Tag: values

Categories
Values

What Paradise?

The immigrants are rioting. The Maltese comment boards are rife with spiteful messages of the “send them back home” kind. Forget blaming the police or the government. It’s the whole damn country that’s in a mess at the worst possible time. I’m not speaking of hysterical bloggers switching attention from the real issues to a slide show of cheap voyeurism. I am speaking of the mentality that is evident on every bus, in every queue, in every department or shop. It’s how people yell at each other. How they judge and sell relative opinions. How the primadonnas of this world panic at every moment that they seem to lose what they perceive to be control of their twisted corner of whatever market they seem to occur and how the masses enjoy their role as supporters in a dog-eat-dog world without realising that the dogs are biting at their hearts.

My errands on this holiday have taken me to the Emigrants Commission and to the Public Registry. I’ve used public transport, I’ve driven and on breaks I’ve had a chance to see the mass at work – through the multiplicity of individuals who squat on this tiny rock. We’ve lost something along the way these past few years. It’s a mixture of values, attitude and outlook to life. We’re on the defensive while thinking in cliches. We’re rashly judgemental and highly egoistic. We’re an ugly mixture of materialistic hedonism and false moralism. We’re oblivious to the world across the sea while we continue to peddle the fable of a whole universe on one small island that could live without anyone and that does not need anyone. And when the world passes to our shores we panic and yell. We shout “Move Up”, “What do you want?” “Stand Back” “Go Home” “Five euros and twenty cents” “Tini dak” “Qabzitli” “That’s mine” “X’buzz mann” in unison and speak in a tongue of anger an remote-controlled frustration without any reference point.

The immigrants may be rioting in Safi. There may be policemen injured doing their job. The rioters might be yelling “Freedom, Freedom”. But in the end you cannot help but wonder whether their riot is misguided. You cannot help but wonder whether they are safer in the confines of their detention. You cannot help but wonder that with the experiences and stories that life has harshly and unfairly thrown at them, it’s the walls of their detention centre in Safi that are keeping them away from the mass of prisoners on an island inhabited by false moralists and hypocrites.

The Safi inmates yelling for Freedom might still be in time to realise that the real prison lies beyond the confines of the Safi Centre.

What detention centre? In an island of hypocrites and false moralists we are all prisoners. This is no paradise to be banished from.

COMMENT IS FREE. STILL. THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

‘We are all just prisoners here, of our own device’

Categories
Divorce Politics

I accuse : a writ of summons

Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.

Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.

J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:

  • I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
  • I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
  • I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
  • I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
  • I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
  • I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
  • I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
  • I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
  • I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and  tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
  • I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.

I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.

Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter

(your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: The (rising) values of salaries

With a title like that, you’d think I’m about to kick off a whole song and dance about the “living wage” and “cost of living” and whatever other index the latest fad is in that ever so exciting corner of the universe where popular (and populist) politics crosses with economics. Nae wurries, I ain’t. The pros and cons of whether a particular wage is sufficient to get along with one’s daily life are undeniably important building blocks of a right and proper political manifesto, but what concerns me here is the return of a very noxious notion in our political constellation: the comparative analysis of earnings intended for political vantage.

It all began a few weeks ago with a seemingly innocent question that has already been dealt with in a previous column. Some smart job from the Opposition benches queried how many people in the public sector earned more than the President of Malta. The problem I had with that question at that point was precisely with the “why”. I would have loved to ask the poser of aforementioned parliamentary question: “What’s your point?” My concern was that we were being presented with the gory Trojan horse that is the mother of all evils (if not mother then a not too distant relative) in Maltese mentality, one that summarily aborts any potential for progress.

In Maltese we have a word for it − “għira” − that somehow carries much more weight than “jealousy”, as used in the language of the student-rattled Charles and Camilla. It’s the għira that features in the car sticker literal translation urging readers to “Stuff Your Jealousy” − one that can be transformed into a full blown profession “għajjur” (one who is prone to be jealous). The għira is coupled with a very local version of socialist justice that is based on the premise of “if you have one then there is no reason in the world why I should not have one too”. I may be wrong but to me this is the socialism à-la-Mintoff: that scythe of socialist ignorance that culls all progress at birth in order to keep everyone equal. Equally ignorant. Equally thrifty. Equally redneck. (Bir-rispett kollu − With all due respect).

Raise your glass

We are currently living in the Age of Garfield. It’s the Age of the Fat Cats who have a bit of a problem with the għira definition of things. Most of the times that’s because the fingers of the għira-espousing population are pointed at them in the most unqualified of manners (when they are not showing them fingers of another sort). The Fat Cats are, economically speaking, at the other extreme of the political spectrum. They delude themselves that they are revitalising and regenerating a limping economy, only to slip heavily at certain moments during which they give the impression of baking pies for their own consumption.

Torn between the Fat Cat and the Mintoffian Scythe, the citizen and voter is constantly being handed rules and standards with which to assess who to trust with the reigns of governmental planning come next election. Which is where the latest fad comes in with the noise of a raucous Maltese crowd on a package tour in some market at Misterbianco (Sicily). First it sounded like a TV programme gone wrong: “Who Wants to Earn More than Malta’s President?” and now we have the Mintoffian reaction to the Fat Cat gaffe: “Who Wants to Renege on A Salary Raise this Christmas?”.

And it’s hard to guess who is the Grinch. Is it the Scrooges on the Fat Cat benches who back then, during the highest wave of the economic crisis tsunami, showed the sensitivity of a born again Christian on a Xarabank panel and voted themselves a raise? Is it the Leader of the Opposition who, once he was informed of the impending (backdated) raise was obliged to the extremes of utmost abnegation and in an ironic twist of quasi-Thatcherite repartee, declares “This man is not for selling”? Is it the press who pounced upon initiatives in foreign parliaments (notably Ireland and Czech Republic) and reported their respective decisions to REDUCE their salary in times of economic hardship?

BERT4J_101212

Bad Moon Risin’

Whoever the Grinch may have been, we were suddenly transported into the realm of salary comparisons and comparatives. Now there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Cabinet voting itself a raise during a period when − independently of the real economic climate − all political talk and newspeak is heavily concentrated on the notion of Hard Times is a huge faux pas for any government to commit. I also can understand Joseph Muscat’s argument of “I will not be bought”, for by including all MPs in their bumbling pay rise it is obvious that Cabinet hoped to convince the socialist progressives to keep mum thanks to the proffering of a chunk of the pie.

So let it not be said that J’accuse is here defending the timing of the salary rise per se. We do have a bone to pick though on the issue of “the values of salaries” in discussing merits and demerits. In a way, Joseph Muscat, the prime critic of the latest rise, seems to have considered this issue from a sensible vantage point when he seemed to be prepared to consider an option for MPs to choose between Part Time and Full Time. Much as I find this suggestion ludicrous, for reasons I shall explain later, it does show that for a fleeting moment Muscat was actually looking beyond the salary itself and thinking in terms of the work it justifies.

For the problem here, you see, is that I tend to view jobs on the basis of performance. On the scale of merit, performance is translated into salary and not vice-versa. You do not go out on the job market looking for a salary but you look for a job. In most cases you find that salaries are appended towards the end of a job announcement and are expressed in the form of minimum and maximum possible salary. Why? Because the salary depends on a multiplicity of criteria linked to “merit” such as education, experience and specialisation.

Rise to the occasion

Maybe I am not sufficiently clear (I admit that’s the case quite often). Just let me go back to the PQ about presidential earnings. When I ask “What’s the point?”, I mean how can the President’s salary become a standard measure to assess qualification for a job? What will we ask people who aspire to a salary that trumps that of San Anton’s resident? “Can you hop on one leg more times than George Abela?” “Can you run the mile in less time than George?” How exactly does this value of salarial comparison fit in?

