Doing my bit for Rick Santorum's anal issues...
This is cute: over at Salon we find that former Congressman and once-and-future gay-basher Rick Santorum is using his "Santorum problem" to try to raise funds for his quixotic presidential bid. Good for him! Talk about taking life's lemons and making lemonade... around the corner from... okay, nevermind, we probably don't need to go there!
But I applaud this effort on Mr. Santorum's part. Mainly because it gives me an excuse to link to Dan Savage's Savage Love column and, perhaps more importantly, to link to spreadingsantorum.com and also proffer a link to a Mother Jones article discussing the way in which Mr. Santorum's name has been linked to a byproduct of anal sex after he made derogatory comments about gays. Because, you know, I'll be damned if I know the first thing about search engine optimization or how Google's spidery algorithms roam the Internet spinning links, but I figure any little bit helps. Anyway, it can't hurt.
Santorum's letter makes several deep thrusts trying to work up a froth... of indignation (sorry!). Politico has the text (as does the Salon piece linked to in the first article), which includes this amusing bit:
Well, actually, if this happened to a liberal, it would still be pretty fucking funny, you know? But let's face it, Santorum didn't get Google-bombed with links to buttsex because he was a conservative, he got G-bombed because he's claimed that homosexual acts lead to the decline of families and American civilization, explicitly compared homosexuality to incest and implicitly to having sex with children and pets--he's gotten flak for his publicly-expressed opinions, which are fair game. Hey, that's the price you pay, sorry. There are, indeed, plenty of conservative libertarians who actually agree with civil libertarians on the left that government has no business in the bedroom and that what happens between consenting adults really is nobody's business but their own; Santorum is entitled to disagree, but then the rest of us are entitled to pick on him.
It's kind of reminiscent of that Dr. Laura nonsense last August: it isn't a violation of anybody's rights or privacy to be given shit by the general public over stupid things they say on the radio or to an Associated Press reporter or whomever. If you don't want people ragging on you for your dumb comments, I dunno, maybe you should try to avoid making dumb comments--I know, I know, taking responsibility for what comes out of your mouth, crazy, huh?
Santorum also informs his supporters:
OMG, I'm a smut lackey. It's totally giving me the vapors, man!
Actually, what I find really shocking about that section is that Santorum was taking the high road--and here I thought he was just lost in the wilderness after being crushed in the 2006 election due to a catastrophic loss of support from his own party resulting from a number of political problems ranging from dumbass positions on a number of issues and a tendency to have stupid things come out of his mouth to questions about whether he even lived in the state he was running for office in. I thought he was confining himself to little speeches to the Most Faithful Of The Faithful and not saying much of anything to the general public--I had no idea he was staying silent about Dan Savage in particular and out of principle to boot. Who knew? Had me fooled.
But the thing I'd really focus on in that section I just quoted is the bit about whether his children have lost their ability to use Google. There's all sorts of wrong in that. First and foremost, there's what I've already discussed about responsibility for what comes out of your mouth: a related policy is that maybe you should try to avoid saying anything that would result in you having to choose between giving an embarrassing explanation to your kids and basically lying to them. It isn't really Dan Savage's fault (nor anyone else's) that Santorum is in the unenviable position of having to say, "Those people say mean things about Daddy because Daddy said that letting two boys kiss leads to one of those boys putting his wee-wee inside a puppy." Seriously, here's the response of the reporter to Santorum's slippery slope arguments:
No shit, then-Senator Santorum squicked the guy interviewing him and he's worried about having to explain to his children things Dan Savage says?
Beyond that, I don't know how old Santorum's kids are, but if he's really worried about content, he might want to adjust the parental filters in Google's settings, in the browser settings, install parental control software and personally monitor what his kids are doing online. I don't actually understand what all these supposedly concerned grown-ups are doing letting their kids have free run of the Internet when there's stuff far worse than definitions of "santorum" just a mistyped keyword away.
I am amused. What is Santorum even raising the money for? Has he not figured out that Michele Bachmann has already co-opted his presumed base of crazy, reactionary, homophobic, Bible-thumping mouth breathers? And her name hasn't even become a neologism for, I dunno, queefs or anything. Sure, I guess there's the possibility Mitt Romney will crash and burn, and I guess Santorum could be campaigning for 2016, but, you know, really?!
But I guess if he is setting the stage for 2016, well, I guess he needs to figure out a way to grease his path without getting into a sticky mess... am I right?
But I applaud this effort on Mr. Santorum's part. Mainly because it gives me an excuse to link to Dan Savage's Savage Love column and, perhaps more importantly, to link to spreadingsantorum.com and also proffer a link to a Mother Jones article discussing the way in which Mr. Santorum's name has been linked to a byproduct of anal sex after he made derogatory comments about gays. Because, you know, I'll be damned if I know the first thing about search engine optimization or how Google's spidery algorithms roam the Internet spinning links, but I figure any little bit helps. Anyway, it can't hurt.
Santorum's letter makes several deep thrusts trying to work up a froth... of indignation (sorry!). Politico has the text (as does the Salon piece linked to in the first article), which includes this amusing bit:
Imagine if this happened to a liberal. Maher and his friends in the Mainstream Media would hit the roof--and rightly so! But when it happens to a conservative, they applaud and laugh.
Well, actually, if this happened to a liberal, it would still be pretty fucking funny, you know? But let's face it, Santorum didn't get Google-bombed with links to buttsex because he was a conservative, he got G-bombed because he's claimed that homosexual acts lead to the decline of families and American civilization, explicitly compared homosexuality to incest and implicitly to having sex with children and pets--he's gotten flak for his publicly-expressed opinions, which are fair game. Hey, that's the price you pay, sorry. There are, indeed, plenty of conservative libertarians who actually agree with civil libertarians on the left that government has no business in the bedroom and that what happens between consenting adults really is nobody's business but their own; Santorum is entitled to disagree, but then the rest of us are entitled to pick on him.
It's kind of reminiscent of that Dr. Laura nonsense last August: it isn't a violation of anybody's rights or privacy to be given shit by the general public over stupid things they say on the radio or to an Associated Press reporter or whomever. If you don't want people ragging on you for your dumb comments, I dunno, maybe you should try to avoid making dumb comments--I know, I know, taking responsibility for what comes out of your mouth, crazy, huh?
Santorum also informs his supporters:
Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father's name. I took the high road for nearly a decade by not dignifying these mindless attacks, then even defending his 1st Amendment right to spew this filth. And to this day, liberals like Rachel Maddow serve as Savage's lackeys on national television, pushing his smut.
OMG, I'm a smut lackey. It's totally giving me the vapors, man!
Actually, what I find really shocking about that section is that Santorum was taking the high road--and here I thought he was just lost in the wilderness after being crushed in the 2006 election due to a catastrophic loss of support from his own party resulting from a number of political problems ranging from dumbass positions on a number of issues and a tendency to have stupid things come out of his mouth to questions about whether he even lived in the state he was running for office in. I thought he was confining himself to little speeches to the Most Faithful Of The Faithful and not saying much of anything to the general public--I had no idea he was staying silent about Dan Savage in particular and out of principle to boot. Who knew? Had me fooled.
But the thing I'd really focus on in that section I just quoted is the bit about whether his children have lost their ability to use Google. There's all sorts of wrong in that. First and foremost, there's what I've already discussed about responsibility for what comes out of your mouth: a related policy is that maybe you should try to avoid saying anything that would result in you having to choose between giving an embarrassing explanation to your kids and basically lying to them. It isn't really Dan Savage's fault (nor anyone else's) that Santorum is in the unenviable position of having to say, "Those people say mean things about Daddy because Daddy said that letting two boys kiss leads to one of those boys putting his wee-wee inside a puppy." Seriously, here's the response of the reporter to Santorum's slippery slope arguments:
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
No shit, then-Senator Santorum squicked the guy interviewing him and he's worried about having to explain to his children things Dan Savage says?
Beyond that, I don't know how old Santorum's kids are, but if he's really worried about content, he might want to adjust the parental filters in Google's settings, in the browser settings, install parental control software and personally monitor what his kids are doing online. I don't actually understand what all these supposedly concerned grown-ups are doing letting their kids have free run of the Internet when there's stuff far worse than definitions of "santorum" just a mistyped keyword away.
I am amused. What is Santorum even raising the money for? Has he not figured out that Michele Bachmann has already co-opted his presumed base of crazy, reactionary, homophobic, Bible-thumping mouth breathers? And her name hasn't even become a neologism for, I dunno, queefs or anything. Sure, I guess there's the possibility Mitt Romney will crash and burn, and I guess Santorum could be campaigning for 2016, but, you know, really?!
But I guess if he is setting the stage for 2016, well, I guess he needs to figure out a way to grease his path without getting into a sticky mess... am I right?
Comments
Then I made a post about it that had the terms "Michele Bachmann" and "naked" in the title. Suddenly I noticed I was getting all these hits every day from the keyword search "Michele Bachmann naked." After I cleaned the vomit off my keyboard I decided to type it in my searchbar myself to see if there was some juicy scandal I had missed. No. It's another stupid reference the wench made about TSA screenings and the possiblity of naked photos of her showing up on the Internets if she had to go through a full-body scan.
You know, for being such religious prudes these folks sure do talk about sex and getting nekkid alot.
Because that's just how I roll.
Not only will your 'Naked' post get lots of hits but maybe some people will be entertained and educated by your other posts as they search for the nude pics.