Friday, February 24, 2012


Attack against marriage?  Really?  Not mine, for sure.  Those who shack up don't do it in my house, so I'm safe.  What about yours?  Do you feel attacked?  It all depends.
These days the language is not quite so crude as that which appears in the title.  These days we are more evasive with our language if not with our morality.  We rarely use the words "cohabitate"or "concubinage" or even just plain old "shack up."  We hear, "Living together."  "Yeah, she and I decided to move in together."  Actually, they moved in under the sheets.  After all, it was Winter.  98.5 degrees of body heat comes free and you have to pay for gas and electric.  It's cohabitation also when two people of the same sex do it together.  That's always interesting, but believe me, it is not an attack on MY marriage.  Nope.  Not for one single minute.  Better than that though is when you hear that two pages from the grammar book move in together.  You know, you have two same gender beings snuggled together on a cute, quiet library shelf.  I wonder what it feels like to have to iron out the wrinkles from the English feminine page so that the Italian pagina feminina  won't be rubbed the wrong way?  That is not an attack on my marriage because in my house we are hot blooded animals with sex on our minds, not grammar.  Ouch! I forgot to mention, we are married too.  None of that cohabitation stuff for us.  Uh, Unh, we have settled down.  It's nice now too, we have the house all to ourselves.  We don't even have to wrap our towel around our wrinkled bodies on the way to the shower.  That's not cohabitation.  That's not concubinage.  That's pure, outright conjugal community life.  Pure sex.  Devoid of grammar.  Morally acceptable, even according to majority community standards.  Not only that, even Catholics can do it and still not feel guilty.  Now ain't THAT something?  Yep.  No scandal there.  Except, of course, if you're against misogynistic matrimony.
That's what we have.  Big word that only means that I "glow in the dark" and she doesn't.
The point here, boys and girls, feminines and masculines, is that any housing arrangement that is not marriage is immoral.  That means that it is wrong.  In Catholic terms, it is a sin.   It is a habitual sin, so it leaves you out of the church's sacramental life.
The attack on marriage is a myth.  The real attack is on the conscience of the population at large.  So many people of good faith are forced to live in the condition of "loving the sinner and hating the sin" that after a while the moral fabric of the entire world starts to wear thin.  That's the attack.
The attack is not even the government's legalizing same sex [same gender?] marriage.  That's a taxation issue on the one hand, and, as such, innocuous enough.  On the other hand, the vicious and dangerous part of it is that the population then forms a conscience about this legalized cohabitation that confuses the righteousness of real marriage with the insane immorality of legalized cohabitation.  [The technical religious moral word for cohabitation is concubinage.]  So, the attack is not on marriage.  That's the wrong language. The real attack is essentially against the collective conscience of the world.
I know.  I communicate with people in several countries.  Slowly but surely the ability to recognize the difference between right and wrong is weakening.  This is true of the ability to recognize objective right and wrong as well as the ability to recognize and accept community standards of right and wrong and match them up in order to manage human life effectively and stay on the path of justice and righteousness.
So, don't try telling me that as a married guy I cohabitate with my wife.  That is pure bullshit.  I am married to my wife.  Twice.  Once in city hall and once in church.  That's enough to confirm me in my community life and save me from concubinage.  it also is enough to confirm us as male and female, not as masculine and feminine.  

Thursday, February 16, 2012


I know you can't read this because the print is too small.   But you've seen some of these "offers" to buy your car for the top of the Kelly Blue Book range.  I just got one today.  They promise to give you more than the price they start with if your car is in "better then excellent" condition.   If my car, or anybody's car, or even just their can opener were in "better than excellent" condition, even the Koch Brothers couldn't afford it.  Here's the letter that I mailed back to the sweethearts who sent me the offer.

Thursday, February 16, 2012
Paul Dion
23820 Ironwood Avenue 166
Moreno Valley, CA 92557

Spreen Honda
25050 Redlands Boulevard
Loma Linda, CA 92534


Here’s the deal.  I own a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid which is in better than excellent Condition.
It has 151,300 miles on it.
Cracked windshield
Some body dings and dents
Same “baling wire” fixes
The IMA light is on
The air bags went out at 16,000 and Honda refused to replace them at no cost to me
It still gets 40 miles to the gallon
It never got the advertised 50 MPG except with a tail wind while going downhill

It has just passed the 150,000 maintenance exercise for $700.00

Now that I have told you the truth, I dare you to tell me the truth.  You have absolutely no intention of ever paying anybody $8,379.00 for a car of this vintage.  It is clear to the discerning reader when along with the numerous disclaimers and caveats you put the cap on your offer with the absolute champion of all oximorons better than excellent.  On the day when you set eyes on anything better than excellent, I suggest that you join the circus or contact Mr. Ripley, or maybe even God Himself. 

Bottom line.  Give me $10,000.00 and a 0% loan for $7,000 for 60 months and we can talk.  Maybe.

Oh yes, I kept the fake check as a souvenir, suitable for framing.

Paul Dion

Wednesday, February 08, 2012


I read a blog post today that really made me go back to my entrenchment into my pro-choice conviction.  Don't get excited, it's not what you think.  Read on.
It was about Rick Santorum and his family choosing to keep a baby that they knew had a condition that would be worse than Down Syndrome and cut the life of the child to very few years, if not months.  The author of the blog accused the parents of egoism.  Making themselves feel better because they had kept the baby.  The author insisted that this was the type of baby that should have been aborted to save the baby from such a short and pain-filled life.  I am still disturbed by the thoughts put forward by the blogger.  I just feel that I have to stake out my position on this matter.
I have blogged before on this topic.  I made some short comments about it here.  My argument is simply that I tell everybody that I am anti-abortion and make no bones about it.  I don't have to cave in to the political jargon.   I am pro-choice because the freedom to make choices is what makes us human.  Take away the reminder that I have a choice to make and you take away my humanity.  Therefore, choose life over death, every time, and you will be making the right choice.  
The blogger from this morning was saying that the Santorum baby should never have been left to come to term.  He should have been spared the suffering of such a short life.  I say BULLSHIT!  Let me state two [yeah, only two for now] reasons.
1. Love.  Children are procreated in love.  They are a fruit of love.  Even the fruit of rape is kept out of love.  Not egoism, religious or otherwise.  
2. Love. Children are born into love.  No one is going to tell me that a mother who accompanies her child during a short, warm cuddly life close to her soft, velvety smooth breasts and her safe, warm, embracing arms is not normal, or an egoist.  She is providing a warm welcome to life and celebrating saving her baby from the cruelty of having been sucked out of her womb by the abortionist's vacuum cleaner.  Now, that is a true love choice.  That is true anti-abortion, pure and simple.  If the baby could, he would be celebrating too.  Better to die in my mother's arms than to be sucked out of her womb.  Life sure is great out here! 
I am not a single issue moralist or activist.  I am anti-abortion and I despise the clowns who call it "woman's health care services."  It's too bad that I don't have too much longer to make life uncomfortable for the demoniacs who make this stuff up.