According to the press, the salary of an MP post-raise will be €26,000 per annum. Shall we play the comparison game? An entry-level grade job at an EU institution (AST1) will earn around €2,500 per month in hand. By November of any given year, your average administrative assistant in an EU institution will have earned more than Karl Gouder (random MP) will earn from his parliament salary in a year. Your average employee in the EU translation services will earn around €4,500 a month (there’s a scale there too based on experience, length of service and specialisation) which puts them at around two Malta MPs worth on the socialist salary value scale.

There are enough Maltese translators in Luxembourg to be able to fill Parliament twice over. Shall we do that? After all, if they earn almost as much as two MPs put together they surely must be worth the while. Which brings me back to Joseph Muscat’s part-time/full-time dilemma. We have already experienced a national football team with a mix of pros, amateurs and part-timers, so why not a Parliament with part-timers then? Well the main point, and what nobody seems to be asking, is: “what kind of performance do we expect from our parliamentarians?”

Those great expectations

The value of salaries distracts us from this question. We discuss pounds, shillings and pence when we should be wondering whether we are being short-changed in the business of political representation. As I said on my blog, I find it easy not to be impressed by Joseph Muscat’s show of abnegation and self-denial. Whether he refuses a salary raise, or independently decides to half his current salary is of no consequence to me or any other citizen if he continues to fail to come up with concrete politics that show a new politics and direction.

It’s not the whinge of the eternal wait for a decent Opposition. It’s worse than that. This week Joseph Muscat showed us the full force of his new politics when he compared Labour’s harbouring of “capo dei capi” Gatt as a special delegate to some drug trafficker (Norman Bezzina) who was a member of a Nationalist minister’s private secretariat. As the poet sings “That’s all right, because I like the way you lie.” Next: Even Robin Hood was an outlaw.

Judging by Facebook and comments on the online news, it seems that this PLPN strategy works. They feed the minions the values with which they want us to judge them and we thankfully grovel in humble acceptance. I was expecting a movement for the beatification of Inhobbkom Joseph − our new saviour from those perfidious bumblers in government − any day now. We were dared to criticise his quasi-saintly move of sacrifice in these times of hardiness. He would not tell us to eat cake and would share humble pie around our poor man’s table. A saint before being a man.

Cut through the bullshit and the spin and you might remember that this is the man whose alternative budget leaked everywhere. The saving grace for Muscat’s alternative budget was Bondi’s hash of an unprofessional programme (the BA’s words not mine). In the short-sighted public calculation, the equation must have been simple. If Bondi was wrong then Muscat is right. Which is not the case. Yes, Bondi was unprofessional but that does not make Muscat’s alternative budget any better. It is still based on populist calculations that will not necessarily take us anywhere other than into more socialist-scythe style mire. Blessed are we to have such alternatives to the fat cats in government.

Uprisin’

And while PM Gonzi was carried aloft on the hands of our future consumers of governmental pie − those who have already been well bred to fill the ranks without nary a questioning mind − back in London students rattled and shook the car containing the heir to the realm and his madam. The surreal images of the (definitely unplanned) photo op outside Castille contrasted heavily to the rioting students in Parliament Square. They’d like to tell us that our students have it all good and that this government is still investing heavily in education.

Sure, but what values are we imparting to today’s unquestioning youth? Hold on. Maybe I know the answer to that one. If you’re going to lick and squirm your way into a job via the approved channels, make sure the salary is better than that of George Abela… and Bob’s your uncle.

Toasts

I’m raising a glass to Ronnie and Nathaniel this Sunday. Happy birthday to both. It’s the last Sunday before the Christmas holiday season really kicks in. Weather permitting (and that is half a prayer actually), the next missive will be typed from my second home in Paceville… Meanwhile I’m off to find out what Santa gets paid this Christmas.

www.akkuza.com is a non-profit, free blog full of punditry worth reading. It’s worth millions in intellectual property so plant your tent in a corner of the comment section any time you want.

