Rick Santorum confronted Google, asking them to change their search algorithms so that the most popular result for his name is NOT what shows up first...you’re going to have to look it up yourself. I’m NOT describing “santorum” on this blog. I just find it funny that the people who cry government deregulation, who consistently go pro-corporation no matter what, who claim to want to protect the Constitution from the progressive, socialist liberals, are also the ones quick to try to shut things up when the corporation’s actions do something they don’t like. Laura Schlessinger did a similar thing last year after she caught heat for ranting at a black woman who asked for her help, using the term n***** more times than in a 50-Cent Greatest Hits album. She claimed that her freedom of speech was being stifled when she faced the imminent backlash. She even blamed CNN for covering the story! I mean, how DARE a news outlet report something that’s newsworthy! What was CNN thinking?
This is the beauty of the First Amendment: So long as what you say or do does NOT infringe on what others wish to say or do, you can do it at your heart’s content. Offending someone does NOT count as infringing on someone’s rights, because the person who is offended can walk away/turn it off. However, you have to live with whatever you said, and if people respond negatively to you because of what you said, there’s no do-over. Until proven otherwise, you will be seen as an a**hole. Santorum used his First Amendment rights to express how much he didn’t think that homosexuals should marry, how they shouldn’t join the military, how they are simply just depraved individuals. In response, Dan Savage and the Tech Savvy At-Risk Youth used their First amendment Rights to create a new meaning for his name that became more popular than Rick himself. Going to Google and trying to get them to change their search algorithms does nothing to change what he did or how Dan Savage responded. If he has a problem with it, perhaps he should change his name.
…This could have been the end of the story, but a few days later at the 6th or 7th GOP debate (I lost count) a gay soldier asked him what he’d do if he were president regarding DADT. In proper GOP debate fashion of “civility”, audience members booed the soldier who dedicated his life to protect the country that they claim to love so much. Then as most all politicians do, Mr. Froth-…er…Santorum circumvented the question and claimed that the repeal was a social experiment of the Democrats…this means that the makers of GOProud.org and the Log Cabin Republicans are also Democrats, apparently. When Megyn Kelly reiterated the soldier’s point, he again reiterated his circumventing to talk about more reasons why he thought gays were icky. It wasn’t until there was more publicity about him not thanking this man for his service and not admonishing the audience members who booed him that he at a MINIMUM gave a back-handed apology and claimed to not hear the audience jeers….he still thinks gays are icky, though. See? He expressed his freedom of speech, and because of it, his chances of being president of ANYTHING beside a small video store chain that is going to close anyway is now etched in stone. Also, Dan Savage will make good on his promise that he made on Funny or Die, hopefully. I wonder if Santorum will go after Funny or Die now?
I do know that after this last GOP debate, the neologism is truly synonymous with the man.