At the college convention yesterday, Rick Santorum took a lot of questions from a liberal crowd of College students, bu the question that a lot of people were waiting for was one on Gay Marriage. ABC’s Shushannah Walshe has this piece up:

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the positive argument about why.”

At that point, several members of the audience started trying to engage the candidate.

Santorum said, “We’re not shouting out here,” before asking the students to raise their hands.

They include a video of about 4 minutes excluding the base question and is cut excluding his base speech and jumps right to the Gay Marriage question asked in the middle of the event
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Well not the whole question they start in the middle of the question and cuts at a key point when the audience applauds the suggestion that marriage means whatever people says it means. A bit deceptive, but a better job than Think progress uses even a smaller cut from CNN

and states that Santorum is “on the defensive”.

This is the media image that is desired, but unfortunately for them, Stacy McCain and I were there. I shot the entire exchange, and when you watch it, Two things are clear:

1. Santorum is on the offensive NOT the defensive.

2. The students unable to cope with his arguments.

Let’s begin with the full unedited video and see what we actually have from the start.

Take a look at the interaction here. Santorum uses logic and reason starting that as people trying to change the law, the positive case to be made is theirs to make for the change:

“Don’t you have to make the positive argument to make the change?”
He uses the example of proposing to build a bridge, the necessity to provide the public purpose is a fundamental question and puts the case in the intellectual rather than the emotional case. The hostile crowd is put on the defensive, Santorum is not going to back down and once the argument is over logic and reason the ball is now in his court?

When the student answers the medical visit business Santorum responds with the fact that hospital visitation can be handled with a legal written contract and that this was ALWAYS true.

He then asks for another reason and a young lady answers:

“How about the argument that all men are created equal and the right to happiness?”
Santorum pounces:

“Are we saying everyone has the right to marry?”

The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, Santorum continues

“So anyone can marry anyone else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So anyone can marry several people?”

At once the crowd starts to object, filibuster and interrupt, or as ABC calls it “engaging” Santorum calls for order and continues to demand an answer: “If every person has a right to be happy, so if you aren’t happy unless you are married to five other people then that’s OK.”

Again members of the crowd, confronted with the need to reason, decides to filibuster again, he will have none of it. The young lady quickly ads…“As long as you don’t harm other people.”

It’s the same argument that Chris used during our debate on the subject at the center of mass podcast and Santorum asks the question: “Who determines what harms someone else?” and the “everybody can understand it” comes out.

These kids are apparently too young to remember the days when “everybody could understand” that homosexuality was wrong. They unknowingly make the ICK factor argument. But they are looking not for a discussion but a sound bite.

Finally the young lady says that her person opinion on 3 is “yeah, go for it.” and Santorum delivers the coup de grace.

“If she reflects the values of everyone else…Marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.” the college crowd applauds not realizing what they’ve just done but ABC apparently did since they cut the video right before the applause here.

Santorum then makes is closing argument, disagreeing with what NH did but conceding that they did it the “right way” via legislative action and urges that if you want to make the case for or against, make the case in the public square, and makes his own case for the unique status of marriage.

It was very illustrative. First rather than pandering Santorum challenges them on an intellectual level in a way that apparently they have not been before on this issue. The students who on other question would take and give become unable to make their case without shouts and interruptions. (These are college students?)

Like many young people they don’t understand that there are hundreds of years of reason, logic and intellect behind the Santorum argument and their response proves them, despite the education they are paying for, are not intellectually armed to make their case. They are used to a sound bite wars and in the arena of ideas, at least for this idea, come unarmed.

The final dagger through the heart came much later. At the very end of the day as Santorum is leaving groups of college kids as he is going to his car pepper him with questions when as he enters the car he gives a response to a question (that although I was filming I couldn’t’ hear and the camera didn’t pick up) saying: “The federal government doesn’t do that.” Here is the video:

When he gets in I shut off the camera and boy to I regret that, because the reaction of these kids is the story. The kids start whooping. They hi-five and cheer each other as the car leave bragging that this will end up on Huff Po. Think progress will likely be recruiting here.

Run that through your head a second, their engagement with the candidate was not to learn, to make a case for what they believe, they were looking for a sound bite to spin and it was that moment rather than the chance to actually engage a former senator and candidate for president that made all the difference to them.

Ladies and gentlemen I present you with the future Mainstream media!

If you want to know why citizen media is important, this is it.

