Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Straight Story about that whole Miss America brouhaha...

This might be one of those superficial "who cares?" stories, if not for the fact that this strikes at the core of culture and society.

I could care less about the Miss America pageant. But what I've found appalling is the media pile-on assumptions that equates the issue of gay marriage to the civil rights movement for the 21st century. It's the new "good fight"; and if you stand opposed to gay marriage, then you must be a cultural neanderthal equivalent to racists who stood against the equal rights of blacks and other ethnic minorities.

I've also found it disgusting how the liberal do-gooders lack the ability to perceive themselves for the intolerant moral narcissists they are.

There's an inconsistent disconnect between the reasons Perez Hilton is saying Carrie Prejean lost the Miss America crown, and how he then goes on to shout "bravo" for each contestant, official, or celebrity who makes a political statement in support of gay marriage.



Perez Hilton says Miss California Carrie Prejean gave "the worst answer in Pageant history". He claims she lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, but because "she's a dumb b*tch" for not saying something along the lines of "...that's a hot topic now, and I think that that's a question that each state should decide for themselves 'cause that's how our forefathers designed our government."

I'm calling him out on his BS. He didn't like her opinion, period. If she had expressed a personal opinion in support of gay marriage, would he have taken her to task for not giving the politically neutral answer? Of course not.

Miss North Carolina now IS Miss America. So, as someone who's supposed to be a voice of unity and not political division, supposedly, note how Perez Hilton highlights this comment of hers regarding the hot-button issue:


Dalton explains:

"The beautiful thing about America is that we have the right to choose, we have the right to choose what partner we want to love, commit and spend the rest of our lives with. I think that all couples should be able to be recognized legally, and they should be able to enter into a union. Whether or not it should be defined as marriage, I don't know, I'll leave that up to the politicians."


So how is that answer not divisive? How is it compassionate toward those who believe the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman? Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, anyone?


Another judge, btw, also denounced Miss California for having a personal opinion that doesn't reflect the elitist, morally snob "progressive" world view. By way of Perez Hilton:

Now, one of our fellow judges, journalist Alicia Jacobs, herself a former Miss Nevada, is speaking out on her blog about why Miss California's answer sucked so much and the drama that has ensues.

Some of the HIGHlights of what she says:

- Since Sunday night's pageant, I have been inundated with people wanting to know how Miss California's answer to Perez Hilton's question affected my final judging. I can tell you that it GREATLY affected me & the final score I gave Carrie Prejean. I can reveal that throughout the live telecast, I LIKED Miss California, but I certainly was not overly impressed by her. Throughout the competition, I gave her very good scores. (truth be known, I was probably most impressed by MISS TENNESSEE, but unfortunatly,she did not make it past the top 10…oh well, to each his own.)

- Interestingly, of the 5 judges who asked questions, Perez was the only one who had written his own question…& when I asked him what his question was, he would not reveal it, telling me he wanted to keep it secret, but that it had been approved by [Miss USA President] Paula Shugart & the producers. So of course, when Miss California selected Perez, I couldn't wait to hear the question. HOOOOOOLLY COOOOOW!

- To be fair, the beginning of Prejean's answer was ok…but, she made the mistake of not knowing when to shut her mouth. As she continued to speak, I saw the crown move further & further away from her. When she finished, she looked strangely proud for a moment. Personally, I was STUNNED on several levels. First, how could this young woman NOT know her audience and judges? Let's not forget that the person asking the question is an openly gay man, at least 2 people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, KEITH LEWIS is an openly gay man who has been a very generous benefactor of hers…in many ways. Did I mention I was STUNNED? I was also personally insulted & hurt.

- Remembering that we were on live television, I actually recall having to close my wide-opened mouth, I then looked over to Perez, who was seated right next to me, he was just shaking his head, he actually seemed a bit hurt? Then came the very loud booing in the theatre, followed by "a word from our sponsors."

- During the commercial break, fellow judges, Perez, Shandi Finessey (Miss USA 2004) & I spoke, we were all shocked by what we had just heard. (I tweeted as much too ) we came back from the commercial, & now, it was the moment of truth. This was the moment where we had to assign that all-important final ranking…1 thru 5. Yes, I struggled, prior to her final question, Miss California was not my pick for Miss USA, but I would have chosen her as 1st runner-up. My final ranking for Miss California was 4th runner-up…& if I could have made her 51st runner-up, I would have.

- Please understand, that as a journalist, I am passionate about freedom of speech, however, I am also passionate about the importance of compassion & humanity, & that we should ALL have the right to love & share our lives with WHOMEVER we chose. If Carrie Prejean is against gay marriage, she certainly has that right, but, if it was her intention to be MISS USA (and I think it was) why not answer that question with diplomacy & heart? Sometimes, (pageants & politics, to name a few) we have to be mindful of using a platform in a hurtful way,
So, pose a political question to a contestant, and they should straddle the fence and answer "present"?

Hilton on the Early Show:

"A very simple way she could have answered it is, 'as a future Miss USA, it is my job not to be a politician, but to be someone who represents and inspires the women and the troops, and I think it's great that the states get to decide for themselves.'

"Something like that, she would not have had to insert her own personal politics into it," he said. "And I'm not saying it's bad to insert your own personal politics. But you have to answer the question as Miss USA, not as Carrie Prejean."

And this is absolute self-deluded rubbish. Make no mistake, these progressive malcontent "holier-than-thou" moralists aren't appalled because of Prejean having an opinion and expressing it, but because she has "the wrong" opinion...and expressed it. And get a load of this bit of bloviating on the Early Show by former Miss USA and Miss USA pageant co-director, Shanna Moakler (who is also one of the heads of the California pageant):
"I have to applaud her that she was willing to miss out on the opportunity of being Miss USA, to stay true to her convictions," she said. "But, on the same token, I think she muddied the waters a little bit by making - just by her question was insensitive. And it's now become more about compassion, being compassionate in the way that she answered her question."
How was Prejean's answer "insensitive" and non-compassionate:

"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other; but in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
And they say it's the right who are oppressing dissent and free speech and expressing an opinion? While claiming that they are for championing diversity of opinion?

As her state director, Moakler added: "I want it to be known and be clarified that we're not abandoning her and we don't hate her. But it puts us in a difficult situation because we do have a difference of opinion.
Reminder to Moakler, one of the ones who heads the California pageantry: Californians in the MAJORITY voted "yes" on Prop 8. I'd say YOU are the one with a difference of opinion from mainstream Californians.

"And we also have sponsors, and people that have supported her and helped get her to where she was standing on that stage, that I think there's now become a sense of betrayal. So it's just, you know, that's why I'm saying it's become a topic of sensitivity, and she needed to answer her question with more compassion."

Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton on Larry King Live:



I think Prager came off very well; and even Perez wasn't as obnoxious as he's otherwise been.


Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Labels: , ,

15 Comments:

Blogger Chuck said...

I find it amazing how much the "tolerant" left squashes freedom of speech and thought. It has gotten to where the left are incredibly narrow minded. I actually would have cared less about this except for Hilton's little hissy fit. He did more to cemetn the gay stereotype than anyone since Liberace. I also love how he bills gay marriage as being supported by the majority of Americans when the majority of voters in one of the most liberal states in the country, California, rejected it on the ballot.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Nomad said...

Perez Hilton is to the Miss America Pageant what Paula Abdul is to American Idol

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:21:00 PM  
Blogger The Vegas Art Guy said...

If they are that disappointed then strip her of her crown and then destroy her like they destroy everyone that crosses them. But as Atticus Finch said in To Kill A Mockingbird "Before a man can live with others, he has to live with himself"

Looks like she took this to heart.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:28:00 PM  
Anonymous rockybutte said...

Word, your tone reminds me of that affected by southern racists in the 50s and 60s who blamed "liberal do-gooders" for upsetting the balance of southern society. It was inevitable to most clear-thinking observers that African-Americans would someday be able to vote; sit at lunch counters; ride buses as white people did; use the same public toilets that white people used; attend the same public schools as white people; not be discriminated against in the job market; not be redlined by mortgage lenders and complicit real estate agents, etc.

We all know about the pain that was suffered, the blood that was shed and the walls that came down because of a few great men and millions of followers.

Now, the liberals are being blamed for supporting marriage between two people that love each other. It's legal in four states and soon it will be legal in fifty states. It's inevitable. Get used to it.

Pick yourself out of the gutter and stop obsessing on silly satire in revenge for the way that Bush was treated, which was the liberals' revenge for the way Clinton was treated, etc., ad nauseam.

Put your energy into helping the world solve the real problems that effect us all. I know you can do it. Peace.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:54:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

rockybutte,

Pull yourself down off your morally superior high horse for one moment and tell me how this compares to the civil rights movement of the 60's? Majority blacks didn't support Prop 8 and many take offense to the comparison between their struggle and the narcissism of gay activists. They have equal rights. They can marry one woman like I can; and a lesbian can marry one man.

What I take issue with is the disrespect and intolerance of liberal activists to understand reasoned arguments by the right on this topic. They'd rather pompously dismiss those on the right of the issue as homophobes and prejudiced. Did you watch the Larry King piece? Would you call Dennis Prager homophobic?

Cloaking the movement for gay marriage in the mantle of the 60's civil rights is disingenuous. It's apples and broccoli.

There's a fundamental difference between the sexes, but not between the "races".

As Elton John says: If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Btw,

Part of the topic of this post is about Perez Hilton's intellectual dishonesty. He says Prejean should have taken a more politically neutral answer that would not alienate anyone; yet applauds the contestant who won Miss USA as she expressed her support of gay marriage. Gee...hypocrisy anyone? In the words of Obama (who says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman), "let me be clear": Perez Hilton didn't like Prejean's answer to his politically-charged question not because she expressed her personal opinion, but because she expressed "the wrong" opinion, as he sees it.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Put your energy into helping the world solve the real problems that effect us all.With all due respect, that's a pompously asinine comment.

I'm actually ambivalent over the issue, but understand the arguments against it in a way that you folks on the left of the issue don't seem to get. I respect and have sympathy for those who might yearn for it; they might make more headway if they didn't just condemn the right as racists/homophobes. They should attempt to understand whether or not what they want is good for society or not. What I want for myself may not always be good for society.

To dismiss this as something that isn't classified as "a real problem" is baffling, given that what you are advocating is a radical shift in culture and society. Are you happy with some of the cultural trends that are "inevitably" happening today? The "in-your-face" attitudes and influence of pop culture and Hollywood? A more permissive society? Is all of that "good" and "progressive"?

Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger Dee said...

Extremely well said Word!! You make excellent points.

It wasn't that she wasn't compassionate, because she was. It was that she had the WRONG opinion as you said. This is the whole problem with our culture right now, liberals preach tolerance to us, but never show it themselves.

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:49:00 AM  
Blogger Z said...

Boy, don't let my Black girlfriend hear anybody comparing civil rights to gay rights..holy SMOKE. And she's a lib.

The winner of the pageant was asked about bailouts and she said she thought American tax payers shouldn't be paying for them; I called the choice LIBERAL HELL. Imagine if the gay thing hadn't come up, how SHE'D have been maligned!?

Prager did very well......what talent got perez any notice at ALL? Sad. One simply can't hold a viewpoint different than the left in this country anymore..it's not allowed. wow

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:03:00 AM  
Blogger christian soldier said...

D. Trump co owner of the Miss USA contest--was his usual 'slick' self when defending the choice of Hilton for the contest- during a FOX interview last night----Isn't Trump using our tax $$$ (via the banks) to buy - buy - buy...
C-CS

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:21:00 AM  
Blogger rockybutte said...

Many reasoned arguments by conservatives against same-sex marriage lose sight of the big picture: there is no valid, legal basis for the government to forbid two people who love each other from marrying. It is inevitable that virtually every state (except for a small group of very conservative states) will accept the legality of same-sex marriage. Now is the time to prepare our society for that eventuality.

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:15:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

there is no valid, legal basis for the government to forbid two people who love each other from marrying.Well, gee whiz, rb...what's to prevent my sister and I from marrying each other, then? We love each other. My friend's dog and I love each other- should we be prevented from marrying?

Civil unions? Yes. Redefining the institution of marriage? I'm not so convinced. It might not be a big deal; then again....are all "eventualities" a good thing? A more permissive society? If it feels good, it must be good? Is that our philosophy? Sex with kids? Multiple partners? Porno on daytime tv? Who's it hurt?

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger rockybutte said...

Word:

I'm surprised by your response, channeling Rick Santorum and the man-dog sex thing.

It's not too long ago that marriage between whites and African-Americans was illegal in some states, and any "bleeding-heart liberal" supporting its legalization was derided as "permissive".

Same-sex marriage is here. If you don't want to marry a man, fine. If some other guy cannot get sexually aroused by a woman, let him marry a man, with dignity and honor. Life's short.

Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

If I want to marry my grandmother, fine. If we both also want to marry my kid sister, fine. Let's marry with dignity and honor. Life's too short. [/sarcasm]A man can love a man and still enjoy the legal rights of a civil union without demanding of society to redefine the traditional institution of marriage.

Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:49:00 AM  
Blogger rockybutte said...

Remember, we 're talking about permitting two people of the same gender marrying. I'm opposed to marrying close relatives, minor children and carbon-based life forms of another species.

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Uh....yeah....give it another few decades and your view will be called "obsolete", "primitive", "prejudiced", and "backward"-looking.

As you say, "Get used to it: It's inevitable".

No one's preventing two people of the same sex from being happy; what makes them unhappy is their own hang-ups about how society defines marriage. They have equal rights as anyone else; what they don't have is "sameness" as a married couple (one man, one woman). It's like trying to change the requirements of an "all boys club" or an "all girls club" which requires being the correct gender. Is it discrimination if I say girls aren't allowed into the boy scouts? Yes, of course it is. I'm discriminating based on gender, and there'd be nothing wrong with that. Nor, would there be anything wrong with creating a boys and girls scout (think "civil union") where the requirement is that you be either a boy or a girl to get in.

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:26:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved