A comedy thought experiment: You've gotta admit, they make it look so easy. Too easy. But they were doing television sketch comedy before SNL and Mad TV and Fox News rediscovered them. Now, as they're being further exposed to audiences of all persuasions, more and more people are saying: "They were so funny, I may previously have forgotten to laugh!" No longer! We're in comedy mode!
UPDATE: She's so quick, I can't even keep up with her anymore. Now she's given us new material on her preferred news sources and the Supreme Court! She's got a million of 'em -- and she'll be here all month! Probably.
Compare and contrast with another famous TV comedy sketch after the jump....
Maybe it's because I'm not used to laugh tracks any more, but all I could think of was David Lynch's Rabbits, which also made me laugh uncomfortably.
The most impressive thing about that SNL sketch is how much of it is verbatim from the target of the satire. I missed the interview when it ran, but since then all I've heard is how laughable it was. Are there really people who don't find the Palin interview embarrassing?
It's disturbingly hard to tell which one is which....
SNL has had a policy for the last few years, which is basically: NO JOKES ALLOWED. They recite things from the pop culture in hopes of pushing buttons. The scary thing with this is that all they have to do is regurgitate the culture, and their is your comedy. It's a parody of what is already a parody. Tina Fey's Palin is spot on (something I forgot to mention in the other thread), and subversively highlights how insane this election season has become.
I hate it, I really do. This election is disgusting. I'm sick of all of it and I just want Obama to be elected already so we can all just move on with our lives.
That original Palin interview is like something out of a Gervais/Merchant sitcom.
I've been thinking about the attacks on Sarah Palin and her children. I am the first to recognize liberals' penchant for being unprincipled, bigoted and vicious in political combat. But the assaults on Sarah Palin and her family are extraordinary even for this crowd. What accounts for them? The obvious answer is fear.
First of all fear of the 'Other' -- Palin is a gun-toting, believing Christian. In a word: the anti-anti-Christ.
But an even more powerful force driving them is fear of defeat. I think what liberals fear in Palin is that she doesn't look like or talk like their stereotype of the religious right. She looks and talks like the best of them. She's articulate, she's pretty, and she has stolen the thunder of their Chosen One. She can provide McCain with the youth and charisma that he can use to beat them.
This arouses in them the nastiest instincts -- envy, resentment, hate. They need to destroy her and can't afford to wait. I think I'm going to feel sorry for them.
Barack Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly which preceded McCain's convention speech revealed the uncertain trumpet he will sound as president. He could not bring himself to say that Iran -- a self-declared enemy of the United States -- is an enemy of the United States and part of the Islamic jihad -- a term he could also not utter. He could not admit he was wrong about the surge in Iraq even though without the surge the terrorists and more likely Iran would be in control of Iraq. O'Reilly gave him enormous lattitude to concede error by claiming the Iraq war was wrong from the beginning and Obama was right to oppose the war. (Think about that one. If we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, and on the brink of developing nuclear weapons if not already possessing them.)
Jane, I think it's admirable to think as you do. I whole-heartedly support your right to think. However, I hardly think liberals have a monopoly on "being unprincipled, bigoted and vicious in political combat". That is, unfortunately, what is offered up as politics. I have seen face to face the religious fundamentalists while defending women's health clinics in the early 1990's against Operation Rescue. They look exactly like Palin, her husband and family. In other words they look normal. Their ideas, not their looks are what is in question. I respect Palin's views, she reminds me very much of Dan Quayle another Republican VP that everyone thought said incredibly dumb things. Like Palin though, he was extremely right wing in his views. Unfortunately, no one wanted to take on his views and I see the same happening with Palin.
While Palin and co. chant about the "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" what about our own national brand of religious fundamentalists? The ones who think that we "infidels" must have the same beliefs as the holy chosen ones. The ones who try to tell us what we can read or not read. The ones who say that just because a woman can have baby she must give up control of her body. The ones who see the world in simple terms of good and evil.
One last thing Jane, think about this, what if the US had never supported Saddam Hussein and gave him military aid to fight with Iran, when that country was trying to free it self from a US backed ruler? How many of our family members would be over there dieing right now paying for our past sins?
For me, anyways, it really is about her political view and my disagreements with them.
Jane, um could you please asplain to me what arcitulate means? If its sumfin Palin gots I dont reconize it when me sees it. I have no problem with a purty VP, though. I assume a ugly one would ascare all the mooses away.
