Rick Santorum has finally written and published his obligatory pre-presidential campaign book entitled, It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. The title is a very clever play on the book by the anti-Christ, Hillary Clinton, called, It Takes A Village. Personally, I think he got it all wrong and probably should have entitled it, It Takes a Village Idiot: Neo-Conservatism and The Uncommon Bad. The quotes from Senator Santorums book are already flowing through the media feeding tube and into the mouths of the spin starved political pundits. I have not read the book nor do I intend to (I havent read the anti-Christs either) but the early returns are already in and Mr. Santorum has not let anyone down. Oh, he talks about mothers (not husbands for some traditional reason) staying home with the kids and foregoing careers. He talks about the sanctity of marriage and traditional family; you know, the usual stuff. Its all going to be fodder someday for a lot of good fun when he makes his bid to rerun for his Senate seat in 2006 and eventually for a presidential bid in 2008.

Unfortunately, when I heard the announcement of the book release, which included some of his most insightful written pearls to date, everything came flooding back to me like a septic tank backing up and slurping out from under the toilet seat lid. I had thought wrongly that I was over him. To put it plainly, he scares me poopless. This is the story of how I got to this lowly place.

During the summer of 2004, I had ample time to watch a boatload of Senate hearings on C-SPAN while I was honing my writing skillssomething that unfortunately requires endless honing. I can say with certainty that I have never been more viscerally affected by the antics and words of one person than I was when I stumbled upon the Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. I mean, I had heard about him but never really heard him. Up until then, neo-con propagandist Sean Hannity, faith healer Benny Hinn and memory/natural cure expert/telemarketer Kevin Trudeau were in a three way race for my top disdained fellow Americans. But quite honestly, they were and are containable, and in the end, rather trite and irrelevantmuch like my life.

However, when I heard Senator Santorum (i.e., as in United States Senator Santorum) rant on about the importance of putting forth a Constitutional Marriage Amendment to protect the sanctity of the traditional family, I just about fell out of my artificial leather LA-Z-BOY Bronson recliner. My head began spinning when he started out with that wild eye impassioned plea:

Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear. People who stand for traditional marriage are haters, they're bashers, they're mean-spirited, they're intolerant. ... Well, we're not!

Oh now come on there Ricky boy, wouldnt you say youre just a tad intolerant (and a bit dramatic I might add). Ill give you that youre not a hater or a basher or mean-spirited and believe me Im overlooking a lot, but youre kidding when you say you are not intolerant.

Then he concluded in a very sad, almost tearful summary by uttering:

Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?

Oh boy, thats a gem. So let me get this right, if we make it illegal for traditional married couples to divorce (I mean come on Ricko, lets really defend it buddy), and at the same time, split up all those two parent families who happen to be same sex (you know what perversion Im talking about), somehow that will ultimately provide homeland security. Look, the Rick Meister has floated a lot of nutty ideas that I have disagreed with but I have always tried to understand his intent and respect his right to spew chunks. Having said all that, this attempt to tie traditional marriage to homeland security is insane, making him the guy that just might be the next darling of Karl Rove and the neo-cons for that 2008 Presidential ticket. Holy mackerels fat boy!

Heres what I think about the premise. That logic (i.e., the importance of traditional marriage, family, etc; you know, the same stuff OReilly spits out) was the exact same logic used to prevent passage of the 19th Amendment (the right for women to vote). I think it can be argued (cunningly I must say) that Frist, Santorum and the rest of the Lott would have vehemently denounced the passage of that amendment, given the circumstances and traditions of that era. They would have had no other choice because womens suffrage meant change, and change starts with C and that rhymes with P and that means Please no change. Please, oh please, oh please no change. Look, before you get all nuts, I love traditions, like our family tradition to open stocking gifts before presents on Christmas morning. But Im talking about small potatoes here, about family traditions that have little impact on others. And they are nice to have. They can be comforting in times of great angst. But Rickie Ricardo is talking about big stuff.

You know, it wasnt all that long ago that traditional marriage was defined to be among birds of a feather (thats code for same race). I can hear him in a nightmarethe Rickster making an impassioned plea on the Senate floor in the early Sixties regarding an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman of the same color.

You dont want to mix up those colors at the pulpit. No way! Could cause a clash, a color clash, a clash of the pigments. Gotta keep those colors the same. Its tradition. Why its more than tradition! Its traditional family values! Everyone knows that children are best raised by parents whose colors match. Do you mix coloreds with whites in the laundry? Of course you dont! (just a note to my neo-con friends who might be loading their assault weapons right about now: he really didnt say that. Its what they call um satirical license.)

It was shortly after his dramatic speech on the floor of the Senate that I fondly nicknamed him, Rick Insanetorum.

But I was not totally satisfied. It was all too easy. Maybe he was just having a bad month. It happens. No, I needed more meat on the bones to substantiate my theory that he was mentally incapacitated. Alas, after an exhaustive and crazed period of googling to find other quotes, I uncovered a carbuncle of classics, ready for the lancing. And by far, the following sealed the deal:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.

Lets see, I suppose a natural corollary to that would be something like, I have no problem with African Americans. I have a problem with the way African Americans behave. Or, I have no problem with Jewish folk. I have a problem with Jewish folk practicing the Jewish faith with those little beanies already.

WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT!

How about this one regarding the sodomy laws in Texas that were overturned by a Supreme Court vote of 6-3:

The idea (i.e. of the ruling) is that the State doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions.

Well that is a bit of a stretch Ricky. Of course by using idea-ology words like wants and passions, Insanetorum is building his case for dark forbidden gay sex and all its cousins: pedophilia, incest, bestiality and watermelonialia (look it up; come to think of it, if you do look it up, please stop reading). He extracted the idea from the courts majority ruling in which Justice Anthony Kennedy eloquently wrote: The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." The language is referring to two consenting adults having sex. I dont see wants and passions in there at all. And by the way, this ruling, although specifically written from a case involving two gay men, reached beyond that to heterosexuals by wiping sodomy laws off the books in other states: Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri prohibited oral and anal sex between same-sex couples; Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia prohibit consensual sodomy for everyone.

Insanetorum, having set the trap by spinning the ruling, continued on:

I disagree with that (i.e., with the idea). I think we (i.e., States) absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.

I know that little mind of his was working overtime. Hes got something cookin in that iron clad skillet of a skull of his. I just can not figure out what. Lets read that last part real slowly.

because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.

Hm what is that wily wascal up to. Well maybe he is on to something. Lets see. Like if your passion is food, you probably will get fat and strain the Healthcare System. Like if your want is sleep, you might become a lazy bastard and inflate the unemployment numbers. Like if your desire is oral sex, there will be no babies, no legacy, no continuation of this great nation.

WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT!

I only know that I want to be able to travel freely about my country without fear that I might accidentally stay overnight in some state that has determined that my proclivity for a certain type of sex with my willing adult partner is in violation of its passion laws. Forget homosexuals for the moment. Nine of those states had want and passion laws against everyonethats what Im talking about. I dont need the aggravation; besides, think of the energy well conserve by not having to drive around those states.

I was temporarily living in Richards fine state of Pennsylvania, when this Insanetorum revelation occurred. I was consumed with it, when I happened on a Democratic Fund Raiser at a local microbrew restaurant in early October 2004, right before the Presidential Elections. They had speakers and hoopla and the usual stuff; you know, to fire up the base. I didnt pay much attention as I sat at the bar eating a goat cheese, sun dried tomato pizza, chasing it down with a cold foamy amber Bengal IPA, and in general, minding my own business as I worked over some ideas that eventually became this website.

During a break in the extravaganza, a woman came over to the bar to order a chardonnay, as did seventy two others. After accidentally nudging me while reaching over my shoulder to grab her glass, she apologized and began a conversation, during which she explained to me what was going on and her substantial role in the event. She seemed like a nice personyou know, involved. When she finished talking, being a new Pennsylvanian and not knowledgeable in the states politics, I asked her a question that had been nagging me ever since the recent Insanetorum revelation. The conversation went sort of like this:

Me: How in the world did Pennsylvania elect Santorum?

She: Im sorry? Who? (to her credit it was noisy)

Me: You know, Rick Santorum; Senator Rick Santorum?

She: Gee, I dont really know. Ill have to get back to you on that. Do you have an email address?

Me: Thats okay. Just do me a favor and make sure it doesnt happen again. Please!

She just blankly stared at me as I finished up and bolted out the door before she could say campaign contribution. The sad truth is he did get elected and Pennsylvanians seem to be scratching their collective heads wondering how. Well dont let it happen again! I dont want to see that numbskull anywhere near the Senate building in 2007. As I said in the beginning, he scares me poopless.

And with that I leave you with this one last priceless piece of Insanetorum wisdom:

Thirty-two years after the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.

WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT!