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.
Instead, they have determined it's his turn on the see-saw with Mitt Romney and they will be totally deferential to him until it is determined it's time for him to get off.
Our media is pathetic.
That said, it's a great excuse to remind the planet of PRECISELY what Santorum said to draw the wrath of the Army of Dan.
In this quotation, Santorum has a bad case of "the free-floating it." In the third and fourth sentences, to what, exactly, is the word it referring? What is not man on child or man on dog? What is one thing?
Santorum only "surged"with less that 5.4% or registered Iowa voters. It's merely something to blather about until the next toddler goes missing or theres a spree killing. Or something equally complex to "report."
There are condo board elections that have higher participation.
The Stranger's web system runs off some programmed back end, which I imagine is fairly custom. So all this text--like what you're reading here--is pulled from some database and then custom rendered into the visible format you're reading.
You should ask if, by default, any time that the word "Santorum" appears on the site, in any Slog post or news article or sidebar or whatever, it automatically links like: Santorum.
All Santorum links, all the time, every time Santorum comes up, as a design element.
This made me think a bit about some of George Carlin's standup, particularly his periodic outine rants about the idiocy of language policing. See, for example, his argument about "nigger's" offensiveness being dependent upon the intent of the person using the word, not inherent to the word itself.
I think of this often when I hear "decent people" voice "shock and outrage" over Santorum's "Google Problem." As though the definition's vulgarity could ever ever be as immoral, offensive, repugnant and harmful as Santorum's political positions. Hitting someone where they live--especially with irony--is a very effective counter strategy, which is, of course, what I suspect really bothers these "decent people."
Quoted in Dan's post: "...for his strong criticism of same-sex marriage."
Currently up: "...for his comparison of homosexuality to “man on dog” sex."
I'm also hoping to hear more from Libertarians and small government conservatives about the importance of social liberties. Bravo Freedom Watch: http://youtu.be/1Gwwmm-cQxU
@5: His statement about the universality of marriage is also patently untrue. Even calling the family/mating arrangements of people in other cultures "marriage" is some pretty heavy cultural projection.
One thing I know for certain as a parent is that if one does not understand the concept of sexual consent, one should not be anywhere near children.
@16: So it's now the truth, but not the whole truth (I think the child-rape bit is the REALLY offensive part: as Dan has pointed out, while bestiality is pretty wacky, were animals able to express consent, they would almost certainly rather be fucked than eaten).
Introducing his Omnibus bill in 1967, Pierre Trudeau famously stated There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.
While the word "privacy" does not occur in this amendment, the amendment itself makes it clear that individual citizens have the right to expect that what is contained in their homes, or what transpires in their homes, should not be subject to government observation or interference unless the government has a damn good reason and can articulate that reason beforehand to a presumably objective court. This amendment both assumes and presumes that private ownership and private acts are contitutionally protected, and if that's not a right to privacy--what is?
I must have child protection on my firefox searching or something??!?
Anyway, keep up the good click fight!
Thanks for the correction, Mr Cohen.
And ---> @30 FTW. I hear so many conservatives whining about the "Librul Media Bias", but then that very same "Librul Media" goes and whitewashes the VERY OFFENSIVE and COMPLETELY WHACKED-OUT actual views held by this presidential candidate.
So, conservatives, what gives? Is the media only biased when it's telling the truth about your candidates, or what??
We should probably try to be more careful about that.
Or am I just reading him wrong?
I'd agree with Mr Carlin: the intention of the user is what is really wrong, not the word itself (which can be used for other purposes). I wished more people would realize that social change ultimately means changing people, not words.
"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
It's not pedophilia or bestiality, he said, in other words.
On that basis, Savage sabotaged him forever on the net, comparing him, ironically, to the result of an act that Savage likes.
Savage's effort to destroy someone who may or may not have said what Savage heard, and then to capitalize on it in interview after interview, is the act of a sick soul.
And this, despite the fact that I agree Mr Santorum is an extremist and that his views on sex and the law are indeed regressive and wrong.
He's saying, "Marriage is one thing. It's not homosexuality, it's not man-on-dog, it's not pedophilia." That puts homosexuality in the same group, on equal footing with, man-on-dog and pedophilia. All three are things which are "not marriage" and (by implication, etc etc) are ruining society.
I therefore take back what I said in my previous comment (#48-49 above).
But yeah, Santorum is still a huge douchekayak.
