Mr. Frothy-Mix is still talking.

It would have been really nice if all politicians and pundits in the US had agreed to honor Nelson Mandela’s death with a moment of silence. By “moment,” I mean it should last a week or more. That way we’d get a chance to catch our breath before we get Rick Santorum saying this shit:

“Well, Nelson Mandela stood up against a great injustice,” Santorum replied. “And he was willing to pay a huge price for that. And it’s for that reason he — he — he is mourned today, because of that struggle he performed. But what he was advocated for was not necessarily the right answer, but he was fighting against some great injustice.”

“I would make the argument,” Santorum continued, “that we have a great injustice going on too, in this country, with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives, and Obamacare is front-and-center in that.”

Just in case we had any doubts, Frothy-Mix is here to remind us that he is Wrong About Everything.

No, Santorum, you are not in any way comparable to Nelson Mandela. No, you are not fighting against apartheid. No, the Affordable Care Act is not like a system of legally codified racial discrimination and economic oppression. If you’d been part of the government of South Africa at the time, you would have been on the side of keeping Mr. Mandela in prison.

It bears repeating, to conservatives in general: you’re not fooling anyone with this bellowing about the government being too powerful and controlling everything. When you’re pro-military-occupation, pro-drug-war, and determined to use the power of government to make it as difficult as possible for women to control their fertility, you have no opinion on Government Intrusion Into Our Lives.

I’d tell you, “Go home, Santorum, you’re drunk,” except drunkenness doesn’t explain this kind of stupid.

 

You would think a UN treaty on rights for disabled people would be a no-brainer, but…

I made another video. Below, I have posted some documentation.

Be quiet, Jim Inhofe! Grown-ups are talking!

Be quiet, Jim Inhofe! Grown-ups are talking!

Full story here.

I actually looked at Life News to get this quote. *shudder*

I actually looked at Life News to get this quote. *shudder*

Robin Marty brought me here.

Mr. Frothy-Mix thinks the UN wants to abort his precious little girl.

Mr. Frothy-Mix thinks the UN wants to abort his precious little girl.

The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will “raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference.”

A fish in a barrel full of Santorum.

It’s so easy to pick on Santorum, but if he doesn’t want me throwing shit at him, then he should retire.

Dude, I mean…WTF? Seriously? You saw fit to write this down on a piece of paper and allow it to follow a book to press?

Santorum thinks the modern day world could learn a thing or two from what happened centuries ago.

“Today we are facing a threat to the very foundation our founders laid,” writes Santorum. “That threat does not come from an alien force but from those who are willing and determined to abandon the concept of God-given rights. Like the royalty during the Revolution, today’s elites wish to return to the pre-Revolutionary paradigm in which they, through governmental force, allocate rights and responsibilities.”

If you would use the power of government to force women to make babies they don’t want, you don’t get to complain about the government allocating rights and responsibilities.

And about that “pursuit of happiness” thing? Santorum gives it an edit.

“Did God give us the right to pursue a good time? Don’t get me wrong—happiness is a wonderful emotion and a state to be desired. But is that what our founders really intended to be the pursuit of our country and its people—to be happy? Let’s put it this way: How would you like your tombstone to read, ‘Here lies [your name]. He/she was happy’? Count me out! Isn’t life supposed to be more significant than that? Let’s face it—many of life’s pleasures are not even good for us, as my waistline constantly reminds me.”

I think I just shed a few IQ points from reading that.

Does anyone else notice how the first question about “God” somehow morphs into the second question about “our founders”? Are we talking about what God gives us permission to do, or what our nation’s founders intended? It’s creepy and weird to conflate the two.

To answer your larger question: if you don’t find pleasure in the things that make your life significant, then in my opinion, you need to seek significance in other things. If significance is in opposition to happiness, then something has gone wrong.

For example, this may be strange in a writer, but I find pleasure in revising my book after getting feedback from an editor. There is real satisfaction in hunting down extraneous punctuation and trimming clumsy sentences. You might want to think about that, Santorum. I don’t think you’re using a ghostwriter, so perhaps you could hire a better editor.

One last thing: I don’t ever want to hear about Santorum’s waistline again.

Alyson Miers is the author of Charlinder’s Walk. 

 

I just can’t look away from Mr. Frothy-Mix.

Dude’s like a train wreck. It is entirely possible that there is something seriously wrong with me.

But, you know, the train wreck is trying to become a presidential nominee, so of course he demands our attention. ThinkProgress shows us what he has to say about contraception. It’s fairly predictable:

[Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

Hold on, let me dig up the full transcript, some brave soul at RH Reality Check found it at DKos so that you don’t have to watch the video:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

I think this guy actually lies awake at night with the paralyzing fear that the folks down the street are having more fun than he is. His idea of an “important public policy issue” is that all-consuming anxiety that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

Mr. Frothy-Mix, the party of Lincoln no longer exists.

Ed Brayton shows us another fish in a barrel, which is Former Senator Frothy-Mix playing “Who’s the most homophobic of them all?” with his fellow clown car passengers.

“I have been a long-time advocate for states’ rights. However, I believe as Abraham Lincoln did – that states don’t have the rights to legalize moral wrongs.

“Mr. Cain, Congresswoman (Michele) Bachmann and Governor (Rick) Perry all believe 50 different definitions of marriage is fine, I strongly disagree and will continue fighting for traditional marriage between one man and woman.”

Right. The Emancipation Proclamation was just like a nationwide mandate that civil marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples. Of course.

Former Senator Santorum apparently hasn’t gotten the memo that keeping Teh Gheyz out of marriage is no longer the position of a majority of Americans. We want to hear more about jobs, healthcare, the foreign occupations, immigration, and so on. You’re not going to win a national election by going in front of a country that’s struggling to pay the bills and boasting of your commitment to making sure same-sex couples can’t get married. I mean, Herman Cain, for example, at least has a tax plan. It’s a bullshit tax plan, but he has some ideas about how government pays for itself, which is actually relevant for those of us who work a regular 40 hours a week. And here we have Santorum talking about how he’s going to end the scourge of marriage equality. It’s like he’s trying to out-cuckoo Crazy-Eyes Bachmann, and he just doesn’t have the charisma.

 

Mr. Frothy-Mix does not understand how these Inter-webs work.

This is just too much:

Google search for Santorum has generated some inappropriate results since gay columnist Dan Savage organized an online campaign to link graphic sexual terms to the socially conservative senator’s name.

Now, the Republican presidential candidate says he’s convinced Google could do something to remedy the issue, if the company wanted to.

“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it,” Santorum said. “If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.”

He continued: “To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle but I suspect that’s not true.”

Is it wrong to point and laugh at someone who does not understand how a search engine works?

Oh, since when has that ever stopped me?

*points* “Rick Santorum, did your mother drop you on your head?!”

It sure would be nice if you could wipe the face of the Internet clean of all the lube and fecal matter just by harassing Google, but I am afraid that Google does not create the lube and fecal matter, it merely shows us where the lube and fecal matter are. If Google did not provide us with that service, we would turn to Bing or Yahoo or some other search engine. The lube and fecal matter are bigger than Google.

If you want to fix your Google problem, this is what you do: do that search for your name, and visit the first page that comes up with the lube and fecal matter. Contact the owner of the site, and tell him to get rid of that nasty neologism. Go back to the Google search, and do the same thing with the second page. Keep going until they’re all gone.

Mr. Frothy-Mix fails at useful metaphors.

Dude just never shuts his hole:

Rick Santorum turned more than a few eyebrows on Monday when he explained his opposition to same-sex marriage by holding up a napkin and observing that it was not a paper towel. On Friday, during a meeting with the Des Moines Register, Santorum relied on a similar metaphor to prove why society can’t “redefine” marriage: water is not beer. “It’s like saying this glass of water is a glass of beer. Well, you can call it a glass of beer, but it’s not a glass of beer. It’s a glass of water. And water is what water is. Marriage is what marriage is,” he said.

The napkin/paper towel distinction is especially pathetic; he’s just phoning it in. The difference between a napkin and a paper towel is presentation. By comparing marriage to a glass of water (as opposed to beer), I suppose what he’s trying to say is that marriage is a natural, immutable part of life that hasn’t changed throughout history and is experienced the same way all over the world. Anyone who’s either studied history or looked at a few other countries knows that much is bullshit.

Really, marriage is more like beer. The stuff doesn’t just rain out of the sky. It takes some cultivation and practice. There are several different styles and many possibilities for flavors. It doesn’t occur in nature, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s delicious. Some people find it addictive. It can end up being unhealthy.

Human beings have been having sex—in all different combinations of gender—for far longer than we’ve been getting married. Sex is natural. Procreation is natural, but non-procreative sex is also natural. Marriage is cultural. We’ve redefined it many times over the millennia, and we will continue to do so. Best get used to it, Mr. Frothy-Mix.

Also, I’d be careful if I were Santorum. He has a Google problem already, and if he doesn’t stuff his anti-gay rhetoric, Dan Savage will redefine the name “Rick.”

Please, Santorum; think of the Ricks.

 

Mr. Frothy-Mix: Maximum wrong in minimum word count.

Santorum gives us his thoughts on why liberals care about marriage equality:

The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it’s a two-fer,” Santorum said. “When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special … [and] it is a sure bet that will undermine faith.”

Liberals advocate for marriage equality because it cheapens marriage AND it undermines faith?

That’ll be news to my local LGBT group who are full-throatedly in support of civil marriage equality and who are mostly church-going Christians.

Continue reading

Mr. Frothy-Mix: “Bitches ain’t shit.”

Santorum is so freaking pleased with himself for sticking it to women with untenable pregnancies:

When discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony”:

 

SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

Note that they’re not talking about restricting abortion rights at all stages; just for the third trimester. It’s a stage of pregnancy that women tend not to reach if they’re not actually invested in keeping the babies. I mean, if a woman gets knocked up and simply doesn’t want a baby just now, or not another one, or not another one just yet, she’s going to get the abortion before her internal organs get squished into an uncomfortably small space. The nation’s abortion providers do not have women coming into their clinics with huge baby bellies and asking the doctors to “get rid of it” because they’ve changed their minds and they want to fit into cute clothes.

Continue reading