January 7, 2012

"A Long History of Political Brawling for Santorum."

The NYT sets out to characterize Santorum as a bully.
“He would attack people in a smug way that was harder-edged and more insulting than was necessary, said Mark Salter, the former chief of staff to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, adding that lawmakers in both parties shared this view. “He was a bully who was not a potent enough force to be a bully.”
So they got this McCain guy to call him a bully. Then they set out the hypothesis in a big old generality:
From the start of a legislative career that included two terms in the House and two in the Senate, Mr. Santorum earned a reputation for throwing haymakers with no regard for custom, sacred cows or his own newcomer status.
If you look past the manipulative words, all you've got is that Santorum fights hard for what he believes. I'm sure the NYT would prefer if the GOP didn't confront President Obama with a tough fighter.

By the way, I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot. In that context, the notion that he's a bully resonates with the campaign against bullying kids who are (or seem) gay. But there are really 2 different uses of the word "bully." Being a tough fighter in the political arena is quite different from harassing and assaulting kids. And a traditional-values political position — which includes opposition to same-sex marriage — is quite different from feeling hatred or antagonism toward individuals who have a homosexual orientation.

The liberal media conflates things, but fair-minded people think clearly and see the distinctions as well as the similarities.

199 comments:

YoungHegelian said...

News flash for NYT: Guys who think they have the moxy to lead & push around the rest of us (i.e. politicians) tend to be full of themselves and have huge blind spots were their own personal flaws are concerned. Please make a note of it.

Funny how "political brawling" is being a bully but making a waitress sandwich with another senator in a public restaurant is just being a friend to the working woman.

realwest said...

I'm not a "fan" of Rick Santorum, but think this is a really good post Prof. Althouse.
Thank you.

Jason said...

As a senator, Mr. Santorum bemoaned the lack of “statesmanship” in the chamber, which many of his colleagues found particularly rich given his own decorum-busting statements (he referred to President Bill Clinton in speeches as “that guy”),

Oh, dear.

Jason said...

Other criticisms of Santorum from the Times: He had Clinton correctly pegged as a liar. And he correctly describes partial birth abortion.

Oooh. What a brawler.

edutcher said...

The only customs or sacred cows for which Santorum has no regard are the social changes the Lefties want to impose on this country in the name of creating a permanent underclass and he is in no way, shape, or form contrite about it. That's what makes him a "bully" in the Gray Lady's eyes.

Too bad McConnell, Kyl, McCain, Lugar, and the Weird Sisters from Maine don't possess a similar attitude. We might not be 15T in debt.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot.

Considering how he held his own against the campus commandos the other night, this may be a fight the Lefties will end up wishing they hadn't started.

MayBee said...

It gets better.

Dad29 said...

with no regard for custom, sacred cows or his own newcomer status.

THAT should be in a Santorum campaign advertisement.

Thanks, NYT!!

David said...

What do you call people who use positions of trust and power to destroy persons with whom they disagree?

Why, they are bullies!

Nice projection by NYT.

Freder Frederson said...

Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

So a man who says this isn't an anti-gay bigot?

Really?

The liberal media conflates things, but fair-minded people think clearly and see the distinctions as well as the similarities.

While this may be true, I hope you don't consider yourself one of the "fair minded people" you are referring to. Because you are certainly not fair minded by any stretch of the imagination.

Writ Small said...

I've noticed the same demonization of Santorum over on Andrew Sullivan's blog. That and a whole lot of juvenile, vulgar humor at Santorum's expense to the point that Sullivan's own readers complained that his vile cheap shots were making Santorum sympathetic to Democrats.

My biggest complaint about Santorum is that he comes across overly angry. In the debates he showed no optimism, no pleasure in the battle. However, the attacks on him by the angry left are making me give him a second look.

Mikey said...

A former *McCain* chief of staff thinks *Santorum* was hard-edged and insulting? Amazing.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/mccain-says-fck-you-to-cornyn-over.html

Dale said...

Q'uelle surprise!

The Times also today has a kiss-Michelle-Obama's ass article that could better be described as a licking her asshole article. And I say that as someone who actually likes and admires aspects of the First Lady. But c'mon.

For all the grave damage the Times does daily to the social and moral fabric of our nation:

Fuck the New York Times.

Ambrose said...

It's almost like the press had these stories on the shelf ready to go, but didn't think they were needed until the Iowa results.

chickenlittle said...

Freder Frederson wrote: I hope you don't consider yourself one of the "fair minded people" you are referring to. Because you are certainly not fair minded by any stretch of the imagination.

@Freder: I pictured you gazing into a calm, still pool of water while writing that.

Did you fall in...?

Bruce Hayden said...

My first problem with Santorum is that he is a loser - losing his race for reelection to the Senate.

Secondly, he is a big government social conservative, at a time when many in this country are far more interested in cutting down the size of government, than whether or not abortion can be completely or just partially banned in the very rare 3rd term abortion.

This is probably one of the reasons that Gov. Huckleberry decided to keep his Fox News contract, instead of running again for President, despite having officially come in second two years ago (mostly because Romney dropped out after it became apparent that McCain was going to win the nomination).

Outside of Iowa, this election is not going to be about abortion, but about government spending, and, possibly, the level of corruption of the present Administration, easily more corrupt than any in our lifetimes. Obama's reelection campaign of course wants to change the subject to almost anything else, because he has no positive record to run on, whatsoever (excluding the fortuitous execution of OBL).

edutcher said...

I'm waiting for the reaction of people like Freder to the appointment of someone like Tammy Bruce to a position in a Romney/Perry/Newt Administration and a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when calling Colin Powell and Condi Rice "house slaves" wasn't being a racial (or gender) bigot.

Dale said...

No Frteder,

You are the small-minded-won't think-beyond-my-opinion-because I-don't-have -the balls to stand up to my friends bigot here.

If gay marriage is okay, then polygamy and incest have no legal reason to be limited by the state. Which is true to anyone willing to pull their head out of their cowardly friend's asses and stand up and think for themselves.

Gay marriage isn't necessary to make polygamy legal for example. People have a right to vote on any of these things. But to take the moral stand that gay marriage is an "equal-rights" issue requires that all forms of marriage be considered equivalent.

Mad your head explode with actual reason didn't it?

Oh, there's lots more outside of the rectum homes out here . . . .

Jay Retread said...

Santorum is a right wing nutjob and the media is portraying him as such. Romney is the only sane mainstream Republican candidate besides Huntsman. Ann, don't give into your Althouse Hillbillies and jump on the Santorum Teaparty Express to loonyville.

Karnival said...

YoungHegelian nails it up front. The difference between a Santorum and an Obama is that one does his own fighting and has had to all the way up. The other hides behind a wall of images projected by a fawning media, academia, teenagers, and union members- while he uses these same people to do his head-smacking. Him does not get His own hands dirty.

Santorum is who he is- he does not apologize (nor does he need to). Vote for him or not. Obama is anything but what he is portrayed. View them both by their actions, not by the NY Times.

AprilApple said...

We don't have real journalism in the country. We have various shades of leftwing opinion.

PaulV said...

NYTimes know bullies because it has a long history of fake stories to attack political enemies.

timmaguire42 said...

“He was a bully who was not a potent enough force to be a bully.”

The same could be said about the New York Times.

timmaguire42 said...

Damn it, Paul!

Mary Beth said...

“He would attack people in a smug way that was harder-edged and more insulting than was necessary."

What exactly is the necessary amount of insult?

Jay said...

I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot.

GET OUT!!!

Who would have ever guessed???

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

So a man who says this isn't an anti-gay bigot?

Really?


Um, no.

And the fact that you think otherwise speaks volumes.

Jay Retread said...

I am very confident that the Republican Party powers that be will not let right wing nut jobs like Santorum or Newt anywhere near the nomination. As a lefty Democrat who strongly supports Obama, I won't be that disappointed if Romney wins. (Don't get me wrong, I am going to still work super hard for Obama and gleefully look forward to Romney being savaged by the press as Mr. Wall Street.) With Romney as the Republican nominee it will be a case of "heads I win, tails, you lose." GOTTA LOVE IT!!!

P.S. Unemployment is at nearly a three year low. Romney is looking more and more like Bob Dole. heeheehee...

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...
Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.


Watching you get the vapors over this is comical.

PS, being gay immoral, abnormal and unhealthy.

Jay said...

Jay Retread said...
Obama and gleefully look forward to Romney being savaged by the press as Mr. Wall Street.) With Romney as the Republican nominee it will be a case of "heads I win, tails, you lose." GOTTA LOVE IT!!!

P.S. Unemployment is at nearly a three year low


Hilarious.

Obama has received more donations from Wall Street than any candidate for President in the history of America. Obama also bailed out the banks, asked for TARP 2 to bailout more banks, and has his Administration stacked with people from Wall Street.

PS, there are 6 million fewer jobs than when Obama was sworn in.

GOTTA LOVE IT!!!

HT said...

And a traditional-values political position — which includes opposition to same-sex marriage — is quite different from feeling hatred or antagonism toward individuals who have a homosexual orientation.


From the article: "He has compared homosexuality to incest."

Jay said...

HT said...

From the article: "He has compared homosexuality to incest."


I love that you accept that uncritically.

But you're fair minded. Really, you are.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karnival said...

Serious Jay. Unemployment at a 3 year low? Are you serious? Add in the numbers that have left the job market entirely and are now sitting on the sidelines. They are not even in the numbers. Millions. Using the U6 numbers ("marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." ) the current U6 number is 15.2%.

That's 15.2%. Or another way of putting it: 15.2%. Nice job. Hang your hat on that one, Mr. President.

Here's another nugget: Friday's employment numbers included seasonal workers. For those in Madison, that means those who had part or full time work for the holidays only. Expect a drop off starting in late January.

Or you can your news from NBC. Your choice, of course.

Joe Schmoe said...

Not a Santorum guy at all, but I actually like him more after that article.

They start off talking about how he likes pro wrestling. You can just hear them tittering about that in the NYT editorial room. Oh gawsh, professional wrestling!

It also sounds like he tried to shake up the Senate a bit with unconventional methods. I like that. I think some of the Tea Party freshmen did a little of that after they were first elected, but now they seem to have toed the party line behind Boehner and McConnell (who are pursuing business as usual. Wait until the last second and then get forced into approving crappy legislation or get blamed for grinding the country to a halt.)

The Dems quoted in the article come off to me more as those lefties that suck at arguing. They weren't used to having to defend their positions so they try to hide behind civility and attack Santorum's lack of such.

HT said...

In the April 7 interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as a threat to society and the family. "I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum said, according to the AP. "I have a problem with homosexual acts."

"sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"

"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

traditionalguy said...

Sure, Santorum is a thrower of hard punches without fear or caution.

His problem has always been "enemy recognition."

Cold cocking an ally whom one sees compromising to get agreements done results in losing political support from those allies the next time one needs them.

Santorum has been ephemeral, strong and then gone, because he will not learn that lesson. He needs to grow up!

Joe Schmoe said...

This is just the tip of the forthcoming iceberg of criticism from lefties and the MSM about Santorum. It's gonna be a real shitstorm for awhile now.

Interesting to see how National Review has spun 180 degrees. A few weeks ago it was all anti-Newt; now it's all pro-Santorum.

HT said...

My problem is less (much less) in what Santorum said than in what Althouse said that he did not say.

Accuracy.

Jay said...

Where was the NYT when this happened?

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Leftist Fawning over tough guy Obama:

In a commanding, uncompromising tone, President Obama said those words over and over tonight during his speech before the Joint Session of Congress. After two years of legislative Obama, tonight we got Fighter Obama. And Fighter Obama is loved by not only the base, but the American public

Bully!

Seeing Red said...

From the start of a legislative career that included two terms in the House and two in the Senate, Mr. Santorum earned a reputation for throwing haymakers with no regard for custom, sacred cows or his own newcomer status.



That's a bad thing?

No regard for custom - kowtowing to your elders?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

edutcher said...

I'm waiting for the reaction of people like Freder to the appointment of someone like Tammy Bruce to a position in a Romney/Perry/Newt Administration and a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when calling Colin Powell and Condi Rice "house slaves" wasn't being a racial (or gender) bigot.


Awesome idea-- Tammy Bruce for Secretary of Homeland Security, at least until it's abolished. She has a great mind and takes no prisoners.

Seeing Red said...

gay marriage is okay, then polygamy and incest have no legal reason to be limited by the state.

Knock out incest and another pillar of abortion is gone. We need it because of......

It's all for the children.

mariner said...

The liberal media conflates things, but fair-minded people think clearly and see the distinctions as well as the similarities.

I don't know whether this is false, or whether there are too few fair-minded people.

Either is corrosive to a free society.

Revenant said...

By the way, I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot.

It doesn't take much effort. He is the only one of the Republican candidates who clearly dislikes homosexuals.

Lem said...

So they got this McCain guy to call him a bully.

How come I never heard about these supossed after school fights between the bully and ad the angry guy.. until now.

Palladian said...

Any politician who uses, or threatens to use, the power of the State to oppress, harass or criminalize the legal, consensual behavior of adults is a dangerous threat to the freedom of Americans and should not be allowed anywhere near mechanisms of power.

Rick Santorum is a cheap ideologue who sees State power as a tool to twist "society" into his particular religiously-motivated vision of Utopia-on-Earth. To me, this is no different than what Barack Obama has been doing, and no less dangerous. Big government is big government, whether it is stealing your money for failed social welfare schemes, fucking with the light bulb industry while trying to engineer fictive environmental schemes, or imposing government chastity belts on us society-destroying faggots.

I don't know or care if Rick Santorum is a "bigot" or not. He's made clear that his ideas about America do not include freedom from social engineering, and that he views my private activities as a threat to some fictive America in his head, and that's enough to condemn him as a bad candidate for any elective office.

Some of you seem to think that frightening the New York Times and upsetting liberal columnists is sufficient qualification for a candidate for President.

It's just that kind of "thinking" that got us Barack Obama.

verification word: prick. Indeed.

Carol said...

It's almost like the press had these stories on the shelf ready to go, but didn't think they were needed until the Iowa results.

Awesome coordinated buzzword attack, eh? They get better at this shit every year. Apparently they've focus-grouped "bully" and found it a winner.

Lem said...

Some of you seem to think that frightening the New York Times and upsetting liberal columnists is sufficient qualification for a candidate for President.

From your lips to gods ears..

Remember when Bush called NYT's Adam Clymer a major league asshole..

Those were the days ;)

Palladian said...

Adam Clymer is a major-league asshole.

Big time.

AJ Lynch said...

Conservative Pennsylvania resident here and I think Santorum is a strident dick. In the debates so far, he seemed like one of those talking dolls. When you pulled Santorunm's string he'd say one of three things ..."Abortion!" or "Family Values" or "my grandfather was first generation" no matter what he was asked. I think he has a few screws loose not to mention he could not even win his own Senate seat.

And don't get me wrong, I think Obama has a few screws loose when it comes to his total lack of understanding as to how the economy works, how insurance works, how people are motivated to work and save. He is a total dope in this regards. Come to think of it, I don't think Obama understands much about anything.

Lem said...

Republicans figure if a wimp only got one term maybe a bully can do better..

Whatever works..

edutcher said...

Jay Retread said...

With Romney as the Republican nominee it will be a case of "heads I win, tails, you lose." GOTTA LOVE IT!!!

I have a feeling Retread won't feel that way when Milton ends GodZero's attempt to regulate Cap&Trade into existence, stops the gutting of the military, encourages domestic energy production, and cuts taxes.

P.S. Unemployment is at nearly a three year low. Romney is looking more and more like Bob Dole. heeheehee...

PPS When all the people who have used up their unemployment are added back on to the workforce, the U3 is 11% and the U6 is about 22.

Hee, hee, hee.

Revenant said...

By the way, I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot.

It doesn't take much effort. He is the only one of the Republican candidates who clearly dislikes homosexuals.


Last I looked, most of the Republicans opposed same sex marriage.

And we know he dislikes homosexuals how?

Palladian said...

Any politician who uses, or threatens to use, the power of the State to oppress, harass or criminalize the legal, consensual behavior of adults is a dangerous threat to the freedom of Americans and should not be allowed anywhere near mechanisms of power.

Only because Palladian says so. A good many Americans disagree.

chickenlittle said...

Some of you seem to think that frightening the New York Times and upsetting liberal columnists is sufficient qualification for a candidate for President.

My irony meter must be really out of whack. I thought the point here was that Santorum wasn't frightened by the NYT and liberal columnists? I don't believe that he's trying to frighten them. I think he's trying hard not to be cowed by them.

If Santorum is as big a statist as you say, the Republican electorate will reject him for that. Unless of course that's what they really want is a statist. I appreciate your efforts to keep pointing out the former.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

The obligatory Althouse post pretending to defend an anti-gay bigot (whom she knows is an anti-gay bigot).

If you'll excuse me, I need to go have sex with a dog now.

Lem said...

I think he's trying hard not to be cowed by them.

Thanks..

I was trying to remember what word they tried to disparage Reagan with..

Cowboy.

sydney said...

“He would attack people in a smug way that was harder-edged and more insulting than was necessary, said Mark Salter, the former chief of staff to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican

Mark Salter. Isn't he the guy who stabbed Sarah Palin in the back last time around? Does the MSM pay him?

chickenlittle said...

ZPS wrote: If you'll excuse me, I need to go have sex with a dog now.
___________
wv = canel (lol, but eew)

chickenlittle said...

@Lem: Don't forget swagger. Cowboys swagger.

AJ Lynch said...

Sydney- no I think it waa Steve Schmidt who was another bigwig adviser to McCain.

edutcher said...

