Rick Santorum

June 30, 2011

(Warning: This entry talks about some pretty gross stuff.  If you don’t want to be exposed to it, you may be better off just skipping this whole entry.)

A number of people are currently running to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012.  One of them is former senator Rick Santorum.

Santorum is a fiscal conservative and a foreign-policy conservative, but what’s really “politically incorrect” nowadays is that he’s also a social conservative.  He is strongly against homosexuality, for example. 

That’s why, starting in 2003, a number of homosexuals and other liberals lashed out at him with a “Google bomb” campaign, linking the senator’s name to a Web site they created and a really below-the-belt made-up definition of “santorum”.  I don’t suppose it bears repeating the definition here, but you’ll find it if you want to—all you have to do is search for his name.  You can read all about this sequence of events from the Daily Caller, Roll Call, or the New Hampshire Concord Monitor.

An obvious point to make here is how vicious liberals sometimes are to conservatives (while we’re on the subject).  I’m sure no one has ever done anything like this to a liberal senator—in fact, it’s difficult for me to imagine that conservatives ever could:  There might be a few conservatives who could stomach doing something like this, but not nearly the numbers required to pull it off.  In a way, this Google bomb campaign is even intrinsically liberal, in its nature—think about it, what could a conservative equivalent look like? deviously linking search terms like “Anthony Weiner” or “Barney Frank” to a squeaky-clean Web site about strong moral fiber?

A less obvious point is that an unintended side effect of this campaign may be to give people a less favorable opinion of homosexuality—not just because it implies that homosexuals are vindictive and degenerate, but because it invites us to contemplate some of the concrete details of what homosexuality means:  It means, among other things—if you’ll pardon the graphic details—one man putting his penis through another man’s anus, into the end of his large intestine, which (not to put too fine a point on it) is where feces come from.  Or, as someone once put it, “some men . . . want to use each others’ digestive tract as a sex toy”.

That’s naturally, inherently repulsive.  I suppose that habitual homosexuals get used to it, as people get used to anything habitual—as an alcoholic, for example, gets used to being homeless and unshaven and stinking; it’s part of the price of his chosen vice.  But the rest of us don’t have to get used to it.  I wonder whether homosexuality would be as popularly liked as it is in America today if liberals thought of it a little less in terms of airy abstractions—of being “in love” and, perhaps especially, of “rights”—and a little more in terms of concrete practices.

This long-standing “Google bomb”, like some grotesque monument, invites us to do so, to walk around it and meditate on what homosexuality is.  It’s an ugly thing to think about.  The vulgar Web site has certainly lowered my opinion of homosexuality.

Anyway I support Rick Santorum, and I think you should, too.  The algorithms of Google and other search engines are somewhat mysterious (intentionally so—they don’t want to make it easy to run a Google-bombing campaign), but it seems that, generally speaking, the more different Web sites link to Santorum’s real site, using his name (Rick Santorum or Santorum) as the link anchor, the higher its rank is likely to rise in searches for those terms.

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Rick Santorum”

  1. Mickey Mouse Says:

    For the record, you have a rectum before you hit the large intestines. It is rare for feces to be located within the rectum and thus it is rare to encounter feces during anal sex. I should know from my personal experience as a heterosexual male.

    – MCKY


    • Rectum: “…terminal section of the intestine”
      (see also, further down on the same page, “…18 rectum (13-18 comprise the large intestine)”)

      As to the relative rarity or frequency of feces’ being located there (it is, after all, where they come from), I defer to the liberals’ own report, in the definition provided by the vulgar “Google bomb” site: “sometimes”. I don’t really want to know any more about it than that.

      • Mickey Mouse Says:

        It’s ironic that you have a problem with homosexual anal sex but you have told me in the past that you are okay with heterosexual anal sex


      • I said that it’s not immoral in the same way. It can still be disgusting—“naturally, inherently repulsive”, you might say.

        I can’t seem to find a John Derbyshire piece on the subject that I remember reading once, but I found this other one, also on topic. Among his observations about sodomy (“buggery”):

        “And again, though it has been a while since I read a survey on the topic, I do recall that heterosexual buggery polls as a minority taste — that the commonest pattern among heterosexuals is to give it a try a few times, then abandon it as not very pleasurable.”

        “It is clear from the Greek Anthology that while buggery certainly occurred, it was furtive and disapproved of. In every consequential society, in fact, under almost all circumstances, buggery has been out of bounds.”

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Are you going to post my comment?


      • Of course it’s also possible that I’m incorrect and that type of intercourse is per se immoral. I believe the Catholics would say it is. In any case there doesn’t seem to be such a big gap between their position and the one I’ve suggested here.

  2. Snoodickle Says:

    Too graphic?

  3. Auto 5 Says:

    I’ll take Mickey’s word on the subject.

  4. Snoodickle Says:

    If you do not post my comment, you are a true hypocrite.

  5. Snoodickle Says:

    Chillingworth, I don’t know what you’re scared of. I think you should post my comment and let the readers decide whether it goes too far. I take it the sting in any rebuke is the truth in it? Was that the saying? No matter.

    I’m going to have one final word on this subject and that’s it. As I told you before, you are brave hiding behind the veil of anonymity on this pathetic blog. Actually, you are a shining example of what you were talking about in your Darth Vader post. But when it comes down to it, you would never have the courage to say what you said in person, to anyone other than your equally pathetic conservative friends. You have proven that before.

  6. A reader Says:

    How can Chillingworth have proven before that he would never have the courage to talk about his views in person? That’s a hypothetical assertion about all of his future behavior. It can’t be proven until he has lived his whole life.

    But also, I know Chillingworth in person (so much for the veil of anonymity), and when I read this comment I am reminded of seemingly countless occasions when Chillingworth has shared his views on any number of controversial topics with those who disagree with him (including me). Actually, I think of that as one of the more salient aspects of his personality. It’s one of my favorite things about Chillingworth: his ability to carry on civil, spirited, respectful conversations about difficult topics with people who disagree.

    Do you realize that, of the two of you in this blog, you (Snoodickle) are the one emitting insults, personal attacks, and needless offensiveness? I know it can be very frustrating when we can’t get someone to fight back with the same petty, emotional demeanor we’ve adopted; but the harder you try, the greater grows the gulf between your incivility and Chillingworth’s civility. You don’t have to believe me that that’s what it looks like, but I like reading your comments a lot more when they are just normal discussion.

  7. snoodickle Says:

    Okay, well I guess I can’t prove that I will never cut my face off and make it into a Halloween mask. But I probably won’t.

    I already admitted I wasn’t a civil person. But if you don’t think that Chillingworth’s remarks about homosexuals are insulting, offensive, and attack people on a personal level (not me, granted, I am not gay – although I have indulged in anal sex), then you are as messed up as he is.


    • I think you’ve just illustrated one of the fundamental problems with liberalism: It redefines abstract, reasoned disagreement with itself as “offensive” and “personal”, and so attempts to delegitimize dissent. No wonder you can’t bring yourself to be civil if you think a conversation in which we disagree with each other is already by definition uncivil.

      You seem to have conceded that “A reader” is right on the question of my courage, and you were wrong—as you should know, given that you too have known me in person. I think you and I both are more or less the same in person as we are on the Internet—for better and for worse, as the case may be.

      I also observe that you seem anxious to assure us that you are not “gay”. I take that as further evidence of my original point that homosexuality is disgusting—even you and other abstractly very pro-homosexuality liberals are very concerned that no one mistake you personally for a homosexual.

      • Mickey Mouse Says:

        I thought it was the anal sex that was gross and not being gay? Seems like you spend a lot of time thinking of gay sex.

  8. snoodickle Says:

    I would like the readers to know that Chillingworth takes down my comments every time I make a strong point, or write something that calls his assumed intellectual superiority into question.


    • Right, and we know it’s a strong point because you’ve told us so, right? As Tevyeh has alluded, you’re the only one on this blog who ever brings up “intellectual superiority”.

      I would like the people still reading at this point, if any, to know that I have blocked many comments from Snoodickle and our classmate “Mickey Mouse” for insulting other readers, for being so disgusting that I didn’t think other readers should have to see them, or for other things that I thought were unacceptable, but never for making a strong argument. I even tried e-mailing them to talk about fixing their comments, but until today, they both posted their comments with fake e-mail addresses.

      Far from blocking Snoodickle’s comments for making substantive arguments, I have continued to go out of my way to let him and Mickey Mouse contribute to discussions, despite their long record of bad behavior on this blog. I think some blogs would have banned them entirely long before this point.

      Anyway the charge refutes itself; if it were true, the editor would have blocked it too, wouldn’t he?

      • snoodickle Says:

        This is why I talk about you being delusional. Your whole narrative, the entire thing, is centered around the fact that liberalism doesn’t make sense as an ideology, that conservatism is in fact the intellectually superior ideology, and that liberals are simply thinking about the world wrong. And then you say I am the only one claiming intellectual superiority, and you expect people to take you seriously.

        While I admit that at times I have claimed intellectual superiority, any such claims have been in relation to individual achievements of mine, achievements which would indicate that I may be smarter than other people. In the conservative, capitalist, results driven world of may the best man win that you purport to endorse, you should be receptive to such claims, not offended by them.

      • snoodickle Says:

        P.S. You had my real email address prior to today, did you really think you were going to reach me at Larryking@cnn.com?

      • snoodickle Says:

        P.S.S. No, the editor would not have blocked it, he would have posted it and then explained it away at his leisure knowing that he controls what is posted on this blog.


      • So if I make a substantive argument that the conservative position on some particular question is more correct, that’s the same as saying I’m intellectually superior? Meanwhile if you make non-substantive ad hominem arguments (that I’m delusional, that you’re intellectually superior, whatever), that’s as good as a substantive argument? No wonder we never see eye to eye—you’re not even participating in the same conversation with me, you’re arguing with a version of what I’ve said that exists only in your own head!

      • snoodickle Says:

        Let’s get one thing straight, you think the conservative position is better on every single question, and you have never relented from this position. That is what makes you delusional.

      • Mickey Mouse Says:

        First off, I know of two other classmates who have posted on your blog under different names so I resent the fact that your constantly insinuating that I am posting under a different name.

        Second, if you were to block Snoodickle and I, you would probably have only one follower.

        Third, if someone is going to offend liberals, I don’t see why I cannot make fun of morons.

      • Mickey Mouse Says:

        Sorry I didn’t mean to say moron, I left an M out. Should have said Mormon

  9. snoodickle Says:

    couldn’t care less if people think I’m gay. My life would be exactly the same as it is now except that I would be banging hot 21 year old men instead of women.

    P.S. You must have misinterpreted my Halloween mask comment, my point was that using logical extremes, which “A reader” (emphasis on quotations) has a habit of doing, is an ineffective form of argumentation. Under his view of “logic,” we could never prove anything that is to happen in the future. We can’t even prove that planet Earth will be here five minutes from now – Jesus could swoop down from Heaven on the furry monster from A Never Ending Tale and annihilate mankind. Just as you could look a homosexual person in the eye, perhaps even a “habitual” homosexual, and tell him that he is no better than the bum on the sidewalk drinking Steel Reserve out of a brown paper bag. But, as you already know, neither will happen.


    • No, I didn’t misunderstand you; you fixated on the first sentence of Reader’s comment and ignored most of the rest, including almost everything it actually said about me. In other words, you agree with Reader’s assessment that “one of the more salient aspects of [my] personality” is that I “share[ my] views on any number of controversial topics with those who disagree with” me, which is pretty much the opposite of what you had just claimed (“you would never have the courage to say what you said in person, to anyone other than your equally pathetic conservative friends. You have proven that before.”).

      Saying that a homeless alcoholic is similar to a homosexual in one narrow respect is not, by the way, the same as saying that one is “no better” than the other, but that’s beside the point. More to the point is that you’re not distinguishing clearly between saying something in itself and saying something to a particular person when I know it would hurt his feelings.

      1 — If you think it’s illegitimate for me to explain my disagreements with homosexuality at all ever, then you’re doing exactly what I just described—trying to delegitimize dissent. Everything conservative is off-limits even to say, because it might make some liberal somewhere feel bad. It’s like a different instance I was just reading about earlier today—the then-president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, mentioned some (emprically sound, as far as I can tell) statistical group differences between men and women in performance in, for example, math, and was eventually forced to resign. Why? Well, “‘I felt I was going to be sick,’ said Nancy Hopkins, . . . . She walked out in what she described as a physical sense of disgust.
      “‘My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow,’ she said. ‘I was extremely upset.'” And so on. There’s no way we can have inquiry and find truth if everyone’s feelings get a veto.

      2 — If you’re talking instead about whether I would seek out homosexuals whom I thought would be especially hurt by it and deliberately start an argument with them about this, to their face, no, I probably wouldn’t. Why would I? Do you really think that’s a failure of “courage” (the word you chose earlier, above) on my part? Or if I did that, would you be the first to accuse me of being hateful and awful to people?

  10. snoodickle Says:

    P.S.S. No, the editor would not have blocked it, he would have posted it and then explained it away at his pleasure knowing that he controls what is posted on this blog.


Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: