Eclectic Views

    
I'm with <mpk>. There is zero evidence that Ratzinger was ever a Nazi or
ever sympathized with them. Further, regarding the "well, he could have
resisted, others did" argument, it's not a condemnable act not to be a hero,
especially when you're still a child.

There's plenty of reason to dislike Ratz without dragging in irrelevancies.
To suggest some sort of Nazi connection just cheapens the argument, imo.
  

    
I don't see a shred of evidence that the pope ever had a "connection" or any
sympathy with the National Socialist cause, but how he reacted to the
situation he was in (a situation I hope no one ever has to face again) is
worth knowing.  He is now a self-proclaimed infallible moral leader of a
substantial portion of the world; and as we often see on the Well, people
who believe themselves infallible are rarely humble.  Apart from the usual
ritualistic mumbo-jumbo about Christian humility he is bound to spout, I
would like to know if he recognizes any possibility that, well that he might
be wrong, or have anything to learn from people who disagree with him, or
that individuals are entitled to make their own moral judgements on how to
conduct their lives.  I read recently that he was the person behind the
Vatican decision to tell churches to deny Communion to any political
candidate who supported abortion or various other church dictates; and that
he believed for some time that stories about priests molesting children were
just manufactured by the press. Even this month he was reported to refer to
the scandal as "my penance", as if he were the main victim.  What I'm
getting (and I hope to be proven wrong) from reports of his career is that
he simply knuckled under to authority in the 1940's, and having done so he
expects everyone under *his* power now to do the same.  It's not an
attractive portrait.
  

    
Amen!

As to criticism:  If he can't take it, he ought not to dish it out.
  

    
Plate o' Shrimps. I'm reading Shirer's Berlin Diary. It is pretty
amazing since I skipped ahead 60 years and know how the big stuff comes
out.
  

    
AUBURN - A study of U.S. elections by a communication researcher
at Auburn University provides new evidence that image soundly
trumps issues in today's media-saturated political environment.

The results, published this spring in the Journal of
Communication, an international academic journal for
communication scholars, show that, other than college graduates,
most voters did not pay much attention to the news media and had
little knowledge of policy issues in the 2000 presidential
elections.

<http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/news_releases/imageissues.html>
  

    

why does this not surprise me?
  

    
Was a study really necessary? Didn't these researchers pay attention
to the who won the last election?
  

    
"Image soundly trumps issues."

Yeah, no shock there.  And it's not like all college-educated folks
are immune to image-based decision-making.  I was sitting in the
audience at a college lecture event -- open to the public -- in front
of two gray-haired alumni, one of whom confessed he was unaware of the
substance behind "the Rove thing," and the other of whom explained it
in terms of the liberal media falsely accusing Rove of wrongdoing. 
Image?  Issue?  You make the call!
  

    
Fingering a CIA analyst to slime her husband,
what could possibly be wrong (or illegal) with that?
  

    
It depends on what you mean by "fingering" and "wrong"
  

    
Ode to Karl Rove

A demented political mage
kept his enemies locked in a cage.
This required great balls,
for this cage had no walls,
merely lies half-truths cheap shots and rage.