Posted on 11/12/2006 10:48:17 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Reason Magazine Blogger Finds Pleasure in Tears of Rick Santorum's 8-year-old Daughter
Because the libertarian universe has no place for the vulnerable, weak, or the dependent--since none are autonomous adult-choosers in search of virtual kiddie porn--it has no qualms in providing a forum in which children and their families can be verbally abused and have profanities hurled at them. Read and weep Julian Sanchez's "Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet" in which the writer says he finds joy in the tears of Rick Santorum's eight-year-old daughter, who is pictured crying next to her father as he gives his concession speech on Tuesday night, November 7. Most of the comments that follow celebrate and contribute to Mr. Sanchez's meanness. In fact, one commentator, named Jon H., makes sarcastic reference to the Santorums' newborn child who died in 1996. ~ Posted by Francis J. Beckwith at 11:25 PM
Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet
Julian Sanchez | November 8, 2006, 2:44pm
Man, I haven't taken this much pleasure in the suffering of a small child in days.
Click link to read other like-minded comments.
To make fun of a child who is staring and trying not to blink for fear of people seeing his tears rolling down his cheeks, is cruel and despicable -- it would only be done by the basest of mentalities.
Too funny, I guess all the snide comments I've seen about Chelsea Clinton on this site over the years was done out of love. Blowing smoke, indeed. LOL
" Must be some kind of celebration at libertarian central knowing they've created a socialist landslide in the middle of a war."
Of course, the next time you see some child of a liberal being pilloried here on FR, you will chastise your fellow freepers, I'm sure.
I can njot remeber any abuse heaped on Chelsea, until she entered the arena of politics (remember her account of 9-11?). Once she turned 21 and was no longer a child, some just commented on how ugly, drunk,coddled and stupid she was. Not abuse when you become a player.
That's sad! The time is gone when people had a sense of civilized 'nicety', and the lefties don't even know what it is anymore.
LOL! Not to mention the many charitable things said about innocent Muslim children.
Lots of love on this site.
I can state without doubt that a little girl's relationship with daddy is one of, if not "the" strongest bond in this world. And this blogger's delight in her tears is worthy of the most sound denunciation!!
Note, he said: "...Man, I haven't taken this much pleasure in the suffering of a small child in days". From this we can state that it is a regular thing for this miscreant to take pleasure in the sufferning of children!!
THIS WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!!!
This little girl was in pain, and this low life takes pleasure in it. I hope this gets out in the media; not that I think they would do the responsible thing with it!!
Nancee
You bet.
Well, he has spent his adult lifetime writing articles pushing and defending the Gay Agenda.
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=Julian%20Sanchez%20+%20gay
Name one, Ahat.
Sad that there are people this demented in our society. Plain evil.
In any event, she doesn't need to shed tears for long. The loss was a disappointment - but in the end, Rick Santorum is still her Dad and he still loves her - no election result can take that away from her.
Chelsea Clinton was not considered fair game on this site while she was a young girl living in the White House. But if making fun of little kids floats your boat, that's your issue.
Sanchez's pro gay hatred of Santorium has a long history:
http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2006/06/the_princeton_principles.php
June 6, 2006
The Princeton Principles
As Rick Santorum takes the floor of the Senate to remind us that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really about showing contempt for the sodomites, a who's-who of conservative scholars (of whom, one can't help but note, only a few seem to be social scientists) try a more respectable tack via the Princeton Principles, a survey of what the signers regard as the most important lessons about marriage to be gleaned from the social sciences and political philosophy. They conclude with five public policy recommendations—the first of which (naturally) is that any attempt to expand marriage beyond the one-man-one-woman formula (or even to create marriage-like alternatives for same-sex couples) must be resisted.
The form of the essay is, at this point, depressingly familiar. Pages and pages of mostly unobjectionable, uncontroversial stuff about how marriage is good for kids (along with some much vaguer and more dubious stuff about the purported inextricability of civil and religious marriage), followed by a weird series of logical leaps to the conclusion that gay marriage will spell doom for the institution.
That argument comes in four parts. They begin with some concerend chin-stroking over the fate of children raised by gay parents. There's a lot of FUD about the need for more studies with larger samples and so on, yet somehow, somehow, the authors manage to get through an entire paragraph on the topic without mentioning that what social science evidence we do have points uniformly and strongly to the conclusion that kids raised by gay parents don't tend to fare worse than their straight-reared counterparts, and that all the major medical and child welfare organizations have endorsed childrearing by gay couples. Since they won't talk about the evidence we do have, they're forced to speculate about the complimentary talents men and women bring to the parenting task—yet (as I've noted before) remain strangely mute about the beloved conservative point that, despite this supposedly vital complementarity effect, kids raised by remarried couples (controlling for income) don't seem to do appreciably better than those raised by single parents. All of that notwithstanding, it's not entirely clear why any of this is relevant: Whether kids raised in gay households are worse off than others is presumably a question that should affect how we prioritize prospective adoptive couples, or make custody decisions. It's doesn't tell us much about whether, given that some kids are going to be raised in such households, it would be better if their parents were able to marry.
We move on to Maggie Gallagher's favorite point, that "Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage...further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." That one doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did last week, where I looked at some trends that at least suggest the causation doesn't work that way. It is good if people who are going to procreate get married. It is fine if people get married who aren't going to procrate. If there's some tension between those two ideas, it's too subtle for me.
The next might be my favorite: "same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage." (Actually, as seems to be standard operating procedure in these discussions, "gay couples" seems to mean "gay men.") Where the imperfect but substantial literature on gay childrearing is, apparently, insufficient to use as the basis of any conclusions—indeed, too thin to even be worth mentioning the results of—the authors are apparently prepared to make this assertion on the basis of one survey of the first couples to take advantage of civil unions in Vermont. And despite having offered a protracted argument for why the institution of marriage is so necessary as mechanism for cultivating norms of fidelity, the authors evince not even a sliver of curiosity about whether, if those norms seem weaker in groups that have heretofore been wholly excluded from that institution, those two facts might not be entirely unrelated.
Finally, the authors' "concerns are only reinforced" by the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage abroad. Not because it has resulted in anything bad (you can be sure they'd tell us if it had), but because it "has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility." This isn't even a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: It's pre hoc ergo propter hoc. The idea, insofar as I can make it out, seems to be that if countries where marriage is viewed as less important have been among the first to let gay people in, then any country that lets gay people into marriage will come to view it as less important. Why we might expect this to be the case is, alas, not explained. I notice that both this argument and the "procreative link" one appear to rely on the presumption that "If A, then B" entails "If B, then A." I think we may have discovered the real fountainhead of opposition to gay marriage: It's not homophobia, it's the inability to distinguish between a conditional and a biconditional. Which is a little odd, really: You'd think they'd like a logical operator that only swings one way.
Posted by Julian Sanchez at June 6, 2006 2:40 PM
Comments
I think that you are actually catching sight of a deeper aspect of modern conservative philosophy when you note that they interpret "A->B" into "AB". There seems to be an increasing shift in certain quarters to speaking of A being "intrinsically connected" with B, or of B being "intimately, inextricable tied to" A.
This shows up as well with the increasing fondness among conservatives for virtue ethics, which convenienty explicitly denies that A->B differs from AB for morally relevant behaviours and values A and B. If a bad character can cause a bad behaviour, the bad behaviour will cause that bad character in return. Prove the behaviour and, whether pre- or post-hoc, you have proven the character, abracadabra. Call the character bad and, hocus-pocus, the behaviour is bad as well.
A cynical person might find in this talk of "intrinsic connections" and "virtues and character" a search for a way to bootstrap moral arguments in the absence of any empricial foundation or half-decent is-ought bridge. After all, it's a line of reasoning that lets you treat any circular argument as a solid footing to build from. Perhaps they are jealous of the leftist academy?
Posted by: Grant Gould at June 6, 2006 7:27 PM
"Pre hoc" sounds better, but I'm pretty sure the correct Latin would be "ante hoc."
Posted by: Glen at June 6, 2006 7:34 PM
Classic final sentence!
Posted by: Luka at June 8, 2006 4:52 PM
Your argument may be refuted with one sentence!
Marriage is the union of two [2] diverse components, entities or beings!
I know you are an expert on diversity, but have you any skill in word usage?
Posted by: Michael at September 20, 2006 2:51 PM
While it's always comforting when the group nof people who disagree with you seem to comprise mostly illiterates, it does make it rather difficult to carry on a debate, doesn't it?
Posted by: Julian Sanchez at October 2, 2006 1:18 PM
Post a comment
If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Me? YesNo
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Alina Stefanescu
Amy Phillips
Atrios
Barry Deutsch
Crescat Sententia
Douglas Rushkoff
Eve Tushnet
Ezra Klein
Fey Accompli
Gene Healy
Glen Whitman
Hit and Run
James Poulos
Jarah Euston
Jesse Walker
Jim Henley
Justin Logan
Kriston Capps
Lawrence Lessig
Matt Welch
Matthew Yglesias
Max Sawicky
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
P.J. Doland
Rachel Kramer Bussel
Radley Balko
Tim Lee
Spencer Ackerman
Virginia Postrel
Tom G. Palmer
Will Wilkinson
November 2006 (15)
October 2006 (60)
September 2006 (18)
August 2006 (24)
July 2006 (41)
June 2006 (27)
May 2006 (19)
April 2006 (6)
March 2006 (9)
February 2006 (3)
January 2006 (6)
December 2005 (10)
November 2005 (23)
October 2005 (16)
September 2005 (17)
August 2005 (27)
July 2005 (24)
June 2005 (18)
May 2005 (32)
April 2005 (22)
March 2005 (26)
February 2005 (23)
January 2005 (13)
December 2004 (13)
November 2004 (32)
October 2004 (22)
September 2004 (16)
August 2004 (15)
July 2004 (27)
June 2004 (8)
May 2004 (22)
April 2004 (27)
March 2004 (23)
February 2004 (22)
January 2004 (16)
December 2003 (19)
November 2003 (29)
October 2003 (27)
September 2003 (14)
August 2003 (35)
July 2003 (31)
June 2003 (15)
May 2003 (51)
April 2003 (63)
March 2003 (60)
February 2003 (40)
January 2003 (55)
December 2002 (36)
November 2002 (23)
October 2002 (29)
September 2002 (36)
August 2002 (30)
July 2002 (28)
June 2002 (18)
May 2002 (13)
April 2002 (17)
March 2002 (13)
February 2002 (1)
Detailed Archive
That's entirely on the idiots in the Republican party. If they can't act conservative, they don't deserve to win.
Or at least not condone it like you are doing.
Quite a stupid thing to say. They are on stage with him because they are his family.
These people are transparent. Their hatred of Santorum is for his pointing out of the obvious truth.
The extreme right and the extreme left are flip sides of the same coin.
You mean to tell me that because Santorum's family is with him that means it is okay to find a girl crying amusing? To make fun of a child dying?
You are just plain disgusting. You have no clue what life is all about, apparently, and that is sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.