On shows like The Daily Show, people have chuckled that former Senator Rick Santorum’s name is synonymous with a graphic sexual act. Gay columnist Dan Savage launched a campaign for people to link the name to the act on Google. This prompted Santorum to contact Google and complain that the company is “spreading filth.”
Savage asked readers to link the name to an act described as “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” I understand Savage’s outrage over Santorum’s views which include not only anti-homosexual positions but an attack generally on the right of privacy for all adults. However, this campaign degrades the debate and makes the opponents of Santorum appear juvenile, crude, and petty. It matches the hateful and unhinged rhetoric of the far right with graphic and shocking rhetoric for the left. Who wins in such a contest? I expect it is Santorum who wins by showing that the left engages in sexually crude tactics — fulfilling his stereotypes of the alliance in favor of gay rights.
Santorum is going on the offensive, contacting Google and crying foul:
“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it. If you’re a responsible business, you don’t let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country. 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.”
Google’s spokesperson explained that “Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the web, it will be removed from Google’s search results through our usual crawling process.” However, the spokesperson added that the company does not “remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines.”
While I expect some may rejoice in the controversy created by this campaign, it has further degraded an already degrading campaign for the entire country as candidates fight to overdo each other in headline grabbing rhetoric and extreme positions.
Source: Politico
Interesting study Mespo!
“anon – ol Marcus is not made fun of because of his mannerism or speech pattern. He is made fun of because he believe you can “pray away the gay” and people are more than happy to note, in that context, that it does not seem to have worked for him.
Given the problem the “conservative” movement has with closeted gay men in its midst the comments are not unexpected. If Marcus came out as a gay man he would find acceptance on the left & ridicule on the right. It is not his nature but his actions that have caused him to be the butt of jokes. Unlike homosexuality, that is something you can decide to change.”
The bold part is the crux of it.
You are making an enormous, bigoted assumption based on your own ignorance and stereotyping..
If you want to criticize Bachmann’s beliefs and actions, fine.Criticize them.
But that’s not what is happening. Mespo’s attack was literally that he lisped and is fat. And Mespo is not alone in this.
Not all men who lisp are homosexuals. Not all homosexuals lisp.
YOUR assumption, in bold, that Marcus is a closeted gay man IS the problem.
The attack on Marcus says that you and others endorse that stereotype of mincing, effeminate lisping men.
Even as Dick Cheney and Ted Olson come out for gay marriage and to beat down these stereotypes, YOU come out to endorse them, and how?
Well, you’re a progressive and an iconoclast and can’t possibly be a bigot. Mespo was being ironic, the attack was funny, And, Bachmann is deplorable and deserves it. Gosh! IT’s the Republicans who are the bigots.
James 9:12 am
“I’m not sure which is funnier… thinking Santorum remotely matters or feigned outrage that a well known bigot is being mocked.”
“Oh please, won’t someone treat this homophobe polling at 2% with the respect courtesy he deserves!”
——-
LOL, it looks like Mr. Savage did IMO.
The technique of moving a website or search engine result up in the queue by garnering a large number of ‘hits’ (through varous methods) is now a business one contracts for. It’s not new, it’s not illegal, it’s just business. I could add links to these business’ but they would take you to advertising sites and I’d rather not inflict them (and the bots, spiders, malware etc. I am always suspicious they contain) on the blawg commenters. Google itself will sell you pride of place as a sponsored link. Just business.
The glory of the free market, just the kind of thing a good conservative like Mr. Santorum should embrace. 🙂
Here’s the report:
http://faithcommunitiestoday.org/decade-change
Looks like Santorium’s hard right, bible thumping, faith-based base may be shrinking. A report by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research entitled “Decade of Change” shows that church congregations are shrinking, evangelical’s growth have plateaued, and financial resources are scarce thus denying churches the political clout they enjoyed since 2000. Mega-churches are still on the rise with their electronic glitz but they comprise less than one half of one percent of the faithful. The study also notes:
[The study], authored by David A. Roozen, shows that despite efforts at innovation, bursts of vitality and increased civic participation, faith communities are entering this decade less healthy than they were at the turn of the century.
In 2010, more than one in four congregations had fewer than 50 people in the pews. And although the number of megachurches doubled in the last decade, the growth of the Evangelical church seems to be plateauing and their congregations beginning to shrink.
Roozen said the ageing Oldline congregations and the halted growth of the Evangelical church are “two of the big stories” in this research.
“What’s interesting is how old the Oldine really is,” he said. “Half of the congregations could lose one-third of their members in 15 years.” Over half (53 percent) of Oldine Protestant congregations consists of seniors 65 years old or older, and 75 percent of these churches said that 18-34 year olds make up less than 10 percent of their membership.
Roozen said the church is losing older members to disabilities or death and there are no young adults to take their place. Young adults aren’t really abundant in the Evangelical churches either. “The Evangelical growth movement has basically halted and begun to retreat,” he said. Additionally, the study found a steep drop in financial health and continuing high levels of conflict.
This loss of finacial clout and ground troops may be one reason the Republicans are more open to Obama’s jobs’ plan with Eric Cantor saying there was room to compromise.
Jo,
Thank you for that wonderful story you performed a Mitzvah of the highest kind. As far as other comments go I see it this way. Santorum is a loathsome human being. who has used victimization of the oppressed to gain credence and notoriety with his following of cretins. He is fair game, as is Marcus Bachman. I am amused by the sniveling of many on the right who cry foul when they are hoisted on their own petards. For years this seaminess of self-righteous attack has spewed forth from them. Clinton’s impeachment was more than a shot across the Left’s bow, it was an attempt at a nuclear attack, led by a slimeball who was cheating on his second wife after he cheated on his first.
This is politics and one side never plays fair, intimidating, cruelly attacking and threatening violence, that is sometimes carried out. Playing genteel with scum like Santorum and Bachman is like bringing a penknife to a gunfight. My preference is for the verbal Uzi, AK47 or Sig Steyr.
anon – ol Marcus is not made fun of because of his mannerism or speech pattern. He is made fun of because he believe you can “pray away the gay” and people are more than happy to note, in that context, that it does not seem to have worked for him.
Given the problem the “conservative” movement has with closeted gay men in its midst the comments are not unexpected. If Marcus came out as a gay man he would find acceptance on the left & ridicule on the right. It is not his nature but his actions that have caused him to be the butt of jokes. Unlike homosexuality, that is something you can decide to change.
tomdarch1, September 21, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Was Dan Savage being Ghandi-esque? Hell no. But look at the imbalance in the situation. People who like what Dan Savage is saying are likely to laugh in Rick Santorum’s face. People who like what Rick Santorum says are likely to punch Dan Savage’s face. There’s a wee bit of difference there.
Maybe some day in America we will have a problem with roving bands of GBLT people tricking homophobes into exposing themselves, then beating the homophobes and tying them to fence posts in the winter to die. But today, we have the reverse, and satire, even crude, adolescent satire is one way to counter that power imbalance.
——————————————————-
Both sides crossing the line gives permission for the behavior to continue. Acting like a monster does NOT get the monster to stop acting. It simply prevents civility. I’m not a prude. I so agree that the homophobic atmosphere promoted by the right wing fundamentlists is disgraceful and promotes violence. And I don’t think just ignoring it and laying down is the right answer. But the point was made. if the only thing that gets through is the sledgehammer of mirroring….then once weilded it is put aside…when it turns into a friggin free-for-all pigpile we are no longer a governed society…we are pigs!
I know people who can not even follow the course of political debate anymore without becoming physically ill because for politicians the order of the day is to either impose a ridiculously out of touch edict, to ignore, or to respond with an escalation of the same behavior in a vain attempt to recover or retain power. Not cool. And more pressing….NOT WORKING!!!!!!!!!
Santorum would have an easier time getting Google to remove the link if the descriptions were not so perfectly apt.
As far as I’m concerned Santorum is simply harvesting karmic justice.
Was Dan Savage being Ghandi-esque? Hell no. But look at the imbalance in the situation. People who like what Dan Savage is saying are likely to laugh in Rick Santorum’s face. People who like what Rick Santorum says are likely to punch Dan Savage’s face. There’s a wee bit of difference there.
Maybe some day in America we will have a problem with roving bands of GBLT people tricking homophobes into exposing themselves, then beating the homophobes and tying them to fence posts in the winter to die. But today, we have the reverse, and satire, even crude, adolescent satire is one way to counter that power imbalance.
(Plus, I’d like to point out that there is a particular sanctimonious “propriety” to Rick Santorum, and the particular gross-ness of Savage’s association is especially cunning satire. It’s an association that Rick could never explain himself, even if he can go around sluring his fellow human beings by comparing their love to man-on-goat abuse, somehow.)
Should Google arbitrarily intervene? Well, look over this very article – it links the name “Santorum” with the frothy mixture description. This very page reinforces that connection – a connection that Google reports accurately, apparently. Let’s be clear – Rick is asking Google to provide him a special case and to make it’s search results LESS accurate.
I do want to agree with annon on the Marcus Bachmann issue: If he personally self-identifies as straight – that’s it – end of story on that particular issue. At a certain point making accusations of someone being a closeted, self-hating gay man seems to turn inherently homophobic – I can’t cite a particular example in the Marcus Bachmann situation, but I have that distinct sense. There are plenty of swishy straight guys and plenty of butch gay guys. At some level, derisively pointing out that Marcus travels with a larger suitcase than Michelle is just reinforcing the stereotype that men who love men MUST be un-masculine.
On the other hand, if he tries to promote “praying away the gay” they he’s the same sort of nasty work as Senator Nasty Froth and deserves criticism on that point in-and-of-itself. Promoting the idea that gay-ness can be or should be “fixed” or “repaired” denigrates people and promotes violence against them.
Or if he runs a business that may offer an imitation of medical care filtered through religious mumbo jumbo – that should be criticized.
It may turn out that Marcus Bachman is just another George Rekers or Larry Craig or Ted Haggard or, well, I’ll stop here… But until there’s specific evidence, I’m going to respect Marcus’ self-identification. That part of his life is none of my business. His irresponsible wife should keep us plenty busy.
I wonder if this is coinciding with the hearing that they are having to decide if Googles’ dominance in the market place is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act….
Jo Atkins – you are totally my favorite person of this day. I know that the world is full of good people like you (but still far too many of the other kind), and I know that we never celebrate your goodness enough. Thank you for making my eyes moist.
Random Reader1, September 21, 2011 at 9:07 am
.”.. choosing not to play the game is a sure way to lose….”
I think it depends entrely on the ‘game’…
“High-minded public political discourse in the US is a myth based only on wishful thinking — …”
baloney, it happens here all the time. It happens more often than not. That there are a few so unsavory that consistently drag us through the muck and mire is obvious, but hardly the majority. It is frightening and disheartening to think that it has been accepted by those who govern that what you say may be true. And the current behavior of the Republicans towards the President and the people who they say they ‘want to lead’ is disgraceful. If you cannot learn to ‘follow’ (and support) you should NEVER be allowed to lead. Leaders know when the cause is unsupportable. They know when the thing they are sworn to protect is in danger of being broken. Do you really think that even 50% of thepublic thinks that the way both Republican AND Dems are politicking is acceptable? Do you think that Power is garnered by the one who can gross out the most people? hurt the most sick Grandmothers? Deny the most needy that which they need or have earned? Do you really think the public is that blind? Do you think people don’t know that you’ve never posted here before and probably just made up that stupid moniker because you are a cowardly back-stabbing fly-by-night who could never make those ‘points’ in the light of day??????
oh puleeze….
I am not sure people understand that particular Googlebomb was initiated in 2003. And google was certainly dominant then, and googlebombing itself has several times been examined and worked on by google. So “Santorum” is actually a very old part of the internet measuring in internet years.
But compare and contrast Savage doing that in 2003, and the much more recent attacks, including attacks made here in the comments at this blog, against Michelle Bachmann’s husband Marcus for his slight lisp, his weight, and his claim he can convert homosexuals to heterosexuals.
It’s not 2003, and it’s not against a candidate but against a candidate’s spouse, and it is much the same form of attack. EXCEPT: The Santorum attack was internet innovative at the time, and rude and out of bounds as it was, it was against a candidate not a spouse. AND It was funny.
The attack on Marcus Bachmann is not funny. At least not after sixth grade.
And yet even in this thread we see people at this forum who comment after comment tell us all how tolerant they are and how this is yet another attack which is not homophobic in nature, and how it is ironic, and how it is Santorum’s problem that needs solving, and how it is all just okay and peachy.
