Jeez Louise (Lasser)–
Now I know why our small time fixers up here in Canuckistan are in a fix at the moment…..they didn’t follow the Rovian lead make it all legal/all profitable/ all the time before they started the extortion.

Posted by: RossK | Apr 22 2005 8:00 utc | 3

Speaking of obscenity,Is Big Pharma soon to sponsor “Long Days Journey Into Night” at a theater near you? Or perhaps GM, which just lost $1B, would like to sponsor “Death of a Salesman”??

Posted by: jj | Apr 22 2005 8:29 utc | 5

Perhaps the chief beneficiary of this decency thing is the porn industry itself–bankrolled, of course, by large corporations like General Electric. Absent the soft turn-on of the current TV fare, folks will merely spend more of their hard-earned funds on Private Gold and Kara’s Adult Playground. The folks here referred to are chiefly the fedayeen themselves: 35% of the women in the Baptist Church are hooked on porn (or so I’ve recently read), and this trend is wrecking right-wing marriages. The right wing, as always, is interested only in trashing the symptom of the disturbance, not in treating its source, and this particular disturbance itself tells us a thing or two about the far right’s bizarre obsession with “family values”–little more, perhaps, than an aimless effort to tame the rising tide of porn.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 22 2005 12:50 utc | 7

Not so strange at all Colman, if you look at porn as a titillating substitute for forbidden pleasure.

Posted by: rapt | Apr 22 2005 13:35 utc | 9

Bush and Blair porn for sale on ebay*
*not safe for work, if you have eaten in the last 24 hours and if you have a mental health illness history.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 22 2005 13:48 utc | 11

Who knew that corporations could be so politically naive.
They need to join forces and threaten the Rove that for every legislative threat they receive they’ll pay the other gang (Dems) more.
But that would require strategic thinking.

Posted by: Scott McArthur | Apr 22 2005 13:50 utc | 13

First the other gang has to demonstrate it has some kind of clue about how to win an election.
LOL
Whose weed are they smoking anyway?

Posted by: citizen | Apr 22 2005 15:58 utc | 15

Re corporate media
The managers at the top of the heap, and the ones trying to get there, are, at the core, nihilists, with the exception that they feel their own personal rank over others, and control of the rent economies, gives their life meaning, and makes them superior.
Yes, the nihilist ego managers are destryoing institutions from within, and, they either don’t care or don’t know any better. The key is they have no competition to check them. The “left” is trying to refight and relose the last war it lost. The conservative wage slaves don’t have a clue about real power and rent economies. The economic theorists are so lost in number fantasies all they have done is aid and abet the nihilists.

Posted by: razor | Apr 22 2005 18:17 utc | 17

Re The Good German:
The “futility of resistance” argument is one I might accept from almost anyone in any walk of life, except someone who wants to be the world leader of a major religion that has always recognized the futility of human resistance to evil, but mandated it nevertheless.

Posted by: bcf | Apr 22 2005 19:29 utc | 19

Billmon. Powerful reading. Thanks.

Posted by: beq | Apr 22 2005 19:32 utc | 21

My imagination today is in nauseating free fall, and I have these visions of JR walking around the conclave trying to reassure people that he’s a regular guy, pretzels and all. Do you think they do the kind of Skull and Bones thing with pictures that keeps those boys in line once they’re all grown up and powerful?
Maybe the H Jugend record is the key qualification of vulnerability that put his vote totals over the top.
Well, the signs are clear for all to see. Now, how do you fight the cognitive dissonance well enough to keep your memory?

Posted by: citizen | Apr 22 2005 20:21 utc | 23

How many of us here would have the bravery of Die Weiße Rose movement?
Rhetorical question.

Posted by: Friendly Fire | Apr 22 2005 20:52 utc | 25

Coming soon: Santorum sponsors bill to close all public libraries, as they “unfairly compete with Borders and Barnes and Noble.” Shortly thereafter all public transit systems are forcibly shut down to end their “unfair” competition with taxi companies and private car ownership. The next bill prohibits spending tax dollars on police and fire services, as they compete with private security and alarm companies… and the post office is deemed illegal as it competes with Fed Ex and UPS.
But this will not be enough for the neocon cadres: they’ve tasted blood. Shortly thereafter, ideological warfare erupts w/in the wingnut party — as the hardline Marketistas try to pass legislation prohibiting home cooking, potlucks and church socials (competing unfairly with restaurants); campfire singalongs (competing unfairly with MTV); and consensual spontaneous sex in or out of marriage (competing unfairly with for-profit porno and prostitution).
The church/family ideologues put up a good fight, but after the Night of the Long Infomercials the battle is pretty much over. Do-gooders operating free walk-in clinics in poor areas are busted for competing unfairly with HMOs, and volunteering is generally criminalised. All churches are forced to incorporate as businesses and charge membership fees. Soup kitchens and charity bake sales become underground operations, organised by smart-mob text messaging on short notice. A new AATF (Anti-Altruism Task Force) is formed under the aegis of HSAcorp (the world’s largest private security contractor — now hiring!) to locate and disperse these subversive events.

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 22 2005 21:33 utc | 27

How many of us here would have the bravery of Die Weiße Rose movement?
One never can be certain of course, but their example is certainly more worth emulating than Pope Ratzinger’s.
I am certain however that if I could muster enough courage there would be others as well, because based upon the comments and the stories I’ve read here over the years, there are many others here far more braver than I.

Posted by: bcf | Apr 22 2005 21:41 utc | 29

Unless I’ve missed something, it looks like this is as close as we come to an Earth Day thread. I’m running out the door so will just link to my diary at Kos on Democracy Now’s Earth Day Outrage. Back later.

Posted by: liz | Apr 22 2005 23:11 utc | 31

DeA — good stuff.
Reminds me a bit of Camazotz from the children’s book A Wrinkle in Time. Which really belongs on everyone’s shelf, actually.

Posted by: Lisa B-K | Apr 23 2005 0:21 utc | 33

They’re the classic parasitic middle men, and what they want isn’t the libertarian paradise, it’s a protected monopoly on the distribution of government-funded, government-created data.
So potlucks will be permitted, but only processed industrial food from sealed factory containers can be served…? hell, we’re already there with halloween candies and school lunches. And we can have campfire singalongs, but only of coyrighted music, and each participant will have to pay a licensing fee. Not so far from current reality either.
Following the middleman notion: we get to keep our cops, but we can’t talk to them except through a private/corporate dispatch service. We get the benefits of our publicly funded health and medical research, but we can only obtain it by going through layers of middlemen… no, wait, that’s already happened.
Maybe the weirdness of late finance capitalism is what happens when the biomass of middlemen exceeds the biomass of real producers by some arbitrary factor… [side thought — awarding State monopolies to privileged favourites and sycophants is an old Imperial tradition…]

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 23 2005 1:24 utc | 35

how ’bout an earth-day thread b, j?
.. hopefully for open-minded rational discussion rather than a gush of rhetoric about the evils of industrialization.

Posted by: DM | Apr 23 2005 1:58 utc | 37

I CALL BULLSHIT, BILLMON!
I don’t get it. With so many things to criticize this Pope about, Billmon takes the bizarre route and focuses on J.R.’s brief compulsory service in the Hitler Jugend and the Wehrmacht.
So, Billmon, are you saying that anyone who spent time in the wrong army at the wrong time should never succeed to position of authoroty or influence. Extrapolate this out a bit. If you think the Iraqi war was immoral or wrong or whatever, as many do (and as do I), should we be concerned about the future positions to be held by our US fighting men and women (volunteers no less)?
What can we say about Vietnam? Was it an immoral and wrong war? And if so, again, should we be concerned about Kerry, Gore and others who volunteered to fight in such a war?
As a Catholic, I am not a fan of this Pope, and my defense of his wartime past is more of defense of the many who fought or fight in the wrong army at the wrong time.

Posted by: jg | Apr 23 2005 5:51 utc | 39

Moral relativism in the hand of a Catholic defending the pope from the historical record is repulsive hypocrisy.
Particularly ironic since Pope Benedict the latest seeks to ban all forms of moral relativism.
(Isn’t the line “Of all the gin joints…?”
jg — I don’t think that Billmon was saying what Ratzinger did during WWII while in his teens in and of itself disqualified him. What seems to be missing in him is that it led to a moral and profound awakening in him. That seemed to come later when he was repulsed by the left in the sixties. His alignment with Opus Dei only tends to reinforce that he is not uncomfortable with facism except the form practiced by the USSR.

Posted by: Marie | Apr 23 2005 7:55 utc | 41

If Ratzinger demands absolutism in morality, his own inability to martyr himself in resistance to the nazis must be driving him crazy. Yes, Virginia, christianity means you’ve got to die for your principles. Once, such devotion was celebrated.
Given what he knows now, with the wisdom of his age, would he have stood up against the nazi machine? If not, he is not leadership material, he’s just another little german boy.

Posted by: Just a passerby | Apr 23 2005 9:04 utc | 43

jg – Nice example of why the right can beat on the left and Georgie is in power.
To defend the moral absolutist Pope, jg has now postulated as fact that serving in the Hitler youth and then in the military, is the equivalent of Oliver Stone serving in Vietnam. Out of all the wars in all the worlds, if one could choose, there would be no difference between serving as a Hitler youth and serving in the Vietnam war – or in defeating the Nazi war machine, evidently. jg claims America in 1969, is indistinguishable from Germany in 1944. The hell it is. And jg claims that no one who serves is accountable because they are cogs in a machine, which, assumes another fact not in evidence about the Pope, and seems a rather anti Jesus position.
To defend the Pope jg uses what the right calls ‘blame America.’ This is exactly the kind of thing the Pope bitches about.
It is a very revealing choice to use “blame America” to defend the Pope, or, more accurately, to defend the disdain the cardinals showed by picking this particular cardinal to be Pope, because this choice announces that ultimate moral issues and accountability, issues like whether it is appropriate to have a former Hitler Youth as Pope, since, as some have forgotten, Germany was a genocidal states that was exterminating long times enemies of the Church with Church complicity across much of Europe – are irrelevant to them. The election of this Pope is an announcement of the exercise of secular power at odds with divine commands. Not that this is news. By contrast, just this week China is organizing riots against Japan because the dwarf barbarians are still denying what they did to China in their textbooks. Never forget, unless its more convenient, then rationalize, with ones God given powers to support whatever the Church hierarchy orders.
jg works to thrice defeat the forces for simple human decency.
Once in defending the selection of a Pope who upholds the authoritarian tradition at the expense of higher moral standards, once in the use of moral relativism to equate service in the American military with service in the Hitler youth, and once in making the very arguments that incapacitate the left and strengthen the no accontability authoritarian tradition the Pope supports and which has an abysmal record on human rights.

Posted by: razor | Apr 23 2005 14:49 utc | 45

razor, you have completed misconstrued my argument, whether it was intentional or through your own lack of intellect I haven’t a clue. I will say this: Plodding through your last commetn, my logical postulate still stands quite nicely. As I have stated, I am not a fan of this Pope (please try and pay attention) and my argument is this: “My defense of his wartime past is more of defense of people who are caught up in the wrong army at the wrong time fighting for the wrong cause and who are not undecent merely for getting caught up in same. Furthermore, I think focusing on R.J.’s WWII past undermines the serious criticisms, of which there are many, that can be leveled against the man.”
BTW, I am bleeding-heart liberal who merely enjoys logical arguments and good writing. Someithing that Billmon mostly delivers, except in this very obvious case. I remember when Billmon’s comment threads were a place for reasoned debate and not just a Fan Club. /sigh
Marie: Thank you for your coherent comment. Perhaps your interpretation (i.e., the lack of an “awakening”) is an accurate interpretation of Billmon’s criticisms of the Pope’s wartime past. I am not so sure. It seems a straight up: a person I don’t like was a former German-soldier, lets use that bit of knowledge to paint him as an evil bastard. R.J. may be an evil bastard, but serving in the Hinter Jugend and Wehrmacht is certainly not proof of it.
“Denouncing the US activities in Vietnam and his participation in it made Kerry different from the other three and maybe it was a moral awakening for him. However, it wasn’t as deep as what would be needed for a moral leader given his more recent pride in having served in Vietnam and vote for the IWR.” Shouldn’t this read “as deep as what I would needed for a moral leader” or are you the arbiter of what constitues levels of morality necessary for certain positions in the world?
As an aside: Clinton is an intereesting example of someone who avoided Vietnam on issues of morality and yet when it came time to do the right thing after attaining his goal in life did nothing in Rwanda. I guess morality can awaken as well hibernate within person.

