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
I would say Pennsylvanians showed their intelligence when they voted this clown out but then they voted in Toomey.
Catullus
1, September 21, 2011 at 8:42 am
Obama: n. A smooth-talking two-faced huckster, who says one thing and does another.
I won;t argue the point of how many promises the president has kept but will say – name one politician to whom your def does not apply. (although the electorate often forces this behavior by voting one way but wanting something else when their guy gets into office.
Gene,
I hope that psychologist is right.
Swarthmore Mom,
I read about the Teapublicans booing the gay soldier. The nerve of anyone booing someone who puts his/her life on the line for all of us. Disgusting.
All signs that as a society America has lost its mind, Smom.
Starting with their conscience.
Too many years of dumbed down education and television. Too many parents who let TV raise their kids. Too many people thinking selfishness is a virtue and they are the center of the universe.
I read an article recently by a psychologist who posited the idea that sociopathic behavior was becoming the norm in this country. The sad part isn’t that she might be right. The sad part is that she might be right and it was done on purpose. Stupid, selfish people are easier to control than well-educated independent thinkers.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/audience-members-at-fox-news-debate-boo-gay-solider-video.php?ref=fpa This week the audience booed a gay soldier. Last week they cheered about an uninsured man that died. The week before that they cheered executions.
Mike S. I was in therapy in the mid 60s- mid 70s for migraines (they really didn’t know much about migraines back in the day and still don’t lol) Of course the therapy did nothing for the migraines but it was wonderful in opening up the ability for introspection that has helped me my whole life. I wish everyone had a lil bit o’ therapy. Would do ’em the world of good. Tho it was not meant to be so I found it a lil zen. … ohhhmmm
“Google would screen it out if the target was, e.g., Michelle Obama”
At the bottom of the first page of Google results for “michelle obama” are “Searches related to michelle obama.” Number 7 of the 8 searches listed is “michelle obama monkey.”
Mike Appleton,
“Mr. Santorum’s attitudes about homosexuality are ignorant and malicious. Mr. Savage’s response was juvenile and malicious. Google has no responsibility to referee the dispute. Nothing more need be said on this issue.”
While I agree with this 100%, Google does have a vested interested in making sure that as a search engine, the results they provide are of the highest value. And in that case, they have apparently many times tweaked their algorithms to stop various forms of googlebombs which originally were an exploit of Google Page Rank.
In that sense too, Savage’s juvenile and malicious attack can be admired as a nice bit of judo to turn Santorum’s quite literally holier than thou name against him:
SANTORI, SANTORIO, SANTORELLI, SANTORIELLI, SANTORINI, SANTORUM: From the medieval first name Santoro, derived from the Latin word Sanctus = Saint, the genitive plural form is “Sanctorum”, used also to indicate the All Saints feast. Possibly connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)
And given that, Savage’s response can be seen as juvenile, malicious, bilingually cunning, witty, and definitely hackerlicious.
But still juvenile and malicious.
anon.
Res ipsa doesn’t apply here. I’ve never had anything approaching exclusive control over Dr. Bachmann. Maybe only his dance instructor does! I’ll apologize in advance again for your … er … tender sensibilities. Humor, it seems, must meet your rather stringent criteria for acceptablity. For me, it need only be humorous.
Mespo: Apologies in advance but, query: Will continued public dancing with an obviously gay Porky Pig lead to retardation?
Res ipsa loquitur.
“This tactic is an absurd attempt to call out hypocrisy, where none exists. As I said Anon you are just playing at being offended here, because I truly believe you know better, but this pose amuses you.”
Mike, what Mespo wrote “speaks for itself”.
That none of you see the parallels of a discussion of Dan Savage’s 2003 attack of Santorum using “gay tropes” with Mespo’s 2011 attack of Marcus Bachmann using gay tropes “obviously gay porky pig” again, speaks for itself.
When a thing speaks for itself, my motivations for pointing it out really are irrelevant. It’s more interesting to ask why mespo, instead of apologizing, has to call me a troll, and why Blouise feels it necessary to defend her defense of the undefensible.
But I will tell you my motivations, once more.
I am fighting Churchill’s law. (Falsely attributed to Churchill apparently.) I am fighting Churchill’s law and I am losing. I am losing because of Mespo, you, and Blouise. I am losing not because I agree with republicans in more than about 20% of their agenda, but because after 10 years of reading Salon, Think Progress, Kos, Atrios, Lawyers Guns and Money and so many other, and mainly getting from those sources the same thing: ironic racist attacks, ironic homophobic attacks, outright misandry, outright anti-semitism, and constant justification of this in exactly the same way as it is done here, I’ve begun to understand there is nothing ironic about this. There is in fact nothing different between enlightened bigotry from the left and ignorant bigotry from the right.
