After dinner tonight, we browsed for a bit in the local bookstore. My favorite find was a new book about the about the "Left's assault on our culture". Hard as it was to pass up a book endorsed by both G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted FelonRadio Talk Show Host, and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, general hate-mongerRadio Talk Show Host, somehow I managed.
Speaking of right-wing lunacy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) just sounds like an idiot. First he compares consensual gay sex to incest and polygamy. He also says, "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts," which has always seemed like one of the most chicken-shit things you can claim to believe in. Then he says "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman," which displays such a colossal ignorance of history that I don't even know where to begin. Maybe if he had said, "a man and some number of women," he wouldn't have sounded quite so ignorant. One man and one woman is not exactly the historical norm.
And I do not, can not, understand how gays having consensual sex is somehow "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." Like somehow my marriage is going to fall apart because of someone else is having sex with a member of the same sex. How does that work? One common explanation seems to be that you need to have heterosexual marriages because that's how you get children. Santorum says "Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children." So not having children is a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Someone better round up those Nuns...
Santorum is now claiming both that he was taken out of context, and that he stands by his comments. Umm ... yeah. That seems to be the favorite defense of politicians these days: "I was taken out of context." At the White House press briefing on Tuesday, a reporter asked Ari Fleischer for a comment on Santorum's remarks. After Fleischer responded, "I have not seen the entire context of the interview...", the reporter asked "Do you need context?" Good point.
Here's the transcript of what Santorum said -- complete with context.
Ah well ...
Yes, I could not agree more. There is the obvious frustration that eminates from the absurd beliefs and hypocrisy of the right. Finally, opinions and bleeding stereotype characterists that are obvious with the conservative right are brought to light in a convincing meta-analysis study by the American Psychological Association. The character traits of "closure to ambiguity, need for control, depression, anger, fear" are profound in those with conservative values. It is not that this wasn't obvious enough but this study of personality traits from Hitler to Limbaugh provides factual psychological study that even the conservatives will not be able to deny, despite their very narrow-mindedness. In addition to the character traits listed in the study, I feel a need to add "autism of the abstract." The ability to create and understand abstract forms of expression such as art, music and other forms of performance are strong in those with freedom and openness to expression. That usually eliminates the narrowness of the conservative right. Could you see someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter appreciating a work by Dali? The response would probably be, "that is anti-Christian, and besides that, Tiger's can't fly. That painting therefore doesn't make sense."
Dr. David Guenette
Posted by: Dr. David Guenette on October 23, 2003 02:18 PM