Posted by: jg | Apr 23 2005 18:20 utc | 47

As much as I admire Probst and the Shcholls for distributing the leaflets and speaking up at their trial if you read through the article Billmon links to you’ll come upon this:
“Their publication took place periodically between 1942 and 1943–interrupted for a few months when Hans and his friends were temporarily sent to the Eastern Front to fight against the Russians.”
Apparently even Hans Scholl, the rare hero Billmon contrasts with Joseph Ratzinger, did not refuse some sort of compulsory military service on the front.

Posted by: Haukur Þorgeirsson | Apr 23 2005 20:34 utc | 49

jg — first note that my comments specifically considered criteria for a moral/religous leader. Second, no single act should be considered in isolation. Third, I give more weight to more recent acts than those done at an earlier stage in one’s life because they are more likely to reflect where the person is now.
All lives have a narrative — and some are more difficult to read than others. Ratzinger’s does not seem to be one of the more difficult ones. He didn’t oppose authoritarianism in his youth nor to any great degree since then. In point of fact, during the past couple of decades he as actively embraced it. As such, he still carries baggage from WWII and it is fair game. As razor pointed out up-thread, affiliation with a horror on earth, regardless of how reluctant or limited was the participation, should exclude an individual from consideration for a moral leadership role. Active and lifelong rejection of that early affiliation, along with all the similar new forms of it that came into existence after it, may change the equation, but only for the most extraordinary of human beings. Again, Ratzinger falls way short of that test.
On Kerry — hate to say this but he has an historical pattern of flip-flopping. I tend to accept that he was authentic in his rejection of the War in Vietnam when he left the Navy. That was something he seemed to hold as a deep principle all the way through the vote on the Gulf War. However, the man who surfaced and voted for the IWR and then spent two years reminding everybody that he was a war hero while at the same time running away from his anti-war past as much as possible was not an easy narrative to read. Who knows — maybe all that time he spent with McCain in the 1990’s or maybe simply natural declines in testosterone levels led him to more value the young man who signed up for the Navy than the man who came out of the Navy. wouldn’t presume to know who the real Kerry is — but as I weight recent acts more, I can only conclude that he embraces militarism far more than he would have some of us believe.
On Clinton — I have no way of knowing if he rejected Vietnam for moral issues. So many men spouted that sort of rhetoric at the time and as soon as their own butts would no longer be on the line, they became rabid warhawks. Clinton can talk religion but he doesn’t walk the talk very well. Taking any action in Rwanda required immediate action. No time to take polls, consider the political consequences. Only a leader with deep and profound principles could have acted to quickly enough to make a difference. As I don’t view Clinton as even such a hot politician, much less someone with strong moral values, he acted much as should have been expected. He had years to consider the problems in the Balkans. A moral position would have had us in there helping when Bosnia was under attack during GHB term in office. Should also add that moral leadership from politicians isn’t enough; they must also be effective political leaders. Just look at how someone like Carter who has stronger morals than just about any American President could so easily become compromised in office.

Posted by: Marie | Apr 23 2005 21:39 utc | 51

Haukur
Why didn’t the cardinals pick a cardinal who was more on the, say, heroic side? More on the, say, turn the other cheek side. More on the, say, Samaritan side?
That is what is seems inquiring minds want to know. There doesn’t seem to be a good answer, as in, an answer that reflects well on the cardinals and their priorities. Why isn’t the pope up to a Caesar’s wife standard? Caesar Borges aside. Inquiring minds want to know.
One wonders what some care about. It seems, for some, obedience to authority comes first and last, even when the acts taken are contemptible. The recent episodes are familiar.

Posted by: razor | Apr 24 2005 2:28 utc | 53

“I went clear once I saw your invocation of Clinton. You are exactly who I think you are and you parse only to mislead.”
Razor, I can’t believe someone that reads Billmon and hangs out here is really this clueless. You want my bona fides? I post on dkos under the same moniker and have since the Fall of 2002 (check out my posts) – I was regular at Billmon back in the comment days. I donated more money in the last cycle (all to Democrats, including Kerry).
I said I am bleeding-heart liberal – not a blind Democratic partisan, therefore I can look at the Clinton administration and see its faults (and coming from my political perspective – there were many) quite clearly. I vote and donate to Democratic candidates, but I don’t look at them and their actions through rose-coloured glasses on [you should try taking yours off – the view is not great, but better to see the reality – don’t you think?].
Marie,
“He didn’t oppose authoritarianism in his youth nor to any great degree since then. In point of fact, during the past couple of decades he as actively embraced it. As such, he still carries baggage from WWII and it is fair game.”
This is quite a logical leap. Are you saying that R.J.’s positions on church doctrine, which are basically the same as John PaulII’s, are a product of baggage from WWII to some great degree. Are you saying R.J. is an authoritarian because of his affiliation with horror? Come on, that is ridiculous. Given that the Catholic Church is an authoritarian organization and not a democracy – have you ever considered that this where his beliefs come from? Given PJP’s war times expereince, hnd how do you explain PJP’s authoritarian nature?