Lem said...

I think he's trying hard not to be cowed by them.

Thanks..

I was trying to remember what word they tried to disparage Reagan with..

Cowboy.


They kept forgetting Americans see cowboys as the good guys.

Revenant said...

If Santorum is as big a statist as you say, the Republican electorate will reject him for that.

Why? They didn't reject Bush in 2000. Where's the evidence they've learned their lesson?

traditionalguy said...

Santorum has been narrow in his definition of acceptable beliefs.

That is fine if you want to lead a small group that is safe and immune to the seduction from compromises with new ideas.

But it is also a small place that is cut off from many valuable contributers.

Andy R. said...

Do we really need to have a debate about whether Santorum hates gay people, or is this like when the Althouse comment crew pretending they had no idea that Michelle Bachmann hates the gay people, even though it's both of their signature issues?

caseym54 said...

Young Bob Dole whose social utopia was the 1950's.

edutcher said...

If you want to see who hates "the gay people", wait until Milton or whomever appoints one to a high profile post.

Browndog said...

The liberal media conflates things, but fair-minded people think clearly and see the distinctions as well as the similarities.

Isn't that true of everything?

....especially the part about hating gays?

(what's a gay?

chickenlittle said...

Andy R. said...
Do we really need to have a debate about whether Santorum hates gay people,..

Well, googling the question doesn't help. :(

Alex said...

You know conservatives shouldn't be so blinded by their hatred for the MSM that they can't call a spade a spade. Santorum represents the anti-gay wing of the GOP. Can you just admit it?

Get with it conservatives - supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you have to get down on your knees and suck gay cock or whatever your phobias are. Nobody is going to make you attend gay pride parades.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Andy R.,

Can we please all agree to spell Michele Bachmann's name correctly? I mean, speaking as a two-l "Michelle," I find that this is getting a little old.

wv: hydhxx. Sounds like a brand-name pharmaceutical from which someone has sucked most of the vowels.

Cedarford said...

Writ Small, on Santorum - "However, the attacks on him by the angry left are making me give him a second look."

============
Many partisans on both sides go like lemmings to rally to and then run over the cliff on behalf of someone "the other side is going after".

Except sometimes the other side is going after a Van Jones, and Eric Holder, a Santorum or a John Bolton for reasons the large majority of the public is likely to understand and support.

Cedarford said...

edutcher said...
If you want to see who hates "the gay people", wait until Milton or whomever appoints one to a high profile post
================
Romney has a pretty good history of not looking down on any group. Working well with people of various religious, ethnic, and gender backgrounds.
In government, in business.
He has gay people and minorities on his staff right now. He appointed gays to positions in Massachusetts and will likely have gay officeholders serving in a Romney Administration if he is elected.

R. Chatt said...

If you allow two men to marry what about three men or five men? That was the question Santorum asked and has been repeated over and over as if that makes the argument legit. The reason his argument does not apply is that gay marriage is not requiring that we move away from the notion of marriage as a dyad, the union of two individuals.

This country was founded on the premise of individual rights, as endowed by the Creator with the rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Somehow Santorum does not see LGBT as equals. He is out of sync with the majority of the country. He doesn't bother to even consider the possibility of civil unions.

Polygamy is a problem because it doesn't uphold the value and dignity of the individual, neither does bestiality obviously. Incest is biologically dangerous.

Marriage as a tradition has evolved. For thousands of years it existed to protect property and inheritance, and men and women were not equals. Men of means had mistresses to fulfill their romantic and sexual desires. Now in the West people expect marriage partners to be equal in their rights and responsibilities, and to find fulfillment and love in the relationship.

It's not that far of a leap to acknowledge that marriage is about a serious committed relationship between two individuals, that their gender not be that significant. Society can evolve and so can marriage without sacrificing core values.

Michael Haz said...

Santorum is less of a bully than Maureen Dowd.

Henry said...

...As opposed to a short history of political whining for Obama...

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

It's amazing that so few people here are capable of realizing how comical Santorum is as a candidate (this guy excepted), but just in case the absurdly impossible happens and the bible thumper wing beats out the slick, snake oil selling and libertarian wings of the Republican party, the campaign against Santorum is as easy as saying: Google Santorum.

It's even better than "spreading" Santorum. In fact, it accomplishes the same goal.

Chickie: Are you upset at anyone against comically impractical prudity? Something tells me you take Santorum much more seriously than any sense of sane reason warrants.

LarsPorsena said...

Romney has a pretty good history of not looking down on any group. Working well with people of various religious, ethnic, and gender backgrounds.
In government, in business.
He has gay people and minorities on his staff right now. He appointed gays to positions in Massachusetts and will likely have gay officeholders serving in a Romney Administration if he is elected.
-------------------------
But wait, no mention of a transgendered staff member? Well he's really not committed to civil rights.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I see the Santorum campaign has gotten off to a good start!

Come on, people! Get to know your candidate!

Palladian said...

edutcher said "Only because Palladian says so. A good many Americans disagree."

Yes, there are, sadly, a lot of Americans who slobber at the idea of controlling other Americans. Leftists love the idea. Sanctimonious theocrats love the idea. Liberty is, after all, a human anomaly. Human beings will almost always choose repression over liberty, as long as they feel they're in the "majority".

But to me, America was supposed to be a blessed anomaly, one that has managed to endure for quite a while. Some of us want to protect that from the Barack Obamas and Rick Santorums of the world. You know, from the majority.

LarsPorsena said...

"......Somehow Santorum does not see LGBT as equals. He is out of sync with the majority of the country. .............."

Correct if I'm wrong, but hasn't this SSM been rejected in one popular referendum after another?
If so, how is he out of sync?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

R. Chatt,

Polygamy is a problem because it doesn't uphold the value and dignity of the individual, neither does bestiality obviously. Incest is biologically dangerous.

Incest is not "biologically dangerous" if the participants are both male, or both female; if the female participant(s) is/are post-menopausal; if one or the other is sterilized. Give me an argument against any of these that does not amount to "Well, it just creeps me out."

That is not supposed to be an argument against gay marriage. Why should it be one against, say, two sisters marrying, or a father and a son?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Give me a break. The guy intentionally conflated gay marriage with bestiality. He deserves to be thought of in a "base" way. His attempts to look high-minded by debating his way into turning us into some strange kind of "religiously ordained" society are patently ludicrous.

He made an obvious attempt to make a mental image connecting equality of commitment between two human beings into a lurid dog whistle (no pun intended) by getting people to instead think of sex acts so outlandish that they probably don't even qualify for hillbilly porn. He sexualized an argument of commitment. If it wasn't obvious, but unintentional, then he needs to walk that back, and has had several foregone opportunities to do so. The rest of the country understands that love and commitment are human ideas and institutions that don't need to be sexualized or made perverse in order for them to be understood, tolerated, accepted, whatever.

Santorum still prefers to pander to people who don't see people as people and has therefore removed himself from respectful or serious consideration.

The NYT doesn't "need" to do anything. Santorum has become his own joke, and would have been seen this way regardless of anything Dan Savage, or NYT, or Ann Althouse had to say about it.

Alex said...

Correct if I'm wrong, but hasn't this SSM been rejected in one popular referendum after another?
If so, how is he out of sync?


As the political demographic gets younger, a majority of the voting bloc favors gay marriage. Even if the tipping point hasn't been reached in 2012, it will be by 2018 latest.

Alex said...

But Ritmo derides religious conservatives and heterosexuals all the time. So comparing homosexuality with bestiality is just an attempt at leveling the playing field.

n.n said...

Exactly. The issue with homosexual behavior is whether society should normalize, tolerate, or reject it. Since it is a deviant behavior, which is naturally unproductive, it should not be normalized. However, individuals who practice the behavior can potentially be, if not naturally productive, otherwise contributing members of society. There is also the threat of spreading STDs, including HIV, especially by homosexual males; but, that threat is also presented by couples who engage in similar intercourse, and especially when the male or female are promiscuous. So, there is no legitimate reason to normalize this behavior, it can likely be tolerated when engaged by consenting adults, and there is only limited evidence that it should be rejected outright.

As for marriage, it is an institution derivative from the natural order, which clearly defines the role of a man and woman in procreation and perpetuating the species. It is in the best interest of society, and humanity, to honor and encourage that potentially productive union.

It's fine to have dreams of physical instant gratification; but, we should at least be aware of the consequences which follow in order to mitigate the known risks.

LarsPorsena said...

"..........As the political demographic gets younger, a majority of the voting bloc favors gay marriage.."

Think again, the country is getting older. Check your local demographer for the details.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I ought to have added that the "consent" argument about bestiality is about the silliest application of law I've ever seen. It is apparently beyond the pale to do the nasty on a cow, but quite all right to cut her throat, strip her skin off, and sell her in packages, once you've finished the elaborate dismemberment process.

NB: I eat beef all the time; I'm just perplexed that raping a cow is massively more criminal than killing and eating one.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Any politician who uses, or threatens to use, the power of the State to oppress, harass or criminalize the legal, consensual behavior of adults is a dangerous threat to the freedom of Americans and should not be allowed anywhere near mechanisms of power.

I may have missed it. Sincere question.

Where has Santorum threatened to use the power of the State to do all of or any of those things you stated above??

Not approving of something on a personal level is different than recommending laws. He has already said that as a practicing Catholic he does not approve of birth control, however he went on to say that he was not proposing any laws to ban birth control.

Recommending laws that punish people for personal consentual behaviour....I would not agree with: and would be interested to know if Santorum has 'actually' proposed such actions.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

But Ritmo derides religious conservatives and heterosexuals all the time. So comparing homosexuality with bestiality is just an attempt at leveling the playing field.

To take the compulsively switch-hitting pipsqueak "Alex" seriously in this remark, one would have to:

1. Believe that I have as big an audience as does Santorum,

2. Find evidence from some imagined place where I have supposedly derided heterosexuals (including, I suppose, myself),

3. Believe that I allowing religious conservatives their constitutional rights requires me to have some sort of personal respect or admiration for their political ideas.

Of course, everyone here knows that Alex is an unserious buffoon with a midget of a mind, so the aforementioned was not really necessary, except to prove how easily he can be dismissed even using the means that adults and rational people reserve for debating each other.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Alex should call his own invented political ideology "Mental Midgetarianism".

Phil 3:14 said...

P.S. Unemployment is at nearly a three year low. Romney is looking more and more like Bob Dole. heeheehee...


Surely a result of the stimulus.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

DBQ, you ask in vain; Santorum hasn't proposed anything of the kind.

But, you know, he's Catholic. And not just garden-variety Catholic, but the spooky-weird kind that takes Catholicism seriously. This is where you are supposed to cross your fingers, scream "Begone, demon!", and call for the nearest mainline-Protestant exorcist.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

But, you know, he's Catholic. And not just garden-variety Catholic, but the spooky-weird kind that takes Catholicism seriously.

Bullshite! He's a "cafeteria Catholic" who merely chooses the dishes that include sex & marriage teachings, but not those on which it is ok to fight a war (and devote trillions to the effort, incidentally).

I have no dog in this fight, thank whichever deity or source of divine inspiration you want to choose. But it's so easy to point out the gaping wide flaws in Santorum's thinking that it shows how low the country has sunk, to even entertain the notion that he thinks about anything seriously, ever.

If there is a God of the sort that Santorum professes to, coordinating Santorum's life events, his candidacy does not seem to send the same message that Santorum's followers might think it does.

And also, he's a politician. So the other half of the equation is no less exculpatory.

Palladian said...

Santorum pointed to the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws that were used to imprison gays and lesbians.

“And I stood up from the very beginning back in 2003 when the Supreme Court was going create a constitutional right to sodomy and said this is wrong we can’t do this,” Santorum said. ”And so I stood up when no one else did and got hammered for it. I stood up and I continue to stand up.”


...

"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. 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."

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo, if you think it's against Catholic teachings to fight a war, you must be ignorant of basically the entire history of the Catholic Church. Just sayin'.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Michelle, literacy allows me this amazing power (some might call it "a gift") to discover which wars the Catholic church has sanctioned, and which it has not.

I pray that the prime movers of history will one day share this gift with you, too.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Palladian. Thank you. I will have to do some checking on this.

but not those on which it is ok to fight a war (and devote trillions to the effort, incidentally).

@ Ritmo. I don't think that you know much about the Catholic Church or its teachings.

Chuck66 said...

Ritmo, even though many Catholic leaders have been pacifists in recent decades, the Catholic church basic beliefs don't prevent support a just war. Similiar to killing. See Von Stoffenberg in Nazi Germany. His Catholic beliefs lead him to try to kill Hitler, in an attempt to prevent more killing by the German government.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh yeah, that's right! Incest! He likened it to incest, also.

Good going, Rick.

Great argumentation skills, too. And Althouse takes this guy's self-presentation seriously? Would she say the same for someone who would ban light bulbs based on the argument that they could lead to a rash of fires?

Does anyone understand the slippery slope fallacy anymore?

Palladian said...

n.n said "Exactly. The issue with homosexual behavior is whether society should normalize, tolerate, or reject it. Since it is a deviant behavior, which is naturally unproductive, it should not be normalized. However, individuals who practice the behavior can potentially be, if not naturally productive, otherwise contributing members of society."

Let me tell you something, n.n, I don't want to contribute shit to your "society".

As I wrote earlier, liberty is a "deviant" behavior, unprecedented in the history of humankind, against the natural order, disordered, "unproductive", the product of a bunch of radicals and rebels who sought to undermine the way things had always been.

The duty of just government is not to engineer a vision of social order. The duty of a just government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Anyone who advocates the use of the coercive power of the State for any other goals is an enemy of liberty.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I don't think that you know much about the Catholic Church or its teachings.

Oh really? Ok. Do you shoot this messenger for his message, too? Or just me?

Where the hell did I say anything about pacifism, you foolish knaves?

Chuck66 said...

I think trying to preserve the 3000 year old concept of marriage is a worthy cause.

How's that end of marriage in Milwaukee's north side working out for them?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

Is there a secular reason that is making you all lie about this, or a religiously inspired compulsion?

Cedarford said...

Michelle Dulak Thompson -
"Incest is not "biologically dangerous" if the participants are both male, or both female; if the female participant(s) is/are post-menopausal; if one or the other is sterilized. Give me an argument against any of these that does not amount to "Well, it just creeps me out."

==============
The argument is rooted in the right of society to set norms that brainless liberals or libertarians have ideological snitfits about. Sorry Michelle Dulak Thompson, but lines are drawn on the right to fuck your adult daughters or sons or have two sons off buggering one another.

Same with the "victimless crime" of cannibalism. 2.3 million people die in America each year. 45-60 pounds of meat wasted on each one that could be obtained after dressing the body. With a death certificate of natural cause or accident, with a medical declaration the corpse is free of disease that would render it "unfit to eat" - what is the harm of families selling relative's corpses for a bit of money??? Besides the meat, you also have value in the bones and sinews and hair, etc. Plus big bucks relatives are currently denied for selling bodies for transplant material.

Even charge a premium for dead infants or late, legally aborted fetuses on the suckling pig/veal principle?
Or a premium for young fresh-killed human meat? More money for the flesh of soldiers killed in combat dressed and frozen while blood still drips? A tender young 9 year old girl killed in an auto accident? Beats eating some 80 year-old senior with metastatic cancer and only 10 pounds of useful meat left.

Extreme Liberals would say, whatever floats your boat and cannibals have precious rights as a minority.
Extreme Libertarians would claim a human flesh market is all about Free Markets and Freedom-Loving!! Let the Hero Entrepreneurs and Jobs Creators(TM) test the market for a cannibal product line! Let Freedom-lovers - the relatives - sell or bury corpses as they wish!!

garage mahal said...

And not just garden-variety Catholic, but the spooky-weird kind that takes Catholicism seriously.

Rick Santorum was [and still is] a big supporter of the Iraq war. The Vatican was strongly opposed to the Iraq war, saying it was neither legal or morally justified - adding it was "immoral", and a "crime against peace".

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology.
US civil-rights leader the Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the planned invasion, saying in February 2003 that it was not too late to stop the war and that people "must march until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation."
The Vatican also spoke out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a preventive war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." He spoke out again on March 22, 2003, shortly after the invasion began, saying that violence and arms "can never resolve the problems of man."
Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.
The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries, issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter."
Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.


Was it ignorance, political desperation, or bloodthirstiness that inspired the misinformation just disseminated by DBQ, Chuck and Michelle?

Was it about point scoring? Axe grinding? The Book of Revelation? What, exactly?

Chuck66 said...

Ritmo, that is a proclamation by the Pope, not something in the Catechism.

When the leader of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America proclaimed his love of Yasser Arafat, does that mean that all Lutherans have to support the killing of Jews?

chickenlittle said...

Quite the proposal there, C4...despite the modesty.

Palladian said...

@ Palladian. Thank you. I will have to do some checking on this.

I hope you know me (through my comments here) well enough to know that I'm not a parroter of talking points nor am I an alarmist.

But I've followed Santorum's career since back when I actually lived in PA, and he's made so many elliptical, uncomfortable and bone-headed statements regarding homosexuality, especially hinting time and again about various legal and Constitutional maneuvers to federally (re)-criminalize sodomy, that I cannot countenance him as a viable candidate for elective office of any kind. He's exactly what advocates of small government and those of us who want to pull the country away from the brink don't need right now.

And as much as I dislike his political and social philosophies, I don't agree with attempts to silence the man, or to use sneaky tactics such as the repugnant Dan Savage's Google campaign to ridicule him. I think it's gravely important that people be able to read the man's words and make a decision for themselves about him.

Hopefully rational people will realize how awful he is, and how he would guarantee a second term for an equally ideological, dangerous, yet much less forthright man, Barack Obama.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh, it gets better:

In 1991, Pope John Paul II opposed the Gulf War and publicly appealed to U.S. President George H.W. Bush not to wage it. In 2003, he once again opposed a war in Iraq and appealed to U.S. President George W. Bush to refrain from going to war.

In an Address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, the Pope declared that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and reiterated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.”

Two months later, on March 16, 2003, in his Angelus Message, Pope John Paul spoke of the need “to work with responsibility for peace” and declared that all options had not been exhausted: “There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.” The war began two days later, on March 18, 2003.

Pope John Paul did not drop his opposition to the war once it had started. On June 4, 2004, in an Address to President Bush (who was visiting him at the Vatican), the Pope reminded the President that:

"You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002."
Benedict XVI on the War in Iraq

Since being elected pope, Pope Benedict XVI has largely confined his remarks on Iraq to prayers for peace, though he has occasionally been critical of the conduct of the war. In the April 2003 issue of 30 Days, an Italian Catholic magazine, the future pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made his opposition to the war known, while supporting Pope John Paul’s assessment of the justice of the war. He declared Pope John Paul’s position on the war to be “the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church” and “the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith.”

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030113_diplomatic-corps_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20030316_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040604_president-usa_en.html

Palladian said...

"I think trying to preserve the 3000 year old concept of marriage is a worthy cause."

Yes, because governmental attempts to prop up failed industries always works out so well.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Chuck, just admit that Santorum's more selective and less principled about how he decides his positions on things than he'd like you to believe.

Chuck66 said...

So know we decide on who can be President based on what the homosexual lobby tells us? Wow, for an oppressed people, they do have a lot of power. A group that makes up 2-3% of the population gets to have veto power over who we can pick for higher office.

Chuck66 said...

So, we need to oppose war because the Pope says we can't have war.

What should we do about gay marriage then? The Pope says we need to oppose gay marriage also.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Wow, for an oppressed people, they do have a lot of power.

Well, Chuck. For someone as slippery and selective with ideas as you are, I'm sure you can get the concept. A group can have a lot of political power as a wedge constituency without being granted the same rights. Just look at the court Jews. Also, those evangelicals who claim to be such oppressed victims of "The War on Christmas" despite getting one-third of the GOP field all to themselves.

Maguro said...

Fascinating thread, you've got homosexuality, incest, cannibalism and noted Catholic theologians garage and Ritmo giving us the final word on just war doctrine. Is there anything these two super-geniuses don't know?

Chuck66 said...

Ritmo, I am Lutheran. I do believe in the teachings of Martin Luther and the Lutheran Catechism. I don't go by the opinions of current Lutheran leaders. The words of Bishop Hanson have no pull in my life. Actually I am a lapsed Luthern due to him and his crew.

My opinion is that a Catholic can be the same way. Abide by historic church teachings, but not have to follow ever word by current leadership when it comes to contemporary events.

Alex said...

Also, those evangelicals who claim to be such oppressed victims of "The War on Christmas" despite getting one-third of the GOP field all to themselves.

Ritmo's math is challenged. 33% < a majority and thus is not power.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Is there anything these two super-geniuses don't know?

It's called GOOGLE, tech support guy. Someday you too may learn of its powers, before you fall prey to them - as did Rick Santorum.

I used the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" as per Sullivan. His sounds like a Catholic name. If anyone objects to the usage, complain to him. And then find anyone with Tina Brown's clout so you can convince them that you are a more credible writer.

Chuck66 said...

Ritmo, so a Jew being persecuted is just like a Gay-American?

So if I go to Eygpt, Syria or Tunisa, I will see every TV show showing Jews as heros, businesses having quotas to hire Jews, have all major cities hosting Jew Pride days.

Homos in Ameica have it really nice. Speaking of the war on Christmas, I used to work for a large corporation that banned the word "Christmas", but on gay week would hang the rainbow flag all around the corporate campus. Some of us just get tired of having this gay stuff rammed down our throat.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Chuck, the religious angle has been debated to death. Your alignment of your own beliefs with those of a guy from five hundred years ago is touching I'm sure, probably to Cedarford no less than to anyone else. But I've quoted those in a position to have much say about what Rick Santorum chooses to believe, and if you don't like that, then go complain to them.

Other than that, the only real point is that Santorum's a doofus who wants to infringe on others' rights in some weird effort to turn this society into one that conforms to his personal ideas of a religiously ordained utopia. He will not get far. He is a joke. The GOP knows this. They just know Romney is almost as bad. They also know that religious voters are not wed to the GOP and were made a part of it for political reasons at some point in the past that's about as irrelevant to today as are a good number of the things that Martin Luther had to say.

Maguro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

That's a good one, Andrew Sullivan accusing other people of being "cafeteria Catholics". Pretty sure there's something 'bout Sully's lifestyle that old Cardinal Ratzenberger wouldn't approve of...wonder if he'll change his ways and live his life in a Pope-approved fashion, lol.

And Ritmo, love that you're so impressed with yourself for having gleaned all that awesome knowledge from Google and Andrew Sullivan's blog. You're truly a man for all seasons.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Better than being a right-wing social engineer, Maguro.

I thought it was Gail Collins who said what I quoted, but no. She had the column about how ridiculous his out-of-print book was.

Keep thinking that you'll win the fight against homosexuality and commitment on theological grounds, Maguro. You're almost as winning as Charlie Sheen. Just a little bit more Saturday armchair political wargaming. I'm sure Santorum appreciates it. It almost makes up for his Google-Bomb (or whatever you call it) of a namesake.

Maguro said...

Thanks, Ritmo. It's an honor to be compared to Charlie Sheen.

chickenlittle said...

@Ritmo: Here's a clue.

You wrote: I used the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" as per Sullivan.

And here I often thought that you were Sullivan, based things like your spirited defense of his worst antics, e.g., here (read the whole thread).

But are we to believe that you were serious then based on your first comment on your own blogpost here?

You truly are an enigma wrapped in a riddle, Ritmo.

You're always a good read though.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It's a miracle, folks. Ritmo and garage are good practicing Catholics now. Presumably this will lead them to join Santorum in condemning homosexuality and premarital sex.

(I almost typed condomning by accident. Hah!)

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

You're always a good read though.

Well, that's why I thought you linked me in the first place. I mean, what happened? Did Althouse's return to the blogroll mandate a re-assessment or come with some kind of exclusion clause? ;-)

Anyway, the two links are the same, both to an Althouse entry thread from over two years ago. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Why does using Sullivan as a source for any thought become some kind of a litmus test... for what, exactly? I don't generally believe in intellectual excommunications, especially on the grounds of personally offending a politician's right to invent their own personal narrative, whether based in truth (or at least credibility) or not.

Regarding being enigmatic, I don't know what to say. It's not the first time I've heard it and I'm sure it won't be the last. All I can say though regarding what I choose to argue about and what facts of the day seem pertinent, well, when the facts (known facts) change, so does my mind. Should it not?

harrogate said...

"By the way, I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray Santorum as an anti-gay bigot."

Althouse amazingly wrote this. Like so many commenters, refusing to acknowledge what is plain to see. Which is that a parallel sentence would be "I'm seeing a hardcore effort to portray David Duke as a racist."

I wonder if Professor Althouse or her ideological compadres here will actually read Palladian's links, which are pretty representative of Santorum's rhetoric over the last decade or so since I've been following him. Clearly one already has read them and responded substantively. So, I guess it's possible that more will see the silliness of denying that Rick Santorum certainly supports the criminalization of homosexuality.

Of course his hysteria isn't limited to sexual issues. He also as on the front lines screaming to make the Shiavo family tragedy a matter for Congressional Special Session.

Ahhhh, sweet bird of teh crazy.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

@Ritmo: Sorry about the bad second link; here it is: link.

I'd link directly to your comment (it's the first one) but I can't seem to do that as I can on other blogger blogs.

My point was that you vigorously defended Sullivan's vicious attacks on Palin; then two years later you say (paraphrasing) "oh by the way, that stuff I used to say in blog comments wasn't me."

Now here you are, commenting in the same vein. I mean, what's next--a spirited defense of Dan Savage?

So who's the real Ritmo?

R. Chatt said...

@ Michelle Dulak Thomson It is interesting to contemplate the logic of saying that normal homosexuals should be denied the right to marriage or civil unions because if we allowed that then we would have to allow sisters/brothers to marry. I wonder how many examples of that would occur? If you are already blood relatives what is the purpose or advantage of getting legally married? The whole premise seems inconceivable and unrealistic to me.

In any case, is it worth denying the civil rights of an entire class of people because of a minute number of possible abuses?

For instance, how about banning heterosexual marriages because of the abuses which take place? Such as: 80+ year olds marrying 20 somethings?
Or mail order brides? Or arranged marriages which amount to servitude? etc.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

You wrote,

He's a "cafeteria Catholic" who merely chooses the dishes that include sex & marriage teachings, but not those on which it is ok to fight a war (and devote trillions to the effort, incidentally).

To my no-doubt-naive eyes, that seems to say that no [non-cafeteria] Catholic can approve fighting "a war." You do not say here that you're talking about the Iraq war, or the Afghanistan war; nor do you distinguish between these and, oh, Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Gulf War I, or Libya, or for that matter fighting genocide in Congo or South Sudan.

War Bad. Pope Condemn War!

Didn't happen; never will happen. Because Catholics have more sense than that.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Life is enigmatic, Chickie. You need to take up your issues with life.

Anyway, I'd like to think that I won't be here brawling as much as in the old days, but who knows. I'd like to think I can make it feel more productive if and when I do decide to show up. Maybe the clampdown has been for the better. I don't think your participation (or linking) here has been inhumanely consistent, has it?

Anyway, I don't use "me" in a literal sense. I reserve the right to hold different states of mind. They reflect different ways of being. Some are better for me at some times then are others. But that doesn't mean I write under multiple people or hold multiple personalities or whatever.

As a lawyer, are you seriously attacking someone for who they choose to defend? Seriously? I would think that's one of the few virtues of the profession. You get to defend who you can, want, need to or are appointed to without it necessarily somehow reflecting on your character. The way one might go about it and the desperation of the arguments they choose in doing so, however, I think people rightly think that's not the same thing.

Anyway, I'd be happy to "defend" Dan Savage. He's got a funny column, has (hopefully) made America a happier, less sexually ignorant and uptight place, and fights for a right for himself that others take for granted. He's made a funny use of technology and applied it to someone who made an odious comparison that directly denigrates and infringes him in the first place. What's wrong with that?

Sometimes I wonder if you should have studied less chemistry and more philosophy... ;-)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

R. Chatt,

It is interesting to contemplate the logic of saying that normal homosexuals should be denied the right to marriage or civil unions because if we allowed that then we would have to allow sisters/brothers to marry. I wonder how many examples of that would occur? If you are already blood relatives what is the purpose or advantage of getting legally married?

The same that gay couples want now: Public recognition an acceptance of your loving relationship. Next question?

The whole premise seems inconceivable and unrealistic to me.

I am in favor of same-sex marriage. I am saying that Santorum's argument, that the same argument that makes same-sex marriage a Constitutional right does the same for adult incest and polygamy, is correct. Deal with it.

wv: lathr. I kid you not.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jesus, Michelle. If it wasn't clear that I was talking about a specific war by now, what more do you want me to do? Jump through a hoop?

I said "dishes/teachings... on which it is ok to fight a war." Maybe I should have said "on when it is ok to fight a war." In any event, this is umpteen comments on, why did you interpret that obviously ambiguous phrasing to mean absolute pacifism? I mean, you could have interpreted it to mean militancy, I guess.

Since Chickie is discouraging me from making more than one argument or entertaining more than one state of mind, I suppose I shouldn't say that your comment inspired in me exasperation at first, but then led to curiosity. Well, ok. I think curiosity is something that Chickie is more likely to let me feel entitled to than exasperation...(!)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

He's made a funny use of technology and applied it to someone who made an odious comparison that directly denigrates and infringes him in the first place. What's wrong with that?

You mean the "funny use" of biological warfare, when he tried to infect Bush campaign workers with the flu by spitting on the doorknobs of their offices? I'm sorry, but he ceased to be the cute, fuzzy, cuddly Krafft-Ebing critter at that point.

MadisonMan said...

this election is not going to be about abortion, but about government spending,

Agreed. Santorum carries huge baggage in that regard.

Not sure why the Times doesn't talk about that, except for the fact that most Democratic Senators are just as bad.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

No, I didn't mean that, Michelle. And I doubt the meaning behind your dubious story, wherever you got it from. But seeing as how persistently you chose to misunderstand me, I don't see why changing the subject to some other strange trifle is a way to challenges perceptions of your missed efforts at coming to a point of view that others can see the merit of.

chickenlittle said...

Ritmo wrote: Anyway, I'd be happy to "defend" Dan Savage.

And you did. Thanks for making me look prescient.

Next I'd like to hear your vigorous defense of his bio-warfare as Michelle reminded me of.

Might as well get it all out tonight.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Chickie:

In case you lose the link, you should check out my newest entry. It's an awesome way of explaining a good deal of the answer that it sounds like you seek!

chickenlittle said...

And I know that you know plenty about molecular biology.

R. Chatt said...

Michelle:

"The same that gay couples want now: Public recognition an acceptance of your loving relationship. Next question?"

You really don't get that family connection is already recognized and honored in our society?

Whereas two loving men in a committed relationship or two loving women in a committed relationship can currently spend a lifetime together and not be recognized as having any legal rights or significant connection. Under the law they have no legal rights but are seen as roommates?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Anytime, Chickie.

I'll be happy to defend anyone on the merits of what they've been charged with or what they've done. It makes me much happier to defend or attack acts as opposed arguments designed around someone's character, assassinating it or elevating it. But if you prefer the latter, go for it. I hope it brings you a happy existence. I don't think I would like it, but maybe that's just me.

Me, I prefer to separate out actions from people and judge them separately. If this is not something that you are capable of doing, then you have my sympathies. I personally find it easier to change arguments than to endlessly shift alliances, but if the latter works for you, then I don't know what to say. I hope it works for you... seeing people as "all good" or "all bad".

R. Chatt said...

@Michelle -- so to answer your premise and that of Santorum -- "I am saying that Santorum's argument, that the same argument that makes same-sex marriage a Constitutional right does the same for adult incest and polygamy, is correct. Deal with it."

No, I don't agree. There is no reason why incest or polygamy have to be allowed as there are rational reasons to deny them under the Constitution and genetic science, as I've already explained.

Santorum's reasoning is simply that homosexuality is "unnatural" and not the way things are "supposed to be," based on his Catholic beliefs. He displays a rank disregard for homosexuals as people and citizens, all in the name of a loving God.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

And I know that you know plenty about molecular biology.

Ah, yes!

I also know about something called the "oligodynamic effect".

It refers to the property held by many/most(?) metals at combating disease. I don't know if it's the specific reason for why doorknobs and door handles tend to be made of brass, copper or silver. But a known and happy consequence of this is that they tend to be resistant to use as conduits for spreading disease.

Good to know, eh!?

Also, good for Dan Savage's "defense".

Do you never tire of finding harmless people to castigate? It sounds like it would wear me out...

chickenlittle said...

I personally find it easier to change arguments than to endlessly shift alliances, but if the latter works for you, then I don't know what to say. I hope it works for you... seeing people as "all good" or "all bad".

Thanks for the candor, Ritmo. There's a lot of presumption on your part there but I forgive you.

We'll catch up later I'm sure--perhaps elsewhere.

Gotta go--date night!
_________
wv = ergestp: "He stopped" --auf deutsch

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Enjoy your date!

(Sorry if I presumed too much...)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

R. Chatt,

You really don't get that family connection is already recognized and honored in our society?

"Family connection," sure. "Family connection" as in two brothers, or a brother and sister, or a mother and adult daughter, in a sexual relationship? Not so much.

Try getting that "recognized and honored" in the US. Try advocating that people in such relationships be allowed legally to marry.

It sucks that I have to say this but: I have no dog in this fight.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

Please, read this. I didn't make this up.

wv: aptiona. Now, that is a useful pharma name.

Robert Cook said...

"Outside of Iowa, this election is...going to be about government spending, and, possibly, the level of corruption of the present Administration, easily more corrupt than any in our lifetimes."

Oh, really? Do you suppose none of us more than 3 years old?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

R. Chatt,

No, I don't agree. There is no reason why incest or polygamy have to be allowed as there are rational reasons to deny them under the Constitution and genetic science, as I've already explained.

If you can show me how same-sex adult incestuous relationships can be "rationally denied" according to "genetic science," go for it. It would be fun to watch.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Sounds pretty awful, Michelle. It's nothing I would condone or of course, do myself. And I don't know what can be done now about it, or how much of a problem/damage it caused - if any. But it's still something that I'd find pretty gross if it actually happened.

Of course, you're assuming this isn't a tongue-in-cheek piece and that he didn't make any of it up or fictionalize it, which is not something I'd assume.

So does this mean I'm supposed to condemn everything he does, now? I'd like to understand the way in which you'd like me to think it has something to do with Rick Santorum.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

If you can show me how same-sex adult incestuous relationships can be "rationally denied" according to "genetic science," go for it. It would be fun to watch.

This is not a good faith challenge, Michelle. Opposite sex relationships are not permitted if incestuous, so the idea that same-sex relationships are a way to allow for same-sex incest does not follow.

Peter Hoh said...

Or maybe the NYT is doing its best to make Republicans think that they and the rest of the mainstream media are scared of Santorum, thus increasing his chance to win the nomination.

If you want a fighter, and the last two candidates running are Romney and Santorum, then Santorum is the guy you ought to be backing.

