evolgen

Dumprick in 2006

The Seed editorial staff want to know how we’re voting in the upcoming election. I try to avoid politics on this blog — not because I don’t have an opinion, but because I’d rather write about science. Here’s what they want to know:

What’s the most important local political race to you this year (as a citizen, as a scientist)?

As much as I would love to wax eloquently on issues of local politics, I’ve got a statewide race on my mind.

i-879faa059980f7303a5e2077204c979f-dumprick.jpg

You see, Rick “Man on Dog1Santorum is one of my US Senators. Zuska is also suffering from this same condition. Hopefully, come Tuesday, the Dog Fucker won’t be representing us in the US Senate. The man is anti-science, anti-reason, and pro-willful ignorance. My neighbor’s pet cat could be running against the Dog Fucker and I’d still vote against the Dog Fucker.


1- The nickname comes from this interview. Here’s what my Senator said:

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.

Comments

  1. #1 MarkP
    November 5, 2006

    I guess Ol’ Rick’s knowledge of human relationships doesn’t extend far in time or miles. Can the man even spell “polygamy”?

  2. #2 david1947
    November 5, 2006

    The institution of marriage as he thinks of it in the USA (the “nuclear family”) is AFAICR barely 100 years old. Used to be that the kids had very low expectation that both parents would live to see them reach maturity (let alone they themselves getting that far), and this led to many forms of cohabating units that included child-rearing.Has done throughout history. The Mayflower Puritans were no paragons in this regard either, nor the founding fathers, so there goes his “traditional” adjective. So he, as it appears do the rest of the fundamentalist right, subscribes to what Sociologist Judith Stacey, author of “In the Name of the Family,” calls “sitcom sociology.”

  3. #3 Ick of the East
    November 6, 2006

    So he, as it appears do the rest of the fundamentalist right, subscribes to what Sociologist Judith Stacey, author of “In the Name of the Family,” calls “sitcom sociology.”

    You have to wonder about some of those sitcom fathers though. It seems that Ward Cleaver never knew where the Beaver was.

  4. #4 Victoria Fox
    November 10, 2006

    Hello, I’m sorry for posting on your blog but I have a stupid question :) What does Flaucinauci Hilipilification mean? :)