Comments:

1. Desiato on June 19th, 2012 at 9:16:

   “That’s why we trust Bill Gates to rid the world of malaria”

   Uh, what? Gates wasn’t appointed to cure malaria. Gates has no official role. Who the fuck “trusts” him to cure malaria? Seems like a good place to stop reading right there and not “trust” this author to have a useful point.

2. Desiato on June 19th, 2012 at 9:17:

   (Not meaning to imply anything about the justness of Teresa Sullivan’s firing.)

3. Roland Hesz on June 20th, 2012 at 13:17:

   Ok, so the author proves that he basically can’t see the difference between tell the financial supporter (Bill Gates) and the actual people doing the research (aka. Scientist Not Bill Gates).

   And I have to believe he can actually understand more complicated things.

Comments:

1. Sue W on June 19th, 2012 at 4:16:

   Oh good, sounds like a make-work project! Let’s give all the unemployed young adults in the EU free internet and pay then to research this question.

Comments:

1. Sue W on June 19th, 2012 at 3:57:

   One interesting thing is that Mr. Carry-on’s original letter to the Oatmeal only asked $20,000 for damages to the FunnyJerk proprietor’s reputation. (Such a small reputation!) Hoping for a quick pay out. Scum.

Comments:

1. Sue W on June 19th, 2012 at 3:43:

   Not a mystery. The Dark Side. Brainwashing and mental abuse form earliest childhood. I know a family that were kidnapped into Irish orphanages when father died and mother had a breakdown. All ten that survived report stories of terrible abuse. All are now older than 60. All but two men still go to mass twice on Sunday, and deep down think that they are doomed to hell.

2. Desiato on June 19th, 2012 at 9:26:

   This sexual behavior is a mystery, But trust us to tell you whether you should have sex before marriage and if you should use a condom. Yikes.

Comments:

1. Steffen on June 18th, 2012 at 15:02:

   An addition: It becomes hopelessly super-ironic when an Anglican clergyman warns hysterically that same-sex marriage will allegedly become a danger to “traditional marriage between one man and one women”, when taking into account why the Anglican Church was founded 500 years ago.

   Hint: The Anglican Church was founded because a king (Henry VIII) got regularly fed up with his current wife, needed permission to declare the marriage void because he wanted to marry a new younger girl, so he simply founded his own church which allowed him to do so. He went so far to even have two of his wives beheaded. In total, he expended 6 wives (the last one was lucky to outlive him). So much for “sanctity of marriage”. Any similarities to certain modern conservatives aren’t completely coincidental…

2. John Sinteur on June 18th, 2012 at 15:20:

   And to add insult to injury, the above quotes are from the King James version, a translation which was a successor of the “Great Bible” which was commissioned by that same Henry VIII. Why a new version you say? Well, it was in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, which is, of course, a faction within the Church of England.

   Perhaps the Anglican Church needs to start giving history lessons in Sunday School as well!

3. Sue W on June 19th, 2012 at 3:36:

   Not that I’m a card carrying Anglican, but the “Anglican Mainstream” isn’t that at all. Like the so-called “Moral Majority” it’s a bunch of evangelical homophobic anti-abortionists trying to hold the doctrinal line on the real mainstream which has been moving, with all of society, into acceptance of gays and lesbians, ordination of women and gay priests and bishops, and belief that the Bible is a series of contradictory time-capsules.

   Most Anglicans (in Britain and Canada) are very fuzzy on doctrine and just want to be terribly nice to people.

Comments:

1. Steffen on June 18th, 2012 at 14:36:

   To be fair, one should add that the german Sparkassen system hasn’t much to do with ruthless investment banks. They are decentralized savings banks, often in ownership of the state, the local town or similiar. As of german law, their primary goal is not to make profits, but to provide monetary services like savings or deposit accounts the citizens, to give loans to local businesses etc. Profits go mainly into safety reserve funds or are donated to local charities. Another comparable banking system are credit unions. It would be absurd to compare a Sparkasse to the greedy sharks like Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs.

   Interestingly, the USA also had a savings-and-loans banking system, which worked quite well while they were tightly regulated. At the start of the 80s, these banks were heavily deregulated. Consequently, only some years later, the devastating savings-and-loans-crisis occurred, which was ghastly similiar to the great financial crisis of 2007, also had its cause in highly risky real estate deals to pursue profits, countless banks needed heavy bailouts, and the crisis was among the reasons for the huge deficits the USA had end of the 80s.

2. Sue W on June 19th, 2012 at 3:25:

   @Steffen: In retrospect this shows how much the US & UK governments were under the influence of the financial sector – did no legislator ask, “What could possibly go wrong?” during the deregulation process?