Internal Monologue

The author of Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy has launched a new site: Bible Study for Atheists . It's just getting underway, so I don't know how good it will be. But I've already added a couple comments (on the intro and the beginning of Genesis ). I hope I can check in there as the project progresses.

WARNING: Those of you who are accustomed to pithy political remarks here on Internal Monologue should brace yourselves for a major dose of gaming geekitude. Here's a link to one "Jamie R." who does a very snarky close reading of Homer's The Odyssey (HT: Mad Latinist via email). I've only read book 1, but it's pretty funny so far. An excerpt: Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men… Sooooo, he’s in charge, and everybody dies. Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero and his colossal failure. What? … for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever r

Via dmsilev on Kos , we have this Washington Post story by Columbia professor Eric Foner. He concludes: Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history. I'm not really sure about Professor Foner's methodology, but I'm glad to see the message of just how bad Bush is getting out there. It's funny how Bush has convinced himself that despite his current unpopularity, history will judge him as a visionary. If anything, I suspect history will judge him even more harshly than the current American public does. As the results of his failures unfold over the next several years, I think it will become more and more clear just how awful he has been.

As part of my ongoing, deeply respectful (hardy har har har) inquiry into the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, I point to this item from Aidan Firewalker: Pope Benedict XVI has decided that translations of the Roman Catholic liturgy must use the phrase "for many" in the words used to consecrate the wine, rather than "for all," which is currently in use. [...] What does it mean to say instead that the blood of Jesus "will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven"? Although the Vatican strenuously denies it, the implication is clear: contrary to everything that Christianity has ever taught, Jesus of Nazareth did not die for everyone. Why else would you say "for many" instead of "for all"? The Vatican's position, which is essentially that Jesus died "for all" but the liturgy must say "for many," makes absolutely no sense. Either Jesus died "for all" as Christianity has always taugh

Dan Froomkin on why Comedy Central is doing a better job than the news networks (HT: VLWC , atrios , and Corrente ): What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit. Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy. [...] If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers . Emphas

This is too good: An Australian atheist, annoyed by LDSers (Mormons) knocking on his door on Saturday morning and attempting to convert him, decides to get his revenge. And what better way to go about it than givin' 'em some of their own medecine: He goes door-to-door in Salt Lake City, trying to spread the gospel of unbelief. Frickin' hilarious. (HT: Sullivan , who is on a major LDS trip right now.) I love how he dresses up in the suit and everything. I don't know what overall reaction he got, but the ones in the video are pretty negative. The old guy who hits him with the broom is priceless. It feels so good to have a tiny symbolic smidgen of proselytizing shot back at the LDSers. Of course, I suspect the irony is lost on most of them (at least the ones shown in the video). What is it about most religion that ruins people's sense of humor? Nietzsche would not approve. One quibble: I disagree with his choice of Origin of Species as his "holy text". Th

What Jonathan Singer says: If November 7 showed us anything, it was that the Democrats clearly do not need the suppport of Evangelical voters in order to create an electoral majority. And a report by Neela Banerjee in today's issue of The New York Times should put to rest the theory that the religious right is at all interested forging any semblence of compromise or comity with progressives, be it on social issues or even issues such as the environment. Few things annoy me more than watching Democrats sell progressive values down the river in order to chase Evangelical voters who aren't going to vote for them anyway. For many the tribal affiliations are too strong. Don't bother.