Daily Archives: December 16, 2013

Stille Nacht


The Dykes, The Dog And The Judge

Poor chap.

The pet of two dykes. What a dog’s life…

In a country – or a planet – that becomes more and more mired in its own stupid chase for easy emotions, a new low seems to have been reached with the New York judge (apparently a man; can’t imagine he is straight, though) deciding that in the “divorce” cause between two dykes (I’d love to see the photos of these beauties) the dog must be considered as if he were a baby; because you see, the dog does not belong to (duh) the owner of the dog, but must go to the dyke who can show that she provided to the “emotional needs” of the dog in the best way according to… the judge. In the end – the judge seems to think – dogs can certainly not be bought and sold, right? Can’t wait for the canine Wilberforce troops declaring pet shop owners slave masters and outright bastards.

The article has other funny points: the dog is now two years old but was bought when it was 10 weeks old; this shaves two and a half months out of the two years. At that point, the dykes were (how oh so romantic) “girlfriends”, and the dog was given as a consolation because one of the two had forced the other to… give away his pet (no, it’s not a grammatical mistake).

In the short space of nineteen and a half months, the dykes managed to get (or so they think) “married”, to divorce, and to bring the canine controversy to the judge.

I am impressed. These dykes are able of very stable relationships. Those with their dog, for example.

Cue one of the dykes coming all new age / hindu to us by stating about the dog:  “He is my little soul mate, and there was no way in this lifetime I could ever live without him.” In this lifetime. Probably, she wants to reincarnate in a fatter dyke. Or perhaps in a dog.

Not that she is far away from that, mind. Two quarrelling dykes: can you imagine the bitchiness? 


The Great Embarrassment




Cardinal Burke has given a longish interview to EWTN, and it was probably unavoidable for him to take a stance about at least some of the antics of Pope Diano, the Prince of (Bleeding) Hearts.

Burke has not minced words: to the invitation of Francis not to be “obsessed” with trivia like a yearly multiple Holocaust of unborn children, or sinsthat to Heaven for vengeance becoming tolerated and celebrated, Burke opposed his very candid view: we can “never talk enough” about abortion, and nothing is “more essential” than the natural law (here obviously it is also about sodomy).

Mind, though, he is not saying anything special. Every properly instructed teenager could say the same without effort. The shocking fact here is not that a Cardinal should state the obvious, but that the obvious is in blatant contradiction to the statement the Prince of Hearts keeps making without any regard for Catholicism or decency. I really, really fear we will one day reach the point where the Pope goes around saying unconscionable things and no one is scandalised because hey, that’s what he is and he is the Pope, right?

This time, Burke’s word were so simple but so clearly in opposition to Francis’ relentless search for popularity that an additional statement was sought from the Vatican. The answer was shocking and at the same time illuminating: the Pope thinks the same way as Cardinal Burke, we are told; it is only that the Holy Father is at times “not altogether easy to interpret”. Which is rather rich considering we are talking of a man who hasmade of “simplicity” his banner, but apparently can’t make himself clear in a simple way about the very basics. Which, by the way, isn’t true: whilst Francis is always unsophisticated in his way of expressing himself, his heresies and other antics have been very clear. When one states that, say, the biggest problem on earth is youth unemployment and the second the loneliness of old people there is nothing to “interpret”: the problem is in the mind that speak, not in the mouth that talks.

When I read the “not altogether easy to interpret” phrase I almost spilled my morning coffee on the keyboard, as the comedic value of such a statement is high indeed.

Look, this is a man who throws away carefully written speeches and homilies, written for him from people who understand Catholicism, whenever he feels like reinventing the wheel: should he at least not bear responsibility for what he says? Nor can it be said (anymore) that Francis was misunderstood, and notice that by saying that Francis is not easy to interpret the same Vatican sources are giving up and admitting it’s not possible anymore to simply blame the Press. No, the problem is – say Vatican sources – Francis himself. He just can’t make himself understood, poor man. I bet St. Francis never had the problem.

We have come to such a point of ridicule that not even the official defenders of Pope Diano feel they can do more for him. One does not see how they could, either: simple truths here, Francis’ rambling there, and an ETWN journalist calling you and asking which is which. What is a poor man to do? Eh, ah, oh, erm, he is not altogether easy to interpret, you know…

The ugly truth is that the Emperor is not only naked, but goes around blaspheming and saying obscenities of various kind. At last, Vatican sources have had to admit his dressing style is unconventional, or his language a tad challenging.

One would hope a Bishop of Rome who has made himself indefensible in such a way would start to get the message and at least stay very near to the script whenever a journalist’s pen or microphone (or camera) is near. But then again the problem is not in how Francis talks, is in how he thinks: in his heretical mind, namely, and love of popularity.

They try to sell us that Fancis is not easy to interpret. Actually, he is. The only thing one must do is listen to him and register what he says rather than what he should have said.

I have a very special wish for Santa Claus this year. In case you ask, it’s not a light blue convertible.


%d bloggers like this: