In response to a recent Pistrina article, one of Tradistan’s stooges posted a comment insinuating that Pistrina was “scandalizing” children by referring at one point to Aristophanes’ ancient Greek comedy Lysistrata. The comment was, of course, a hapless (and irrelevant) attempt to find fault where none existed; and it was also evident from the style and content of the comment that the “stooge” who wrote it was none other than Anthony Cekada, SGG’s resident Village Idiot.* Tony was criticizing Pistrina because, he claims, children (after reading the article) might look up the word “Lysistrata” and find that the story’s plot concerns women withholding sexual privileges from their warring husbands (during the Peloponnesian Wars), in an effort to get them to stop fighting. This, Tony contended, constituted “scandal” for those kids.
As Pistrina pointed out in reply, firstly, the blog is not for children but for adults; and the chances of a youngster even reading the blog (let alone, taking the trouble to look up the reference to Lysistrata) has just about as much chance of happening as does a snowball not melting in hell. Secondly, the Bible itself contains many more references to “sexual content” than does this comedy (which, as Pistrina also pointed out, is a classic of Western literature). And speaking of “scandalous references,” Tony seems to forget that he made reference some years back (during one of his Sunday sermons) to another classic, Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, which dealt with far more “lurid” themes than either Lysistrata or the Bible did (such as, open sexual promiscuity – as well as a homosexual relationship between the story’s two main characters).
What makes it worse, too, is that Brideshead Revisited was one of the books to be read by SGG’s high school students. This book, with such “mature” themes, was, at best, not suitable for high-schoolers – especially those in a “traditional Catholic” high-school. For Tony to pooh-pooh Pistrina’s passing reference to an ancient Greek work as being scandalous for kids shows not only his stupidity but his naked bias: his comment was obviously an attempt to discredit the blog’s author -- but never was such a more FUTILE attempt made (nor, in light what he said about Brideshead Revisited, a more hypocritical one) – and never was such bias so embarrassingly obvious.
Another thing that highlights Tony’s hypocrisy is his omitting any mention of the events of 2009 at SGG’s school. Why is it that Tony, who was so ready to call Pistrina’s reference to Lysistrata “scandalous,” said nothing about the SGG school principal’s sons watching porn and animal torture videos on the school computer (or of Dannie’s dismissing that as “boys will be boys”) as being “scandalous? Or why is it, too, that he said nothing about (let alone, never condemned) one of those same boys impregnating a fellow student as being scandalous – especially when he had the “visual evidence” there right before him? In light of that, his “Lysistrata” comment REEKS of hypocrisy.
By voicing his “comment,” Tony has once again reinforced his well-deserved reputation (and nickname) of “The Blunderer.” Once again, it seems that it’s time for Dannie to muzzle him -- and to make him sit in the corner, with a large cone-shaped object atop his head. But that’s not the first time that Tony has embarrassed himself by his blind vindictiveness – nor will it be the last: his vituperative rejoinders to all who opposed him on Schiavo are probably the shining example of that. And, of course, we must also not forget his ignorance, which he displayed not only on Schiavo, but on just about everything he writes -- especially his piece on “one-handed ordinations,” where he so convincingly displayed his non-mastery of Church doctrine and official papal teaching -- and of the Latin language. It seems that the only ones who still regard him as a “scholar” are SGG’s boot-licking illiterati.
When one looks at what’s been happening with Dannie and Tony these days, it’s obvious that they have been “slipping up” quite a bit of late. Dannie’s feeble (and fraudulent) attempt at justifying Tony’s new toy (to replace the “slowly dying” organ) was thoroughly exposed for the “cover-up job” that it was, and his exhortation that the culties send in their “missed envelopes” (not to mention, telling them to make “extra Lenten sacrifices” to pay “the Duke’s ransom,” i.e., Duke Energy, the local utility, for this winter’s “excessive heating bills”) must have proved painfully embarrassing for Dannie, given that Pistrina had predicted the week before that he’d be making both of those mercenary pleas. (For the rest of us, of course, it proved to be another hilarious case of “suspicions confirmed.”)
Lately, when it comes to Dannie and Tony, Pistrina has been “hitting the nail on the head” just about every time – and ahead of time (almost as if the Tinhorn Twosome were “feeding” them the information beforehand!). But, with Dannie and Tony, it’s easy to “prophesy” what they’ll do -- because they’re so predictable. One can, for instance, always count on Dannie to fill Bishop’s Corner with sanctimonious pap; one can always count on them to try to portray their every scheme as “needed” (and, of course, to cloak it all in trumped-up “justification”). One can always count on them to justify their trips to warm, sunny climes (in winter) and to Europe (in summer) as “apostolates” (usually “to do confirmations,” even though there are plenty of trad clergy there to do that); and one can always count on them to vilify whomever they perceive as “getting in their way.”
And their “way” is simple – it is what it’s always been: M-O-N-E-Y – and they’re so hell bent on getting it that it clouds their judgment. It gets in their way. That’s why Tony vilified Pistrina’s author with his petty non-point about Lysistrata: it had NOTHING to do with concern about “scandal,” but with the fact that the blog’s author was “hitting too close to home,” i.e., pinpointing the Devious Duo’s mercenary schemes – thereby necessitating some sort of “diversionary” comment. Tony was trying desperately to divert attention away from the article’s embarrassing truth: hence, his “scandalizing” charge, which, because its faulty logic was so obvious (and so easily dismantled), succeeded only in creating more embarrassment for him (just as did Dannie’s fib about the organ “slowly dying”).
That’s the problem with both Dannie and Tony: they don’t think before they talk; and in their mindless rush to disparage their opposition, they grasp at whatever pretext comes to mind – not realizing that its false logic, even under cursory examination, will be easily seen through. But that’s what always happens when people “practice to deceive”: their minds get so focused on that deception that their logic gets tangled as well, and they trap themselves – as Dannie and Tony have done so many times. But will the West Chester Weasels ever stop with such chicanery? No, not really: firstly, they don’t have to, because they have a hard core of gullible Gerties who will still lick their boots, no matter what. But secondly – and more importantly – their implacable arrogance won’t allow them to veer from their mischievous course. And that is so unfortunate, so stupid of them -- but oh so predictable.
* Although one cannot be 100% certain that it was Tony, it’s a pretty safe bet that it is. Tony has several times in the past posed as a “commenter” (“anonymously,” of course) -- and always, it’s with some irrelevant comment that totally misses the mark about the subject being discussed. That -- coupled with the fact that the comment included some insinuations that Tony has made several times in the past (aimed at revealing the blog author’s identity) -- betrays Tony’s identity. Also, he fails to realize that insinuations made about someone’s identity have absolutely no bearing on that person’s credibility, one way or the other; nor do they sway anyone’s thinking (except, perhaps, that of SGG’s culties, who probably don’t read Pistrina anyway – because Dannie and Tony probably forbid them to do so).
But to an unsuspecting, impartial audience (that is, to everyone outside the cult circle), Tony’s insinuation makes no sense, except to indicate that he has some sort of bias against the author (which, invariably, only tends to weaken the insinuator’s argument, not strengthen it). And for the rest of us, it only serves to expose Tony’s identity. So, in trying to blow someone else’s cover, he has only succeeded in blowing his own.) Tony, you’re so transparent – and, of course, so stupid!