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. Marriage is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. Marriage is one thing."
for such an obnoxious dick danny sure has a thin skin....
Rick did not "equate" homosex with child rape and dog fucking.
Perhaps Junior can explain to you that saying that x,y and z are not A does not mean x=y=z.
You are way too sensitive and way too fucking ignorant and that is an awkward combination.
Maybe you should let the kid or some other middle schooler edit your posts in the future.....
I normally don't engage trolls for the same reason that one shouldn't try and teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
What Santorum is doing is engaging in the logical fallacy known as Meaning By Association: the speaker presents an arguement/product/candidate in association with other thigs to which the audience will respond in a predictable way. The goal is for that response to be transferred to the arguement/product/candidate.
Meaning by association is used all the time in advertising, and can be used either positively or negatively. For example, print ads for luxury items--like expensive cars--routinely show 50-ish, distinguished man with gray around the temples accompanied by a woman who is visibly 15-20 years his junior as they approach the Mercedes in the driveway. The goal is to associate the Mercedes with sexual desirability and the ability to attract a hot, young wife (probably a second wife, definitely a trophy).
A really good example of Meaning By Association used in car advertising goes back to the eighties or nineties, when the tag line used in television ads for Chevrolet was "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet." Note that the ad was not saying that baseball = hot dogs = apple pie = Chevrolet, but the ad *was* implying that they had something in common--that thing being an All-American aura.
So when Rick Santorum mentions homosexuality in the same breath as child rape and bestiality, he may not literally be saying that they are equivalent, but he is definitely saying that they have something in common, and I scarcely think that thing is something he believes is good.
Yeah, that's the way definitions work. A thing is that thing, not all the other stuff it isn't. My car is a vehicle propelled by a combustion engine. It isn't an artichoke, or Sumatra, or a bedspring. That doesn't make Sumatra, an artichoke and a bedspring the same things in any way, other than in not being a vehicle propelled by a combustion engine.
Similarly, marriage is a man and woman joining. Has been (with a few isolated tribes or social groups here and there through the millenia acting as irrelevant statistical outliers) as long as there's been a concept of 'marriage.' It's involved that joining as arranged by parents or politics or financial concerns, and still always a man and woman. It's been based on notions of love, and still always a man and woman. It's been a widow marrying a widower or an intentionally or accidentally infertile couple and always (you guessed it) between a man and woman.
Know why? Because marriage is a social institution, not at essence a private one. It serves a key function in creating a stable basis for child rearing and sexual interaction, two human behaviors of such potency that they could rip any society apart without a general social agreement about how they're conducted.
It isn't in the end about the couple. It's about that couples role in the larger group. It isn't about some nursery school notion of fairness. It's about channelling human drives that are creative and helpful when channelled, destructive and chaotic when not. Without such channeling the social stability which makes any grouping of human beings from the tribal to the national level isn't possible.
More concretely, what's required of the law is that it be applied evenly to all citizens, and that the nature of the law allows such an even handed application. We've decided that where choice in ones 'class' isn't present discrimination on the basis of that 'class' isn't just. Even handed in application, segregaton laws negatively affecting black citizens weren't even handed in nature for example. Marriage laws however are even handed both in application and nature. While I respect other adults rights to make romantic choices, I fail to see where those choices imply a burden on anyone else to mitigate their results.
Gay citizens claim that they have no choice in the matter, and perhaps as to inclination they don't. I wouldn't know. But as to behavior they do. And the consequences of their behavior are theirs to bear, just as the consequences of mine are mine to bear.
Oh look who crawled out from under the refrigerator to grasp onto the one tiny thing he could and string it out for several paragraphs! How is that sinking realization that Obama will be re-elected and DOMA likely struck down within the next couple of years working out for you =)
Neither is the misapprehension that the choice to be romantically involved with a same sex partner entitles you to change marriage for the 97% or so of your fellow citizens who didn't.
Interestingly, Savage seems to have recognized the indefensibilty of his decade long attacks on Mr. Santorum. Several posts in a couple of days defending himself show that he realizes that this defense is required by the circumstances.
Of course it won't wash. I mean, Savage isn't bright, obviously. But a kid could tell you that first no comparison to pedophilia and bestiality from homosexuality was actually made. Basic English, really. Anyone could tell that Mr. Santorum hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of becoming the president, and isn't likely to gain another elected office if he fails at this bid. In that respect he's a private citizen entitled to opinions with which Savage differs, but certainly not a rational target of Savages filthy rage. And anyone could tell that this years long vendetta is a tiny bit of overkill given the circumstance that it post dates Mr. Santorum leaving office, and predates his seeking the presidency.
No, anyone could tell this is just Savage being a petty filthy minded halfwit with a grudge or crush (or since he expressed a wish to have whatever 'hate sex' might be with Mr. Santorum, both) on Mr. Santorum.
Blah blah blah, you're losing, learn to deal with it or move to Iran, those are your only options crybaby
Superb refutation! Masterful, really. Be honest, you've studied the great proponents of rhetoric from Seneca through Pope and learned from them, yes?
I'm just....I'm just overwhelmed by your brilliance, Muddy.
Yes, Obama will likely be re-elected. Short of a major financial or foreign policy blunder anyway.
Yes, the United States is socially de-evolving. In trying to be nice and accepting and tolerant, we're refusing to stand on our culture and ask of dissenters that THEY accept it or leave.
But no, not Iran. Don't like desserts, really. Our house in Italy is our bolthole if progressive ideology sickens our nation too badly. More progressive in theory, in fact they're very aware that social and religious influences can complement each other to the betterment of both. American progressives could learn a thing or two from them really...
Correction, don't like deserts. Desserts are one of the reasons I love spending time in Italy.
Oh good! Then you can run away in real life just like you do online! That won't last long either though, just FYI.
Yeah and since you so frequently tout your own intellect, nice job spelling pal =)
You're right. A few generations of progressive thinking have brought Italy to the brink of bankruptcy, as with Greece, Portugal and Spain. This kind of half baked thinking is so unworkable it collapsed the Soviet Union (remember the USSR?) and China wisely steered away from it before they suffered the same fate. I'd imagine that kind of thinking really won't last long in Italy and they'll re-embrace the intelligence of conservative thinking. Very perceptive of you.
Sorry bigot, no dice. But they do keep burying his comparison to child rape, which is fucking aggravating.
I think, somewhere deep in your subconcious, you realize that making up your own facts is a losing proposition. What will it take to bring it up to your concious thought? And how hard will it be on you, I wonder?
Still, the article is wrong. I googled Santorum the other day and Spreading Santorum was the SECOND link that showed up. The first was about the senator.
Santorum is wrong too. Previous societies have upheld an idea of marriage that was one man and several women. Other societies have had looser ideas of what marriage was. However, OUR society is based on the nuclear family. That is why making it easier for more people to form nuclear families would be a good thing for all of us.
About one thing you're sort of right. The USSR was partly brought down by their stupid Marxist economic theories. Partly they were brought down by visionary foreign policy enacted by Reagan.
And of course, we went from 18% to 7% or 8% interest rates and high inflation to a standard 5% in his presidency. We went from 14% unemployment to a boom in our economy. The Carter recession ended in large part because Reagan, like Kennedy before him, understood that one of the primary jobs of any leader is to inspire citizens to do for themselves, to be proud and independent citizens of the greatest nation on this earth.
Unlike the current empty suit in the Oval Office, Reagan could and did lead this nation. When compromise with the opposition was needed, he compromised. When principles needed held, he held them. Mr. Obama could learn a thing or two about leadership from former president Reagan. But that would mean he was interested in leading rather than what was good for Mr. Obama.
And Americans realized again just how good a place this was, just how lucky we were to have been born as citizens of the greatest country on the planet under this president.
The end of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear armageddon, prosperity at home, a renewal of pride and love of this nation in her citizens- these qualify as 'going to pot' with you?
The left hates Reagan so deeply precisely because he proves how wrong they are about nearly everything. They despise an effective leader because since FDR (an effective traitor, but still effective in leading the nation onto the road to its own eventual destruction) you haven't had one. Hell, George Bush could get his job done with Congress, yet you hate him passionately, even irrationally. Your president can only whine about how he would do stuff if only those meany Republicans would LET him.
They say the retaliation was because he "has a problem with homosexual acts". A lot of commenters have objected but there hasn't been a correction.
I note that you seem very invested in maintaining a certain traditional definition of marriage. But surely you are aware that marriage traditions have changed more than once over the course of history, and that much of what you yourself probably see as important to keep (such as the idea of a companionate marriage, or that women should enter into marriage freely and as equal partners, perhaps even the right to divorce) are relatively new aspects and do not follow historical precedent dating back more than two hundred or so years.
So where does the fixative get sprayed on civic/social institutions? It has been in a constant state of change for pretty much ever.
More importantly, what difference does it make to you, your family, or society in general if any two individuals want to marry? Your marriage isn't invalid, the family unit is still the same as it was before. No one will force you to have a gay marriage, or your church to perform one.
Times change and customs, institutions, and laws change with them.
Your curious jump from Santorum to gay issues to economical problems in Italy is indeed quite amusing. As they say around your little house in Italy, se non è vero è ben trovato... Sarebbe ancora meglio se ci fosse un po' di verità, ma quando non ce n'è, non ce n'è. :-)
Did you also know that if you google "google problem" with those quotation marks, the entire first page is all about santorum? Delicious, no?
@ 78, don't give him any more encouragement. Intelligence does not go hand in hand with honesty, integrity, or a desire to arrive at the truth of things. You can find that out the easy way (by listening to me, ankylosaur, venomlash, Rob in Baltimore, and others) or the hard way...
And Seattleblues? You have no standing with which to critique the arguments of others. The closest you come to an actual watertight argument supported by evidence is a few flimsy assertions bound together by an appeal to emotion.
Anything except reassess your own prejudice. Or even try to justify or defend it logically.
Anything but that.
And anyway, I have not yet seen any compelling arguments as to how gay marriage changes marriage for everyone who isn't gay. Or any arguments that aren't based on religion (get the fuck out) or complete, unfounded opinion (in which case at least own it for what it is and stop acting like it's fact).
Like, MA has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, and was the first state to legalize gay marriage! Years ago! Shouldn't it have fallen apart by now?
The South, clinging to the values you yourself espouse, has the highest divorce rate out of anywhere.
So unless you come back with some actual logic (you know, facts, data, objective points) that isn't based on religion, opinion, or some appeal to morality/"family values"/whatever buzzword you feel like using, just go wank into your bible, okay?
America is a center right nation, with a majority of her citizens identifying as Christian. Even with our leftward shift, we're still far to the right of most of the rest of the world, thank God. Even with much vaunted separation of church and state (a term which appears nowhere in the Constitution, by the by) we still can and do enshrine Christian values in our laws through the democratic process.
I don't have to defend marriage to you. I don't have to defend our economic system, or our majority Christian beliefs. If you don't like marriage as practiced here, or are bigots about Christianity, or hate that some prosper while you don't you have a choice- Move. Canada apparently does it so much better. All right then, move there. Germany too is the heaven of progressives. Another possible destination.
But here's the deal if you stay. We in the majority don't owe you anything. If you want change YOU must demonstrate what you think the problem is and why it's important to anyone but you. YOU must demonstrate how your proposed solution will solve your presumptive problem. And YOU must convince enough of your fellow citizens to democratically pass your notions.
And you don't get to attack real marriage, marriage between a man and woman, to prove your point. If you haven't the evidence that not having gay marriage is a compelling civil rights problem needing legislative or judicial redress that's your problem. Attacking real marriage won't solve it for you.
You also don't get to attack Christianity. A majority of our citizens identify as Christian. While we cannot cite the 10 commandments in criminal code, we can and should vote for those who share our values and write legislation or vote on it accordingly, all without any Constitutional problem. All law is subjective, reflective of social mores and cultural predispositions, including marriage. Deal with it or move where your ideology is more congenial.
Try to understand what was written.
You don't get to attack real marriage- as an excuse to justify gay unions erroneously being called marriage.
You don't get to attack Christianity- as a justification for erroneously calling gay unions marriage.
Obviously you and every other liberal have every right to hate families and Christianity and morality as private opinions. You have every right to vote based on that hatred, or write bitter screeds attacking this country and what it stands for. And you have the obligation to accept the popular will as elections show it or relocate where you can tolerate the national politcal climate.
equating or contrasting homosexuality with bestiality and child rape. English
is a tricky language in that meaning is conveyed through spoken intonation as well as other language elements. I wonder whether there is a recording of the interview?
This is Gaymerica!
Anti-Christian Bigotry is the State Religion!
Indulge yourself, you ignorant smug hatemongering little Nazi prick...
You need to bring some facts to the table, because, as much as this may pain you, your views do not determine reality.
But too literate to be true. Delicious troll.