Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
That's such an old meme, I'm surprised the Santorums (Santorii?) don't realize they're using it. Then again, the recent sload of GOP candidates don't seem to have much ability to see that sort of thing, or think critically about themselves.
But the sad fact is that such claims are accepted at face value, no proof required.
P.S.
You broke me with that video clip.
Too bad this is going to stir up Seattleblues and the anonymous troll (make registration mandatory already - all arguments for allowing unregistered comments have long been disproven.)
The Santorums owe an explanation to the nation on many issues. They casually toss about lies and slanderous BS whenever it seems helpful for Ricky's career. Fortunately the voters of PA saw through his bullshit (18 points!). But, hey, maybe he'll win the GOP nomination, that would sure be interesting.
I do not have the same belief system as Ricky, but I'm guessing that his calls for a dude with a pitchfork to ask the questions that don't get answered in this life.
Though I might just be a outlier... sigh...
Anyway fuckin' tell em Dan. Right on.
So, yeah, probably there are gay people out there supporting Santorum (or Bachmann or Huckabee or whoever) . Now whether they're actual friends of Elizabeth or rather mere acquaintances or FB friends or 'friends of friends'...I don't know. But the idea is not absurd.
There is also this reality, I am going to acknowledge my own cynicism here, and put this in a rather Austen-ish way, there are many who rank the demands of their pocketbooks above the demands of their hearts. Money is a mighty god, many believe that it is their identity and self-worth, and when you come from a privileged background you often can't (or won't) consider the reality of those who don't have a padded pocketbook. Ms. Elizabeth is from a privileged background and odds are that her "friends" are also or aspire to become so. I'm guessing that Ms. Elizabeth's "friends" have the means to buy what they and any partner might need. Just my $0.02.
I'll leave the thread to those who oppose your opinion and will put it another way, the tired trope that society should not have to "support" the "choice" of being gay. Or more simply put heterosexuals deserve financial and legal benefits, from the government, because of their sexual anatomy and choices. I think Churchill was right when he said that "a fundamentalist is a person who won't change his mind and refuses to change the subject."
Instead, I propose santora. Of course, since santorum is a mass noun, like sand, or bread, there aren't a lot scenarios where you'll need a plural.
I used to know an Israeli Jew who was an admirer of Mussolini. He was also a closet case and a furry. True story.
For the records, as a hetero single/never-married woman, I share your anger. Sure, Santorum's never likened my sex life to bestiality but, with all his talk of the importance of families, I certainly feel as if I have little-to-no value in his idea of society.
Let's keep Spreading Santorum until he drowns in the frothy mix!!!
I'd expect better from a semi-left leaning media operation.
Anti-choice is all about social control. No more, no less.
Oh, wait: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
There's also the Phyllida Erskine Brown effect. Once she begins to overcome the prejudice against women and succeed at the Bar, Phyllida is in no great hurry to help the sisterhood to join her. She likes being the only barrister who can succeed in court by reducing Judge Bullingham to a quivering blob of sexual excitement. Why invite competition and lose an advantage?
"All cite an alignment to republican fiscal policies, and an aversion to the republican disenfranchisement of any subset of the population that are deemed less moral by the clearly biased and broken republican yardstick) I maintain that no one with a shred of compassion or respect for human rights will support this frothy mix. "
Let me guess - the 'republican fiscal policies' they supposedly are aligned with would be 'fiscal conservatism', am I correct? IOW, something that the GOP has been against for thirty years now.
It's not just on the gay issue, it's on EVERYTHING these idiots say. Here in Tennessee our wackadoodle governor and lieutenant governor have taken to saying any old crap -- there are jobs but no job applicants bec… is a famous example -- and the reporters just print it. No one ever says "Really? Who told you they have job openings and no applicants? Give me a name."
Please, I beg of you. A return to skepticism in our news media would do the nation a whole helluva lot of good.
Surprise surprise: the "I have black friends" defense inevitably follows. Never does a skeptical, "Really? Name 'em."
Another example of this is when white Arizona voters turned down a referendum to reinstate the King holiday several years running (until threats to pull the Super Bowl forced the issue to the right side of history). If you look at CBS's coverage of that, they only interview blacks outraged over the referendum. Despite being on location in Arizona, they don't interview a single white voter who cast the majority vote. The framing was not, "Why did the voters reject this?" but, instead, "Why are those black people so mad about it?"
This is how mainstream news outlets protect the privileged, be it along lines of race, sexuality, or just plain ol' power. They do not interrogate, they subtly corroborate. And an easy way to do so is to omit the most obvious questions that need asking.
Yes, self-hating closet cases exist.
Yes, there are conservative gays who carefully compartmentalize away the anti-gay hysteria of the right and focus, instead, on their (equally batshit) economic policies.
The existence of either is entirely beside the point. Any person who cannot stand by their argument without invoking "phantom" friends on the other side of that argument is a guilt-driven narcissist with poor reasoning and debating skills. "Well, so and so agrees with me" provides no real evidence for any argument. It is a self-deluding evasion, nothing more. It is a person looking for moral cover or exoneration.
I was thinking about the issue of gay people who vote Republican and wondering why they would vote against their own self-interest when I realized that they vote Republican for the same reason that most people who vote Republican do. They think they'll get to keep more of their money because bad people they don't know won't get it, and *nothing else will change.* The roads will be there, the cops and fire department will be there, an educated populace will still be there because none of those things take tax dollars. And they'll never need special services beyond what they can afford, anyway, because they're the "right kind of people." Not a lot of rational thinking there.
I try to do the equivalent all the time. I'm a Canadian, and even though I'm straight, I revel in the opportunity to ridicule those who argued against the passing of same sex marriage up here. They predicted the end of the family and everything short of catastrophe up here if two people of the same sex could have their marriage recognized. They DESERVE ridule...let's get on with it.
Social progressivism shouldn't have much in the way of dollar cost. Start taking away non-religion reasons for denying equality, and frame the argument (against) as an attempt to establish a state religion.
Peace.
"Kernek could not be reached for comment because, according to Courage Campaign organizer Anthony Ash, their telephone was recently disconnected."
This is one of the most heart-breaking things I think I've ever read.
So I love this column but I think it needs more links to www.santorum.com
I think they're all in GOProud.
Both parties kinda disgust me. I guess the Democrats slightly less so.
@57 - I read that. do those young folks not know about Ron Paul's homophobic comments? Or, do they just not care? I guess the latter. & easy enough to say "oh gays have plenty of rights" when you live somewhere w/ marriage equality.
Oh, Dan. Those two, dear old men. & the one left on his own has no phone? Wouldn't it be a good Flying Monkey thing to take up some kinda collection for that guy?
I will start buying the physical newsprint newspapers from any that actually ask to see the gay friends of the Santorii.
"Charlotte Sun stood up and in a low, controlled voice repeated painfully: 'I'm tired of hearing a slick public relations rap that doesn't come from the gut. Let's look at the oppression right here in this room. You women on the panel have used your heterosexual privilege to silence the topic of love -- especially since that topic was love between women, which would seem to me to be critical to the movement.'
Another stunned silence. Marlene Dixon [on the panel] allowed as how some of her best friends were homosexual. At this point a woman two rows in front of us exploded with:
'SHE SAID IT! SHE ACTUALLY SAID IT!'
Laughter."
They never learn.
There are some gay people -- more than a few -- who care more about their tax bill than they do about anything else. They see it as a point of pride to be intellectually independent of the gay issue. Okay, but they sure as hell are not coming to any of my parties. And if they are brave enough to take me on in open debate, I will give them no quarter.
Christians hate being called on their hate because they really want to be seen as people who love everyone. So call them, call them, call them on it. Make them uncomfortable. They are lying about us. They are being bad fellow citizens. They are shaming this great country that we all share. In my humble opinion, they are shaming their faith. Politicians need to be forced to own up to their bigotry and their lies and not hide behind the Bible.
I find it too bad that Elizabeth Santorum will likely never read this and never really be confronted with the tragic consequences of keeping gay marriage illegal. How she'll never have to compare the "sadness" of children being denied "Google Santorum" privileges to the truly sad facts of people losing their loved ones and their entire livelihoods over a "policy thing." And meanness? Really? Head explode! Of course, people like her and Rick are already biased towards being unsympathetic because they believe it's a choice, and will continue to do so because that's the only thing they can believe that will protect their consciences from processing the suffering homophobia causes.
Oh and I believe there are "friends"--just like I'm friends with all the customers I serve coffee to: in passing, we're all polite to each other.
Elizabeth said: "People are entitled to live the way they want . . ."
So she says. But her father reiterated in October that he thinks Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided and that he supports laws criminalizing sodomy. So, no, he doesn't believe that gay people are entitled to live their lives the way they want. Why didn't the reporter call her on this?
He is not Rick "leave the gays alone" Santorum. He is Rick "throw the dirty gays in jail" Santorum. Does his little mouthpiece daughter agree with that? Let's get it out in the open. Because I want people to know that a vote for Santorum is, philosophically, a vote to put my daughter's daddies in jail.
Well that's completely disingenuous, like saying "...after he drank a glass of water." Yes, I'm sure Santorum both drank a glass of water and "compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest" at some point in time before Dan's santorum campaign, but the impetus was comparing gay sex to dog-fucking and child-fucking. Big fucking difference, especially since I don't think bigamy/polygamy or incest are necessarily, intrinsically bad (they're actually more-valid comparisons as socially-marginalized sexualities involving, or at least that can involve, consenting adults; I think they DO frequently play out problematically, in part because most - but not all - incest involves non-consenting minors, but there's no intrinsic harm to plural marriage, multiple sexual partners, or sexual activity with someone with whom one shares some genes or a social family unit). I definitely think fucking little kids should be illegal, though I think zoophilia is more complex: if we allow factory farming, we've lost any sort of ethical ground with respect to the treatment of animals on which to base "don't fuck/get fucked by animals". There may be safety concerns, but I really don't think it's the place of public policy to stop people from engaging in self-harming behaviors, either. Anyway, my limited apologism for zoophilia notwithstanding, this provides examples of bad journalism in all sorts of ways.
@69: They'd be correct, since it would certainly gotch them. "Gotcha" questions can only exist if one runs around spouting off about something about which one doesn't actually know anything AND one claims to know something about the topic ("I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer, right up until one has been repeatedly claiming to know something). I've NEVER understood the willingness of both politicians and media personalities to play Lowest Common Denominator, especially when candidates who actually know what the fuck they're talking about can put the lie to their opponents' statements/claims by not pandering. Let them whine about "gotcha" questions or "Liberal bias", and then mock them mercilessly about it and/or completely refute their idiotic and/or nonsense claims.
Say what you want about policy and economics and which party has the right solution. You know what, NONE OF THEM has it figured out. Between the partisan wrangling and one-upmanship and lobbyists, and big business, no single party has the solution.
But I will tell you one thing: IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TAKE A GIANT LEAP INTO THE 21ST CENTURY ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND THERE IS NO CURRENT GOP CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVANCE THE ISSUES OF EQUALITY FOR LGBT CITIZENS.
It's all about the economy--yeah right. It's tanked. And it will recover.
But citizens who deserve equality cannot risk another 2 steps backward on issues that undermine what this Great Constitution was created to enforce: we are all of us created equally and all deserving of the same rights as every other citizen.
The line is being drawn, people.
Say what you want about policy and economics and which party has the right solution. You know what, NONE OF THEM has it figured out. Between the partisan wrangling and one-upmanship and lobbyists, and big business, no single party has the solution.
But I will tell you one thing: IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO TAKE A GIANT LEAP INTO THE 21ST CENTURY ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND THERE IS NO CURRENT GOP CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVANCE THE ISSUES OF EQUALITY FOR LGBT CITIZENS.
It's all about the economy--yeah right. It's tanked. And it will recover.
But citizens who deserve equality cannot risk another 2 steps backward on issues that undermine what this Great Constitution was created to enforce: we are all of us created equally and all deserving of the same rights as every other citizen.
The line is being drawn, people.
I think it is best put like this. The GOP cares about children till they are born, then they are on their own!
It seems like the profession used to have a very high status. 'Investigative reporter' was a stock heroic character. It was Superman's job.
Maybe the type of girl who used to want to be Lois Lane doesn't want to work for Rupert Murdoch and has a blog instead.
http://santorumforgop.tumblr.com
Liberals, even those in the NYTimes, seem to think that Romney is only a fiscal conservative, not a values one. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if he gets elected, we're in some big trouble, because this guy has gone to dark side, and he is electable. Very scary. So, let us throw and heave our support his way and totally embrace the nomination of Rick Santorum because independents will not vote for this nutcake, while they will for Romney, who seems like a cool glass of water, after lunatics like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum, the newest flavor of nut this week. The only problem is that Romney is as nutty as they are. He just talks a better line and seems to seem sane, cause he keeps his mouth shut unless he has to say something. Then he says things like, "I'd be proud to have Dick Cheney as my VP," or "I will vote against abortion in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother," or "I am for DADT and against gay marriage." Some say, he is saying these things to get elected. i happen to believe him. I think we should be very scared of his nomination and hope and pray that Santorum takes it.
Am new here, thanks to Laura Novak mentioning you on her blog.
Great article Dan.
'
They were talking about you on CNN tonite!
by name!
(we know how much you get a hardon about being on CNN....)
Pierce Morgan had on Rick; and the wife and kids
(damn lovely family, we must say.
you know Danny,
you could have married a nice catholic girl and had a houseful of kids as well.....)
So the daughter was saying how she prays for your depraved pathetic soul.
She seemed like such a nice kid, you almost wonder if god would answer her prayers.
PS....oh, hey, Slog fanboys- were your ears burning too?
(and still the yellow discharge? eeeeew....no, just kidding!)
Cause Morgan said people who mock the Santorums for how they grieved the loss of their child are first rate assholes.
are you going to let him call you first rate assholes?
Farting Monkeys! to your email!!