Well, he did it first. Well, they fight dirty. Well, we’re progressives, liberals, or iconoclasts and hence could never be bigots. Well, when the right does it they mean it, and when we do it, it’s ironic. Well, well, well.
tags: shit-you-wouldn’t-let-your-children-do
At the beginning of the school year when my daughter was 11 she brought a friend home from school. WE will say his name is Bobby. He was a cute boy with a good sense of humor, a sweet and sensitive nature, and frightened eyes. He started coming home with her most days after school and when I asked if his mother minded he said “No, she doesn’t care much as long as I don’t bother her.” Then he began asking if he could stay over night on Fridays. Eventually I allowed it if his mom would call me to ok it. Bobby begged me to be the one to call her and ask as she would never call me. She said “What the hell do I care “ From then on he stayed every weekend and soon he only went home on special occasions Christmas day His mothers birthday. When he turned 12 he came out to me. “Now you hate me don’t you” “NO!!” He told me how his father, an alcoholic druggie, beat him to make him be a man. Beat his mother if she took up for him. And just beat them both for any reason or no reason.
It was never a formal fostering but he lived with us till he was 21 and left for the big city of Raleigh where he could find a more cosmopolitan accepting life. (Ok I hear you all snickering Raleigh cosmopolitan??? I did use the qualifier “more” You see rural NC is not a hotspot of understanding.)
During his school years he was bullied and taunted mercilessly. I would go to the school and get comments like “What does he expect being so limp wisted and flouncing about like a fairy princess” “God calls him an abomination.” and you get the point. He quit school the day he turned 16. He got his GED and we did what we could to help him start at the community college. It took him a long time at the community college and the Appalachian State, and UNC. But he will shortly have his masters. And I am very proud. He also has begun to repair his relationship with his mother. He is a man to be respected and I love him as much as I love my daughter.
Now as for the nickname Dan Savage gave to Rick Santorum it is very nasty. Very. But in my opinion not nasty enough. Not long after The Frothy Mixture made his Man-On-Dog comment Bobby and I were talking about it and though Bobby is grown now I could still see the pain in a little boys eyes as he said “Now you hate me don’t you” Yes, it may lower us in the eyes of The Frothy Mixture and his ilk. The people who see nothing wrong telling a child that he is of no value or worse than that . That he is evil. An Abomination. What good has it ever done to say ”Please don’t be mean to the Gays” So until people of respect and stature start standing up to The Frothy Mixture and his ilk and yelling from the rooftops that this is not acceptable. Until the lillylivered punditocracy and the media start calling him and those of his ilk out for the evil they do I will call Rick Santorum “The Frothy Mixture” After all they have claimed the word ABOMINATION.
Dang, this is old news. The Santorum thing has been around for years(2003, I think, when he still held a spot in Congress).
Bigots deserve to be mocked.
Professor, you gotta try to keep up a little better if you’re gonna comment on this stuff.
http://spreadingsantorum.com/
“When it happens to one of your left-wing heroes, maybe you’ll think it’s not so funny.”
Oh Brian. Like Obama is a Muslim? Obama’s not a citizen? Hillary killed Vince Foster? The “Clinton Murder List”?
Christ, you righties have been doing this to the left since you started in on Eleanor Roosevelt. Long past due for you to get some of the same treatment in return. I notice, by the way, that very few of you seem to have a sense of humor when it gets done to one of your own, even a nobody like Santorum.
Laugh a little, Brian! It’s just a joke!
Ever since Santorum came out publicly in favor of child abuse on The Daily Show several years ago, I have considered him the embodiment of all evil.
The context was that, while Santorum was insisting that men should, always and in 100% of cases, raise their own biological children, Stewart interrupted, saying that, of course, children should be taken away from fathers who abused their children. Santorum doubled down, saying that there were no exceptions, that only a father has the right to say what is right for his own child, period. These words filled me, an incest survivor, with a rage that has not abated in the intervening six years. Stewart was also shocked; it showed on his face. The interview is still up on on the Web, but this exchange has been edited out.
That Santorum has become a synonym for something distasteful is a natural consequence of his vile nature.
I have to disagree with JT on this. Santorum is truly a lowlife and ignorant to boot. his attacks on Gay people have been full of untrue and disgusting references to Gay sex. Santorums political stances are such that deserve ridicule and he is a pious phony to boot. As far as Savage coining the term it did happen in around 2003, because I remember reading it in Savage’s wonderful columns which appeared in the Village Voice.