Posted by: jg | Apr 24 2005 3:45 utc | 55

With III. The Good German you’re saying the only good German is a dead German?

Posted by: Ellen Hogan | Apr 24 2005 9:17 utc | 57

Nugget,
Thank you for that, but sense it doesn’t adher to Billmon’s opinion of the current Pope – I am sure it will be dismissed summarily around here.
Billmon was sadly way off base in his Nazi angle of the current Pope. Shame really because he typically formulates arguments coherently and with a solid foundation.
Ellen,
Given that Billmon said in anothe thread that it was a shame that R.J. didn’t take a Russian tank shell – you might be on to something.
How the intellectual mighty have fallen?

Posted by: jg | Apr 24 2005 15:00 utc | 59

…I don’t particularly care whether its fair or not to bring up Ratzo’s fling with the Hitler Youth. My only regret is that he didn’t have the guts to follow his little friends to the bitter end. Maybe he would have gotten in the way of a Soviet tank shell.
Posted by: Billmon | April 19, 2005 08:48 PM | #
So readers need to understand that posts like The Good German are exercises in careless rage.
Sophie Scholl, too, was a “good German,” if by this one means any child who was a member of the compulsory Hitler Youth. The other leading members of The White Rose, of whom her brother, Hans, was one, were “good Germans” as well, if by this one means having taken up arms for the Third Reich – which they did, on the Eastern front. So many, many “good Germans.” What any of them might have lacked in enthusiasm, what they might have failed utterly to possess in the way of individual agreement, the State made up for in compulsion.
Nazi propaganda, like all propaganda, continued to the end to implicitly acknowledge the desirability of persuading men’s minds, of the advisability of convincing argument or exhortation; but the indispensible key to “success” of the totalitarian regime lies always in enlsaving men’s actions – removing men’s minds from the equation altogether. This is the source as well as the mechanism of all its offenses against mankind. This is the horrendous circumstance in which “good Germans” like the Scholls and the Ratzingers found themselves.
Whatever one’s estimation of the Catholic Church and its present leaders, it is good to keep in mind that the days in which the Church could deal with men by force, by the method of compulsion, are long gone. Whatever its faults or errors or crimes, and whatever the extent of its influence, it cannot compel the unwilling to take part, to sacrifice or suffer, to violate conscience or well-being, upon pain of imprisonment or death. Helpless victims are not delivered to it by ecclesiastical courts. It cannot command anyone’s obediance; it cannot enforce any element of observance; it has no automatic or unconditional claim to anyone’s support or adherence. On the contrary, the Church can only seek the assent and assistance of those who are free to withold these entirely. In this sole respect, it is more Enlightened than any present government I know.

Posted by: Pat | Apr 24 2005 17:31 utc | 61

Marie, Catholicism’s chief, perhaps insurmountable, problem lies in its ever-diminishing appeal to and influence upon thoroughly secularized, modernized, freedom-oriented Westerners. It is its growing, practical irrelevance, as well as theological opposition, to the status quo of Western liberalism, materialism, and self-interest that, for good or for ill, defines it. (And whether it is for good or ill I leave to Catholics to debate.)
The authoritarianism that concerns me is not that of an institution -in this case, the RC Church – which hasn’t the power either to force its whims and wishes on the unwilling or to make them pay for the priveledge; my concern is with the one institution that can and does: the government.

Posted by: Pat | Apr 24 2005 20:22 utc | 63

On another topic, Pat, I’d like to run something past you for a little reality testing. It’s about those “friendly fire” episodes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we either blow up a wedding-party out of the clear blue sky, or kill the Italian Calipari with a well-positioned, if poorly-informed, highway patrol. My theory is just this: in addition to all the land-net communications going back and forth between our fighting units on the given terrain, might there not be a supplementary system of command-communications operating in a more distant quarter? Could the highway patrol, for example, have received a command from some dude sitting at a console in CENTCOM, reading a lot of fresh “information” provided by an overhead sattelite? This hypothesis, if pertinent, would clarify a lot of anomalies.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 25 2005 4:22 utc | 65

@alabama
While thinking about the first post, I’ll respond to the second.
Could it have been a set-up? Almost anything is technically possible, I suppose, but almost anything is not likely. How important was Callipari to the Americans? Had the Americans made ominous noises to the Italian Govt. about the money it was shoveling into the accounts of racketeers with its unofficial policy of ransom payment? Were dire warnings delivered? Were veiled or open threats made – “Cease and desist, or else”? As I understand it, it was the Italian people, not Coalition or US Govt. officials, that Berlusconi felt pressured to convince, after the last big-ticket hostage release, that their own government was not lining the pockets of criminals.
Was Callipari, and the business he conducted, actually important enough to the Americans to make murder attractive? More importantly: If the Italians were, by way of presaging noises as well as any suggestive anomalies, given reason to strongly suspect that the Americans had murdered one of their own – a war crime all the more heinous because fratricidal – then what would be the worst consequences? Certainly not the loss of Italian troops. Berlusconi is going to have to redeploy a significant number before the elections next year anyhow, and OIF won’t suddenly collapse without them. But it would collapse – suddenly, completely – without the use of Italian air bases. And not just OIF, but CENTCOM’s entire, 25-country theater of operations. OEF and scattered South Asia operations, the Horn of Africa Task Forces, headquarters in Qatar and Doha – all of these require continuous air support conducted in and out of the Italian Peninsula. In the event of a serious war crime committed against an Italian national – an officer of the Italian government, no less – in an Allied theater of war, Berlusconi would have every reason and legal standing to deny us the fruits of defense treaty commitments and basing rights. (And I’m leaving out here a probable domino effect throughout the Coalition that would just reinforce the loss of American assets in Italy.) Was Callipari, in any way, worth risking all that?
I don’t see how.

Posted by: Pat | Apr 25 2005 20:35 utc | 67

I’m with Pat on this one.
Billmon’s heros also joined the Hitlerjugend, so there is no difference here.

Sophie Scholl war – wie ihr zweieinhalb Jahre älterer Bruder Hans Scholl – zunächst nicht in Opposition zu den Machthabern orientiert und gehörte dem Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM) an. Der Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM) und der oftmals dazugezählte, strenggenommen aber davon zu trennende Jungmädelbund waren die Abteilungen der Hitlerjugend. Hans Scholl war wie seine Geschwister gegen den erklärten Willen des Vaters zunächst ein begeistertes Mitglied der Hitlerjugend und nahm Führungsposten im Jungvolk der Hitlerjugend ein

And BTW, Billmon could at least take notice of their ages.
Sophie was 21 in 1942, her brother was 23. They were adults and students and could make a choice.
Ratzinger was 14 years old when he WAS FORCED to join the Hitlerjugend. How much did you know about politics, when you were still in ground school? Consider also that the the whole education system was geared towards blind obedience.
He deserted in 1944, when he was seventeen. You see, Ratzinger made the choice to resist at an earlier point in his live than the Scholls!
It’s sad that both the Whiskey Bar and Moonofalabama are going from Reality-based into Hate-based Land.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Apr 26 2005 19:33 utc | 69

MarcinGomulka, I certainly don’t hate Ratzinger, I just don’t trust him. Maybe I’m wrong about this. We’ll see.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 26 2005 20:00 utc | 71

I (and probably most here) am not judging the pope at 14, but the example he continues to set now. The argument is laid out very cleanly by Jeanne at bodyandsoul.
Excerpt:

Clearly, when Ratzinger and his brother (who is also a priest) say that anti-Nazi resistance was “impossible,” they’re lying. And it’s not an insignificant or harmless lie. Denying the option of resistance insults, indeed, denies the existence of, a lot of people who made far braver and more difficult decisions than the Ratzingers. Failing to exhibit extraordinary courage is human and understandable. Denying the extraordinarily courageous their due is shameful. Denying moral agency is surely unworthy of a man who would be pope.
The Ratzingers lie about this because if they admit that moral choices were involved, they’d have to explain their choice. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who cared about moral agency would recognize the need for self-reflection, for either admitting moral failure, or asserting moral principles. I can think of many possible explanations, but none of them fit well into black and white morality.

It is not a good sign when the pope lies because he figures no one will notice. But read Jeanne – she has thought the matter through with more rigor than I.

Posted by: citizen | Apr 26 2005 23:33 utc | 73

Headlining the article ..the German Shepard .. is Sun Tabloid Level. My question about your line of thinking goes towards the ingenuity. Has any of those “late born” judges of 14 years olds been living under a dictatorship? Or is this an intellectual exercise in a safe harbor???

Posted by: Kai | Apr 26 2005 23:47 utc | 75

Kai:
Captain Stan is going to take the ship away from here.
Time to leave now Kai!
Bring Ratzo along if you want to, as a pet.

Posted by: Zev | Apr 27 2005 1:52 utc | 77

Kai,
What is it about critical thinking that offends your sense of logic?

Posted by: citizen | Apr 27 2005 17:31 utc | 79

Bodyandsoul continues to explore why Ratzinger concerns us:

After fully investigating ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that we are innocent.
And infallible.

Does this article sound like it’s about the US military investigation into torture in Iraq, or about Ratzinger on his guilt? Actually, it’s about both.
Ratzinger’s problem IS ours. To argue that we are unqualified to discuss this meaningfully would appear to be a sophisticated way of choosing to give up. Sorry, no.

Posted by: citizen | Apr 27 2005 17:57 utc | 81

“Or if you don’t give a flying run at a doughnut hole about blasphemy-“
What’s On Jesus’ iPod? (Mark Morford)

But oh, what a revelation it would be, could the world see just what’s on Jesus’ iPod, see the holy playlists, get an idea what the savior listens to when he’s, you know, dancing, or working out, or building a new deck for Mary, or washing his dad’s Caddy (Three Dog Night’s “Joy to the World”, always). What a revelation would be at hand, what a new understanding we could glean.

Posted by: beq | Apr 27 2005 18:56 utc | 83

@alabama
Dead comms are an old, familiar problem to land-based forces (well, perhaps not so familiar anymore, just old) but the cancellation of a local signal by a distant one? I’ve never heard of it happening, and I’ve no idea if it’s possible or likely with the current systems. Do you?
Sometime during Desert Shield/Storm I was reading a newsletter published by a group of civilian contractors then working in Saudi Arabia and in it I came across this bit of grim humor: “Friendly fire isn’t.” I think that says it all.
It appears as though Calipari made one serious mistake. (Is it wrong to point out the mistakes of the dead? Not at all. After Action and Incident Reports don’t omit mention of screw-ups or failures on grounds that the dead themselves committed them – and for good reason. People really do get themselves and others killed. WE do, anyway.) Calipari didn’t inform, didn’t coordinate with, the Country Team. He didn’t even inform the MNF’s senior Italian officer or anyone on that individual’s staff so that they might initiate coordination on his behalf. Why is that coordination important? There’s a standard choreograph put in play (Calipari would be familiar with it) in instances such as that one, akin to the procedure for a passage through friendly lines on a battlefield. Calipari and his driver would be informed of every checkpoint – to include, most importantly, that temporary one – along a predetermined route; at the same time, every checkpoint would have, beforehand, the make and model of Calipari’s vehicle, its plate ID, and the number, names, origin, destination, and business of driver and passengers. Some of this would be verified on approach and the rest on arrival at each stop, and every checkpoint would confirm and convey to the next. It keeps everyone reasonably safe and on the same sheet of music. (Safe, except on those stretches of road where one has, unfortunately, to drive like a bat out of hell to avoid nasty surprises – which everyone does).
But I’ve not read anything that would suggest that Calipari was a reckless man – a “just wing-it” kind of guy – so maybe the absence of coordination wasn’t a mistake. Maybe it was a condition of Giuliana’s release. There would be good reasons for that. While it’s only a possibility, I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been the case.
Further speculation: The driver, caught off guard and thoroughly alarmed, thought he was arriving, not at a fixed, friendly checkpoint (it hadn’t been there in previous experience, had it?) but at one of the “checkpoints” set up by highway bandits or mujahedeen, in which case SOP is keeping your foot on the gas and getting through or around it as best, as fast as, you can.

Posted by: Pat | Apr 28 2005 6:19 utc | 85