Or Ms. Dowd fails to understand basic tenets of the Roman Catholic faith she claims to follow. Most likely, Ms. Dowd is both ignorant and malicious.

Ms. Dowd’s columns are always a target-rich environment. However, this one is exceptional for both the number of straw men and the number of outright falsehoods contained in so few column inches. If ‘Puter didn’t know better, he’d think Ms. Dowd’s sole purpose was to cram into a single opinion piece the greatest number of libelous statements, outright lies and half-truths against a mainstream religion and select adherents ever recorded.

As such, ‘Puter has determined to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking this column. ‘Puter has divided his critique into three parts: (1) Ms. Dowd’s accusations against Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court and Catholic University; (2) Ms. Dowd’s convenient misstatements of fundamental Roman Catholic doctrine; and (3) Ms. Dowd’s true motive in writing this column.

We commence with part one, in which MoDo, PoMoHo takes on Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court and Catholic University.

Ms Dowd, in her usual fashion, mixes her metaphors, haphazardly leaping from topic to topic, which makes her writing either incomprehensible, at least to ‘Puter’s inadequate mind. If you’re her target audience of effete elites, ‘Puter assumes this writing style passes for the height of wit.
At the top of her column, Ms. Dowd gives us (a) the target of her venom (“Nino Scalia,” delightfully and pejoratively infantilized by using his nickname) and (b) one her aforementioned mixed metaphors. Justice Scalia is like Mario Lanza because, well, Ms. Dowd says he is. And, as all effete elites know, opera and/or opera stars (‘Puter couldn’t noodle out which) are definitionally imprudent.

Ms. Dowd takes exception with Justice Scalia’s position on Catholic University’s new single-sex dorm policy, though ‘Puter’s not entirely certain what Ms. Dowd’s beef is. ‘Puter assumes it has something to do with the fact that Catholic University’s dorms are the place Ms Dowd “slept for four years.” Using that theory, Ms. Dowd should have been equally irked when her parents repurposed her childhood bedroom to a BDSM dungeon when she left for Catholic University’s dorms, but we’ve not heard about that. (Sorry for the cheap ad hominem, it was either that, or a shot at Ms. Dowd’s sexual history, and ‘Puter didn’t want to seem anti-wymyn).

In seriousness, Ms. Dowd complains that Justice Scalia, a sitting Supreme Court Justice, took a position on a matter that could, in theory, someday come before the Supreme Court. This is a serious accusation, so let’s take a look at it.

According to Ms. Dowd, Justice Scalia stated in a speech at Duquesne University law school, “a Catholic institution in Pittsburgh,” that the diversity-loving educational establishment seems Hell-bent “on eliminating the diversity of moral judgment, particularly moral judgment based on religious views.” Ms. Dowd, in closing her paragraph, goes out of her way to identify Justice Scalia as “a devout Catholic,” an identification of which ‘Puter believes Justice Scalia is justly proud. ‘Puter expects Ms. Dowd believes her readers will respond: “He’s a DEVOUT CATHOLIC! OH NOEZ!!1! That’s secrit librul code for women hating, kid raping, government-taking-over FASCISTS!!1!eleventy!1!!” Sadly, Ms. Dowd’s probably correct about the reaction of a large portion of her readership.

But what’s wrong with Justice Scalia’s statement? He mentioned a lawsuit brought by a George Washington University law professor to prevent Catholic University from returning its dorms to single sex by way of example in support of his larger proposition. You remember Justice Scalia’s larger proposition, right? The one in the paragraph above where Justice Scalia stated the educational establishment is bent on stamping out any moral influence in academia other than their own, particularly that of organized religion. How exactly is Justice Scalia’s position disproven when a law professor at a secular university is suing a religious institution to prevent it from acting in concert with the tenets of its faith? ‘Puter’s fairly certain Justice Scalia’s example actually proves his point. And Ms. Dowd gives no proof otherwise. She glosses over the inconsistency.

‘Puter thought that readers might be interested in a little more background on Professor Banzhaf. Here’s a link to his website. Prof. Banzhaf is indeed a very, very bright individual, a well-respected attorney and by all indications a top public interest law professor. But in reviewing his list of accomplishments, it’s clear he’s just fine with using the apparatus of our justice system to impede people and corporations from exercising their free will in way inconsistent with his beliefs.

Professor Banzhaf takes credit for, among other things numerous anti-smoking campaigns, including forcing television stations to carry anti-smoking ads against their will. He’s also suing fast food outlets on some cockamamie theory that people are unable to resist the subtle seduction of cramming fatty foods down their food hole. Personal responsibility seems a foreign concept to this gentleman, but he’s made a fine living never underestimating the gullibility of the American judiciary.

Professor Banzhaf teaches a course titled “Legal Activism,” which in ‘Puter’s view is exactly the wrong thing to teach attorneys. ‘Puter’s certain none of his readers has ever said, “You know what this country needs? More lawyers, drumming up frivolous litigation. That’ll turn the economy right the heck around.” His curriculum vitae should tell you just about everything you need to know about Professor Banzhaf. And it further explains why Ms. Dowd used Professor Banzhaf as her go-to-guy for a quote. They’re fellow travelers.

Anyway, back on track. Professor Banzhaf states that Catholic University’s dorm policy arguments are “totally secular,” even though the good professor apparently believes the university’s position to be legally actionable. Professor Banzhaf is “astonished that a justice of the nation’s highest court would single out and prejudge a legal proceeding which could set an important precedent, and could one day even come before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

‘Puter disagrees with the professor’s characterization of Justice Scalia’s statement. Justice Scalia simply noted, again, that academia hates religious moral values, and seeks to stamp them out. At no time, at least no time cited by Ms. Dowd, did Justice Scalia state any position as to the merits of the case.

For Ms. Dowd’s edification, that would look something like this: “I, Justice Antonin Scalia, am familiar with the case brought by Professor Banzhaf against Catholic University’s dorm policies, and I believe that the university ought to prevail on the merits, that the professor lacks standing to sue in the first instance and that the complaint as a whole ought to fail on the university’s 12(b)(6) motion.” That’s prejudging a case.

Where does all this discussion concerning Catholic University, Professor Banzhaf, single sex dorms and Catholicism generally get us? Nowhere, because exactly nine (9) paragraphs into her Sunday foray on the most expensive real estate in punditry, Ms. Dowd drops the topic entirely, never to be seen again. Better yet, she gives her reader no conclusion, nor any indication as to why any of the forgoing information is pertinent. Neither does Ms. Dowd in any manner refute Justice Scalia’s statement, nor show it improper.

Ms. Dowd’s poor reader is left to wonder why Ms. Dowd wasted precious (and pricey) column inches, not to mention several minutes of the reader’s life, on a conclusionless discussion? ‘Puter assumes that Ms. Dowd would retort, in her artless Japanese way, that ‘Puter missed her point. Ms. Dowd’s point is that one of the most influential jurists in America has permitted his religious views to interfere with his sworn duty as a judge.

And ‘Puter guesses that a reader who spends his day huffing wide-tip Sharpies until it looks like he’s sporting a Hitler mustache could ferret that out. But that’s if, and only if, his tin foil hat was successfully blocking the Illuminati’s orbiting mind-control satellites. They keep changing the frequency, so one must constantly vary the gauge of the foil and the angle of the crenellations in order to prevent Them from forcing one to buy in to the Establishment, man.

‘Puter’s beaten this dead horse enough. Look for installment two, coming soon to a Gormogons blog near you.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.