And if you support Santorum, he could use some money. And a favorable ruling in the Virginia ballot case.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

This is not a good faith challenge, Michelle. Opposite sex relationships are not permitted if incestuous, so the idea that same-sex relationships are a way to allow for same-sex incest does not follow.

No. R. Chatt argued that there was a legitimate reason to ban incestuous marriages, based on "genetic science." Obviously, "genetic science" has nothing to say about incestuous marriages where the partners are of the same sex, or sterile, or post-menopausal. The only reason to ban such marriages (or to look down on such relationships, absent marriage) is visceral revulsion. But we aren't to take any notice of that, are we? That would be judgmental.

Blue@9 said...

My main issue with Santorum is that he's a big-government conservative. Like so many hypocrites in Washington, he cries "freedom" when convenient and then goes about trying to put the big fist of government around people's private lives.

As for this rumored criticism that he was hamfisted in politics... gotta disagree with Althouse and some others here. It's one thing to be principled and a fighter, it's another to misread the game and the playing field. A Senator can't be effective if he's not making allies--no politician can, Custom, cordiality, this stuff matters in politics.

Look at Obama--he's reaping the fruits of his poor people skills. He can't get anything done because he can't call in favors because nobody on Capitol Hill actually likes him.

I have no idea if this stuff about Santorum is true-- it's entirely possible that this is your standard negative campaign rumor, but I wouldn't celebrate it as admirable if true.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

I should have addressed this:

Opposite sex relationships are not permitted if incestuous

The hell they aren't. Is it illegal to have sex with your adult brother or sister? With your father? With your mother? With your adult child? AFAIK, it is not.

But you can't marry any of the above, in any state. Explain, please, why not, without invoking the "ick factor."

Mark said...

Personally, I just want all levels of government to back the hell out of my personal space.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that would resonate with Santorum.

On the other hand, I've long been a proponent of the view that the Social Conservatives lost decisively at least two decades ago, and they might as well be rednecks playing at Civil War recreations hoping they get it right this time. There ain't no time machine, and we ain't going back to the 1950s.

On the other other hand, I'd really hate to be wrong about that. So I really really don't want Santorum to win the nomination, even if that means Republicans put up The Ken Doll Who Walks Like A Governor.

I live in New York, so there's no way Obama doesn't win here, even if photographic evidence proves he's doing rude things with Trig Palin. (Hell, that would further cement Andrew Sullivan's endorsement.) So once more I may get to exercise my right to write in Condoleezza Rice.

MayBee said...

so the idea that same-sex relationships are a way to allow for same-sex incest does not follow.

Because there is such public disgust at the idea of hot female twins engaging in sex acts together.

pinkmonkeybird said...

Excellent observations on how the liberal media operates. Attentive people knew all along that the Bully issue was created for a reason. This is it.
We truly are up against a profound evil.

Jane said...

Thank you Ann.

Mr. Santorum had gay people in high positions on his Senate staff.

Palladian said...

Mr. Santorum had gay people in high positions on his Senate staff.

So did Hitler...

Benjamin said...

I invoke Godwin's law to end this utterly pointless thread.

Dante said...

This should tell you something about your weak, weaselly love affair with Mitt Romney. The left wants to keep things "Above Board," with someone like Romney. The battle is being fought with knives, and they want someone who thinks pillow fighting with money is the way to win.

It's amazing how the "right" has cozied up to a lukewarm noodle like O'Romney.

Revenant said...

"He is the only one of the Republican candidates who clearly dislikes homosexuals."

Last I looked, most of the Republicans opposed same sex marriage.

That's nice, but I didn't say anything about gay marriage. I said he alone, out of the Republican candidates, clearly dislikes homosexuals.

And we know he dislikes homosexuals how?

By paying attention to what he has said about homosexuals over the last ten years.

Revenant said...

I think trying to preserve the 3000 year old concept of marriage is a worthy cause

The 3000 year old concept of marriage is that polygamy is acceptable.

Heck, Christ was born and raised in a religion that allowed polygamy and never said a word against it. Christians didn't invent the "one man, one woman is the only acceptable way" thing until the fifth century AD.

Revenant said...

It's amazing how the "right" has cozied up to a lukewarm noodle like O'Romney

He can talk for fifteen minutes without saying anything stupid or insane. That makes him unique among the current field.

HT said...

I guess we can't expect anything like "Added: upon further review, maybe Santorum doesn't like gay people."

Unless I'm wrong, unless all along Ann was thinking it's a situation of love the sinner hate the sin. Somehow I don't think that's what was in the back of her mind, but you never know.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

The hell they aren't. Is it illegal to have sex with your adult brother or sister? With your father? With your mother? With your adult child? AFAIK, it is not.

But you can't marry any of the above, in any state. Explain, please, why not, without invoking the "ick factor."


Well, I could invoke the reproductive genetics and rates of recessive illness and mental retardation among married relatives factor - but that involves an appreciation for our understanding of modern (and ancient) biology that you may or may not have.

Based on participant response, I think I'm starting to understand why Santorum has to resort to such bizarre and disturbing, distorted analogies...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

Well, I could invoke the reproductive genetics and rates of recessive illness and mental retardation among married relatives factor - but that involves an appreciation for our understanding of modern (and ancient) biology that you may or may not have.

You are presupposing relationships that might produce children. I am including relationships that couldn't possibly produce children -- two brothers, two sisters, mother/daughter, father/son, post-menopausal woman and brother, vasectomized man and sister.

Besides which, as I already said, consensual adult sexual relationships such as all of the above -- and the kind you're ostensibly worried about, the ones that might produce children with birth defects -- are all legal. Just as it is legal for peri-menopausal women to have sex, even though we know that children born to such women are at greater risk of Down Syndrome. Why, they even let 40-year-old women get married! Imagine that.

FWIW, I'm the child of two biochemistry PhDs. Keep your condescension to yourself, please.

DEEBEE said...

As the political demographic gets younger, a majority of the voting bloc favors gay marriage. Even if the tipping point hasn't been reached in 2012, it will be by 2018 latest.
=========================
Alex until then STFU.

SGT Ted said...

YOu need a "media election bullshit" tag.

SGT Ted said...

Lefties and Democrats called Colin Powell and Condoleesa Rice "House Niggers", just like they called Sarah Palin a "female impersonator". So them talking about other peoples alleged "bigotry", like thats a problem they've gotten past, takes the cake.

SGT Ted said...

One caveat: I dont support Santorum one bit.

I am tired of the cries about ABORTION!!!11!! when it's the law of the land and there are more pressing problems to talke than trying to enact abortion laws that will most liely be struck down. SoCons like Santorum seem to like dying on that hill, regardless of the wishes of even GOP primary voters. Santorum has the "Huckabee vote" at this point, because he's the not-Romney.

The "anti-gays" thing is political bullshit as there are PLENTY of Democrats who oppose gay marriage and are happy to say so and who will vote to confirm it when they have to. Those Democrats can be said to be worse, because they only say that to get votes from their homophobic constituencies in the black and Catholic Communities, whether they are latino or Irish/Italian.

The GOPers can at least lay claim to being HONEST about their position on this, whether one agrees or not.

A "media double standard bullshit" tag is SO worthy here.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

You are presupposing relationships that might produce children.

So are you in your examples.

I am including relationships that couldn't possibly produce children -- two brothers, two sisters, mother/daughter, father/son, post-menopausal woman and brother, vasectomized man and sister.

No one knows why, but if you like being convoluted for its own sake, then knock yourself out.

Besides which, as I already said, consensual adult sexual relationships such as all of the above -- and the kind you're ostensibly worried about, the ones that might produce children with birth defects -- are all legal.

Um, that's cause it's easier for the state to control the issuing of marriage licenses than it is to make people ask for permission from the government every time they have sex.

Just as it is legal for peri-menopausal women to have sex, even though we know that children born to such women are at greater risk of Down Syndrome. Why, they even let 40-year-old women get married! Imagine that.

See above. I can't possibly think you believe these are serious arguments. But if you do, just be assured that they are obviously ludicrous to many, many more people than just me and that I've been losing my patience with them for a while. I only engage you out of a sense of the last vestiges of a sort of intellectual charity that people like Palladian feel is worth invoking.

FWIW, I'm the child of two biochemistry PhDs. Keep your condescension to yourself, please.

Your sense of entitlement, based on this strange appeal to a novel kind of intellectual inheritance, is a form of condescension in itself. Knowledge is not genetic and good arguments are not handed down like estates. Biochemistry has almost nothing to do with marriage laws.

Whether you are trying to be serious or not, I'm done entertaining the possibility that you are. Try these arguments out at Rick Santorum's site instead. There is apparently a market for promoting this kind of faulty thinking, as doomed as it is to promote anyone's electoral prospects.

Jay said...

Revenant said...

It doesn't take much effort. He is the only one of the Republican candidates who clearly dislikes homosexuals.


And you have a whole bunch of evidence and facts to back that up, I bet.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

After reading that thread, I note, for the record, that Chickie also entertained the notion that I was really Christopher Hitchens - once he had not heard me for a few days following the guy's death.

I really don't understand why it is so hard to see that two people can make the same or similar arguments in support of something, or even in a similar style, without actually being the same person.

SGT Ted said...

Opposing Saddams forcible removal is evil. It enabled evil as well. I saw what it enabled, first hand.

I don't care what some fucking Pope said about it. Much less a bunch of leftwing enablers who opposed the war because they hate GW Bush.

People who opposed removing Saddam Hussein because of the damage war causes need to show how it was worse than Dresden or fire bombing Tokyo.

Whats really funny is the clowns denouncing Santorum for using religion to inflict his positions now want to use his religion to make him support other things they like. Either way is an imposition of his religion on a secular society, but only one way is it "good". IOW, they argue like SoCons do.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Whats really funny is the clowns denouncing Santorum for using religion to inflict his positions now want to use his religion to make him support other things they like. Either way is an imposition of his religion on a secular society, but only one way is it "good". IOW, they argue like SoCons do.

Whatever does the trick, Sergeant.

It's not all that hard to make Santorum's "thinking" (or rather, his poor substitute for it) look inanely and hopelessly convoluted (despite how rigidly he presents his stances), so being able to invoke the pope in so doing is an added bonus. I'll take John Paul as my useful idiot against Santorum if you'll accept the fact that I use neither his statements nor those of "leftwing enablers" to inform my views on war. And I vote.

This is about how what's good for Santorum, is bad for Santorum. No need to concern yourself with my own consistency when Santorum's obviously doesn't matter to you, either.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo, this is what I wrote first:

Obviously, "genetic science" has nothing to say about incestuous marriages where the partners are of the same sex, or sterile, or post-menopausal. The only reason to ban such marriages (or to look down on such relationships, absent marriage) is visceral revulsion.

I don't know how I could have been clearer than that.

This, though, deserves a rejoinder:

Um, that's [be]cause it's easier for the state to control the issuing of marriage licenses than it is to make people ask for permission from the government every time they have sex.

So, if it were possible, and easy, for the state to monitor everyone's sexual behavior, you'd be totally down with that? Dude, you scare me.

Jay said...

Ritmo Re-Animated said...


It's not all that hard to make Santorum's "thinking" (or rather, his poor substitute for it) look inanely and hopelessly convoluted


Hysterical.
Yes, you are just so good at doing such things!

Note you make no attempt to do so.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

So, if it were possible, and easy, for the state to monitor everyone's sexual behavior, you'd be totally down with that? Dude, you scare me.

You are confusing an argument on what it's possible or feasible for the state to do with what I'd prefer it to do.

As I said, it's not coming across as a very serious contribution.

Jay said...

look inanely and hopelessly convoluted

I see "convoluted" is your word of the day.

Your projection is epic, pedantic, and predictable.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Did you run out words that are spelled the same way as "hysterical", Big Jay?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

You are confusing an argument on what it's possible or feasible for the state to do with what I'd prefer it to do.

You have given evidence here several times in this thread that you think incestuous relationships are a bad thing. You haven't explained why they are bad when there's no prospect of children. And you've basically said that states ban incestuous marriages because that's much easier than banning incestuous sex.

Surely you realize that incestuous sex isn't going to disappear if incestuous couples cannot marry. What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish here? Because if it's fewer "defective" children, it seems an inefficient way of getting there.

I mentioned my parents' credentials only to make it clear that I grew up in a household full of (among other things) OChem textbooks. Which I read.

wv: flerp.

chickenlittle said...

Ritmo said: As a lawyer, are you seriously attacking someone for who they choose to defend?

I missed that last night. Not a lawyer here. Did I represent myself as such? I advise lawyers. A Cornell U. chemistry professor (a friend not a mentor) once issued a fatwa against me should I ever attend law school. :)

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

chickenlittle,

Don't mind Ritmo; he doesn't know or care what you do for a living. He just insinuated that I hadn't enough biological knowledge to know of the risks inherent in sibling intercourse; he's not up to reading a comment thread competently, never mind anything more complex.

wv: malti. I wish.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Awwww, Michelle. There, there, now!

No Chickie, you told me on the thread regarding Chaz Bono, in response to something I said, what laywers were trained to recognize. When I combined this with your description of your occupation as "consigliere scientifico", I assumed that you were in-house counsel at a pharma or chem company. I didn't realize that you meant that you primarily work to advise them, but as someone without professional legal training.

chickenlittle said...

I didn't realize that you meant that you primarily work to advise them, but as someone without professional legal training.

This allows me to be "unprofessional." ;)

Revenant said...

And you have a whole bunch of evidence and facts to back that up, I bet

Just use Google for lists of homophobic remarks by Santorum. Easy as pie.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

Awwww, Michelle. There, there, now!

I will let that stand as a monument as to how Ritmo currently "argues" with people who disagree with him. May God send him opponents who teach him how to argue in good faith.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Michelle, there is no argument to be had when you so consistently misrepresent the other view.

For instance, I never said that:

"if it were possible, and easy, for the state to monitor everyone's sexual behavior, (I'd) be totally down with that"

No, you never apologized for misrepresenting my view there.

This is only one example of a detail in this thread that you've grossly misrepresented. I don't think that anyone else would have so consistently misread or misrepresented the ideas in this thread, or brought up so many irrelevant details, but for whatever reason, you have done so repeatedly. Maybe it's the desperation of Santorum's stance.

So if you want to say my "faith" is bad, go ahead. I've said everything I've meant as honestly as I could say it, and if your reading comprehension or ability to understand positions other than your own is really that bad, then that is hardly something that "faith" can rectify. You need to work on your reading comprehension and basic logic.

And when you make a personal attack over a misunderstanding in a conversation between myself and Chickenlittle - that you were not a party to - yes, I think that shows that you have a problem letting go of things that you don't have any say in. That inability on your part to recognize your own boundaries and to respect others and their right to have a personal conversation, deserves to be made fun of. It's not a respectable or mature way of behaving.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

And it's also, incidentally, the same problem that Rick Santorum seems to be having.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ritmo,

I am sorry for suggesting that you thought it would be cool if the state could monitor everyone's sexual behavior.

If you mistake chickenlittle for a lawyer when s/he hasn't presented his/herself as one, that's your problem.

And as for this:

It's amazing that so few people here are capable of realizing how comical Santorum is as a candidate (this guy excepted), but just in case the absurdly impossible happens and the bible thumper wing beats out the slick, snake oil selling and libertarian wings of the Republican party, the campaign against Santorum is as easy as saying: Google Santorum.

You really think it's cool that one dude with a beef about Santorum can Google him into oblivion by making his name into a synonym for the fluids you find after anal intercourse. Suppose Dan Savage had used "Clinton" instead of "Santorum." Would that get the same number of yuk-yuks? It was Clinton who signed DADT.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I accept your apology.

BUT: If you mistake chickenlittle for a lawyer when s/he hasn't presented his/herself as one, that's your problem.

It certainly isn't your problem now, is it? Is minding your own business really all that hard for you?

And as for this:

It's amazing that so few people here are capable of realizing how comical Santorum is as a candidate (this guy excepted), but just in case the absurdly impossible happens and the bible thumper wing beats out the slick, snake oil selling and libertarian wings of the Republican party, the campaign against Santorum is as easy as saying: Google Santorum.

You really think it's cool that one dude with a beef about Santorum can Google him into oblivion by making his name into a synonym for the fluids you find after anal intercourse. Suppose Dan Savage had used "Clinton" instead of "Santorum." Would that get the same number of yuk-yuks? It was Clinton who signed DADT.


I wouldn't care if he had. I don't care for either one of them.

However, the reason he didn't do this is because neither one had been so rude as to equate his natural (to him) and very human relationship to bestiality.

You really seem to think that you alone are the arbiter of all things offensive, and that what other people find to be wrong based on the fact that they were subject to thoughtless acts that they resent doesn't matter.

Why is that?

Does being so selfish and thoughtless help make you feel morally superior to others?

chickenlittle said...

After reading that thread, I note, for the record, that Chickie also entertained the notion that I was really Christopher Hitchens - once he had not heard me for a few days following the guy's death.

Geez Ritmo, that one was a joke--made on Troop's blog or yours. I guess you believed it because it was flattering?

My comparing you to Sullivan was completely based on your rigorous defense of his perfidy leveled at Palin--not just on the thread I linked to earlier.

I think I understand you better now. You don't believe in your own arguments--you just craft them like an attorney would. I don't happen to do that here or elsewhere in the blogosphere (I prefer to play the part-time expert or the TY understudy court jester roles here), but I certainly understand it in real life.

The Althouse blog is perfect for what you do here because I think part of her mission is to oversee the training of attorneys and their argumentative styles.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Sounds like you're having some trust issues, Little Chicken Guy.