perfidy

He may have something there... An excessive concern for secrecy on the part of the church certainly kept those kid-diddlin priests in parishes, where they could continue to do harm. The bishop's concerns for the privacy of the child molesting priests led to more molested children.

Santorum represents a significant fraction of the American population, one that believes that the family is the essential foundation of a good society. They believe that many recent legislative and judicial actions act to undermine that foundation. And, there is reason to believe that they may be correct. Lack of a two-parent family has the strongest correlation to crime, teenage pregnancy, and a host of other social pathologies. The structure of welfare for the first thirty years of its existence encouraged single parent families. While I do not agree with the good senator on outlawing homosexuality, on the other hand the government should not be going out of its way to hasten the demise of the traditional family.

This is a good article. Mackubin Thomas Owens teaches at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

Jacob Levy over at Volokh Conspiracy has more on Rick Santorum. He links the entire Santorum interview and rightly points out that, in context, the speech is unambiguous: Santorum is saying that homosexual sex is the same, morally, as doing Lassie, your sister, or a child, that it's filthy and wrong, and that it should be outlawed. His clutch argument is that privacy rights that protect homosexuals from prosecution are also what led to the priest-sex scandals currently plaguing the Boston Archdiocese and elsewhere. Wha...?

I have a feeling that this isn't going to lose Santorum any votes in Pennsylvania, by the way. I also don't think the Republican Party is going to jeopardize its far-right constituency at all, and will stay mute on this incident.

From the interview come this priceless exchange

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. . . .

Unambiguous, disturbing, and funny to boot!! Woo HOO!!
[update] Over at Matthew Yglesias' discussion, Chris Lawrence comments: "I love a two-party system where one wants to take all my money and the other wants to make sure I don't get laid. No wonder nobody votes..."

The other day, Mavra Stark, the head of the Morris County, CA NOW branch announced, in regard to the double murder charge against Scott Peterson, "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder." Later the national organization distanced itself from these comments, "out of respect for (Peterson's) family and what they're going through."

Apparently, Stark and other pro abortion figures believe that fetal homicide statutes will give anti-abortion advocates ammunition for their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. At least 23 states have passed fetal homicide laws, all of which exempt more traditional abortion techniques.

I have a few thoughts about this.

One, in light of my earlier posts about constitutionalism, is that there is no right to abortion in the constitution. It ain't there. And given the text of the tenth amendment, that means that the power to legislate on this issue is reserved to the states, or to the people. Even many supporters of Roe agree that it is bad law. Roe is an unwarranted imposition of federal power on a matter that should be regulated by the states.

Two, the body of a "fetus" washed up on the shore. That doesn't sound right, does it? Laci Peterson and her unborn son disappeared on Christmas Eve. Two bodies are discovered months later. All Mavra Stark can think about is how this will give ammunition to her political opponents. Laci Peterson had chosen a name, Connor, for the fetus; but Stark said, "He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on." This is heartless.

Three, if a baby is born prematurely, even by months, that child is "viable" and can survive with the aid of incubators and other medical technology. Connor Peterson was about as old as my unborn son John Christian when he and his mother disappeared. I know personally, as I have felt him move, that my son is not a lump of tissue. He is not something that can be disposed of on a whim, or because a baby would represent an inconvenience to someone's lifestyle. Connor Peterson would have survived if he had been delivered by c-section last Christmas Eve, so it is right that his death be the cause of a murder charge.

Johno has accused me of being a strict constructionist, and to an extent this is true. I am even somewhat of an originalist when it comes to matters constitutional. This does not mean that I think that there is no place for interpretation - the constitution is an awfully short document considering that it is the operating manual for a nation of almost 300 million people. The authors of the constitution could not have imagined every situation that would arise in the future, and they designed flexibility and even some careful ambiguity into their work.

This does not mean that the constitution is a "living document" subject to reinterpretation like Hamlet to every new generation. The constitution is not merely a text to be deconstructed, it is law, the law. When the constitution plainly states, for example, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" it means that the government cannot do anything not specifically granted the power to do in the constitution. In this and in other cases, I am a strict constructionist.

Mike, it's remarkable to see you embracing life in this manner. You should put a daisy behind your ear before the feeling passes. heh.

"I'm invincible!"

"You're a loony."

Mike, Johno: Shut the hell up you stupid wankers! I'm right and you're going to hell!

As Mike sort of was pointing out, I was describing Ad Hominem discourse on the left with the welfare thingie. I could have included examples of the right doing this in regards to the Drug War, but instead just described how stupid the policy was.

Coulter is, indeed, a meatsack for advocating the murder of 3000 Muslims (now she might say Mohammedans). One of the things that I thought while watching the war on TV was this: our moral superiority was evident in the way that Iraqi forces planned their actions. They put civilians near military targets because they knew that we would not intentionally cause the deaths of innocents. They marched women and children in front of them, because they counted on our restraint. They could depend on our sense of jus in bello and attempted to use it against us. Happily, it availed them not. Despite the claims of some, the world is aware that we are not a loose cannon, cowboy nation - that we attempt to deal fairly and justly even with our enemies.

I agree with Mike (and the courts) that speaking is not treason. But what do you think about Taliban Johnny and Jose Padilla? These two are accused of doing more than protest. They, so to speak, had Saddam on their living room futon. If they are guilty, I think they should hang from the neck until dead, dead, dead.

This is my character. Disturbingly appropriate. 

Here is a site devoted to disagreeing with Ann Coulter. Apparently, the site will soon be no more, but is available at the moment. Decide for yourself if it's just more shouting or a promotion of discourse. I'm finding evidence for both.