Does anyone remember, think globally, act locally?
What mespo wrote speaks for itself. It is nice to know he is classically trained. It is nice to know he coaches high school football, ALTHOUGH I would hope the SOB knows enough not to use “gay porky pig” around high school students. And his behavior here makes me wonder.
(And how many times have you folks been involved in the railroading and ousting and lynching of some SOB who said the wrong thing?)
But it really is amazing that you folks don’t see the parallel between Savage and Mespo.
What makes it worse of course is that Savage is an out and proud gay man calling someone out and since it’s my impression that mespo is not gay, he is in fact making his “gay porky pig” remarks while hiding behind the protection of gay rights groups typically associated with liberalism. Which is pretty cynical.
(I am of course extremely wonderful but my neurosis can wait for another post)
Jo,
Nothing wrong with a little neurosis among friends. I wasn’t in therapy for ten years for nothing and all it did was allow me to cope better with my ongoing neurosis.
“It’s skillfully done in that he presents himself as an authority on liberalism and thus a legitimate critic of liberal expression. His bullshit meter is always registering something nasty and always about someone else’s viewpoints or method of expression.”
Blouise,
You’ve truly captured Anon’s essence. He/she is smart and skillful about it though and so to me interesting and amusing, if duplicitous.
“First Mike, I’m not discussing Mespo’s homophobia, I am discussing the stupidity and hypocrisy of liberals, progressives, and iconoclasts (that means you) using homophobic attacks on others.”
Anon,
Make no mistake about it if you believe that Homosexuality can be cured you are a homophobe of the highest degree. To attack a homophobe, proven to be by his own words to be such, as being in the closet is not acting homophobically. Your suggestion is to put it mildly, disingenuous, since I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe it is anything but a snarky attempt to score points for your opinions and “tweek” Mespo in the process. Right Wingers for years have done a similar tactic in attacking people like Warren Buffett or George Soros for wanting aid for the poor with statements like “if they care so much why doesn’t they use their own money?” This tactic is an absurd attempt to call out hypocrisy, where none exists. As I said Anon you are just playing at being offended here, because I truly believe you know better, but this pose amuses you.
Speaking of acknowledging others response : Thank you Stephen1947 and Mike s but my post was not meant to show what a wonderful person I am (I am of course extremely wonderful but my neurosis can wait for another post), but that those who show such evil to a particular segment of society That causes such irredeemable harm by telling others it is acceptable to hate them is the one thing that really sets ma off.
Have you ever really thought about how the conservative practice of spewing venom on all progressive seems to have hit the high power line with the advent of Rush Limbaugh and then other right wing talk radio and now tv shows.
I can remember the good ole days when having an opposing political view was acceptable not a permission to villianize the other person.
anon,
Speaking of reading other’s posts … I never skim or skip over mespo.
I don’t really believe I need to defend mespo against your ridiculous charge but, for anyone new to this blog:
Mespo’s post are always, always, thought provoking and well written.
He will challenge you if he disagrees with a point you are making but he encourages you to respond and will, if your position is well supported, acknowledge it with a genuine generosity of spirit. Sometimes he helps you out … always look for the words, “are you saying” for they are usually followed with a rewording of your position in a manner which clarifies your point. You can learn from this.
I am always intrigued by the fact that he coaches high school football … how many classically educated football coaches do you know? I am not as intrigued by his fondness for reality T.V. but then, as we all know, true beauty and perfection must have one small flaw.
Mr. Santorum’s attitudes about homosexuality are ignorant and malicious. Mr. Savage’s response was juvenile and malicious. Google has no responsibility to referee the dispute. Nothing more need be said on this issue.
Blouise:
I never read his stuff so thanks for your up-and-running troll-dar.
mespo,
Anon spends a great deal of time writing negative comments on other posters’ responses to the subject of each thread. It’s skillfully done in that he presents himself as an authority on liberalism and thus a legitimate critic of liberal expression. His bullshit meter is always registering something nasty and always about someone else’s viewpoints or method of expression.
He’s very predictable.
anon:
I guess the bigger question, as Mike S so aptly stated, is why you would try and derail a fine discussion about the foolishness of shrinking man,Rick Santorum, with a diatribe about a post days ago. “Troll” is about the only answer I can come up with unless you are OC.
“Let there be free intercourse of course.”
That would be okay with Santorum, as long as it’s regulated by states, rather than the ICC.