It Doesn’t Make Any Sense

I don’t give a damn about Rick Santorum. Had he won the nomination he would have put his foot in his mouth enough times to guarantee defeat, even as the country suffers economically.

What I give a damn about is this:


Rick Santorum thinks it’s legitimate to claim his campaign is about freedom? To use freedom as a campaign slogan? To emblazon his podium with the word freedom while giving his concession speech?

What freedom?

The freedom to ban pornography (so much for the First Amendment)? The freedom to ban oral sex? The freedom to ban birth control (and of course, all abortions, even ones deemed medically necessary)? The freedom to bomb Iran (resulting, most probably, in huge damage to the American economy)?

Santorum’s platform is one of forcing his religious beliefs, his politics and his geopolitics onto the rest of the country. That’s fine; he’s free to believe in doing that, I’m free to tell him to go and fuck himself.

The problem is calling it “freedom”.

As Orwell once put it:

And those words tell us everything we could ever possibly need to know about Rick Santorum.

26 thoughts on “It Doesn’t Make Any Sense

  1. Thank you for writing this! We (Americans) need all the help we can get to move away from the thinly veiled religious nuttery posing as freedom!

  2. Aaah… the stereotypical “I know better than you” member of society.

    There are alot of those all around us.

    *cough* global warming green-think zealots *cough*.

  3. freedom is in the mind of the beholder – I believe in his case “freedom” means: freedom to live in a society WITHOUT pornography/birth control or oral sex.

  4. John,

    I usually agree with you but I think your attacks on Santorum’s social values are off base. Family is the bedrock of culture, society and freedom. The government should vehemently protect it. Tax and legal structures should reward and protect the family institution. Second the government needs to protect life. Without the protection of life you cannot even talk about liberty. Life is a prerequisite to Liberty.

    • Santorum’s definition of family and social values are not the same as everyone else’s. A truly constitutional approach would be to allow anyone to live however they want so long as it doesn’t harm others and they can pay for it. Santorum’s policies are mostly geared toward forcing other people to live by his rules, for no other reason than that he finds their behaviour offensive. Good for Santorum. He’s free to believe whatever he likes, but it’s against the spirit of the law and the Constitution to try and force it onto others.

      Also: Ways to protect life:

      1/ Don’t attack Iran (Santorum wants to)
      2/ Stop the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and Somalia (Santorum would do more)
      3/ End the drug war (Santorum would expand it)
      4/ End subsidies to the military-industrial complex (Santorum is for them)

      Then maybe we can talk about restricting (non-medically necessary) abortion. Personally, I don’t believe life begins ’til the point of foetal viability, so I’d probably put a ban after 12-16 weeks.

      Santorum is no friend of liberty. He is a theocrat.

      • I’m not trying to argue the virtues of Sanatorium as a whole (I would not vote for him), rather the virtues of some social constraints from the State to protect life and promote liberty.

        Without virtue Liberty is not possible. The family is the primary source of virtue in a free society and the only source of life in all societies. I see no problem with laws that give financial incentives to protect the family and to legally define the family as a man and women. This is the natural order and the only social contract that enables the creation of new life. It is intrinsically different than all other relationships. Just because I live with my cat does not mean I can start calling that a marriage or a family. To act indifferent to this unique relationship is not only folly but detrimental to a culture.

        I agree with your critique of his war mongering tendencies. However, saying we can deal with the issue of protecting the life of the unborn, once we straighten out our military conflicts is absurd. The two issues can certainly be dealt with independently.

        Finally although it’s impossible to quantify human life ill make a feeble attempt. On the basic numbers the western military machine since WWII has taken far, far less human life than the abortion mills. Current statistics show 54 million abortions in the United States alone since Roe vs. Wade, and a very low percentage were medically necessary.

        • Thomas you are wrong on some many levels!

          “The family is the primary source of virtue in a free society and the only source of life in all societies.”

          says who?! Last I checked there were a lot of single mothers raising kids just fine! It’s not the optimal solution but to say that only “families” are a source of virtue and life is ridiculous on it’s face! A woman can get pregnant by artificial insemination in today’s world. Having a child from that procedure is bringing a life into the world, regardless if the woman is married.

          ” I see no problem with laws that give financial incentives to protect the family and to legally define the family as a man and women. This is the natural order and the only social contract that enables the creation of new life.”

          That’s called discrimination and you should see a problem with it. Where would the nonsense stop? Maybe the definition of the traditional family becomes more narrow – maybe interracial marriages will be outlawed? It’s happened before! You should never trust the govt with defining and regulating consenting relationships between sovereign individuals. It is a setup for tyranny and discrimination! Why is the “only social contract that enables the creation of new life” the most important thing? But more importantly, why/how is it true? Any moron can get knocked up, or knock someone up and poof a child can be born. There goes that theory! This is nothing more than thinly veiled religious bigotry.

          “I agree with your critique of his war mongering tendencies. However, saying we can deal with the issue of protecting the life of the unborn, once we straighten out our military conflicts is absurd. The two issues can certainly be dealt with independently.”

          Why are you more concerned with the unborn, unfeeling than you are for fully functioning human beings? You know Nicolae Ceseascu outlawed abortions in Romania – it worked wonders! / sarc. He was a communist dictator btw.

          The point John is making is that people like Rick Santorum present abortion as the greatest evil in the world, while ignoring far greater injustices, and then people get distracted from things that matter – like the actual killing of human beings. The abortion debate is religious pandering at it’s worst!

        • Well written post Thomas.

          Problem is, not everyone is willing/able to become a parent. That’s why some choose abortion. What would you do with the children if the parents did no want to raise them? Adoption? Are you telling me that 40 million babies could have been adopted since Roe vs Wade (I’m guessing on that non-required abortion figure, for sake of ease)? Would you force the parents to raise them? Raise economic incentives to having children (where would the money come from – and wouldn’t this simply be another hidden welfare?)

          The only thing the state should force it citizens to do is not to harm others (physically/economically). Anything else is a fad based on moral and/or dogmatic values in my mind.

        • There’s another side to this as well – I know the Duggars have over 20 children, and they are getting alot of flack for “polluting the earth un-necessarily” and creating more greenhouses gasses than is needed.

          What if some green-think crazed zealot lobbied to have a law stating we should have a 1 child policy instated?

          Who is right here – you who wants to protect life, or the zealot who wants to lower greenhouse gasses? The obvious solution to this is simply not to make any laws for either position.

    • But that’s a false choice. You don’t have subscribe to Santorum’s so called values in order to protect life, liberty or the traditional “family.”

Leave a Reply

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