Thursday, May 14, 2009

Her Opinion Was Not The Problem

They throw the Washington Post in my driveway every morning. I look it over before I head out to work, and sometimes I sit down and read some of the Metro section. These days I actually get my news from the Internet, just like you. If a story piques my interest I can follow the links to find other versions of it, if I want to I can figure out pretty clearly what actually happened. But if I relied on The Post or some other newspaper, I'd have to accept what they tell me, and it simply doesn't meet a standard.

Like this, from Wednesday's paper:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An emotional Miss California Carrie Prejean kept her crown on Tuesday, and the beauty queen stood by her opposition to gay marriage and defended posing for topless photos.

Prejean, 21, made headlines last month at the Miss USA pageant when she expressed her opinion on gay marriage and claimed her answer cost her the Miss USA crown.

After the pageant, she met with the National Organization for Marriage and spoke at an event for the group which opposes same-sex marriage. Topless photos emerged of her and it was revealed the beauty pageant helped pay for her breast implants.

Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump praised Prejean for her beauty and standing by her opinion, and he judged the topless photos as acceptable for her to continue her reign. "If her beauty wasn't so great no one really would have cared," he said. Miss California keeps her crown, and her opinions

I'm not sure where to start here.

First of all, "expressing her opinion." She was asked what she thought about gay marriage, and she gave an incoherent and ignorant response. She believes in "opposite marriage," she said. It doesn't matter whether she's for it or against it, her answer was bad.

Now, this blonde will tell anyone who will listen that she believes in her First Amendment right to express an opinion. Apparently nobody has explained to her that the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with her self-expression. It does not mean that she can say any stupid thing and we all have to take it seriously.

In fact, this is weird. A beauty pageant asks the beauties to answer a question. Does it matter what they say? I mean, really. Are they only judged for remaining beautiful while they speak, or does it help if they are, say, educated or intelligent? Does it matter if they are narrow-minded bigots, or are they only judged on poise?

Here's what she said:
"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do 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 I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

She can barely put a sentence together. Even if there was such a thing as "opposite marriage" you can't "choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," it doesn't make any sense. Who would do that? I don't know if I want to marry Bruce or Susie, wha? And in most states, you can't "choose same-sex marriage," she doesn't "live in a land" that offers the choice.

If she had said clearly that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, I don't think anybody would have cared. She was losing the competition anyway. But this answer lives up to the promise of every blonde joke ever. Opposite marriage!

She lost, and she claimed she lost because she was a Christian, and the situation deteriorated from there. She joined up with a rightwing hate group and went around giving speeches saying marriage should be limited to certain couples. It turned out the pageant had bought her breast implants. Topless pictures circulated around the Internet, where she had signed a statement saying that no such thing existed. She was on the brink of losing her title as Miss California.

This Post story, and Donald Trump, seem to think that the reason she would lose her crown was because she had expressed an unpopular opinion. She said she's against gay marriage, and so The Gays ganged up and in their conspiratorial way (because they've infiltrated the beauty pageants, you know) and arranged for her to be humiliated because of her religion.

No, as has been pointed out, even President Obama does not believe same-sex couples should marry. It's not an unpopular sentiment, lots of people, even gay people, feel that way. Nobody is surprised if a beauty queen has a conservative opinion.

It is criminal of The Post to pretend that that is the issue. People might debate whether her opinion is appropriate for someone who will represent our country in international competitions, maybe this is an acceptable opinion and maybe it's not, all in all it seems to me pretty defensible. I don't agree with her, but if she thinks marriage is an opposite thing, it's fine with me.

Her answer was dumb, that's all, and her behavior after she lost was reprehensible. This part of the pageant gives a young lady the opportunity to show her eloquence, her clarity of thought, her poise under pressure, and this was not it. She fell apart, she didn't make sense, she sounded like an idiot. And then she threw the blame around for her loss, as if she lost because she had exercised her First Amendment rights. No, honey, the other girl was prettier.

The Post should know better than to pick up the rightwing talking points on this. Did Prejean lose the pageant because she is opposed to marriage for some Americans? No, of course not. Should she lose her title for being a liar and a fake and representing hatred? Ah, there you might have a case.

19 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

Sean Hannity on his radio program praised the Donald and said he was a good friend of his program. Is Trump in fact a Limbaugh/Hannity kind of guy, or was that just Sean talking?

May 14, 2009 10:06 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

She should have been fired as Miss California. Not because of her opinion, but because she failed to make her contracted appearences and dodged attempts to communicate with her to resolve the problem. If any ordinary person behaved that way with their employer they'd have been canned in no time. It should have been no different with Prejean. Donald Trump acted like a salivating fool thinking with his crotch. To guys like him a pretty girl can do no wrong because maybe if he fawns over her he might get some.

May 14, 2009 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She had the guts to publicly disagree with a rabid advocate group.

She deserves more than a crown, she deserves an office.

May 14, 2009 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that.

May 14, 2009 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Level Headed said...

Jim - you should cancel your Washington Post subscription.
That will show 'em!

May 14, 2009 11:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yeah, right, bad anonymous. Now being a bigot is an excuse for not doing your job.

May 15, 2009 12:02 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim, complaining, writes,

They throw the Washington Post in my driveway every morning. I look it over before I head out to work, and sometimes I sit down and read some of the Metro section. These days I actually get my news from the Internet, just like you. If a story piques my interest I can follow the links to find other versions of it, if I want to I can figure out pretty clearly what actually happened. But if I relied on The Post or some other newspaper, I'd have to accept what they tell me, and it simply doesn't meet a standard.Oh, so you shop around for a version of the news that is most to your liking? How revealing...

Look, it is as simple as canceling your subscription to the Post and then guess what? You will not find it in your driveway in the morning. Simple enough, eh?

Like this, from Wednesday's paper:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An emotional Miss California Carrie Prejean kept her crown on Tuesday, and the beauty queen stood by her opposition to gay marriage and defended posing for topless photos.

(Reuters news wire copy deleted)

Yes, yes, yes...she is a bimbo, probably does not have more than a single original thought rattling around inside that space between her two ears, and yes, she is incoherent (really now, what do you expect?...beauty and brains???...that is a rare combination).

What I think is more interesting though is your outrage at the Post running this story. It is a Reuters news wire copy story and as such is a sign of the times we live in where newspaper are printing less and less of their own copy and increasingly more of the news wire copy. I got so angry a few weekends ago at our so-called local paper (actually just an affiliate of the Gannett Corp) running a top of the fold front page wire copy article that I called the local publisher's phone and left a message that consisted essentially of stating that they either run local stuff on the front page or I cancel our subscription. Don't know if it will work, but thought I'd give it a try anyhow...

I'm not sure where to start here.Oh, just start anywhere...

First of all, "expressing her opinion." She was asked what she thought about gay marriage, and she gave an incoherent and ignorant response. She believes in "opposite marriage," she said. It doesn't matter whether she's for it or against it, her answer was bad.

Now, this blonde will tell anyone who will listen that she believes in her First Amendment right to express an opinion. Apparently nobody has explained to her that the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with her self-expression. It does not mean that she can say any stupid thing and we all have to take it seriously.
...or that we will refrain from mocking her. Still, her understanding of the First Amendment is really not much better than a majority of her fellow citizens...should we put them all in the stockade until they read up a little on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

And besides, how is this really any different (other than Miss California trampling upon the sacred cow of the political left) than Miss Teen South Carolina answering Aimee Teegarden's geography question? Really now, what do you want? LOL.

In fact, this is weird. A beauty pageant asks the beauties to answer a question. Does it matter what they say? I mean, really. Are they only judged for remaining beautiful while they speak, or does it help if they are, say, educated or intelligent? Does it matter if they are narrow-minded bigots, or are they only judged on poise?Revealing...quite revealing...sort of like a portrait of Dorian Gray.

Here's what she said:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do 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 I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
Wow, she is trying to be "nice" (well, really now, aren't they all trying to be nice?), but rather than simply asserting that she believes marriage should remain between a man and a woman, she blathers on...

She can barely put a sentence together. Even if there was such a thing as "opposite marriage" you can't "choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," it doesn't make any sense. Who would do that? I don't know if I want to marry Bruce or Susie, wha? And in most states, you can't "choose same-sex marriage," she doesn't "live in a land" that offers the choice.Not too bright...in fact she sounds fairly insipid.

If she had said clearly that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, I don't think anybody would have cared. She was losing the competition anyway. But this answer lives up to the promise of every blonde joke ever. Opposite marriage!Indeed, right up there with Miss Teen South Carolina.

She lost, and she claimed she lost because she was a Christian, and the situation deteriorated from there.Ever heard of "sour grapes"???

She joined up with a rightwing hate group and went around giving speeches saying marriage should be limited to certain couples.If the tide ever turns around on this issue it will be due in no small measure to bilious comments such as the one above. I will readily admit the National Organization for Marriage picked up an all too flawed spokesperson in Miss California (semi-nude pics, breast implants, etc), still the viciousness with which she was verbally smacked down served a lesson to the timorous of heart: be quiet or else.

This Post story, and Donald Trump, seem to think that the reason she would lose her crown was because she had expressed an unpopular opinion. She said she's against gay marriage, and so The Gays ganged up and in their conspiratorial way (because they've infiltrated the beauty pageants, you know) and arranged for her to be humiliated because of her religion.Please, don't insult the intelligence of those with an IQ of 80 to 120, that is, that vast middle swath, that readily recognizes that homosexuals and their political partisans are very well organized, and quite savvy at manipulating the levers of social, legal and political power. Nice try, but the naif in the woods routine will not wash.

No, as has been pointed out, even President Obama does not believe same-sex couples should marry.Oh, now that is funny! LOL!!!!! Nobody in their right (or even left) mind believes that about Obama for a single moment. He can read the political terrain as good as anyone and he knows which way the winds of "change" are blowing...

It's not an unpopular sentiment, lots of people, even gay people, feel that way. Nobody is surprised if a beauty queen has a conservative opinion.Oh, some gays and lesbians do feel that way (and I know this because my best friend is a well connected member of the gay community...sorry Priya, but it is true...he even wishes that you could get to know me as much as he does), that is, they want nothing to do with that heterosexist, patriarchal oppressive social institution known as marriage. Still a certain number of these naysayers have been converted to the present political strategy when it was explained to them the end game of all of this militating for same-sex "marriage".

Hey, who could blame an oppressed group for seeing an opportunity to play turn about as fair play?

It is criminal of The Post to pretend that that is the issue.Now you are sounding like Keith Olberman...lol.

Her answer was dumb, that's all, and her behavior after she lost was reprehensible.Dumb? Yes..quite so...then again what does anyone expect from a beauty contestant? Really now...

"Reprehensible"? The only way anyone could agree with such an adjective is to be a hardened, narrow and provincial political partisan that is eager to win at any cost...even at a cost of an abuse of the language.

The Post should know better than to pick up the rightwing talking points on this. Did Prejean lose the pageant because she is opposed to marriage for some Americans? No, of course not. Should she lose her title for being a liar and a fake and representing hatred? Ah, there you might have a case.Again Jim, by associating a defense of an institution such as marriage with "hatred", and this done by those that would use the power of a few to force their will on the many (and we do know that many changes will be forced so that the fiction of same-sex "marriage" can be put in place, defended vigorously and maintained), those of us that can also read the terrain know what is in store for us...and it has nothing to do with any sort of notion of tolerance or diversity.

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”—1 John 1:8.

Oh dear...it is getting late...time to go to bed.

May 15, 2009 1:41 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh brother, Orin, you should have gone to bed sooner.

Still, her understanding of the First Amendment is really not much better than a majority of her fellow citizens...should we put them all in the stockade until they read up a little on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Interesting fantasy, Orin, the bimbo and others in the stockade. (eye roll)

BTW, your understanding of the First Amendment seems rather one-sided to me. You seem to think she's entitled to express her opinion but those who disagree with her are not entitled to express theirs. If she believes she can dish out hurtful opinions (tee hee "no offense to anybody out there"), she ought to believe other Americans can do the same.

I'm glad you got some sleep, but you left us hanging, again. Tell us, Orin, exactly what you imagine are the "many changes will be forced so that the fiction of same-sex "marriage" can be put in place".

May 15, 2009 9:42 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

May 15, 2009 3:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Orin is totally delusional. An exchange I had with him a while ago demonstrated that perfectly.

I origianlly told Orin "Equal marriage means a huge amount to those couples that wish to be married, it is a profound change and improvement to their lives. And what does it change in your life? Nothing whatsoever. That you think its a fair trade-off to deprive gay couples of this life changing event to satisfy no need in your own life is one of the most profoundly selfish displays I can imagine.".

Orin in a total state of delusion replied "How you can assert [it changes nothing in my life], especially in light of what has happened in Massachusetts, with the Catholic adoption service forced to suspend services or betray core beliefs and teachings after the legalization of same-sex marriage, is baffling.".

There are three things profoundly wrong with Orin's thinking. Firstly, even if true, the Catholic adoption service in Massachusetts suspending services changed NOTHING in Orin's life. His use of that as an example of a change equal marriage caused in his life is quite simply bizarre.

Secondly, its a lie that they were "forced" to "suspend services or betray core beliefs and teachings after the legalization of equal marriage". They CHOSE to suspend services because of an anti-discrimination law that was passed a decade earlier, this had NOTHING to do with the equal marriage law.

Thirdly, they were free to continue to run their adoption service and refuse to adopt to gay couples but refused to do so because they were receiving tax supported funding from the state to run their adoption service and that funding was cut off because they didn't comply with the anti-discrimination law. They could have refused the state money and continued to operate as they wished but without being able to suck on the government teat they chose to shut down completely instead.

Once I informed Orin of that he tried to weasel himself out of the corner he'd painted himself into by claiming to know the future and saying "if they discriminated against same-sex couples seeking to adopt, the adoption service could be taken to court". Putting the lie to that statement is the fact that since the 1993 anti-discrimination law passed the Mormon's have been running a private adoption service in Massachusetts that refuses to adopt to same sex couples and despite Orin's insistance that gays "will make it their mission to make legal and political war on churches that do not agree with them" no one has challenged the Mormon's right to discriminate in all these years.

Laughably Orin then said "You sound alot like my 15-year-old daughter, always arguing small points and failing to see the big picture.". He lies three times in one sentence and then in his deluded mind somehow I'm the one that can't see the big picture - that's called projection Orin, its a defense mechanism where a person ascribes to others their own actions or thoughts they can't face. The cognitive dissonance in Orin's mind is truly a sight to behold.

May 15, 2009 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad you deleted your first comment, Priya

considering how stupid your final comment was, the original must have been really idiotic

May 16, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that!

May 16, 2009 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I see Orin has no reply but the Anonymous peanut gallery has hurled another personal insult and given itself an "Amen."

You should be ashamed of yourselves. What Would Jesus Do?

I bet if He disagreed with Priya Lynn, He'd skip the personal insult and in a reasoned tone, tell her what was wrong with her arguments and what He believed was right. If you want to be taken as more than a nuisance, you might try it sometime.

Here endeth the sermon for today.

Ramen

May 17, 2009 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, it's kinder to just hurl an insult at Priya than argue with Priya.

Priya couldn't handle the truth!

May 17, 2009 1:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, Bad anonymous, if you could you most certainly would point out if I had said something stupid. You don't attempt to argue with me because you can't - my positions are air tight. All you've got is pathetic whining. You're a small, small person.

May 17, 2009 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

see what I mean, Bea

the delusion of grandeur is so exaggerated that it would be crueler to argue with Priya the deleta and pop the Glinda the Good bubble

then, we would have to keep her away from sharp objects!

May 17, 2009 2:16 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, clearly bad anonymous is still stinging from the last couple of spankings I've given him. His desperate attempts to insult me are really a sad attempt to regain a manhood he never had. Keep it up bad anonymous, every insult is just another affirmation that you can't compete on an intellecutal basis. Far be it for me to prevent you from further making a fool of yourself.

May 17, 2009 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon, if you have something on topic to say, say it. If you are here to insult people, we've heard it before. Yawn

Priya Lynn's assessment of you is correct because it takes a small, small person to sit in the peanut gallery hurling peanuts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which had gone from beauty contestants' views to:

Tell us, Orin, exactly what you imagine are the "many changes will be forced so that the fiction of same-sex "marriage" can be put in place".

Orin didn't answer this time, but Priya Lynn went back to some of the many times Orin has attempted to come up with something believable in the past and published his replies, pointing out the problems with them. Since Orin seems to comment so rarely these days, I'm not taking his silence as agreement with Priya Lynn, but she does make some good points about things he's said in the past.

If you'd care to tell us what changes will you think be "forced" so that same-sex marriage can be enacted, Anon, by all means, do tell, but if you think your one-line insults are funny or clever, well, maybe you should think about stopping your self-medicating so you might take off your booze/purple-hazed glasses.

May 17, 2009 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, Bea is distinctly displeased

people are using insults again

Jim calls Miss California a dumb blonde who can't form sentences

Priya calls Orin a weasel

Big ol' crazy Aunt Bea thinks Miss California is a "bimbo"

hey wait a minute

I smell a Pelosi-loving rat!

May 18, 2009 3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home