About two weeks ago, there was a very interesting topic on The Colbert Report. Corporations seen as "people." The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching, and an interview with Jeffrey Toobin regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Frankly, it shouldn't be any surprise I am highly critical of this. The ramifications of it are simply too great. And besides, I fail to see why corporations even deserve the same freedoms as people.
Obama's ability to speak in front of crowds is well known, and he is good at it. The GOP, however, are between a rock and a hard place, lacking that same charismatic ability as Obama, yet feeling the need for someone who can rebuttal the President. Their first few tries didn't go, so who did they choose next? Former Senator Rick Santorum. I've heard the name before, but didn't know anything about him. There was a controversy regarding a comment from him about homosexuals back in 2003, which I don't remember. Of course, hearing him reference "man on dog" got me curious for the transcript of this. Well I got more that I thought I would. Here's the transcript I shall be using.
When asked about comments that he blames the Catholic church sex scandal on liberalism, he responded in part with:
"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."
Apparently, he has almost no understanding of right to privacy. Or law in general. Firstly, and while I could be wrong, I don't think those boys consented to being molested. Even so, in matters such as this, the laws tend to override consentuality. Accepting different lifestyles does not mean accept everyone regardless of circumstance. But also, the idea behind the right to privacy is that the government or law enforcers cannot simply break into your house, watch everything you do, etc. without obtaining permission first. But if reasonable cause is accepted, they can get warrants for such. For example, if there a police department has reason to suspect that a house has a meth lab, they can attempt to get a warrant to search the house. However, they must present a case for a warrant to a judge. This is not an issue of moral relativism, this is an issue of sexual child abuse, and your own god-forsaken stupidity, Mr. Santorum.
"...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."
Once again, to consider this a "basic homosexual relationship" is to ignore it for what it really is, a child sex abuse case. While, there is a growing acceptance of homosexual relationships, to say that child-molesting is accepted in part with it just demonstrates how little you really know. Of course, though, being the kind-hearted and accepting man he is, he admits that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, just homosexual acts. Kind of like how some people don't have a problem with blacks, they have a problem with them not being white? /sarcasm
"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 of fucking bigots who can't get past their hate for homosexuals. There's your purpose.
"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."
So I guess he doesn't want anyone to have sex, ever? Unless it's rape. He then mentions he believes the right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution. While technically true, perhaps he should read the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, rights outside of those listed by the Constitution exist, and should not be violated simply because they are not stated within the Constitution.
"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."
This comment is in regards to extending out broader rights. Now, some things can, indeed, affect the family; your family but not everyone's. I should also point out that polygamy is, I believe, technically illegal. Also, I didn't realize having anal sex with your wife is "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." Traditional part excluded (thinking about it, I don't think I ever mentioned why I hate the concept of a "traditional" family). I guess missionary is the one and only way, then? Do tell me how it destroys families, though. Anal sex - the family killer!
"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."
So we should have heterosexual marriage, for procreation? In spite of the fact that there is no longer any need to expand our population like back in older days and, in fact, we as a world may be facing overpopulation? Now, the infamous man-on-dog comment is:
"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."
Which prompted a response from the reporter:
"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."
This next one is back to 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."
Once again, this is about right of privacy. And once again, it is apparent he has no idea what right of privacy is. He's looking at it in such a way that, he's technically right, but he's wrong in the context. Yes, there is a limitation on the "wants and passions" of individuals. There are a few people I would love to take a baseball bat to their head. But I won't because that is assault, it is illegal. And that's fine, the reason we accept it as illegal is because it brings harm against someone else, and possibly serious medical condition. But the context he is using, is essentially "anything I disagree with should be illegal." Or rather, anything that we, the Christian Right, don't agree with. If I want to give my wife anal, and she lets me, I should be able to do so without having to worry about prosecution. His understand of this whole issue is so narrow, that I'm shocked that he ever got elected to be a Senator. But furthermore, how does he honestly intend to have such laws enforced? Well, since he apparently doesn't believe in the right to privacy, I suppose wiretapping, monitoring, even secret policing forces would not be beyond him. Or, more likely, not bother to enforce it at all, and only creating what is essentially one big inconvenience, and a waste of tax money.
A piece from the Rachel Maddow Show pointed out quite an interesting look into the GOP's anti-czarism. Also, Obama is the Antichrist. You can find a .pdf of the full poll results here.
Also from the Rachel Maddow Show (do excuse me linking to it a lot, I rather enjoy it so watch it frequently) takes a look at the states with the worst health, and what their Representatives are doing to fuck them over. The fact that they are all Southern states, which are always heavily conservative, is no surprise to be quite honest. It's also no surprise that they are fighting what their states desperately need- better health care. While both Democrats and Republicans tend to favor their own favoritisms and financial backers rather than the populous, I think the GOP does it far more; or at least far more openly. This is partly due to, I believe, the takeover by the Christian Right. They have a very clear agenda, and are trying to attain it. They will not stop until they are disbanded, or until they reach their goals. They are uncompromisingly set on their ideologies, even if that means sacrificing thousands of people. Here's another segment in regards to South Carolina that's worth a look.
Next up is a biggie. The Values Voters Summit. This is freaking huge to the Christian Right. And freaking Bizarro World to the rest of us. The Values Voters Summit is pivotal to the Republican base and to the Christian Right (which I guess is pretty much the same thing for the most part). This year, they had Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Bill O'Reilly, Gov. Rick Perry, Carrie Prejean (y'know, the disgraced former Miss California), Mitt Romney, Phyllis Schlafly (the old bat who founded The Eagle Forum), and others. Eight people currently serving in Congress, a few presidential hopefuls, two current governors, and a few other people who served in our government, among other guests: people from high-profile conservative groups (even a few presidents of those groups), "scholars", and other people whom I'm not familiar with. You can see just how huge of an event it is. However, you just have to see what is being preached in this thing. And these are taken directly from the website; a true copy-and-paste- a few, I think, are deserving of their descriptions, again, taken straight from the website.
"TRUE TOLERANCE: COUNTERING THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"
"OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY"
"MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY"
"GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: THE NEW FACE OF THE "PRO-DEATH" AGENDA"
"SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS"
Americans are at a greater risk of losing their basic freedoms today than ever before in the history of this nation. Political correctness and the voice of the liberal minority are undermining the morals and values of main-stream America. Christians are being silenced all across America: in the political debate, the public square, the schools, the workplace, and even in the sanctuary of their own churches. Through video, renowned author and commentator, Janet Parshall, takes you on a journey across the country to meet citizens who have been arrested for speaking out at a public rally, students who are being forced to attend classes that require them to recite verses from the Koran and to stage their own Jihad and activists pushing social tolerance to such an extreme that the Bible itself is being labeled "hate speech."
"THE NEW MASCULINITY"
Feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new "masculinism" right. Such a "masculinism" will have its dovetailing counterpart in a new "feminism" for they mutually define each other and, in nature, are meant to be complementary. This panel will begin this exploration.
"THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY"
"DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD"
Or, how about claiming, I am not joking, I swear to all that is good, all pornography is homosexual pornography. (starts at 2:42 mark, said at 4:39).
What? WHAT!? WHAAAT!? To borrow a phrase from Penn & Teller: BULLSHIT!
Edit: I meant to link to this. Just a little something that sums up the Values Voters Summit.
Oh, and here's a little something, again, from Rachel Maddow.
And lastly, wow, I know, finally right? Lastly, a little something came to my attention. I'm sorry, I'll just link to it. It's short, if you want to read, I promise. Here is the article.
That's all I have to say for now. Until tomorrow, when I may be starting work on the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment