Fear, Loathing And Santorum (Updated)

UPDATE: Doodler-at-large Puty sent in this unsolicited illustration, which was beautifully coloured by Awesome Klassen. Apparently Puty spent a couple hours last night and most of this a.m. working on Santorum caricatures.  “I’m not sure I’ve got it,” he writes. “But in fairness Rick Santorum is a really plain-looking guy.” I suggest next time Puty wants to draw Rick Santorum he should just do a mash-up of Maxwell Smart and Norman Bates. /Whitworth

It’s a wrap for round one of the ugliest Republican pageant ever, and there’s a new flavour of the month to gag on: the evil Rick Santorum.

It’s been a while since I’ve shared my American Republican primary schadenfreude with ‘dog readers — so long, in fact, that my print Guide-To hardly mentioned Santorum. At the time, he looked like a bottom-feeder, poised to go home after the Iowa caucuses (if not sooner).

Alas, having burned through all the other not-Romney candidates, voters are allowing Santorum to grapple his way into the top tier of candidates. With only eight total fewer votes in Iowa than Romney — earning him the same number of delegates that Romney takes home from the corn-laden red-state — Santorum is poised to make a go of it if he can show well in other battleground states, like South Carolina.

So, why should you hate Santorum?

Googling Santorum will produce (somewhat) specious results, thanks to LGBT activist, awesome columnist and It Gets Better Project co-creator Dan Savage, who spearheaded a Google bomb to redefine Santorum. Savage launched his hilarious and rude campaign largely because of an interview Santorum gave to the Associated Press in April, 2003.

But in summary, the then-senator explained a variety of nauseating beliefs, such as:

-The rash of child sex abuses committed by Catholic Priests is an obvious outcome of liberalism. Santorum went on to call the sexual abuses “a basic homosexual relationship,” since the kids being raped weren’t three or five years old.

-Gay people should be allowed to exist — but they can’t date each other. Or touch each other. Or look longingly at one another. Because that’s gay.

-Santorum doesn’t want to “pick on” gay people — he also thinks that “man on child” or “man on dog” relationships are wrong.

-To package these beliefs, there should be no right to privacy for anyone, and those who believe the U.S. Constitution grants a right to privacy is not reading it right. Because when people have privacy, they have gay sex and sometimes dog sex. Of course.

Continue reading “Fear, Loathing And Santorum (Updated)”

Posted by User, Raged At By Me

Two-way communication and feedback capabilities have been delivered by the big tent of the ubiquitous ‘comments’ section – only to be bastardized by what I surmise to be hack political staffers and unbelievably stupid people.

The intention is, no doubt, community-minded. News isn’t for the elite! The opinions of everyday people are important!

We may have failed to take into account that the opinions of the type of everyday people who want to share thier opinions tend to manifest as useless, overly-personalized and incorrectly-spelled brainsludge.

As evidence, I refer you to a comment-accusation on this CBC story that the RCMP is mired in “sexual Inendo” and “inappropriate behavior becoming of a police officer.” (Those are real cut-and paste quotes. Seriously. Sic. Sic. Sic.)

Is this human actually representative of the average person?

Rules of thumb that should be but shouldn’t need to be disclaimed at the top of the comments box include prohibitions against:

– So-called evidence that the health care system is falling apart because you knew a woman who had a friend who went in to the hospital with a cold and died;

– The use of the words “communist,” “socialist” and “fascist” unless you’ve properly studied their definitions and are capable of applying them without silliness or shenanigans; and

– Old-man observations which purport to contribute to serious discussions, like “the weather is colder now than it was when I was a kid,” as a comment on climate change.

Exhibit B is a little more tricky.

Notes that seem to indicate, for example, that Stephen Harper is a real everyman who has put Canada on the right track, I submit, have a stench.

That reek is a dead giveaway for unashamedly embattled political staffers. Their mammalian imitation is obvious.

So, no, soccermom1981, I don’t believe it’s actually the case that you weren’t sure you were going to give Harper your vote until he vowed to scrap the gun registry so now you just know he’s the man to move this country forward.

Nor is that a logical comment under an article on another party’s leadership race.

Alas, online news outfits are now a twisted ensemble of real journalists on top (who think about trifling little things like research, interviews, balance and objectivity – even when they don’t get it right) and the ever-stretching bike spandex of the comments sections – one leg crammed full of unfounded and misspelled moronicisms and the other, sausage-like, with clawing hacks vying for your love for their bosses and ideologies.

And, yes, the irony of posting this to a blog (no less, with comments allowed) has dawned on me.