And, actually, it's pretty irrelevant what liberals think of Palin since they won't be voting for her with a ten foot pole. As always, the election will come down to a small section of swing voters whose mysterious criteria have yet to be sussed. Maybe you're right and they're in the mood for a beauty contest. If so, Biden is probably slightly disadvantaged. Anyway, good luck on shootin' that anti-Christ.
I can't tell if Jane's post is satire or serious... scary.
Articulate? Really?!!!!
Oh and spot on Jim!
Jane: I can't speak for the majority of "liberals", I having long since moved on from capital-D Democrats into something more indefinite and radical. Simply put, Palin scares the sh!t out of me (this is coming from someone who already finds little of value in our government systems, even when they're implemented as perfectly as possible), and given the precarious state our planet is in right now (an opinion I held long before the global warming debate became hip; we're draining our natural resources faster than Daniel Plainview can chuck a bottle of vodka), the idea of someone as disconnected from rational thinking as she holding the reigns to some of our biggest guns (or even standing within arms reach of such) has me considering freezing myself cryogenically and launching myself into space in hopes that a more advanced, peaceful race will one day discover my preserved form.
Religion is important to me in a number of cultural and social ways, but I think that history shows us it is often used as a crutch for/excuse against moral decision, the forgoing of responsibility without due process of thought. I can say with assurance that I believe in something many would refer to as God, and I'm sure it's getting a kick out of this as much as every other cluster**** we've created since the beginning of time. I second Ryan's thoughts: please let November come; I want this election and Saw V behind us ASAP.
Jane (Troll?): Give Palin some credit: She has not been "attacked" for anything she did not herself provoke. She should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any candidate, not given special consideration just for being a mom, as her former defenders used to condescendingly claim. And it's because of her own words and actions that those former defenders have found themselves unable and unwilling to continue defending her. (See conservative columnist Kathleen Parker on the right's exhausted Palin "cringe reflex.")
The whole point of this particular "comedy experiment" is to show that, if you put aside your ideological preconceptions and listen to what she actually says, it's hardly different than the "SNL" parody of her. As for the word "articulate": Do you remember when Joe Biden was criticized for using that word to describe Barack Obama? The word does, in fact, have meaning -- and George W. Bush and Sarah Palin help define it by negative example. That has nothing to do with politics, just with their inability to express themselves in English. I give them credit for trying, but they fail again and again.
As for Iraq: The US has been there longer than we fought in WW II. If the advice of those with knowledge and experience (I'd use the word "expertise," but that word is frowned upon by the dwindling, moribund Bush-Cheney-Palin-McCain faction of the Republican Party) had been heeded in 2002-2003 (especially military leaders in the Pentagon and political leaders in the State Department), the US would not have invaded or occupied Iraq, Saddam would have been deposed and most likely dead long before now, the nonexistent fantasy Iraqi nuclear program would still be a nonexistent fantasy, many thousands of Iraqis would be alive and better off than they are, and the country would be closer to freedom and democracy than it is today. Oh, and many thousands of brave and dedicated Americans would be healthy and alive, too.
Jane: Give Palin some credit: She has not been "attacked" for anything she did not herself provoke.
Jim, IMHO now you're practically parodizing yourself. Did Palin provoke that racist rant from Sandra Bernhard (that I'm sure you heard about) last week? Did she deserve having her e-mail hacked? Even Kos derided that dirty trick. And then there's Andrew Sullivan's demanding that she prove her Down-Syndrome baby is really hers.
Palin's been questioned about a lot of legit stuff-- she needs to hit one out of the park on Thursday at the VP debate or she's last week's Baked Alaska-- but she AND her family have also had a lot of crap thrown at her that she hasn't deserved (and yes Jim, Obama & Co. have too). I don't see how it would compromise your street cred to acknowledge as much.
I agree with Ken's statement that liberals most certainly have no monopoly on "being unprincipled, bigoted and vicious in political combat". I've corrected conservative friends who apparently don't know how to say the Dem candidate's name unless the stick a big ol' "HUSSEIN" between his first and last surnames, think he's a closet muslim and fear he's the antichrist. But, and honestly, I'm wondering if you think there's any line that shouldn't be crossed in terms of criticising, parodizing, confronting or even humiliating the opposing candidate. SNL's parodies (thus far at least) haven't offended me, but your above comment sure did.
qdpsteve: Please forgive my naivete/selectivity. I am unaware of the lowest trash that is often the subject of Murdoch tabloids and talk radio gossip (unless I happen to glimpse it while standing in the supermarket checkout line). I have been referring to Palin's scarce appearances in the mainstream press, and the many legitimate responses to her rare interviews, most of them in the last week or so, coming from reputable conservative writers, including George F. Will and Kathleen Parker. I don't know any details about e-mail hacking or what Sandra Bernhard said -- but, as you point out, crazy attacks come from all directions and I'd rather not give them any further publicity. I don't understand why Sullivan is so obsessed with the Down's Syndrome genetic lineage... although I do wonder why it took those rumors for the Palin camp to belatedly come clean about the unavoidable fact of the daughter's pregnancy.
As I've said before, I think the families of candidates only become fair game when the candidates themselves exploit them first. Even so, I wish everybody would leave Palin's out of it. Let's just put aside her complicated personal life for a moment and ask what we would have asked of anyone before last month: Is she equipped for the job or not? This reminds me of what I was saying back in 2002 and 2003 about Saddam Hussein: There are so many horrible things he has said and done that are indisputable -- why do people feel the need to make things up? Same with Palin. The rumors about her are irresponsible and despicable... and totally unnecessary. There's plenty of substance to criticize; nobody needs to invent anything. Palin's nomination has cheapened American political discourse immeasurably; let's not cheapen it any further with scummy rumors and phony attacks. It was under her administration that the tiny town of Wasilla, AK, started charging (alleged) rape victims for the cost of the "rape kits" needed to substantiate the crimes against them. You can't stoop much lower than that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?bl&ex=1222574400&en=cd491cbff8aac3b9&ei=5087%0A
As for how unprecedentedly indulgent and patronizing the attitude toward Palin as the possible (Vice) President of the United States has been (she's just so adorable when she's being petty and incoherent!), see this:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/?source=newsletter
Palin opened herself to Andrew Sullivan's asking about the baby by making up the ridiculous story about flying cross country after her water broke. Don't make up crazy stuff, and try to use it to prove how "tough" and "real" you are, and you won't open yourself up to those sorts of suspicions. Simple, no?
The McCain/Palin ticket is like, a perfect snapshot of what's wrong with America. I'm almost glad those two found each other. They're perfect.
Jane, I hate to ask this, but...
ARE YOU SARAH PALIN???
Jane: you know as little about Christ as you do about politics. Your stupid description of Palin as the "gun-toting, believing Christian" does not square with the explicitly pacifistic policies of Christ himself. You give Christians a bad name, and worse than that, you give God a bad name.
The one who is scared of the "other" is you. The "other" in your case is Obama, a practicing and thoughtful Christian who sees the ambiguities of the world and takes them into consideration. His true example of service obviously challenges your simplistic theological dialectics. Do not pretend to represent Christianity.
Wow. Thanks Jim. I needed this.
Palin is a sad joke played on the American people. Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" may come to pass 500 years sooner than he predicted.
You really have to watch the interview and the sketch one right after another to spot the differences. When I saw the other night's SNL, I thought they were using the actual transcript for a minute.
Poor McCain, I don't think he knew what he was getting into with Palin.
Matthew, I'm encouraged when I hear someone speak those simple truths. What people like Jane call Christianity is a perversion of what Christ himself stood for.
Jane, liberals don't look at Palin and feel jealousy. They feel horrified by a society that elevates being "just plain folks" to a place of importance over being smart and well-educated. They fear for a country where people seek to vote for someone as much like themselves as they can - instead of voting for someone who represents what they WISH they could be. Where the term "elitist" is thrown at anyone who is well-educated and not afraid to show it. We're not envious. We're disgusted.
The Bush camp were the ones in 2000 who spread the rumor about McCain's "black baby". Catering to the basic racism of voters trumps any of the rumored dirty tricks you believe liberals are pulling here. The lack of desire for any self-critique demonstrated by the right this election season and their cynical victimization game is truly disgusting.
This. Is. So. Great.
Jim, that video is the most vicious, hilarious, appropriate thing I've seen attacking Palin (and I'm a well-traveled fiend for Palin-mocking; Andrew Sullivan on the Sept. 19 episode of Real Time was the angriest, but it was also unflatteringly earnest). But this. This is evil, man. You got to fight fire with fire.
I found the below at Dirty Harry's Place. Here Jim & Co., I think you need it more than I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-rBZREQMw
Rumor has it that Ms. Sarah will break into this number if she finds herself floundering at the debate on Thursday. (See? I can poke fun at her too, I'm not a zealot.)
;-)
Actually, the only thing more annoying than the perversion of Christ's message/identity by the Christians is the perversion of his message/identity by the liberal humanists. There's no way to know what he really was, but a fair assessment of him based on all available materials suggests he was a preacher of the imminent end of the world, and that even his vaunted ethics ought to be viewed in that context- ie, they were not made with reality in mind, but applied to a world ending soon. Albert Schweitzer was all over this. Also, Christ's preaching, like much of the early Christian preaching, represented nothing so much as the resentment of a victimized minority. There's always the tone of "Oh you'll all feel bad when the Judgment comes! Can't wait to see your faces then!" Christ himself wasn't very Christian, as the liberal humanists would have it- actually the modern day hatemonger Christians are probably much like Christ and the early Christians. Think of the cult leaders who gather a lot of losers to them and promise the imminent end of the world. It doesn't come, but the group remains loyal. The same exact thing occurred with Christ. He promised the imminent end of the world, it didn't come. The writer of Revelation pushed it back 1000 years- oops, still didn't happen.
Christ was a fraud and a jerk, and the early Christians were too. There's a reason Marcus Aurelius (an actual saint, unlike most Christian saints, and unlike Jesus himself) went along with the Roman persecution of the Christians- and a reason why the Christians alone were persecuted- it was because in Rome, an empire so free and open about religion that almost anything could be preached, the Christians crossed a line- they preached AGAINST the other religions and preached that theirs was the one true faith. They were the only faith in all Rome to do this and to cause these problems. Some things never change.
So you advocate throwing Palin to the lions, Paul? Maybe it's you who has crossed the line. We are not ancient Rome...quite yet.
It was under her administration that the tiny town of Wasilla, AK, started charging (alleged) rape victims for the cost of the "rape kits"...
Or not. Rachel Larimore at Slate.com concluded that the "rape kits" business was exaggerated.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/24/one-nasty-palin-rumor-debunked.aspx
JE: I think my wording was unintentionally misleading there. Some circumstances remain murky (the Wasilla police chief, appointed by Palin, supported the policy; insurance companies were billed; some women paid deductibles...), but Palin has not spoken out on the issue. Let's hope she'll directly address the questions that have been posed to her and her campaign, such as: When did she learn about the policy, and what did she do about it? Here's a story from a local AK newspaper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, May 23, 2000, about the passage of state legislation to halt the billing practice:
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Quote: While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
From AK Health, Education and Social Services Committee minutes for HB 270, March and April, 2000:
MR. SAM SHEPARD, staff to Representative Croft, sponsor of HB
270, explained that CSSS HB 270(HES) would assure that adult
victims of sexual assault are not charged for their forensic
evidentiary exams. Currently, when victims of sexual assault are
taken to a hospital by the police, they are given an examination
for the purpose of the prosecution of a crime. In some
instances, the victim's private health insurance has been charged
for the cost of that exam. HB 270 would ensure that victims do
not receive a bill in the mail for the exam after coming to terms
with their victimization. The Alaska State Troopers have
testified in other committees that they budget for these exams
and consider paying for them to be good police practice. As an
analogy, when a person's home is burglarized and the police dust
for fingerprints, the homeowner is not billed for that evidence.
You can read a fully-sourced USA Today story here, outlining what has been established and what still needs to be clarified:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm
And this was published in the Boston Globe for October 1, 2008:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/30/wasilla_made_rape_victims_pay_1222822915/
Awesome! My wife just walked in as I was watching the SNL skit, and when Fey had the line about Osama in the taxicabs, my wife was like,"Oh my god, did Palin really say that?"
Oh, and Paul: gee, thanks for providing me a context in which I should read Christ's statements so that I can promptly negate them. Because its not like there are numerous possible interpretations of Jesus' supposed apocalyptic statements, like, say, the one I believe in, which is that the world ends for every person in the roughly 70 years or so he was addressing, so he's addressing the personal and not the general.
This isn't the place for a theologic discussion, though you've treated it as such. But I will say that your strict adherence to a single interpretation and refusal to admit to the validity (well-reasoned validity) of any other point of view is as galling as Jane's crusading Christianity. Bertrand Russell you ain't.
"So you advocate throwing Palin to the lions, Paul? Maybe it's you who has crossed the line. We are not ancient Rome...quite yet."
Her and half the country, yes. And you're right, we're not ancient Rome, especially not ancient Rome during Aurelius's time, and during the time of the emperors immediately preceding him. Even at our best, we weren't that. We went from upstart to decadent in record time, and every day we move further away from our best day.
First off, why isn't this the place for a theological debate? It's a movie blog, so I guess we shouldn't be discussing politics here, either.
And your interpretation is unlikely, but you're entitled to it. I however am more interested in finding out what is true, or most likely to be true, and not with coming up with something consoling even at the expense of truth.
But you've clearly got an emotional attachment to the Christ myth and are unable to approach the thing rationally. Really very few people have dared to go all the way, even among famous anti-Christians- Stirner, Nietzsche, Jefferson, Vonnegut, all were willing to show up Christianity and admit it was all mythmaking and BS, but all, very oddly, stopped at the man himself, and took him at face value as, at the very least, 'a moral genius'. It's remarkable to me how tenacious a hold the Christ myth holds even over those who fully believe themselves to be free thinkers.
Jesus had much more in common with David Koresh, Joseph Smith, or L Ron Hubbard than with legitimately good men like Aurelius or Buddha. I'd take Eugene Debs over Jesus. At least a guy like Debs was really trying to help people and alleviate real suffering, rather than deceiving an oppressed minority with revenge fantasies in order to further his own name.
To steal a bit from David Letterman, who I suspect wouldn't mind, here's a possible campaign slogan for Sarah Palin's 2012 White House run: "Come On, It'll Be Funny!"
I'd say it's not the place for a theological debate because there isn't the time or the space to develop a full argument. I'm not concerned that it's off-topic, just that I don't speak in bumper stickers.
In order to win the argument, you've decided to resort to ad hominem attacks, detailing my motivations for me. You obviously see Christians as all motivated by the same need for consolation. I don't expect you to believe me when I say that Christianity, when taken seriously, is actually not very consoling at all, and at times it's terrifying. But it is also rational (though not through its mainstream version). Or perhaps you'd like to argue that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, didn't know how to use reason?
Your argument that Jesus isn't even a moral figure is preposterous, given the last act of his story, or the middle one, for that matter. You've somehow made it more immoral to speak up for an oppressed minority (and through it, for all oppressed people), than to allow a corrupt superpower to crush that minority. Your love for the Romans might abate if you read some of their own histories, but then you'd have to put down Hitchens long enough to do so.
There is one point on which we share agreement: I am also an admirer of Marcus Aurelius. In fact I teach him to high school seniors. He was a man desperately trying to be good in the midst of tremendous personal and professional tribulations. It's no coincidence that Stoicism provided a bridge for Rome into Christianity. But Stoicism was more than just a philosophy; it was a religion, and frankly, it's metaphysics were bizarrely inept. And Marcus himself would hardly take to the canonizing you offer him. Meditations is rife with self-repudiation (making it all the more charming, I think). His behavior toward his enemies in Rome and abroad (in the Marcomannic Wars) might make you rethink his essential goodness. Though to a Christian, goodness should be beside the general point. Christianity isn't about "being good," it's about the acceptance of the fact that nobody, not Marcus and not Buddha and not Sarah Palin, can ever really achieve "goodness," but that we can seek to choose and form an eternal identity in mediation with a true objective determinant, God.
Sorry about the size of the post.
Paul:
There's an article in Newsweek which addresses atheists general hostility in trying to convince Christians/believers/whateveryouwanttocallthem that God/Christ/Buddah/whomever doesn't exist. Generally speaking, Christians and other believers share the same hostility in trying to convince atheists that God exists. My question is, why the hostility? If you don't believe, then it should be of no consequence to you if someone else does. It seems logical for the Christians being attacked to attack back, but I must admit, as a Christian myself, it's not very conducive to the discussion. If you claim to respect someone's opinion of belief/disbelief, then do just that: respect it.
Re: the comments about SNL not having jokes, I believe it was Will Rogers who said, "I don't make up jokes. I just observe the government and report the facts."
Hey everyone...been awhile!
Haven't watched the clip yet...at work. But I will say the few times I've seen her on tv and in interviews I'm always reminded of David Brent from the brit version of The Office, and find myself giggling from the awkwardness.
Ricky Gervais has twisted the idea of funny, anything uncomfortable is worth laughing at now, and the VP debates tomorrow night are going to be howlingly uncomfortable.
The only thing Sarah Palin forgot when she talked about the tax bailout was to preface it with the words "I personally believe."
Paul,
Actually if you're talking to someone that is the son of god and he says the world will end "soon". How long do you think "soon" means to a God...in any religion or belief? A day...a year...10 thousand years... when someone that believes and by that beief system will live for an eternity says "soon" they're hardly saying it's going to end next week because of a horrible catastrophe. That seems relatively logical to me. And Jesus wasn't trying to make several million off of a book...in fact he overturned table of people trying to make a few bills off their religion...vipers and what not. Anyway...yeah. Have fun feeding the lions.
Watched the clip from the Couric interview featuring her Supreme Court views. Amazing. My favorite line:
I'm, in that sense, a Federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.
I can't...just...no words
"Or perhaps you'd like to argue that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, didn't know how to use reason?"
Is this a joke? I don't want to get into an intellectual pissing contest but Kierkegaard is one of the worst offenders among the existentialists in terms of not applying reason in his philosophy. You go to Spinoza for a rational philosophy, you go to Kierkegaard if you want to the read the intellectual posturings of a repressed weirdo who delighted in writing unintelligibly and pretending to profundity. Also, anyone who writes about Abraham as if he is an historical figure, and bases even a tiny portion of his philosophy (such as Kierkegaard can be said to have had one) on it, is probably not to be appealed to as a reasonable philosopher.
And to the fellow who attacked the Stoics metaphyics, it's a damn sight nearer to the modern intelligent worldview than is anything contemporary to it (outside of Buddhism, which it closely resembles in many respects). It actually among the pagan philosophies corresponds most closely to the eventualy discoveries of Spinoza and later Einstein. Stoicism's metaphysics are weird but so is quantum physics, and considering to what a degree those men were feeling about in the dark, I think they did rather well. Certainly far better than the childish 'metaphysics' of the Christians and Mohammadens.
Paul & Phillip: I don't want to contribute to a thread that's gone seriously off-topic (this ought to be under the "Religulous" post from Toronto!), but I do want to thank you for inspiring two little fantasies I've been savoring:
1) The image of Jesus trying to make a mint selling books to an illiterate public -- in supernatural anticipation of Gutenberg and Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com. (Since his own, long-to-be-delayed ghostwritten serial-bio wouldn't be published, or even written down, for many years, he must've been selling hand-scribed -- autographed? -- copies of the Torah to his fellow Jews. Probably mostly books on tape for all those non-readers. That was before CDs and MP3s, after all.)
2) The image of a Divine being, perhaps the Son of God, telling some humans that the world was ending "soon" -- but neglecting to define "soon" in terms of their experience of time. He was thinking in cosmic terms about the grand scheme of infinite time instead! Maybe he momentarily (in his concept of time) forgot who his intended audience was. (Just imagine telling a housefly you'd have some doody for him soon, but forgetting you meant it in Quahog clam time! Ooops!) South of the border (when Jesus was visiting the Mormons in New York) some people probably would have called it "Mexican time." They do now, anyway. I think there's Italian time, too. I know there's my friend D-wood time, which is much slower than ours. But the All-Powerful probably knew that already...
Kierkegaard's work isn't unintelligible, it's just hard. You'd think that someone who references quantum physics would be willing to work with a text. And calling him a weirdo isn't an argument. Yeah, he was weird. No less weird than Nietzche (though you're right, probably more repressed).
And as to your defense of Stoicism, now it is you who must be kidding. Please explain how the Stoic tenet of Materialism, which posits that God exists within the universe as a physical entity, is anything close to the modern worldview.
I like arguing with you, Paul. I think you're smart. But I also think you're getting desperate, because each post contains more and more insults in place of actual arguments. That's what happens when you are convinced that all of your intellectual enemies are stupid children. Your righteous anger is becoming Pat Robertsonian.