Update: If the MSM really wanted the big quote from that appearance, it came before this

Update 2: he took a similar question in Windham, here is my the video (missed the start of the question running down the aisle after dumping my memory card)

Update 4: One last thing, although there was confrontation on Gay Marriage there crowd was not confrontational on other issues and there were very good exchanges otherwise. I’m thinking that question might not have been representative of the entire convention. As for the convention itself, I’d never heard of it but Mike Farrell who was kind enough to tell me about it:

It seems a worthwhile event and I look forward to covering it in 4 years again

Update 5: Kudos to MSNBC for showing the whole video

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update 6: Stacy McCain calls the MSM out:

Permit me to say that this headline is a lie:

Rick Santorum focuses on gay marriage

Rick Santorum is not “focusing on gay marriage.” He is being asked — asked repeatedly by reporters and by people at town-hall meetings — about his opposition to gay marriage, and he is explaining his opposition. He is not obsessed with the issue, but neither is he never going to back down from what he believes.

It is the media that is focused on Gay Marriage because they don’t dare talk about the record of Barack Obama, not if they wont to see him re-elected.

Or at least not young moms in Oklahoma who just lost their husbands to cancer on Christmas day, unless getting shot to death is your idea of a good time.

When seconds count, the police are only 21 minutes away.  Or rather, in twenty-one minutes, the police had not arrived, but our armed-to-the-teeth mamma grizzly shot the armed SOB who broke into her house twenty-one minutes after he started threatening her from outside her home.

As a conservative feminist, I can’t help but wonder at women who are “scared” of guns.  Honey, you’re 5’2 and men out there who are a foot taller and 150 lbs heavier than you are may one day want to beat the living daylights out of you, and, unless you have a gun or can hire someone with a gun, he’s going to succeed.

Sarah McKinley is fortunate enough to live in a state that does not demand that she retreat from her own home, would arrest her for shooting the guy, or would have made it impossible, if not outright illegal (pre-Heller, at least) to own a firearm.  When Justin Martin started to harass her, she acted thusly:

Martin returned on New Year’s Eve, but this time with another man, and armed with a 12-inch knife. McKinley could hear the two intruders pounding on the door, and knew she had to think fast.

First, she pushed a couch in front of the front door.

Then, she grabbed her son and “walked over and got the 12-gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol and put the bottle in his mouth and then I called 911,” she told ABC affiliate KOCO.

Liberals: should a young mother with a nursing baby and a husband recently in the grave be denied that choice to save her own life?  You people think that she should be able to kill her own child with taxpayer money – why not an attacker with a gun she bought herself?

Every single day the Catholic Church feeds more people, houses more people , clothes more people, visits more imprisoned people and educates more people than any other institution on the planet earth can ever hope to.

Matthew Kelly Worcester Mass. March 20th 2010

But I’ll tell you what it can’t do any more, it can’t offer adoption services in Illinois:

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.

As you can guess our friends on the social left are all atwitter:

The most important point, though, is that religious liberty does not mean the right to take public money without having to comply with the law because the teachings of your faith tell you those laws are wrong. That’s not how you live in a civil society, and if the Church cannot comply with that simple rule then it needs to rethink its priorities.

In other words, either change your definition of sin, violate your faith or get out.

Mind you the fact the Catholic church did a great job placing kids, but that is not relevant, the goal of enforcing the new societal rules of diversity. NRO takes things to their logical conclusion:

Because of the massive expansion of government, religious organizations are often unable to even conduct their traditional charitable functions without heavy state regulation. In other words, the “government contracts” or “government benefits” at issue are a required component of the charitable work. Don’t believe me? Try running a foster-care program independently. Try offering a health-insurance plan for your employees without dealing with a maze of federal regulations. So this is not a simple matter of a private organization trying to feed from the federal trough but instead of a religious organization trying to carry out a mission that predates the very formation of our nation and being barred from doing so because the state has decided it knows best.

In other words, it’s not “You can’t have government money to do this charitable work” It’s “You can’t do this period!” The trick is to attempt to get people to decide that the individual mission transcends the sin and the scandal of said sin.

Quite a few bishops made that mistake since the 60’s.

C.S. Lewis saw this coming:

…we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game,

The truth, this is all just narcissism, the state feels better about themselves, they feel superior to the church and all those who oppose the church get to do the same.

And if kids don’t get adopted it’s a small price to pay for that satisfaction.

And the Church? As Matthew Kelly points out there is plenty of good to do out there and if they can’t do it in one place, they’ll do it in another…

…until the state stops them that is.

In part of the old British Empire it is Boxing day, but in Berkley and places like that today is the start of Kwanzza.

I had no intention of writing about Kwanzza this year, like the slightly older Festivus it is a totally invented holiday and the one time I did write about it concerned it’s growing irrelevance:

Whether it’s gone because nobody knew how to sell it, or because nobody wanted to buy it, Kwanzaa is now nowhere to be found.

That was from a Huff po article I wouldn’t even write about it today but I was tweeted an article about Kwanzaa today by Adisa Banjoko that really is the final stake through the heart:

I did participate in a few Kwanzaa events back when ’89 was the number. I always tried to do observe it. But once I did the history on its founder and some of the deeper elements of its hollow cultural base, it was hard to continue on. For those who do, I promise I’m not mad at you. Not that you would care. But you can’t get your kente cloth all in a bunch because I’m not feeling it.

Look, I love Africa and what it means to be Black. I love almost everything African (aside from the tribal fighting and the needless murder and rape of women across the continent). But Kwanzaa is not African. I never knew an African (from any part of the continent) who was like “Yo Adisa, bro you wanna slide thought to the Kwanzaa fest playa?” It has never happened! They don’t get down like that.

Kwanzaa is like a bad weave. People might kinda like it, but we all know it ain’t real. Now, I live on the West coast, in the Bay Area. The only people I see really on some Kwanzaa “ish” are the hardcore revolutionary types you might find at the Berkeley flea market selling incense and shea butter soap

I remember when the MSM pushed Kwanzza like there was no tomorrow, this piece is the only one I’ve seen on the subject on the net during my regular surfing, and I haven’t seen a single thing on TV concerning it, not one.

The truth is Kwanzza was always about creating a socialist alternative to Christmas the one holiday the secularists would love to co-opt. The failure of that attempt is so huge that I’ll wager there are more people at mass today for the feast of St. Stephen the first martyr than celebrating Kwanzza.

But hey if you want to celebrate Kwanzza go ahead and enjoy it and my best to you.

I’m been in a little mini funk since being unable to shake a lingering cough since my bout with Pneumonia and I’m really annoyed that the GOP has not gotten the message out concerning this phony tax business that the president is playing. I still haven’t finished my Christmas Shopping with just a few days left and the house is nowhere near ready for Christmas, let alone the open house.

So imagine my delight when I woke up this morning and saw this…..

I have not stopped grinning since I saw it. It had better not open on a Friday evening because I will be at the Midnight showing before going to the show that week.

Life is not just all politics.

Wasn’t it only 48 hours ago that I wrote this?

I submit that in a generation, when both all the parents and the children and the teachers have had access to the web links I’ve shown above the ICK factor will have shifted and you will have not a principal apologizing for an incestual pep rally we will instead have radio hosts excoriating the Star Tribune for reporting on it and calling those who object puritanical and intolerant.

And now Stacy McCain links to this story

A new study has found that one in 13 girls aged 14 to 20 have engaged in ‘multi-person sex’ (MPS).

A total of 328 girls who had visited health clinics in Boston, U.S, took part in the study and 7.3 per cent of them said they had group sex.

This must have been what Barney Frank was complaining about when he talked about Republicans getting into people’s bedrooms on ABC this weekend. After all who are we to say if our daughters are doing it with a bunch of guys?

The next line is the story is classic:

Worryingly, among the girls in that group, 45 per cent said at least one male participant had not used a condom.

Because we all know that there is nothing wrong if the average age of girls having group sex with guys is 15.6 as long as all the guys have a rubber on.

You know I thought the sexual revolution was all about empowering women? I might suggest that it is not the girls getting empowered around here. (I can’t wait to see what Roxeanne has to say about this.)

Continue reading “Nothing to see here, just teens having group sex”

Da TechGuy asked me to cross-post about the ‘waxing’ article going around the internet. First, a link to Bob Belvedere’s outstanding commentary on the matter:

After a while, normal sex becomes boring for those who are obsessed with it, so, to keep the thrill factor high, you progressively [pun intended] get more and more perverse. It like taking drugs: to achieve the same level of euphoria, you have to keep increasing the amount you take.

Ah, there he goes, channeling the great C.S. Lewis, who said,

You are much more likely to make your man a sound drunkard by pressing drink on him as an anodyne when he is dull and weary than by encouraging him to use it as a means of merriment among his friends when he is happy and expansive. Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy’s ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it’s better style. To get the man’s soul and give him nothing in return—that is what really gladdens our Father’s heart. And the troughs are the time for beginning the process.

The Screwtape Letters, Chapter IX.

A lot of people (see a comment a Bob’s site for an example) mistakenly think that we are being a bunch of scolds who are telling people how to run their bedroom lives.  Not so.  My problem, which makes me go all big-sister/maternal on college-aged women, is the way in which young women are contorting themselves for men who barely know their last names.  There is nothing empowered, dignified, nor joyful about worrying what some near-stranger thinks about your body, nor spending time and money on a painful, unnatural procedure for his benefit.  These men are not your husbands, not even your boyfriends or fiances.  As humans, they have worth, but as far as their opinions about the state of your privates: to hell with them.

In short, ladies, you are grown enough for waxing, you’re grown enough to tell the difference between the husband who has vowed his life to you and some stranger who is using you for physical gratification.

With that, my original post, below the fold:

Continue reading “The saddest thing about that waxing article, cross-posted and updated”

On a non-religious level it seems to me you can not rationally say that gay marriage is ok and should be legal without also allowing either polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Both have a longer and more accepted cultural history worldwide.

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago.

  DaTechGuy: Dec 23rd 2008 Richard Cohen, Narcissist or Bigot

That was another little goof of mine, shame. I don’t know why I thought we needed shame

George Burns as God.  Oh God 1977

Without God everything is  permitted

Fyodor Dostoevsky

On Friday the Star Tribune published a story concerning a prank at a high school rally that was …”interesting”:

A prank on some blindfolded Rosemount High School athletes — they were unknowingly and at times amorously kissed by their parents during a recent pep fest — is collecting YouTube views by the tens of thousands and has the principal apologizing for what happened.

Here’s how the practical joke, originated by school staff members, played out during the assembly on Dec. 8:

The captains of the school’s winter sports teams — boys and girls — were lined up and blindfolded. They were told they would be kissed and then asked to guess who was on the other side of their lips.

Some of the parents during the 59-second YouTube video are seen holding the kisses for several seconds, cupping their child’s faces or embracing and swaying.

Deacon Greg is nauseated, The Anchoress is shocked.

I’d like to say I’m surprised but I’m not. I’ve been paying attention. It’s been just one year since the Swiss started talking the repeal of incest laws. It is only four months since psychologists met in DC to discuss “normalizing” pedophilia as a mental illness.

I think they both missed the most important line of the piece (all emphasis mine):

“There is no question that people were offended,” Wollersheim told the Star Tribune. “I apologize to those who were offended, and we won’t do it again.

“Anything that happens at this school is the principal’s responsibility. I take full responsibility. … There shouldn’t be an event in a school that we offend people with.

Note what is said. He is sorry that people were offended. Not that it was wrong, not that it was creepy, but that people were offended.

The implication that if people were NOT offended it would have been OK.

That more than anything else is the take away here, if it wasn’t for those puritanical prudes who were offended this would be no big deal and we could all have our fun.

The above can stand on it’s own but I’m about to make a VERY uncomfortable point, if you don’t want to see it then don’t click the continue button

Update: Wouldn’t you know that just as I finish this post I’ve worked hours on to schedule for tonight Darleen Click uses the Ick Factor line in a great post at Protein Wisdom!

Update 2: That’s Click not Glick, my bad, thanks Joy.

Update 3: Stacy at Accepting Abundance links quoting applicable law.
Continue reading “The logical result of 50 years of secularism”

I’m a long time fan and with one exception this preview made me laugh

Of course the sound effects automatically bring a smile to the face. I liked the iPhone joke and stooges fans will recognize an awful lot of gags from this preview

My worry isn’t so much the humor, the Stooges brand of humor is universal and it will take an awful lot of effort to screw it up. My concern is this: There are lines that the boys didn’t cross, with nearly half a century invested in the stooges lets hope the new version respects those lines.

Reg: What the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?

Francis: It’s symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Monty Python: The Life of Brian 1979

If you want to know what liberalism does this headline at the Boston Globe says it all:

Led by the child that simply knew

And this opening paragraph:

The twin boys were identical in every way but one. Wyatt was a girl to the core, and now lives as one, with the help of a brave, loving family and a path-breaking doctor’s care.

Brave is not the word for this, cowardly is.

If the kid likes girls things, that’s no big deal, if later in life he decides he is gay and prefers men later in life, that’s his business. If he chooses to cross dress that will be his business too.

But for parents and doctors and the Globe to celebrate the denial of reality, for parents to indulge their child to the point where they allow him to believe something that simply isn’t true is an abrogation of responsibility. Let’s tell a simple truth that apparently the Globe, the doctor and these parent are unaware of.

A child doesn’t know, a child wants. A parent knows and frankly should know better.

In the end this is a free country and this boy’s parents have every right to raise their sons any way they see fit. They have the right to spend as much of their money as they want on whatever kind of treatment they wish. What they don’t have is the right to impose this reality on others, but that is exactly what will happen.

I guarantee that any person who dares challenge their version of reality will be ostracized by the school, by the newspapers and by our liberal friends.

Well, ostracize me if you want, but I’m not playing along.

I’ll give the last word to the pythons: