians on the back for their good job, she seeks to be reassuring. The tone though is amazing non-pastoral, it's very clinical which denotes her scientific background. The tone of her remarks is journalistic, not personal. She is commenting on actions, but does not talk about her own feelings. That is noteworthy. She is demonstrating that "all is well" and there's nothing to worry about. She's firmly in control. That is the role she is playing in this video, like Al Haig after Reagan got shot.

This is like a scientific report, which would make sense since that was what she started out to be - a scientist observing the natural world. Now her attention has turned to observing the episcopal world. She is taking the same tact as she would when she looked at the world under the sea.

She then continues to give her scientific overview of how she would like the House of Bishops meeting reported - it does not really matter --- (oops, there's that word - again a political word - incursion, but BabyBlue will remain scientifically removed as well and not talk about our own feelings about that word ... she's talking to Episcopalians and she must have data that tells her Episcopalians like that word, incursion. It gives Episcopalians the sense of victimization and that these nasty brutes are acting like terrorists in Iraq, isn't that the allusion, but nevermind). Breathe.

I think that's what is hard to understand, she takes a very scientific tone and not one that would sound like a bishop or a priest. She is making a speech as though she's running for office.

Is that what she is doing?

Is she running for office?

Perhaps this is her Role of Choice, this Detached Scientist - she is observing the world through her own glasses, but does not tell us her heart. It is uninspiring because she is not seeking to inspire - she is seeking to assure that everything is under control. All is well.

Again, it is strange that she takes the view that they had Episcopal Visitors when we all know that the point was the Archbishop of Canterbury's address to the Episcopal House of Bishops. Why is she downplaying him? It's like she doesn't even want to say his name? Will that upset Episcopalians, if they are reminded that the Archbishop of Canterbury had to get on a plane, fly all the way to America, and say some things in secret to the Episcopal House of Bishops?

Now the questions:

Again she reports on what she is observing, in her clinical detached sort of way. It's clear there was a decision to again project a sense of all is well, all is under control by talking about the PB's travel schedule and the MDGs and Global Warming. Episcopalians like to travel, want to feel like they've contributed to those poor Africans, and like Al Gore very much. Apparently.

Reconciliation: Again the questions are softball questions "Individuals leave the Episcopal Church and have throughout its history in small numbers" and then talks about the "duty of her office" which is something new, because dioceses were usually formed from the local churches up, not top down. And now she has "an office" which means she may be running for office after all. Is there a problem in River City?

Another softball question about her trip to the Hill - again reported in a clinical sort of way. So now they are showing the PB's role as Political Activist in DC, which must be done to assure Episcopalians. Nothing like testifying to a congressional committee to show who's in control.

Ah, now we're talking about minorities and the polarization of North and South (shades of That War?) - but she informs us that it more complex than that (since she's taking the role of Dr. Scientist PB then she takes a tone of authority, but her evidence is one bishop in a sea of millions). Once again, we're told that everything is so complex, so don't worry your wee little heads about such complex matters. She's in charge, that should be enough.

Institution of Marriage and Blessings of Same Sex Unions - couples of any sexual orientation - which is again an assumption and then goes on to say that marriage is all about property rights, inheritance rights, and reproductive rights AHHHHH !!!! Please tell me she didn't say that. Please tell me she didn't say that. Middle Ages! Companionship - well, this is all about making the point that reproduction is not what marriage is about which means bless those same sex unions. This is so incredibly WRONG. Where is the biblical imagery, the ---AGENT OF THE STATE!!! AHHHH! Significant merit? Tell me she didn't say this ...

That's it.

I tried friends, I tried. Sorry Yoda.