Categories
Mediawatch

Faith No More

The Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church is experiencing a veritable hemorrhage of members since Christian Democrat leader Päivi Räsänen presented what has been described as an “uncompromising, fundamentalist view” on the issue of homosexuality. Appearing on a TV programme, Päivi Räsänen described homosexual relations as “bad” and this provoked a flood of resignations from the church that has reached the figure of 20,000 in almost a week.

During the TV debate, Räsänen, president of the christian democrat party, insisted that “obviously, a person knows that he or she is doing something wrong from a christian point of view if he or she is in a homosexual relationship”. The loss of faithful in Finland is not only a spiritual question. The estimated cost of this loss of souls to the Finnish Church amounts to almost 7 million euros since the Church is a state church and is financed through a special tax.

From YLE.fi:

Archbishop Calls for Members to Stay

On Friday, Archbishop Kari Mäkinen said it was unfortunate and incredible that people were leaving the church on the issue of homosexuality. He hoped members would influence within the ranks of the church by expressing their opinions. So far, his advice has gone unheeded.

The Archbishop emphasised the church was far more diversified in accordance with Christian principles than the views expressed in some extreme statements by individuals.

Proposals for a law allowing gender neutral marriage have divided church ranks in Finland. Some clergy say the church might give up its right to solemnise marriages if such a law is enacted, while others take a more liberal approach on the issue.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics Values

New York's Catholic Paladino

You know you’re growing old when you remember Governor Cuomo Snr. His son, Andrew M. Cuomo is running for Governor of New York on the democrat ticket. In an all-Italian (origin) showdown, Cuomo’s republican opponent is Carl P. Paladino – conservative to the bone and very proud of his Italian and catholic origins. The gubernatorial battle is turning out to be a curious export of the tensions in the old continent as Padalino’s conservatism is pitted against Cuomo’s more liberal (a European description) approach. Padalino is proud of the winks and smiles linked half-jokingly to the implications of having Italian ancestry in this part of the world while Cuomo is wary of the image of political Sopranos.

Back on the campaign trail Padalino’s no holds barred attitude could land him in trouble and yesterday’s speech to a gathering in Brooklyn was of the incendiary kind. Curiously Padalino’s message contained the dilemma that currently has no borders in the western world – from Belgrade, to Valletta to New York, the cohabitation of religious values and liberal rights are suffering the sort of tension that can best be described as dangerous. Here’s the New York Times reporting Paladino’s speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders:

The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event.

And then, to applause at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: “I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children.” Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

An hour after the speech, Cuomo’s team denounced the statement as being “stunningly homophobic” and that it was a glaring disregard for basic equality. Paladino’s campaign manager duly responded by denying assertions that Mr. Paladino was antigay, and noted that Paladino employed a gay man on his campaign staff. (Isn’t that charitable of him?)

“Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic,” Mr. Caputo said in a telephone interview. “Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church.”

I’m beginning to think that the problem is not the catholic church (or God) in whose name these obscenities are regularly perpetrated. It’s ignorance. How, for one minute Paladino could believe that the phrase “dysfunctional homosexual” could be seen as anything but a homophobic statement is beyond my ken. His taking refuge behind the hazy notion of “the Catholic Church” to justify his attempt at fuelling the conservative vote is pitiful and – here’s the word again – medieval.  Caputo (Paladino’s campaign manager) worryingly appended the following sentence to his justifications: “the majority of New Yorkers agree with him” while adding that the campaign had done its own polling. That’s ok then is it? I mean this is not San Francisco but hey,  waddayaknow?

While Andrew Cuomo polled voters to get an insight on how far the Iti-Mafia-Pizza stereotype is stuck in the New Yorker mentality (and this with the aim of getting rid of it), Paladino was busy checking whether New York really likes its poofs. It’s his Catholic duty (God bless his soul) and he told the Orthodox Jews that he is on their same wavelength (for heaven’s sake) – he’d never march in a gay pride event and he criticised Andrew Cuomo for doing so.

If that’s what a Catholic Heart can contribute to a community then bring on the infidels…..

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta