504 – You Can’t Go Back: 11

504

Please don’t forget to vote for HOLE at Top Web Comics every day! It takes ten seconds and it’s free!

In 1996 Peter Seewald’s book, Salt of the Earth, was published. In it, he interviews Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about his experiences in Hitler’s Germany and the second world war. Ratzinger reveals that he served the Reich as a teenager on anti-aircraft batteries where, presumably, he shot down allied planes, and was later conscripted into the German infantry. Apparently membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory and Ratzinger was joined up along with everyone else. I doubt he even thought twice about it.

Benedict prepares to eat the brains of a young Malaysian girl.
Benedict prepares to eat the brains of a young Malaysian girl.

In 2005, as most folks are aware, Ratzinger was elected to be the pope, and like most supervillains, took on a fake identity to hide his true face and income tax information from the world. Now calling himself “Pope Benedict the Sixteenth,” Ratzinger settled into the Vatican Fortress of Doom to plot the downfall of gays, women priests, and condom factories worldwide.

The Pope however, doesn’t do his own press. And recently one Reverend Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for the Vatican Fortress of Doom, issued a statement that definitively stated that Ratzinger had “never, never, never” been in the Hitler Youth. When later confronted with Ratzinger’s own words on the subject and asked by reporters if lying about it was a big enough sin to have him thrown into hell, Lombardi “revised” his earlier statement to say that Ratzinger had been in the Hitler Youth, but that it was completely against his will and that the teenaged pope-to-be had never actively participated in the organization in any fashion. One presumes that means any fashion other than manning German anti-aircraft guns and being in the German infantry.

Now the fact is that I do not fault Ratzinger for his time in the Third Reich. He was a kid, he was stupid, and he was laying it on the line for his country — that’s what kids are taught to do. There is virtually zero chance that Ratzinger had any real concept of the kind of evil he was fighting for, and this was better than sixty years before his papal infallibility would kick in and he would become unable to make mistakes. (Wouldn’t you hate to play checkers against someone like that!) But I am a little curious about Spokesman Lombardi. Seems to me that “Yeah, he was a member. Got a problem wit’ dat?” would have been a way more appropriate response than a lie. (Especially when you speak for a religious organization.) Alternatively, we could accept the possibility that Lombardi simply didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, which makes me want to know why I should believe anything else he says.

I have a theory that Ratzinger and Cheney are both from the same clan of space-nosferatu and are here with the purpose of raising humans as cattle for their oncoming invasion forces. I can see the press conference now…

Reporter: “Mr. Cheney, Mr. Pope, are you both from the same clan of space-nosferatu and are here with the purpose of raising humans as cattle for your oncoming invasion forces?”

Cheney: “Never. Never, never, never.”

Ratzinger: “Well, yes, we are… but we didn’t really want to. Now everyone needs to report to their internment camps…”

25 Responses to 504 – You Can’t Go Back: 11

  1. You gotta love emperor palp…. err, I mean pope benedict. The vatican at its best! Thanks also to John Paul for putting enough Opus Dei-liking guys everywhere for a such a successor to be elected!

  2. Hi

    Is Zobbie still speaking under the influence of the late and, alas, unlamented pelican?

    If so, then he would probably not say, “I suppose it’s to no one’s detriment to merely look at armor.” To do so is to use a, “split infinitive,” in the phrase, “to merely look,” and, in proper English usage, that is much to be avoided.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

    Perhaps, “I suppose it’s to no one’s detriment merely to look at armor,” would be a better construction?

    I have made it my goal to completely and utterly eliminate the split infinitive!

    ….

    😳 D’oh! (_8(|) 😳

    Anyhow… Zobbie shouldn’t do it.

    (…but it’s quite true that a pretty girl can get a guy to do almost anything she wishes if she implies that it will enhance his, “studly manliness.”)

    • On Zobbie’s speech: Zobbie speaks pretentiously, but conversationally. A split infinitive would be his equivalent to saying “s’up?” He might say it in passing, but he would probably never write it down.

  3. @Kevin:
    Your caption under that picture got me laughing like crazy. :mrgreen:

    I always found Cardinal Ratzinger supremely creepy, with his red-rimmed eyes and weird smile that makes him looks as if he’s about to gnaw some poor victim’s face off. To make matters worse, Ratzinger was Head of the Inquisition (For how many centuries now?) before he was made Pope. A man like him understands full well that the papacy was always about power, not about holiness. Still, could be worse… at least he’s not a Borgia.

    My husband and I noticed, though, that Ratzinger looks, well, younger and fresher since he became Pope, compared to before. Is he feeding on the blood of innocent altar boys? 😕

    “I have a theory that Ratzinger and Cheney are both from the same clan of space-nosferatu and are here with the purpose of raising humans as cattle for their oncoming invasion forces.
    Emperor Ratzinger and Darth Cheney, eh? I know we shouldn’t judge people solely by their looks, but on the other hand, one’s character and a lifetime of experiences leave their traces on the canvas of the face. And each and every fotography I have seen of Cheney sens me running, screaming, for the hills… even when he tries to smile he looks as if he’s snarling or smirking, and there is something dead and shifty in his eyes. Same with Rush Limbaugh. As if they’ve fed and gorged themselves on hatred. Others, like Dubya’s mother and wife, plaster on the fake, Stepford Women smile which never reaches their eyes. 😡

    ——————————————–
    @Gagglegnash:
    Now I wonder how pelicans define “studly manliness”….? Having a larger, more impressive thoat sack than your neighbor?

    • Actually, Cesare made a decent Pope. He pretty much kept his personal proclivities separate from the Papal functions.

  4. … wow. Is it just me, or has the under-comic commentary taken a serious anti-religious turn over the past week or so?

    … yeah. Guess I’m sticking to the comic.

    • I would opine that today’s blog has nothing to do with religion.

      (Although I understand completely if you are uncomfortable. I am glad that you would be willing to look past the blog and continue to read the comic.)

      • I probably wouldn’t agree with Rich Burlew’s politics, either, but I still read HIS stuff.

        *shrug* You have a fair right to say that, I guess. Maybe “anti-established-catholic-church” is a more pinpoint-accurate statement, but I would also then say that THAT has to do with religion. Plus, it wouldn’t cover your entry about the “miracle.”

        I have heard, understand, and engaged in numerous long and difficult verbal sparring matches of various civility and intelligence with a lot of the arguments against my statement, right there, and have no interest in facing them down on your forum.

        Either way, you still write/draw an awesome comic. Keep it up!

        • I am not a religious person, and have had plenty of anti-religious things to say in the past… but Lena told me I was being mean and so I have tried to poke fun at specific people rather than entire belief systems. While my atheism is very much a part of who I am, I don’t want to upset people just for the sake of entertaining myself. However, I think that any reasonable person can look at a lying cardinal, or a “miracle” which clearly is not, and find the humorous dichotomy therein.

          You are more than welcome to say anything you want to here, as long as you are not calling anybody names or being unnecessarily flamey. I may very well disagree with you, but I will always be at least as respectful to you as you you are to the forum.

          • Very well. Onward, and with civility. I’m feeling verbose.

            I’ll leave discussion of the personalities aside – on the topics of Oprah’s Priest and our current pope I am sadly under-armed for a debate.

            However, from the standpoint of one of the faithful, I would argue that the miracle in question was indeed an act of God – those young men were saved by the actions of emergency responders who, by the grace of God, have the skills, courage, and selflessness to do their jobs. God gives us these things – the better parts of ourselves – so that we can help each other out in this crazy, dangerous world with storms and falling trees and such, and their very presence in our hearts is as great a miracle as any. It is up to us, with our fallibility and freedom of will, to use them properly.

            As for the good fortune that the falling tree did not crush and kill those boys outright, was THAT a miracle? Harder to say, really – and not, in my opinion – worth pursuing. There are things that happen around us for no reason other than the nature of the physical world – tragic and devastating things like storms and floods and earthquakes – that I’m not convinced God Himself has all that much to do with.

            All this, of course, is dependent upon a belief in God in the first place. Nothing could be considered a miracle by an atheist, so when you say that it is “clearly not a miracle,” you make something of a moot statement. Of course, to you, it is “clearly not a miracle,” because in your belief system, there can be no such thing.

            To those of use with a belief in God, there are all kinds of ways to see God at work in little things – like the wonderful opportunity to discuss the matter in civil tones – and big things – like the amazing and heart-filling relief of a mother whose son was not killed by the errant tree that destroyed his room while he was in it. If I were this woman – and I believed in God – I, too, would be thankful for His wondrous and mysterious ways, no matter which ones He just used to save my son’s life.

          • Awesome! I’m glad you’re willing to chat!

            I think the thing that bugs me about god in this situation is the subjectivity. If someone wants to know what I did to create this website, they only have to look, or at worst, ask. I did the art and the writing, Lena did the programming, our friend Ron did some of the crunchier database bits. The idea that god is responsible for some of the attributes, the “better parts” of the rescuers, and thus the miracle of their still being alive, and not the other, or bad parts of them, is slippery for me and makes little logical sense.

            My understanding of Christian myth is that god is an all-powerful, all-knowing entity who created all of existence. How is that being not responsible for everything? Omnipotence combined with omniscience means knowledge of everything combined with the ability to affect it. If god is subtly manipulating humans by activating selected “good” traits at the correct times to make them rescue one another, doesn’t that cut at the underpinnings of free will?

            It would not be difficult to construct a situation wherein rescuers saved an “evil” man who went on to do terrible things that brought only unhappiness into the world. Would that be miraculous? Is the miracle divorced of the consequence? Hard to believe if you accept an omniscient god with complete foreknowledge of the way everything in the universe fits together.

            As an atheist I believe that everything, matter itself, is a stupendously amazing thing, beautiful in nearly every aspect. What I don’t believe in is any sort of guiding hand. I feel that this is probably because I has a father I couldn’t trust growing up, and that led me as an adult to look twice at god as the biggest “daddy figure” in the world. This skepticism has allowed me the distance to see the (to me) obvious holes in the story, and see through to truth. The final result is me feeling the incredible release of acknowledging that I am responsible for my own life, and knowing that my life is in my hands. It is comforting, wonderful, and empowering.

            My biggest single question for god would be “what’s your point here?” You know what you ultimately want, and you have the ability to have it at any instant, so why are we going through all these motions? If you want graceful souls, why not just make ’em? This leaves me with the idea that god just enjoys making people jump through the hoops. As I look at it, if god really did exist, he wouldn’t be anyone I either liked or respected very much.

          • Well, I’m not trying to convert you, here, but I will present my rebuttle, anyway.

            Someone once said to me, “Alarin,” he says to me, “finish this sentence: ‘If there were no freedom, there would be no …'”

            It was probably the most poignant philosophical question anyone had given me up to that point. I thought about such a world, and thought about myself going through the motions of life as pre-programmed, with no choice in the matter. I thought also about all the people I had ever looked up to, and about what the world would be like had they done the things that made them worth looking up to because they HAD to – because they were FORCED to.

            I looked at my questioner and I said, “There would be no heroism.” I went on to explain that without the freedom to CHOOSE to be heroic, then acting in a “heroic” fashion would just be going through the motions. It would not say anything about the person making that choice, and it would be basically meaningless.

            He thought I had a good answer, and supplied me with his own. “If there were no freedom,” he said, “there would be no truth. Nothing we did or thought or decided would be true, because it would have been decided for us.”

            I’m not going to try and logically prove to you that God exists, because I can’t. The idea of his existence lies outside the realm of scientific proofs and takes a major leap of frank idealism to hold. But I will say to you that the idea of an “omniscient” God, in a complex take on faith, is equally complex; The saying is, “Love conquers all.” If you took the potential power for change in all the good things that exist in every human being on earth, then you would be looking at omniscience. The kind of world we would have if everyone always chose to follow that side of themselves would hold such marvels as we cannot even imagine.

            However, as God is, first and foremost, Good, He has given us our freedom, because if we take His way simply because there is no alternative, then it is no choice at all. We would be nothing but automatons, going through our motions, and God did not make a machine – He made life.

            So what you’re basically confronting me with is not something new: “How can a good, all-powerful God allow suffering?” It is the eternal question plaguing Christian theologists. My favorite answer is this: God isn’t ALLOWING suffering. He is trying to STOP it – through the good things in each of us, as I described before. If you can imagine a more complicated idea of God – not of a single entity out there making decrees, but as a kind of spirit that simultaneously exists both as a whole being in each person and as a whole being made up of all those pieces spread out amongst us, you can also imagine the parts of us that have come to exist because we have the freedom to deny that better part.

            It is those parts which cause suffering – upon one another, and within. I posit that God, while All Powerful, chooses not to rescind that free will, but instead give us the chance to see if we are worthy of it. He is on our side – seeking us, guiding us, and ever present when we need that inner strength that He is – but requires us to … fight the battle. To make the choice. If He didn’t – if He took away that choice – it would mean that we have failed.

            And clearly, He has not given up on us, yet. Why He is letting this continue … I couldn’t really say, exactly. I have a few ideas, but ultimately, this is where the trust of my faith comes in. Maybe, once given, free will is ours forever, and despite what it has done, God can’t take it back, so all He can do is support us in our struggle as what He is. Maybe He’s not as all-powerful as those of simple faith would claim. I would be okay with either being the case, really, but I believe that giving us free will was not a mistake.

            On the topic of fathers – mine was very good to me. I learned much about being a good man from him – including this one time when I asked what he would do if I decided to convert to Druidism. I was only half-serious, but he took a deep breath, as if he knew I had just confronted him with a parenting test. He said, “Alarin, if that’s what you want, we’ll find you books and people to talk to about it to help you make your choice. And if that’s STILL what you want, we’ll support you whole heartedly.”

            In that instant I said to myself, “Screw Druidism – I want what DAD’S smoking!” and I became a Catholic to the core.

            Conversely, a very good friend of mine … did not have a good father. He is probably one of the more cynical and slow-to-trust people I know, with an extremely critcal eye given him by a long and trying history. He is also a Christian Minister, for all that, and I think it makes him a better one. His faith astounds me, as it has withstood far greater trials than mine, and has made him into one of the best men I know.

          • Well, I’m not really concerned with how god can allow suffering, except as it relates to the larger question of why bother? If you can snap your fingers and make an omelette spring out of thin air, why go through the irritation of raising chickens? Whatever god’s endgame is, he could have jumped straight to it instead of creating a world of inequity and death. (And increasingly ribald webcomics.) The fact of the suffering leads to a few possibilities. (Presupposing his existence… which I do not.)

            One, god is not good. Honestly, we have only god’s word for it that he is good, and the word’s of those that would try and lead us to him, none of which have actually spent any time in a room with the cat.

            Two, god’s not as smart as he says he is. God made the garden, plopped two people down in the middle of it with zero knowledge of the consequences of their actions, left them a serpent who was actively trying to undermine him, and then had the stones to act all surprised and bent about it when they ate the wrong fruit. That hardly says “all knowing” to me.

            Three, god’s not as powerful as he says he is. Maybe whatever it is god’s up to, he needs us a lot more than we need him. Or at least more than he’s letting on. Maybe this is all sort of some cosmic cooking pot with an end dish in mind, and he can’t jump to the end without adding all the ingredients and letting it simmer for a while.

            As far as your personal beliefs go, I’m pretty sure you’re aware that they are heretical in the eyes of the church, and that they have some rather strict injunctions against interpreting the bible for yourself… which nobody listens to and does it anyway. I only mention it because you’ve obviously gone to some lengths to think about this and come up with a version of god that is most comfortable to you.

            But make no mistake, you invented him.

            And now, the crux. I walk into a remote village off in the jungle. Everyone there tells me the story of Phu-phu, an invisible man who cannot be detected in any fashion. While they all talk of Phu-phu (except five or six guys in the south end of the village who call him Fat Jim) no one there can completely agree exactly what it is he is. Or what he looks like. Or what he does. Some say he heals the sick, and others say they would have gotten better on their own. Some say he protects the village from storms, and others point out that the village is in a sheltered valley. Some say he is a physical presence, others claim he is a spirit. The only thing they all agree on is that you can’t see him, smell him, feel him, or in any other way tell he is there, was there, or will be there.

            If it looks like an imaginary friend, walks like an imaginary friend, and talks like an imaginary friend… it’s an imaginary friend.

            Here’s an easy test. What would it take to unite the world? It would take god. Omnipotent or not, god could handle this. God comes to earth, pokes his head in and says hi. God goes on Oprah, says “Hey earth, just passing by and I saw you guys were making each other miserable. I don’t want to come off all wrathy or anything, and don’t want to step on your free will. But, as a favor, I’d appreciate it if you’d be a little nicer to each other. And just to prove to you I really am who I say I am, I just made a smiley face on the moon.” Now, if it were in your power to do this, would you? I would. But I have two legs up on god. I’m real, and I’m not a tool.

            My observation is that screwing makes life, not god. People who have studied such things found that the basic (non-genealogical) facts of the bible are pretty inconsistent with the real world. The timeline is way out of whack, and the world has been flooded six (?) times since god said he’d never do it again. (Accepting the span between the creation of the world and Noah.) I personally have yet to find anything… anything at all… attributed to god that is not much more simply and believably explained by something in the real world. Even the birth of life itself.

            Saying that life came from god is just pushing back the date. Where did god come from? If you say that god has existed forever then you just made the whole thing way more difficult to swallow than the notion of primordial soup.

            Another test, and one readers here have seen often, Why would god go so far out of his way to make it look like he never existed, and then base something so important as your immortal soul on you believing in something that defies all your physical experiences and knowledge of the way the world works? Would you make the world that way? I wouldn’t. But again, I’m real and I’m not a jerk. (Possibly not a jerk.)

            By the way, the only way to completely take away freedom is to kill everyone. If there were no freedom, there would be no people.

          • I see you’re just opening the basket and putting as many of the questions out there as you can. Very well. If I miss one, my apologies. You have made a long post, and it is late.

            I will quote the Watchmen for your first argument: “God didn’t make the world this way. We did.” I pretty much said that one up above, but the man with the shifting face put it so very nicely that I’ll steal from him to sum it up. Why did God allow us to do it? Because stopping us outright would have been taking away our free will. Why did He give us free will? Because we wouldn’t be real without it. So why would God make creatures that, given the choice, have a 50-50 chance of turning away from Him once they HAVE that choice? That’s basically the nature of free will to begin with. If he had given us a nature that would just say, “Thanks, God, but I don’t need the choice. I pick you anyways,” then the free will would have been so only in name. It would have been cheap and false, and nothing which God gives is either of those.

            You missed possibility number four: God is somewhere between a little bit and a whole lot smarter than the rest of us. I know it seems like a cop-out, but we ARE dealing with matters of faith, here.

            Possibility five: Related to number four, that there’s more to it than you or I can percieve or know.

            Possibility six: God is not, in fact, all-powerful, like you say, but it is WE who have overblown his abilities. In this instance (and in your possibility # three), God’s still a nice guy and on our side, and is a little tired of being expected to do what He cannot.

            Possibility seven: There’s a REASON we need to do this for ourselves. This one is also related to my own #4 … and #5 … in that this reason is something we can only guess at. I have already explained my hypotheses as to why we need to do this on our own, so I’m not going to go over it again.

            If someone or something claiming to be God showed up on Oprah, we would have massive religious and race-wars, no matter what it said. That, or no one would take it seriously. Or somewhere in-between. Most likely the last option, in my opinion. And if he somehow MADE us all believe that whatever we saw on Oprah was really Him, well … that would be taking away our free will, wouldn’t it?

            Speaking of which, you’re absolutely right. We would not be people without our freedom. I like your answer.

            Moving on … a lot of the “facts” of the Bible are, in fact, fables. Mythological History, if you will, akin to that of the creation myths in Greek or Norse tradition. They represent a way of teaching lessons through stories. They teach what we believe to have figured out about the NATURE of God through storytelling. So do I believe that Adam and Eve really existed? Well, I believe it doesn’t MATTER whether they existed or not. What I’M interested in is, “What is the LESSON?” That other, more fanatical and shortsighted Christians would call me a heretic for saying that is none of my concern. There will be fools until the end of time.

            And for the record, I learned everything in the paragraph above at a Catholic University, from a priest. So, why don’t you leave it to the Catholic who’s been doing this a while to decide if my views are heretical or not. I’ve discussed or learned everything I put down up there with/from Catholic Priests, and I have yet to be excommunicated, so I find it far more probable that you are just misinformed. After all, there’s a lot of false info running around about us … which I’ve just decided is fine with me. I like the mystery.

            Actually, no I’m not, because a lot of that misinformation is based on former positions held by the church as a whole, which some would like to bring back (as I suppose is their right as freethinking indiviuals, even though I pray they ultimately fail), and which is infecting others and making them either blind, bigoted, or poorly armed for discussions like this one.

            “If it looks/smells/feels imaginary,” it might still be real. Feelings and emotions are like this a lot. If it feels like forever-love, tastes like forever-love, and ends up getting you married, it might just be lust. Or temporary love. You have found the SIMPLEST explanation for religion: “We just made it up,” and have taken it as fact, but even in science Occam’s Razor is not always right. And THIS is a matter of faith; You can’t scientifically prove OR disprove that God exists. If you need proof to see him … well … see below.

            I think if God did ANYTHING to make Himself obviously known (like showing up on Oprah), it would do more harm than good. Everyone would start claiming it as theirs, or a hoax, or whatever, and we would have a giant mess a lot bigger than the one we have, unless he did something like plant the knowledge in everyone’s brain simultaneously and FORCE them to believe it.

            And once again, we run into the issue that doing THAT would be like getting enslaved by God.

            Remember in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe, when irrefutable proof that God exists categorically destroys Him “in a puff of logic?” It’s kind of like that. As soon as He’s made undeniably real, all that freedom he gave us goes out the window. Good sense and fact would make followers of us all – we would all do as He says because we KNOW he’s there, and … no, I don’t like that idea. It would mean that we’d have one big ruler of everything, and all the effort we’ve put in to get THIS far would be meaningless.

            I’m having trouble putting into words just exactly why that disturbs me. It may seem silly to you, and you’re probably thinking, “Well, isn’t that what’s SUPPOSED to happen? God shows up at the end of revelations and fixes everything? The Kingdom of God is established, and we all live happily ever after?” I guess it’s … it’s too Utopian. Too Big Brother. Too EASY. It would be worthless and meaningless if God just skipped to the end. He might as well not have made anything at all.

            I guess that begs the question, “Okay, so why DID He make anything at all?”

            This universe is monstrously big, and we are a small part of it … I sometimes wonder what else He’s doing with the rest of space. I guess the point of THAT is that when it comes to matters of faith, you just have to take a leap somewhere. This is where I take mine. You are clearly not willing to take it with me so … *shrug* I guess I’ll see you on the other side.

            If my arguments fail to convince you, I don’t really care. Like I said, I’m not trying to convince yor convert you, only defend my position. They’re good arguments, and they work for me. If they do not work for you, realize that you’re throwing logic-tests at me in a discussion about something which is not a matter of logic for me. It is something unproveable that I have taken and accepted as truth in the hopes that it will make me a better person, more able and willing to help my fellow man.

  5. ^ So? Aint it deserved?

    Not relegion at a whole of course, but the stuff he’s commenting on.

    If somethings negative and stupid then it draws negative and stupid comments. Just because its religion doesn’t mean its exempt from that. 😛

    • Deserved or not, I’m not a BIG fan of reading about my church’s traditions and mothers thanking God for their sons’ lives getting poked at, so like I said, I will now stick to the comic.

      Mostly.

      • That’s cool. My humor does NOT make everyone laugh. Actually, the only person I know of who always thinks I’m funny is me, but fortunately I’m the one I write to amuse.

  6. The last infinitive I split was my pants in 4th grade. All this grammar speak make me glad to had passed English real good in skool. 🙂

    And hey, who WOULDN’T want to protect one’s, er, manly studliness?

    As far as the Pope’s past, I go with Obiwan’s explanation to Luke in “Jedi” that truth depends on “your point of view.” Like you said, he was just a kid and didn’t know any different. End of story.

  7. Hey, give the poor cardinal a break… he can’t be bothered to have read up on the life and publishing history of the pope just because it’s his job! Seriously, there are lots of people who are just bad at their jobs in real life, and probably even more who are mediocre, fair or even good but who make ridiculous mistakes and oversights–I think these two categories cover approximately every employed person in the world.
    Besides, complaining about a PR representative lying is about as fruitful and meaningful an activity as complaining about prisons for limiting and abusing people’s rights: Okay, they go too far at times but it’s kinda the point.
    Maybe I’m too hopelessly jaded and cynical but I don’t think picking on the cardinal’s failure is useful except as a dual lesson. First part is what PR representatives do; they lie. Second part is that upper echelon people generally get paid lots of money and get to make mistakes that lower-level people would get fired for without apparent personal consequence.

    • Hang on, is your defense of Lombardi that I should expect to be lied to? That’s doesn’t hold much water around here. I, for one will never knowingly lie to you unless it is very, very funny.

      Agreed about the “upper level” folks getting well paid to screw everything up, and enjoying little to no consequences. Steal a car, go to prison, steal thousands of people’s retirement savings, be forced to give up most of your homes. And on the occasion that one of these guys does go to prison, it’s not the same Federal Fuck-You-Up-the-Butt prison you or I would be going to. No, it’s 10:00 tee-time, 2:00 tea-time, crumpets, scones, and flat screen TVs prison. Explain to me how THAT’S right.

      • Oh, I would hesitate to say that any of this is right, and I spend time and effort when I can to highlight abuses and usurpations that either pass under the general-knowledge radar or into the, “That’s just how things are,” blindspot that legitimizes failing to do anything.
        That said, the PR industry in general and the modern evolution of the public relations position in companies and other large organizations is all about perception management, a concept that matches nearly perfectly to lying. For further reading there is lots of further reading I can suggest. Let me try posting a URL in a further message for the Center for Media and Democracy (PR Watch), they catalogue and analyze PR duplicity as well as tracking substantial news items in the PR industry itself.

  8. Alarin – The blog is nowhere near being anti-religious, but “merely” about … The men in power and the things they (think they need to) do to stay there – and how they repeatedly build walls to shelter themselves , but ending up making obstacles for themselves to climb over…
    This is not anti-religion, but pointing to faults in the people claiming to represent the best in behaviour as a representative of said religion should …
    It seems it is common policy that denial is used as the generally preferred responce instead of an appeal for understanding that the times were different and the person/company/etc would never do this with the knowledge of the present… been there, done that, won’t do it again!

    • In fairness, I have been rabidly anti-religious in the past… but I’m better now. I promise!

      I tend to really enjoy poking fun at authority, apparently it’s a response to trust issues growing up or some such claptrap. Anyway, the more hypocritical and far removed from the figure’s stated positions, the better. And it’s hard to get better than a person who is supposed to represent god acting in normal, stupid, human ways.

      It’s not because it’s religion, it’s because it’s funnier.

    • It wasn’t just this post, Rasmus, but the one poking at the woman overjoyed at her son surviving a tree crashing into his room and about Oprah’s Priest getting caught doing what Catholic Priests aren’t allowed to do.

      I’m all for good humor. This sort doesn’t really make me laugh.