Wednesday, January 25, 2012

D'Oh! A Deer

Much obliged to Murrmurrs friend Jono for alerting me to an incident in Wisconsin, wherein a certain Bryan James Hathaway was brought up on charges of attempting to have sex with a dead deer. Objections did not come from the ungulate, but from offended passersby. Many questions arise. Exactly how public was this display? Was the act performed right there on the shoulder, or somewhere towards the rear? Was Mr. Hathaway merely trying to be helpful on behalf of an overworked ten-pointer with too large a harem? Neighbors of the accused have asserted he would do anything for a buck.

Ultimately Mr. Hathaway, referred to for reasons known only to Wisconsinites as a "Superior man," was given probation for a misdemeanor charge of sexual gratification with an animal. Felony charges were dismissed when it was discovered that Wisconsin had no laws on the books specifically prohibiting intercourse with roadkill. (Screwing the unions is okay with the state, too.) Some years ago Mr. Hathaway was, in fact, incarcerated for the felony mistreatment of an animal after he murdered a horse in order to have sex with it. In fact, he had just gotten out of prison on that charge when he was discovered sampling the venison, but he denies that the incident was a call for help, insisting he was managing just fine on his own. The determination of whether or not sex with a dead animal constitutes mistreatment was argued by city attorney Frog Press, who sounds like something of an expert.

The worst thing about the whole story is that giving it any thought whatsoever inevitably leads to thinking about Rick Santorum.

Mr. Santorum thinks about sex a lot. Sex is a major filter of his world view. He's not fond of contraception, for one thing. He believes it is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is [sic] counter to how things are supposed to be." And he knows just how things are supposed to be. He got his marching instructions, "be fruitful and multiply," straight from God. ("Be lootful and divide" came from the Republican Party.) He even disagrees with the Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on contraception, but insists that doesn't mean he plans to actually confiscate anyone's prophylactic accoutrements anytime soon, and you should feel free to vote for him anyway.

Speaking of straight from God, that's the other way things are supposed to be. Gay marriage? He's agin it, and not just for himself, although one always wonders if folks who want to keep it illegal are just trying to remove temptation. He does not believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy that would protect two men having consensual sex in their own house. God knows (and mentioned to Mr. Santorum), state approval of such goings-on would be like going down a slippery slope. It would be the same, says he, as "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Mr. Santorum is quick to explain that he does not "have a problem with homosexuals, but a problem with homosexual acts," although it is not known whether he tried a lubricant.

This is one of the most salient distinctions between me and the senator, and why, other than that I'm not nuts, I am not voting for Mr. Santorum. I have a problem with festering pea-hearted bigotry, true, but I also have a problem with festering pea-hearted bigots. I'm narrow that way. At any rate, it seems likely that the presidential candidate will be throwing in the towel soon enough.

And when he does, you're not going to want to touch it.

74 comments:

  1. Beautifully said! And I urge everyone to Google "Santorum" often, being sure to enter spreadingsantorum.com and read more about his wisdom and sage advice. Lots of Google hits will help keep this site at the top of the list. It's the least we can do for such a "pea-hearted bigot."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's grease his way to the White House!

      Delete
    2. Rats! Bill and Dogs stole my thunder. I was just about to encourage everyone to google "Santorum," and often.

      Delete
  2. How on earth are you going to decide on which candidate to vote for? The one least disgusting? The one with the best haircut? I'm so glad it's not election timne in Canada right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be a tough one if there was any way in hell I'd consider voting for a Republican. As it is--easy choice.

      Delete
  3. Great post! That last sentence about throwing in the towel was excellent!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know why it is these festering pea-hearted bigots think they are getting messages from their particular deity to run for President of the United States. God Herself told me she has not given any such marching orders to Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich or any of their ilk. Personally, I think it is the inferior brand of tinfoil with which they have been lining their hats. They are getting messages all right, but it isn't from God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone in this category should be screened for schizophrenia.

      Delete
    2. Don't insult us schizophrenics.

      Delete
    3. Tinfoil doesn't work, folks! Michael Menkin has shown beyond any doubt (unless you actually require proof)that that only substance that can stop mind control, and also hide you from aliens, is 3M's Velostat. He also has patterns for how to make nice little hats from it. (http://www.stopabductions.com/)

      Delete
    4. Bless your heart, Frankly, I do believe I can hear my blog post about this writing itself from here.

      Delete
  5. That was a beautiful segue into the Santorum topic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. lol... well? that's extremely interesting... I do like the way your mind gets about... ;)

    Newt was on Today this morning... I tell ya. I worry about people who actually think there might be a potential POTUS among that Republican crew.

    Good State of the Union address last night -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The paper this morning kind of tut-tutted about Obama not trying to find a middle ground. The middle ground, of course, ain't anywhere near where it used to be.

      Delete
  7. Sex with dead animals and Santorum in one post. Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm almost positive Santorum wouldn't approve of sex with dead animals, either, although he's fine with beating a dead horse.

      Delete
  8. Oh my, Murr. You have a crafty mind. That picture of little Bambi made me smile, and then off you went into Santorum country. I am still smiling, but it's because you are a genius at knowing how to make me do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're easy though. You're always smiling!

      Delete
  9. How can we ever listen to an individual who is too clueless to realize that "be fruitful and multiply" referred to an entirely different time and place?

    This was published in 2004:
    http://www.liscious.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean, like, when there were only two people? I guess that is different.

      Delete
  10. Just wanted to comment that my mom sent me this post, and that I personally think that it's beautifully written.

    It's a shame that (public?) intercourse with a carcass isn't considered "lewd and lascivious behaviour."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are good to listen to your mom, who is a very wise woman.

      A lot of the trial of Mr. Hathaway had to do with whether you could define a dead animal as an animal at all. Rather than, say, vulture chow.

      Delete
  11. Well done!!!!! Santorum is a wart on the backsine of humanity!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great thing about the backside is we can't see it. Too bad we can still see the Rickster.

      Delete
  12. I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything hot when I read this post, 'cause I'd have singed my sinuses if I was. I love the way you've neatly tucked Rick Santorum and romancing roadkill into one tidy category: "dumb f***".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's getting to be a big-*** category.

      Delete
  13. When I saw the ball cap that read "No Whitetail north of Meadow Lake" I thought they were talking about something else. Maybe not.
    You may have to be from Saskatchewan to figure that one out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suddenly I'm seeing a couple different interpretations of taking "in season."

      Delete
  14. Wonderfully written and you did, as others have said, covered a lot of ground. I'll have to opt for the wisdom of the Edwardians who opined if whatever you did didn't frighten the horses, it was OK. Don't know how they would have felt about Bambi boffing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ta-da. It worked. I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This morning I have gone from shedding tears while watching Gifford's resignation to side-splitting laughter beginning with "...he would do anything for a buck" and all the way through to "throwing in the towel." Now I'm worn out and am going to take a nap. Besides, it's gray and rainy here. :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lucky you! Gray and rainy! Oh. You meant that as a bad thing.

      Delete
  17. You had me with the post title.

    ReplyDelete
  18. At least he makes it very clear that Satan would be living in a snow castle before you could vote for him. Some of ours are a little better at concealing their true ickiness. A little.
    Thanks Murr. I loved this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Believe it or not, we have many in this very state and city who are actually not icky. I hardly ever have to hold my nose to vote. (Going back to my little bubble, now)

      Delete
  19. You know, I always look forward to your posts because they're so funny - but just as important is that they're witty too. I feel smarter just reading your wordplay.

    Now that I'm done gushing, I have to say that I've been afraid to google Santorum, but now I see that according to Bill it's my duty as a voter. But I think I won't be doing that duty at work.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks for the plug! Happy to have my twisted recollections be of some use. Brilliant effin' segue, too! Mr. Hathaway was a "Superior man", not because he was from the town of Superior, but because he was the one on top, most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's a circus. The flip-flopping Rombot vs. the adulterous wannabe Despot (who scares the crap out of his own party) vs. the repulsive Zealot (who reportedly slept with his wife's miscarried fetus, sang to it, and introduced it to the children). Who knew the Religious Right's hijacking of the Republican Party would make the slime bubble up from the bottom of the swamp? Where is Jesus?

    I know you said that you can't do political posts too often because it's crazy-making, but you sure do them well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of crazy-making, keep looking for Jesus in the Republican fold. "Blessed are the poor, for they will work for practically nothing."

      Delete
  22. You know a lot of surnames are derived from the person's place of origin....and further that the spelling of a fair number of such surnames has, over time, been simplified by the omission of extra letters, for example. So, with a little imagination and the addition or substitution of a couple vowels, we can take Santorum back to its most likely original form, and explain some of the ex-Senator's shortcomings. As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I take some comfort from the fact that, although he got elected here once, the mistake was not repeated.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, if it had only been the kind of place that affected his lungs.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Help me out with the allegory here, Murr: is Santorum the Superior man and the doe the Republican party? Or is the Superior man the Republican party itself, killing then shagging its own country with its partisan politics?

    Most of all, how come I know such wonderful, bright, superb Amurcans but there seems to be such a terrifying number of deer feckers down there, many of them trying to run the place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep the light on for us, will you?

      Delete
    2. I'd take Oregon in a heartbeat, especially Portland!

      Delete
  25. Thank God for Rick Santorum. If it wasn't for him, the Hathaways of this world would have their way with all of us. Oh, that's right, he likes his meat dead. Those that would have their way with us want us alive and spending money. Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fantastic post! Thanks so much for the good laughs. Let's see ... road kill and republican candidates. Not too much of a stretch there at all. If God wanted them to vote, he woulda given 'em a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be perfectly clear, I don't think Santorum approves of sex with dead deer, if only because it doesn't lead to babies.

      Delete
  27. Crap. People have labeled me as a nut. Does this mean I have to vote for the Crazy-ticket? There's too many to choose, and some of them are pretty squirrelly. I look forward to your help in sorting it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can still be nutty and not be newty.

      Delete
  28. God? Agin same-gendered marriages? Oh dear!

    Having presided at the marriage of several same-gendered couples, I was having some self-doubts. Yup, you had me worried for a minute.

    Then I remembered. God speaks differently to Canadians than She does to Americans. Whew!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And some of us never even get a postcard.

      Delete
  29. Hey Murr! Once again, I'm baffled, horrified and ultimately disgusted by American politicians. I also have problems with American politics, but for broader reasons. If this is the best the opposition can offer, The Prez must be fairly confident about not having to move his stamp collection for another four years. And he thought he'd lost! Indigo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's so hard to imagine losing to this crew, but I was blown away before (in 2004). Couldn't draw breath for three days.

      Delete
  30. I love you. Plain and simple. We in PA have known how sick this guy is for a long time. Bringing home his and his wife's miscarried fetus to introduce to their other children as a sibling says everything anyone sane needs to know about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Carol. When I was his kids' ages I couldn't even look at a drowned worm.

      Delete
  31. Filed under "Yah couldn't make this stuff up?" :}}}}}

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh Murr, another brilliant and hilarious post. Well said again. Happy to see Santorum and roadkill sex in the same post, it's a good combination. Maybe now in addition to the lovely definition Mr. Santorum now personifies, Googling him may result in a finding that he approves sex with roadkill. Man on dead deer, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Santorum's lumped stranger things together in his rhetoric.

      Delete
  33. His teeth are neon bright. What the hell is he doing besides going to the dentist every five minutes to get his teeth whitened and worrying about what Americans do in the privacy of their own home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe God does the teeth. "Oh come, oh come, Ena-a-a-a-mel..."

      Delete
  34. hhhmmmm was the deer really dead? Maybe it was a consensual act.. whatever... but I will not bend over for old Ricky... who knows where his hands have been

    ReplyDelete
  35. Pretty sure the deer was postsensual.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The gloves appear to be off, Murr. While you're at it, could you give Mr. Gingrich the high-beam treatment?

    ReplyDelete