Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Google the word “Santorum” or the phrase “Rick Santorum” and the #1 and #2 result respectively is for the website www.spreadingsantorum.com.Not to be nit-picky, guy, but you'll notice that we didn't re-define Santorum as a person: he's defined himself as a big enough shit-bag without our help. No, we simply redefined his name to mean something really, really gross. Implying that Obama (the president) is an Islamist terrorist is not only defamatory to all those non-terrorist Muslims out there (most Muslims), but also to the president who is 1. not Muslim, 2. not a terrorist, and 3. the fucking president. Just sayin'.
. . .
Clearly, the website is designed to tarnish the former Pennsylvania Senator for his outspoken anti-gay stances. In no way would I ever call for the website to be banished from the web, but my question is, why does Google give the site such a high ranking? Obviously, the owners of the website have Google bombed there [sic] way to the top. Should it be allowed to stand?
What if a group of Tea Partiers stared [sic] the website www.spreadingobama.com and defined the word “obama” in a defamatory way? Such as: Obama 1. When an Islamist acts as an American in order to bring down the country from the inside. 2. President Barack Obama. Does anyone reading this think for a moment that Google would allow that website to be anywhere near the top of the search engine’s results for the words “Barack Obama” now or during the 2008 campaign? Google would rightly banish the website outright, or at least bounce it to page 15 of the search results.
See? Totally not defamation. Look up defamation: this is not it.
And thus an idea was born. With minimal effort, I could draw attention to some of the dumb shit our old friend says in a way that is neither tasteful nor time-consuming. So, without further ado, it is my honor to present Santorum:
Yep. He actually said that.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Rick Santorum hasn't seen it, but that didn't stop him from responding:
I'd hardly call the harmless jab of sticking a fake Santorum in a gay bar (and then making him seem unhappy to be there) a "hammering from the left," but I'm not trying to ride the victim train to the presidency. I mean, it's not like SNL redefined his name to mean the grossest thing they could think of and then spammed the Internet until that redefinition was pretty much the only thing that came up when you Googled the guy or anything. That would be way meaner.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Um. Wow. Way to stick it to Rick on gay rights, Fox News reporter Chris Wallace. You should really watch the whole interview, which can be found here.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go defrost Hell.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Getting past that, the two biggest pieces of news in the Republican presidential campaign over the past couple of weeks have been the rise of Herman Cain, which I think is a boring story of the moment, and Occupy Wall Street, which I find much more interesting. I think pretty much every Republican candidate for president has discussed Occupy Wall Street over the past week, including our good friend Rick Santorum (who was surprisingly one of the most understanding towards Occupy Wall Street, although he of course disagreed with their pro-government intervention viewpoint.)
I must say that I'm a bit torn by Occupy Wall Street, and find that most people who are covering the event, no matter how much they support it, are. In particular, the media on the left tend to be torn about whether this is a liberal Tea Party or not. When conservatives denounce Occupy Wall Street, liberals call them hypocrites because there isn't that much difference between what the Tea Party has done and what Occupy Wall Street is doing. However, when moderates and conservatives say Occupy Wall Street is like the Tea Party, a lot of us on the left try and say how Occupy Wall Street is more or different.
I see too many similarities between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street to not see them as two sides of the same coin. This is not meant as a put down of Occupy Wall Street. Like the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street has taken people who feel disaffected and giving them a voice. For the biggest dissimilarity between the two groups, the individuals at Occupy Wall Street actually are the people who have been most hurt by the economic downturn of 2008: college graduates who have entered the job market to find no jobs, laid off individuals who have found it impossible to find new jobs, people who have had their homes foreclosed upon because their homes lost half their value in the last five years, and union members. That is a significant difference, especially in the morality behind the message. But there is another similarity that is stronger to me: both groups have very broad, somewhat muddled messages.
The Tea Party is well known for making broad pronunciations of limited government and strict constitutional construction, without describing what that means or turning that into specific policy proposals aside from calling for no taxes or repealing the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, the only message that Occupy Wall Street has sent out about their goals was a very broad, nonspecific list that was essentially a rundown of far left goals. Indeed, Keith Olbermann, whom I typically enjoy, touted how nonspecific Occupy Wall Street's list was as a strength because it showed how irretrievably broken the American economy is.
And that's where Occupy Wall Street shares a major flaw with the Tea Party. It is actually pretty easy to get a bunch of people who are mad and feeling disenfranchised together to complain about what's wrong. It's a lot harder to come to a consensus about specific policies to take to improve matters. That takes hard work. If Occupy Wall Street wants to be taken more seriously, they need a specific set of policy initiatives they support. And those initiatives have to be realistic. Getting to those initiatives might be difficult. But it's necessary.
