S.M.B. - Logic and Rhetoric
Thursday, April 24, 2003

This is what Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum says, and here's what I say; as reported and unedited by the Associated Press:

AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent.

OK that's his opinion, if he wants to believe that the one percent of the population that makes more than $$380,000/year is the average American family, that's his prerogative. He continues:

The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this while idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.

And he's obviously judged that being selfish is best for the country, for him, and for his children, he's entitled...

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?


SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

I love it when right wing ducks like Santorum imply that liberalism and moral relativism go hand in hand. Liberalism is not about moral relativism, its about a progressive moral paradigm, which holds that people should be judged based on the content of their characters rather than their sexual orientation, race, nationality, gender or any other aspect of their personal status. Conservatives believe that certain aspects of society, especially the poor, women and homosexuals, among others, should know and embrace their placement at the bottom of society. Conservatism is hardly Christian morality at work. Santorum doesn't stop digging there, however:

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year olds, or 5-year olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

WASN'T THIS GUY JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW THE LIBERALS DO NOT WANT ACCOUNTABILITY? I read columns by liberals extensively, and I have never, in my recollection, read a column or statement by any liberal that claims that a "consensual" relationship between a priest is okay. AND Santorum makes another stupid statement when he implies that the priests' raping of altar boys was consensual; Santorum is defiling the integrity of those people who were viscously abused by these priests by lying and saying these people consented to have sex with perverted clergy! But he does not stop, boy, this guy is inept, AND the third guy in charge in the Republican power structure:

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe -

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.

OK OK, HOLD IT. Let's stop right here. According to dictionary.com:

HOMOSEXUALITY - n : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

Prejudice is preserved in code words and dumb distinctions my friends, we have just seen a dumb distinction. His quote is not over:

As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

Do we separate murderers from their actions? I ASK THIS SIMMPLE QUESTION-- CAN SOMEBODY BE A MURDERER WITHOUT MURDERING SOMEBODY?!?!?! This guy is sooo stupid. If we assume for a second that sexual orientation is something that requires action in order for it to be real-- in other words you need to be attracted to and seek to have sex with people of the ___ sex, then maybe this guy's stupidity will be shown before the world.

Anyway, why do conservatives ALWAYS talk about homosexuality as if its a disease that's invading the bodies of millions of people across this country? If I were a holy roller, the lusty sin I would be most concerned with is heterosexual fornication, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ENGAGE IN THIS GOD FORSAKEN ACTIVITY ON A DAILY BASIS, AND IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT RICK SANTORUM'S LITTLE CHILDREN WILL BE FORNICATING WITH THE OTHER GENDER, THAN WITH THE SAME GENDER. Well, such logic does not find footing in the conservative movement because they are prejudiced against homosexual people, hate them, and will never abstain from taking an opportunity to deny them their rights under the constitution. To the right wing ducks, its not about morality, its about hatred. He continues:

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: 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.

Pause. Sodomy laws do not protect the family, minimum wage laws do, if Santorum and other conservatives are soo pro-family, why do they care more about the former than about the latter?

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.

So gay people don't have families? Freedom of privacy is not a specific freedom lain out in the constitution, Santorum is right about that subtle point; BUT many legal precedents have established that PRIVACY is the doctrine that ties together the negative liberties in the bill of rights-- protections from illegal searches and seizures and general protections from the heavy hand of a government (TEXAS) that cannot stay out of the private lives of law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country.

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.

That's his opinion, whatever...

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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We're not without a sense of humor over here.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

Oh boy, we're back to the conservative desire to paint yesterday's society as stronger, better, more stable and more moral than today's. They always claim or imply that our society is going downhill, without ever proving it, or saying why and how pre-modern society was better...

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

This is the FUTURE (not the past) of the Republican Party. This is their thinking, and they are absolutely out of step with younger generations of people, who may not necessarily be partial to homosexuals, but maybe who think its stupid to prosecute them for sodomy, when straight people commit similar sexual acts, like fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex, and rarely get ticketed or tried for such "crimes." And if the Supreme Court should not intervene on behalf of people whose rights are being violated, then who should they intervene for? The government? These conservatives do not believe in small government, they believe in big government on their own behalf...

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Yesterday's New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON, April 21 — President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

The President is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.

The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Is Furious George going to make his acceptance speech from ground zero? The Bushies have balls, I'll admit that, they truly do. It's all balls and no shame, because this is obvious exploitation of September 11. Furious George is placing his convention right before September 11, 2004, in New York City, for his own benefit, as far as he is concerned, New Yorkers can go screw themselves. Bush knows he is not going to win New York City or New York State in the Presidential election.

New York City has gotten very little support from the New York State and Federal Government. Our mayor is slashing services, our Governor refuses to raise taxes a dime, so all sorts of security, health and education services are doomed. Conservative Republican administrations dead set on giving money to the wealthy do not think it good to preserve a decent police or fire department, or make sure that high school kids have sports teams to play on or cheer for. Governor George Pataki's sons go to boarding schools in New England, so perhaps he simply does not care that school sports teams in New York City are going to fold or that 40 firehouses will be closed if we do not receive more state relief. These politicians simply want to use New York City's tragedy to enhance their hold on power, but they can give a shit about the people most affected by the tragedy of the attacks or the 10% and rising unemplyment rate, or the pending financial and fiscal disaster hitting New York...

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Monday, April 21, 2003

In today's issue of the New York Times a scientist says that he worked with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He says that the Iraqis destroyed them days before the war. If Iraq destroyed the weapons, why would their government let war take place anyway? This is the dumbest propaganda piece coming from this government, by way of the handy New York Times...

WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 — A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

This is insulting, these guys in the Bush administration think everybody is soo stupid as to believe that Iraq would destroy their weapons DAYS before the war and then not tell anybody, just let the bombs fly, and the tanks roll in. Everybody always wondered how they would account for the fact that they found no weapons at all, well here's the answer, from now on the Bushies are going to say that Iraq destroyed it before the war. I can't wait for the explanations of WHY Iraq would do such a thing, but just wait.... Over and out. -Ric

Powered by Blogger