If I was active in Occupy Wall Street leadership, I'd suggest naming 5 specific pieces of legislation we wanted enacted at the federal level. Personally, my five would be: (1) return of federal income tax rates on the top two tax brackets to Clinton-era levels; (2) the abolition of the lower tax rate for capital gains taxes; (3) elimination of subsidies for oil production in its entirety and agricultural enterprises that have over a certain amount of revenue; (4) $1 trillion over the next ten years that goes directly to much needed infrastructure improvements; and (5) the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. If I was adding a sixth wish list item that would require a Constitutional Amendment, it would be support of a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly states that a corporation is not a person and, which would eliminated Citizens United.
I know a lot of people like Occupy Wall Street the way it is right now. There are a lot of things I like about it as well. But I think doing the hard work to come to consensus to make proposals for beneficial and realistic legislation will both make Occupy Wall Street more effective and relevant far into the future.
Friday, October 7, 2011
This is the hard core of the Democratic Party, which, if I were Barack Obama — and I'm not giving advice to the president — I would certainly distance myself from," Santorum, who is running to replace Obama in 2012, said Friday on CNBC. "He's got those folks, what he's having problems with is the rest of America who's suffering because he's been listening too much to those folks."I mean, I could get into the complexities and inefficiencies of the two-party political system we've got here in the US, because it really does mean that fringe movements have a louder voice than they probably deserve, but I feel more compelled to suggest that perhaps the Republicans should think about distancing themselves from the Tea Party first. I mean, if you want to talk about policies that make Americans suffer, you have to start with lack of universal health coverage, the restriction of reproductive rights, and the taxation of the poor to subsidize the rich. These are all things that the Tea Party, and Rick Santorum, support. And I'd like to think that "the rest of America" isn't really into that. Hopefully.
Monday, October 3, 2011
I realize that Santorum probably can't afford proper handlers due to the fact that nobody with any sense would ever give him a dime, but it's amazing to me that the staff he does have thinks that it's advantageous to allow their presidential candidate to display this level helplessness. I mean, what happens if he gets elected and people want to put pressure on him to make decisions? Will he be able to handle it? If his decision backfires, will he stand by it or will he blame some third-party for bullying him, the president, into making a decision he didn't truly support?
This apparent weakness of character is actually pretty far down the line of issues with Rick Santorum - he has no discernible good qualities - but I do think it warrants attention because it's something that should make even his most ardent supporters think twice. Surely the extreme social conservatives would rather have a bully than a victim in their corner. And the fact of the matter is that Rick Santorum hasn't actually been a bully for about eight years.
Why? Because we beat him. And we're a website about poopy lube started by a sex advice columnist. Honestly.
Friday, September 23, 2011
From The Washington Post:
When the Republican presidential contenders debated in Orlando tonight, it was really two debates. In the first third of the evening, a series of disjointed questions without follow-ups, Texas Gov. Rick Perry seemed strong and well-prepared. But he faded over the rest of the debate, appearing to lose his steam just as he was trying to paint Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.
The big winner of the night, however, was Rick Santorum.
Santorum has been waiting for the chance to supplant Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) as the third-ranking candidate in the race. Tonight he went a long way toward achieving that. Bachmann never managed to make a presence. Santorum, however, socked Perry on in-state tuition breaks for Texas college students who are illegal immigrants, making the point that Perry is subsidizing those people over non-Texan American citizens. On Afghanistan, he hit a home run, telling off Jon Huntsman Jr. over the latter’s suggestion to bug out of a war short of victory. He barked, “Just because our economy is sick doesn’t mean America is sick.” When asked about right-to-work laws, Santorum smartly steered the discussion to public employee unions. As the debate went on, he received more and more questions, a sure sign he was becoming a contender.
I remember when Bill Clinton's second term was coming to an end and Bush and Gore were duking it out for the presidency. I was thirteen at the time, and a big fan of Saturday Night Live. Shortly before the election, they did a special where they interviewed the cast members about the joys of making fun of politicians. They also asked everyone whom they wanted to win. I can't remember who said it, but one of the SNL cast said that they were hoping for Bush because they thought he'd be more fun to mock every Saturday. I remember being outraged: comedy is not a reason to support a politician! Since getting the opportunity to write for this fine blog, however, I've come to understand exactly what that unmemorable SNL cast member was feeling.
I am rooting for Santorum.
Not to win the presidency, obviously: that would be disastrous. But dammit, I really want him to win the Republican nomination. I want to take the piss out of him for as long as possible. It was getting kind of lame and sad making fun of what seemed like the next candidate to drop out of the race. Making fun of the Republican party's rising star, however, is so much more satisfying.
So, good job, Rick. Good job painting the DADT repeal as an excuse for gay soldiers to fuck in the trenches. Good job pandering to the lowest common denominator (the majority of your constituents). And, finally, good job not giving up when your chances of winning seemed nothing short of nonexistent. I genuinely would love nothing more than for you to win the Republican nomination.
Because then Obama would definitely get re-elected.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
It's pretty awesome to be us, though.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
As a (recovering) Catholic, I think it's unfair of Santorum to associate his views with all Catholics. Certainly the Vatican would have us believe all kinds of crazy things, but in the real world there is a lot of liberal dissent within the Church. Plus, you know, he goes to Latin mass, so it's not like he's actually following the official Vatican position either.
But I'm not the only one who takes issue with this video. The American Psychological Association released a statement in regard to their own position on gay marriage. Here it is (via Think Progress):
The American Psychological Association’s position in support of same-sex marriage is based on a body of empirical research concerning sexual orientation and marriage. APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all its attendant benefits, rights and privileges.Simple. Easy. Nothing about napkins or cars or glasses of water. No whining that a 2000-year-old institution (that is also responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, and numerous smaller religious wars, among other, more recent, atrocities) backs them up. Just a sentence about research and a sentence about rights. Done.
You know, I think this pile of santorum is starting to cool.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the gay community has "gone out on a jihad" against him for his stance against gay marriage.Oh no! The two biggest threats to America - gays and Muslims - are comin' to git ya (and yer jobs, and yer guns) if ya don't vote for Rick Santorum! RUN FER YER LIIIIIIIVES!!!!!!!!
"So the gay community said, 'He's comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he do this,' and they have gone out on a, I would argue, jihad against Rick Santorum since then," the former senator said at a campaign stop in Spartanburg, S.C., on Friday.
Oh, wait. I forgot I'm not an idiot. Santorum, on the other hand, is. What he doesn't realize is that his fear-mongering statement that the gay community is committing 'jihad' against him is actually the most accurate thing he's said possibly ever.
Literally translated, the word 'jihad' means 'struggle.' Rather than harping on the ancient, militant connotation of jihad, modern Muslim scholars have applied the word to Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence and the women's suffrage movement. The struggle, then, for equal rights for all Americans could easily fall in that same category.
Like Muslims, who have a duty to their god to wage a moral and spiritual battle - whether it be against oppressors or against other kinds of obstacles, proponents of equality have a duty to struggle against those who would oppress us. As Senator Poopy-Lube has been so gracious as to practically wear a neon sign around his neck that says "BIGOT," he's kind of an easy target. Plus, you know, it's fun to make fun of him because he actually responds. DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THE BEST WAY TO MAKE US GO AWAY IS TO IGNORE US, RICK?
Allah knows we'd love it if we could ignore you.
Friday, August 26, 2011
FACT: Cars are cars.
FACT: Trees are not cars.
FACT: Marriage is marriage.
It's tough to argue with such solid logic. I mean, trees are trees, and cars are indeed cars. Trees are not cars and cars are not trees. This is all definitely true.
But what it has to do with marriage, I fail to understand. After all, trees and cars are physical objects - one of them alive and one of them mechanical. Marriage, on the other hand, is at once an abstract concept, a religious sacrament, and a legal status. A particular marriage between two (or, in some cases, more) people could be any combination of those three things. Certainly two people in the United States can be legally married without involving religion, or vice-versa. A couple could also have lived together for so long that they consider themselves married, with or without a certificate saying it's so. In fact, my old roommate and I used to call each other "wifey" due to the extreme domesticity and emotional closeness in our relationship. It was a marriage, of sorts, even if it wasn't a tree or a car.
Beyond the metaphysical, however, there is a bigger reason why this argument of Santorum's doesn't work. This reason is obvious to anyone who has ever thought about anything ever, and therefore Old Frothy is unlikely to ever understand it. I don't even need to tell you what the reason is, because you almost certainly know: marriage has already been re-defined.
It's only in recent history that the majority of Western marriages have stopped being of the arranged variety. Marriages for love (or like or whatever) are now the norm. This is a major redefinition of marriage, one that I doubt even Santorum would argue against. That said, arranged marriages still happen, even in the United States. Orthodox Jews, for example, still exclusively use matchmakers to find a spouse. These marriages are different from the norm, but still entitle the married couple to the same benefits a "traditional" married couple would receive.
It also used to be common practice in the West for the families of the bride to pay a dowry to the families of the husband when an engagement took place. This was to ensure that the woman, who could not work outside the home, would be supported by her husband. This practice no longer takes place for several reasons, not the least of which being that women are seen as a little more useful these day than they had been in the past. Certainly the disappearance of the dowry is a redefinition of marriage with which Santorum would not take issue.
Even in the Bible, we can see marriage evolve. In the Old Testament, nearly all the marriages were polygamous. Men of status had a veritable harem of wives and lovers, with whom they had many children. In the New Testament, this practice disappears, leaving married women with a social status that was slightly more elevated than before. I highly doubt that this redefinition of marriage from polygamy to monogamy is something Santorum abhors.
FACT: Marriage, like trees that grow from saplings to giants and come in many different species, is a multi-faceted and ever-changing concept.
FACT: Marriage, like cars that have increasingly become smarter, faster, and more fuel efficient, has evolved with the times.
FACT: Santorum is the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Which, you know, fair enough. I mean, he seems like a harmless enough guy, in a mentally-subnormal, bigoted kind of way. But this effort on the part of Rick's loved ones to humor him isn't actually doing him a kindness. All they're really doing is allowing him to get into situations where he can only embarrass himself. Like this one (via Politico):
Rick Santorum is embarking on a three-day fundraising blitz across Pennsylvania next week.
Santorum, who served Pennsylvania in the Senate for two terms, will hold fundraising events in at least eight cities next week. They’re his first fundraisers since he finished fourth at the Iowa Straw Poll, despite spending little money on the effort. He’ll be hoping to give his underfunded candidacy a shot in the arm and bolster his argument for staying in the race.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Jon Stewart and The Daily Show wipe up Santorum:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|DOMA Sweet DOMA|
Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report Wipe up Santorum:
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|Tip/Wag - Evangelical Scientists & Rick Santorum|
Thursday, August 18, 2011
This is an idea worth investigating. In fact, it's so worth investigating that I spent a whole ten minutes investigating it. In that time, I found some very interesting information. Did you know that out of over 200 countries in the world, there are only sixteen that have a AAA rating from both Standard & Poore's and Moody's credit agencies? That means that those sixteen countries have the world's strongest economies. Following Santorum's logic, it follows that those sixteen must also be the sixteen most morally sound countries in the world.
Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken…
If you think that we can be a society that kills our own, and that disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings. And you can’t say that we’re gonna take morality out of the public square, morality out of our schools, God out of our schools, and then expect people to behave decently in a country that requires, capitalism requires some strong modicum of moral consciousness if it’s gonna be successful.
Which makes it pretty awesome that four of them have legalized gay marriage, twelve of them have universal healthcare, and all of them have some level of legalized abortion. That's my kind of morality, but I'm pretty sure it's not Rick's.
Every speech I give, I talk about the Declaration of Independence, where rights come from God. That's where they come from in this country. It's different than any other country in the history of the world. We said our rights come to each and every one of us from God. That is the source of our power to govern. Yes, the consent of the governed, but where do the people get the power from which to exercise? It's in keeping and trying to pass laws that is consistent with God's law. God gives you the rights. He doesn't give them to you and says, 'Do whatever you want.' He gave them to you and said… Well, look at later on in the Declaration they refer to nature and nature's God. That we are to live by the natural law and God's laws.Why, you ask, do I allow such predictable statements by my old friend Rick to get under my skin? Well, I answer, it's because unlike some of the ideological issues on which we hold differing opinions, the idea that America was founded with the purpose of doing God's work is completely disprovable.
That is what when they talked about the 'pursuit of happiness.' If you go back and read the definition in Webster at the time of the Declaration, or certainly thereafter, what 'happiness' was defined as doing good. Doing good, doing what is moral. So the pursuit of something ordered and morally good is what our founders were saying.
Which is in other words living your life consistent – taking those rights and living them consistent with God's law. That was the goal and the aim of America. Someone has to speak out and remind Americas who we are. Someone has to get up and we have to say that America, as I said last night, is a moral enterprise.
Don't believe me? Ask Thomas Jefferson. Here's what he had to say on the subject:
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.He also said this:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.Seeing as Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, about which Rick claims to be such an expert, I think it's fair to assume that when he wrote about the right to "the pursuit of happiness," he didn't mean "you know, as long as you behave like a puritanical bigot who had to have 9,000 children to make up for his total lack of friends."
But we don't actually have to assume anything here, because John Adams, who was also on the Declaration-writing committee, flat-out said it in 1787:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.It's fine to be a bigot. As we've all got rights, I can't actually prevent Rick Santorum from shoving his foot half-way up his frothy ass. But I also think it's important that any president of this country have a cursory knowledge of its history, which means accepting that the founding fathers had room among their numbers for non-Christians, and so should we all.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Santorum hasn’t been running against Barack Obama. He’s been running against Dan Savage, a syndicated sex columnist. It’s hard to blame him. His opposition to Obama is theoretical. But thanks to Dan Savage, his name is quite literally mud.Wait for it...
He’s trying all kinds of things. Yesterday, he showed up at an event and handed out free jars of homemade Santorum jelly. If you’re aware of his Google problem, you will realize how horrifyingly awkward this must have been.Awesome. So awesome. Read the whole thing here.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum criticized early education programs on Tuesday as an effort to “indoctrinate your children,” adding that parents, not federal bureaucrats, must be responsible for the success of students.. . . .
“It is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children. It is not the government’s job. We have sort of lost focus here a little bit. Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be. I am against that,” he said.
It's getting harder and harder to respond to the santorum that comes out of Santorum's mouth. It's kind of like arguing with my friend Joel, who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job. There is no amount of logic or evidence one can provide that will dissuade a person from holding such unreasonable beliefs. If you want to believe that the government flew remote-controlled planes into the World Trade Center, or that Head Start is an effort to brainwash young people, I really can't stop you.
But come the fuck on, you can't hold that kind of belief while running for president. Cuz then you'd be part of the system, man. You'd be one of them. If you want to be an anarchist, go for it, but there is no such thing as an anarchist president. Gosh.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
From the view of a liberal, the end result of the bill is pretty crappy. It's all spending cuts, no revenues, and it could result in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the next round of cuts. However, it's better than a default, which might have made the 2008 downturn seem like a mere correction. Also, while the political part of me likes the idea of the President invoking the 14th Amendment option, which would involve President Obama stating that the debt limit in itself is unconstitutional, the lawyer in me thinks it's generally a good idea to avoid a Constitutional crisis if possible. It wouldn't help anything if the full faith and credit of the federal government turned on issues of standing and Constitutional interpretation.
So we're in a familiar zone: we have an incredibly flawed bill, but one that avoids the worst possible outcomes. But what are the possible long term results? That likely depends on two things: (1) does the unemployment rate go down? And (2) if not, who do the American people blame for it?
Result No. 1: Best Possible Option
I have heard rumors from some friends who work in the financial markets that some big companies are saying they've been waiting to hire until the debt ceiling issue was determined. One the one hand, this does make some sense. Corporate profits have been up, so you do have a lot of large companies sitting on some significant piles of cash. Considering the uncertainty with the value of bonds pre-debt ceiling increase, it would be understandable if many companies didn't want to add debt. Adding employees is adding debt. On the other hand, though, it sounds a lot like what Paul Krugman has called the Confidence Fairy.
So the best case scenario is that employment picks up, we're down to something like 7% or below unemployment by 2012, and Obama and the Democrats ride that to significant gains in 2012, at which point they enact some more liberal policies than have dominated the past 10 months or so.
Result No. 2: Not Great Now, But OK Long Term
Most analysts, though, don't expect a significant uptick in employment. So what's the next best option? That things don't get significantly better, but the American populace blames Republicans and the Tea Party for it. So while we won't see improvement now, we should see an Obama re-election and some gains in Congress. At that point hopefully the government can get along dealing with our real big three long term economic issues: (1) unemployment; (2) not enough revenue; and (3) bending the medical cost curve throughout society.
Result No. 3: A Whole Lot of Bad
In this case, the economy both wouldn't improve and Obama would be blamed for it. Republicans would maintain the House and take the Senate, and a Republican would win the White House. They'll deal with the economy the way they always do: cutting taxes. Our inherent problems in our economy won't get any better, income disparity will increase, and they'll undo what progress Democrats have been able to make over the past few years. In other words, it's the nightmare scenario.
Personally, I'm betting on number 2, and counting on the American people to have long enough memories to remember who caused all the problems with this debt bill. We'll see how that goes.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Rick Santorum’s “family tour” in Iowa kicked off Tuesday without the family.
The clan of nine, including all seven children, began their road trip Monday from their Pittsburgh home. A crew of reporters – a Fox News satellite truck, ABC News and an array of other TV, print and radio staff – waited with cameras poised at a coffee shop in Ankeny for Team Santorum’s arrival at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday.
But the candidate arrived alone. . . “The kids are going to be fishing and four-wheeling and doing some fun stuff today,” Santorum explained during the coffee shop stop. “Not that this isn’t fun … but they deserve a break today. I’ll be seeing them tomorrow night.”
So even the Santorums don't want to spend time with Santorum? Maybe it's because every time he opens his mouth, he says something like this (in response to the legalization of gay marriage in New York):
I am not, as some in this race have said, OK with New York doing what they’re doing. What New York did was wrong. I will oppose it and I will go to New York, if necessary, and help overturn it...
I’m for great latitude for the states to do a lot, but not anything. And this idea that the 10th amendment means there is no boundary to what the states can do is a misunderstanding of the 10th amendment and I will stand on that ground.
We created a society that changed the world. Why? Because it’s bottom up. Free people. … That combination took civilization from a point of view that for 2,000 years from the time of Jesus Christ to the time of the revolution, life expectancy was the same: 40. … Didn’t change for thousands of years. Until America.
We’ve gone through an industrial revolution, a technological revolution. Life expectancy has doubled. Why? Because for the first time we let people be free. No king, no monarch, no emperor, no big government telling people how to run their lives. That’s the key of America.
That’s why people want to come here. It’s not because of the government guarantees of benefits. It’s because of the government guarantee of freedom. That will be lost if Barack Obama is re-elected.
Without even a hint of irony.
Perhaps the rest of the Santorum clan don't want to spend time with their wizened patriarch because, when confronted about the fact that his campaign t-shirts were made in the Dominican Republic, he responded thusly:
It’s tragic that so many products in this country are made outside of this country. And what we have to do is create a different dynamic. I think my policies are very clear that we have to go out and make setting up a business in this country productive.
Unfortunately under this administration and frankly previous administrations we have had had a unfriendly environment, particularly to the textile business.
. . . You probably can find a T-shirt occasionally made in the United States but it’s harder and harder to do. That’s the tragedy. It’s a case in point of the tragedy of those kinds of jobs that should be in the United States but are not.
I kind of feel sorry for Rick, so I'm going to help him out. I did a Google search (which I assume Frothy is understandably reluctant to do) and found these companies that sell wholesale t-shirts made in the good old U S of A:
You get the picture. It's all well and good to blame current and previous administrations for the fact that there aren't a lot of manufacturing jobs left in the United States, but believers in the free market (like, presumably, Rick Santorum) should understand that one of the most basic principles of economics is the idea of supply and demand. If you demand t-shirts that are made in the United States (as the customers of the aforementioned companies have obviously done), manufacturers will open up new supply lines.
If, on the other hand, you pretend that you couldn't find anything that's made in the US, because "waaaa it's so hard," you make it pretty obvious that pinching pennies in your under-funded campaign is more important to you than living by the ideals you claim to stand for. I can see why your children are embarrassed to be seen with you, Rick. God knows I would be.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
SANTORUM: But what I believe is that government should have a bias, a bias in favor of what is best for society, a bias in favor of what is proven to be best for children, which is the future of society.The video is on Think Progress, if you feel inclined to watch it. Otherwise, please enjoy the following statement from the American Psychological Association:
From just the standpoint of how do children who are born out of wedlock do with respect to their educational achievement, their professional achievement, with respect to their criminal record, with respect to drug use, with respect to having children out of wedlock themselves, with having broken families themselves — how do they do? In every measure — every measure, overwhelmingly — they do worse.
Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.Once you've enjoyed that, please enjoy this quote from the Journal of Marriage and Family:
Because access to legal same-sex marriage is so new and rare, we do not yet have research that compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples. Even so, scholars have achieved a rare degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005).And, for good measure, here's one more tidbit from the APA:
Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends—both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.The Family Research Council does have some studies that say that gays and lesbians are too busy fucking and doing drugs to be good parents, but I'm not actually going to link to them because, well, they're a hate group. I've never found a word they've promoted to be true.
In closing, I'd like to present you with this quote from the State of California in 1948, during the Perez v. Lippold anti-miscegenation case (via equalitygiving.org):
It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.Just sayin'.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
But, lo and behold, Herman Cain may be giving Rick Santorum a run for his money. Cain has outright stated that he wouldn't name a Muslim as a member of his cabinet because, at least as far as Cain is concerned, just being Muslim makes you prone to being a terrorist.
The good news is that Cain and Santorum are equally irrelevant because neither actually has a chance to win the Republican nomination. But the mere fact that you have two candidates for a major party's presidential candidate who are taken seriously by at least a significant part of that party that have made prejudice towards a minority a significant component of their campaign is disconcerting enough.
You tell him, Dan.
Remember when Ann Coulter apologized for her liberal-bashing books Godless, Treason, and Demonic? Or when Jonah Goldberg apologized for Liberal Fascism? Or when Michele Bachmann apologized for suggesting that the media investigate liberal members of Congress for their anti-Americanism? Or when Rick Santorum apologized for comparing same-sex couples who want to marry to Islamist terrorists who want to kill Americans?
Yeah, me neither.
Conservatives beat up, impugn, and slam liberals all the time. And conservatives make their attacks personal because their policies are unpopular and they'll always have an easier time running on "Who you'd wanna have a beer with?" So they beat up and brutalize their opponents. Because they're bullies. And like all bullies, they react with shock and sputtering rage when someone they're beating the shit out of has the nerve to swing back at 'em.
For the record: Rick Santorum is America's leading anti-gay bully. He wants to reinstate DADT, ban gay people from adopting children, split up bi-bational gay couples—he wants to prevent a gay person from being at his partner's bedside during a medical emergency, for Christ's sake, because perversions like that somehow undermines straight marriage.
But while we're on the subject of traditional families: I support families with mothers and fathers. Hell, I'm the product of one of those traditional families. (And I believe in raising children—those barbarians aren't going to raise themselves.) I also support families with fathers and fathers, families with mothers and mothers, and families with just a mom or just a dad. Support for families isn't a zero-sum game: support for gay families takes nothing away from straight families. Rick Santorum is the hateful douche who's out there telling people that you can't support one kind of family without taking a shit on all other kinds.
It's hard to imagine that many people who search for "Rick Santorum" want to get Dan Savage's site. While I have little sympathy for Santorum, this is clearly a case in which Google is not working as intended. A more perfect search engine would not be so easily gulled.Thanks for the shout-out, Slate. But since santorum definitely means "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex," I think you're wrong about our awesomeness meaning that Google doesn't work properly.
At the same time, it's fair to say that SpreadingSantorum.com is something more than a Google bomb. It's a form of political protest—a campaign that has survived for eight years because lots of people believe that Santorum deserves to have his name dragged through the … not-so-palatable substance. When Roll Call asked Santorum about santorum, he characterized it as a hall of mirrors: "It's one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate." In this, he is dead wrong: If this were just the work of Dan Savage, Spreading Santorum would be nowhere near the top of the search results.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Every candidate, once elected, pledges by oath or affirmation to execute his or her duties of office in compliance with the laws of the state and country and Constitution. But the pledges we see today are oaths to voters on how a candidate will execute those lawful duties if given the privilege of being elected. . . .That's right, folks: nothing says "I'm as good as my word" quite like signing a non-legally-binding document published by a right-wing borderline-hate group. All that honesty is actually staggering. I'm sure that American moderates will be so impressed by Santorum's willingness to engage in conservative publicity stunts that they'll be clamoring to vote for him in the next election. Who needs a president who has made good on many of his campaign promises when you've got a candidate who can sign a pledge?
Every candidate has heard the cynicism about politicians: "Oh, they will say one thing now, but just wait until they are elected." A lot of that is true about too many politicians and elected leaders. Pledges are our way of saying: "Not us."
Pledges only hold as much weight as the person signing them chooses to give them. I'm more interested in politicians who allow the nuances and complicated situations that arise with elected office to make them rethink their previous positions than ones who insist that the pledges they've signed have some magical deeper meaning, particularly when those pledges say things that I find to be morally repugnant.
So, in case there was any doubt, Rick Santorum, once elected, is going to ban porn, discriminate against pro-choice individuals while making appointments, and hold the belief that slavery was better for black people than having a black president. What a champ.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of pledges, I hope that those of you who have not signed the Pro-Choice pledge will do so. You know, because pledges are really important.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.One of the great American films is a little silent number called The Birth of a Nation. Released in 1915, it revolutionized the already fledgling film industry in the United States. It also portrayed, in no uncertain terms, an image of black people that was so outrageous that it offended white audiences in 1915. The idea was an old one: that black people were so savage that without the calming influence of a white-controlled society, they would revert to a level of violence and sexual aggression found primarily in wild animals.
This idea had been used as an argument against abolition. It was used again to argue against African-American suffrage and desegregation. I thought that we had moved past this kind of rhetoric in American society. I was under the impression that whatever kind of racism we have today, we still recognize the humanity of all American citizens. Obviously, however, this isn't the case for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and The Family Leader (the organization that wrote and promoted the pledge).
This isn't okay. This isn't something you can remove from the pledge and pretend it never happened. You can't apologize for stating that black people were better off as slaves than they are now. That's not how it works. Do us all a favor, Dumb and Dumber, and stop running for president. It's offensive.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
But what does "original intent" really mean? What was the original intent of the founders?
The title of my post is actually a bit of an overstatement. It's quite clear that the founders as a group did share many concerns and goals. For example, it was clear that the founders all intended for their to be three branches of government, and that the legislature would be bicameral. It was clear that they were concerned about the executive branch gaining too much power. It was clear that they wanted to intend for a national military. It was clear that they wanted it to be an amendable document.
But with the way the Rick Santorums of the world talk about original intent, it's like they think the drafters of the Constitution were this hive mind that all thought with the same mind and spoke with the same mouth about all issues. That simply wasn't true. A basic understanding of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the two main representatives of the different viewpoints that led to the Constitutional compromise, highlights this fact. Alexander Hamilton believed in a significantly stronger federal government that James Madison did. By the way, Hamilton represented the viewpoint aligned with George Washington, and his acts as Secretary of the Treasury included instituting a National Bank. Just to give a comparison point, the control a National Bank has over a nation's economic policy makes the Fed's power look miniscule.
Madison, on the other hand, was the representative for the state's rights side, a very important side that ensured the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. By the way, the three most historically important founding father followers of this viewpoint (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe) all governed similarly Hamiltonian Federalists during their Presidential terms. Jefferson was actually disappointed enough in his time as President, where he greatly expanded the power of the federal government and the executive branch, that he didn't list being the third President of the United States among his accomplishments on his tombstone.
This isn't to say that there aren't times to call for judicial restraint. For example, it would have been nice if the Conservative 5 now running the Supreme Court (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) had shown some restraint in the Citizens United Decision. But our founders couldn't have imagined the challenges of the world we live in, which is why they created very broad, amendable guidelines. Original intent, as many in politics currently use it, is a meaningless statement that they just use to support their positions they don't have actual rationalization for. The media should treat the phrase as such.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Republican presidential contenders Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have lined up behind a new pledge focused on social issues put forth by Bob Vander Plaats, a former candidate for governor who now reigns as a conservative kingmaker in the Hawkeye State. . . .In response to this shocking development, I propose a new pledge, called The Porn Pledge. Here it is:
Standing behind the pledge entails supporting a "federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." Among other things, it also means backing a ban on pornography.
I pledge to watch porn.Just sign it in your head for chrissake. We don't need to know your business.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
In reality, of course, this is a massive misunderstanding of how science works. Let's review with the very basics of science: there are events or facts that occur. Then science attempts to explain why those things occur. That is called a theory.
If I pick up an apple and drop it on the ground, what fact just happened? The fact that happened is that I picked up an apple and dropped it on the ground. Gravity is the theory that explains why the apple to fell to the ground. Just because gravity is a theory, should we teach some faith based theory, something like angels constantly blow on the Earth to hold everything down to it?
Or should we stop distinctively teaching germ theory because it is just a theory, and also teach in our public schools that people may get sick because the humors have turned against them? The "it's just a theory" argument that creationists use to try to discredit evolution is utter silliness. And for the funniest moment in the history of laying the smack down on creationists, check number 7 on this Cracked.com list.
I think my question about whether Santorum is stupid or just in it for the fame and money has finally been answered: dude is dumb. Santorum is so dumb, he heard somebody say it was chilly outside so he went and grabbed a bowl. Santorum is so dumb he thinks a quarterback is a refund. Santorum is so dumb that he thinks a discrepancy in the reported number of jobs created by the stimulus package is the same thing as job loss.
That's pretty dumb.
Not only is his math totally funky, but he also seems to think that the stimulus package created more jobs than there are people in the American workforce. According to ThinkProgress, Santorum was actually trying to quote this article from The Weekly Standard, which claims the following:
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.
Multiply by one hundred, change the seven to an eight, completely misquote the already absurd article and - hey! - you've got a running platform! Frothy's gotta go, guys. After all, if your santorum is running, you're doing it wrong.
Oh, and for those of you who actually like math and enjoy using it for good instead of evil, here's an awesome t-shirt I found at Mental Floss:
Friday, July 1, 2011
Santorum’s announcement of his presidential bid included the following statement:
“Today across America, people are looking for a leader who is optimistic, and who believes that we must meet those challenges, that we can meet those challenges, and that we can keep faith, not with big government, but with free people.”
Closet-cases like George Rekers, Larry Craig, and Ted Haggard are a goldmine of schadenfreude, but the self-hating gay is hardly the only breed of hypocrite on the political scene. While Santorum may be spouting off about personal freedom and limited government, that certainly hasn’t been his history in either word or deed. And it’s not just the lefties who have noticed.
Santorum’s notorious support of anti-sodomy laws during the Lawrence vs Texas decision of 2003 was a clear rejection of individual rights. He also made a high profile statement about federal usurpation of state authority as one of only three senators to vote in the Palm Sunday Compromise, which got the federal government involved in the Terri Schiavo case back in 2005. The legislative and executive branches passed a law that applied to exactly one person. Doesn’t that level of acute interference kind of epitomize the problem with big government?
It’s not just Santorum’s hypocrisy or the pandering turnaround that grates, but the fact that he prioritizes his religious beliefs above any convictions he may have about what constitutes good governance.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
A president of the United States, if you are engaging in a military action you better be there to win or not be there at all. . . . If your objective is to get out, I'm going to put a timeline on when we are going to leave, that's your objective. If your objective is success, you say we are going to commit until we win that's the difference between the objective is leaving and the objective is succeeding.Without being confronted with facts like these:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Unwinnable War in Afghanistan|
It's like everything that comes out of Santorum's mouth is just frothy bullshit (sorry for that image). That man says some of the dumbest things I've ever heard someone say, and I have seen all the Twilight movies.*
The goal in Afghanistan hasn't been to win for a very long time now. The goal is to get the country to the point where we can leave safely. If we're "in it to win it," we're never leaving and we're compromising our security by continuing to destroy whatever credibility we have left in the Middle East. Imperialism is not working for us. It makes us less safe. And that's not even counting for the men and women we've lost trying to defeat guerrilla soldiers in their own territory.
But, we do pour a lot of money into the defense industry, which in turn keeps our economy relatively stable. And we have this super fun foreign policy thing to fight over every election, which keeps Democrats and Republicans in the limelight with their prospective supporters. So there's that.
I wonder if Frothy really believes this stuff, or if he has just realized that being a mouthpiece for the most uneducated, intolerant of Americans is an easy way to make a few bucks. I'm not sure which one is worse.
*Not by choice.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Speaking to about 190 people at the Lyon County Republican dinner, Santorum pledged to continue his fight against same-sex marriage.
“The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it’s a two-fer,” Santorum said. “When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special … [and] it is a sure bet that will undermine faith.”
Who told Frothy our secret plan? Musta been one of those gay friends he's always on about. Man, if I ever find out who those guys are...
It's almost hard to imagine that Rick Santorum actually believes the things that come out of his mouth, because they're so unbelievably batshit. Does he really think that liberals are out to "cheapen marriage" and "undermine faith?" Who even thinks like that? I mean, I'm sure there are a few militant atheists who don't believe in marriage, and they probably side with the liberals, but they're not exactly a majority.
You know what cheapens marriage? Not having sex before it. That's a really destructive thing to advocate, because it encourages people to get married at an age when their marriage is far more likely to end in divorce. You know what else cheapens marriage? Not using birth control and then advocating the idea that even if your wife's life could be saved, abortion is not an option. Because, you know, nothing cheapens your marriage like having a dead wife.
I can't think of a single marriage, actually, that would be threatened by gay marriage. Can you? And as for faith, well, it has no place in politics but can be of very great personal significance. If Santorum could learn that concept, he might be a viable candidate. But, since he can't, he's not. Thank God.