Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Carrie Prejean's presser
Donald Trump announced today that Carrie Prejean would remain Miss California 2009.
The reigning Miss California spoke for about 7 minutes, coming to tears at one point when talking about her grandfather, who served in the Army during WWII and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. She provided a series of explanations for the various photos of her that have been released over the Internet, and asserts that she "answered truthfully on her pageant application" with respect nude or semi-nude photos of her that had been published. I will leave it to Cassandra to decide that if it's good enough for The Donald, it's good enough for her (hint: it's not).
I know that we are all terribly relieved that this dark chapter in American pageant history is over.
17 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Tue May 12, 07:12:00 PM:
I will leave it to Cassandra to decide that if it's good enough for The Donald, it's good enough for her (hint: it's not).Actually, I think I just said exactly that over at my place :p
Look, I don't normally bother writing about stories like this. In 5 years I can't think of a time I felt it necessary and to be honest I haven't followed this all that closely because it was as predictable as Obama blaming all his problems on the BusHitler.
The only interesting angle on this story was all the conservatives rushing to defend her just because she chose to stick up for traditional marriage, or claiming a girl in only her underpants isn't partially nude, or that it's OK to violate a clause that says you won't become a spokesperson for other orgs without getting approval first :p
I just read her contract again today in order to respond to some commenter. It's clear, unambiguous, and she had to initial every provision. That said, my point wasn't that she ought to be fired.
It was that being called silly names by Perez Hilton doesn't relieve a person of their contractual obligations. She wasn't being "persecuted" by the pageant if they chose to exercise their contractual rights and terminate her relationship with them, but if they find it advantagious not to enforce the contract strictly, great! She rolled the dice, and Trump rolled like a big dog.
A still, small voice in my head whispers that both of them seem quite able to look out for themselves.
Happy ending for all concerned.
By Aegon01, at
Tue May 12, 08:20:00 PM:
This entire conflict could be described in one emote:
*keyboardheadsmack*
By 
, at
Tue May 12, 08:35:00 PM:
The question is how much damage this has done to the gay marriage cause.
By Cassandra, at
Tue May 12, 10:03:00 PM:
This entire conflict could be described in one emote...Well I do not know about you, young man, but suddenly I find myself contemplating the pathetic wreck that is my shattered, now-pointless life and thinking...
"AAAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!"
*keyboardheadsmack*
*keyboardheadsmack*
*keyboardheadsmack* :)
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue May 12, 10:13:00 PM:
Why is this an issue for Tigerhawk? Gay marriage is a forgone conclusion, it's no big deal. In NY last week for SNL Zach Quinto, who plays Spock in the new Star Trek and who's gay said Carrie was a "fool" and why do you give a fool "ink?" Because it generates more ink. For her. For Trump. Even for Perez Hilton. He said he wouldn't be surprised if there's collusion. "We're human beings and American citizens,and there's no legal way around that."
By Escort81, at
Tue May 12, 11:07:00 PM:
Collusion -- hmm, hadn't thought of that. Very...logical.
Christopher, you used to be a lawyer, does it matter to you whether gay marriage comes about through the legislative branch (and the enactment of statutes) or via judicial decisions?
By , at
Wed May 13, 12:42:00 AM:
Let's be fair and call everybody who stands with Ms. Perjean and Mr. Obama on gay marriage "fools".
I am a "fool". I strongly suspect CC is a "fool" (please confirm).
And if we can elect some "fools" for Presidents, so why can't we give some "fools" ink?
By Andrew X, at
Wed May 13, 02:04:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Andrew X, at
Wed May 13, 02:06:00 AM:
I would just point out that there is a lot of point-missing here.
The Prejean issue is not about gay marriage per se, or at least that is not why we are still talking about it a month later.
The reason this resonates so is that Carrie Prejean is NOT an activist. I think it is fair to say that Perez Hilton is. Carrie did not ASK to be asked that question, she did not "prepare" for it, and she did answer it graciously and politely when it was unexpectedly posed to her (by an "activist").
And she is villified, abused, and attacked for that answer by huge numbers of those whom we would call our "elites".
This is not..... "if you are a conservative activist or politician (i.e. Palin) we will attack you".... this IS "if you are ANYBODY who steps out of our line of thinking, we will attack you in a most vicious and unprincipled manner".
It is OK for the activist to pose the question, no problem there, but for an average, non-famous person to have the wrong opinion when asked, THAT must be punished brutally, and a lesson must be served (por encourage les otres).
This staggeringly McCarthyite behavior adopted so breezily by the same left that worships McCarthy's real and alleged victims as heroes is why this is a serious story.
By SR, at
Wed May 13, 03:13:00 AM:
How did CP get to be Miss CA anyway?
I thought she finished second.
By Cassandra, at
Wed May 13, 07:27:00 AM:
This is not..... "if you are a conservative activist or politician (i.e. Palin) we will attack you".... this IS "if you are ANYBODY who steps out of our line of thinking, we will attack you in a most vicious and unprincipled manner". That's a pretty fair description of what just happened. But since when has ANYONE had the legally protected right to say whatever they want without fear of counterarguments or even [shudder] verbal attacks?
If standing up for what you believe in weren't hard sometimes, it wouldn't require courage. More people would do it. If there wasn't a loud and nasty group of folks willing to pounce on anyone who says the "wrong thing", there would be no particular virtue in being willing to "stand up" for what you believe, would there?
While I think the Perez Hiltons of this world rude, nasty and vituperative, I also recognize freedom of speech cuts both ways: just as we're free to say whatever we want, so the other side is free to attack and vilify us for doing so. Those who listen are free to decide which tactic advances their cause better.
This isn't any different from any other kind of bullying and I don't think it's something we'd want to change b/c that would mean the imposition of hate speech codes and political correctness laws. The answer to odious speech is to either brush it off or come up with an effective riposte. It seems to me that Hilton, et al, did nothing to advance gay marriage politically and much to harm it.
By Cassandra, at
Wed May 13, 07:30:00 AM:
On reflection, I can think of one exception to this. College campuses:
since when has ANYONE had the legally protected right to say whatever they want without fear of counterarguments or even [shudder] verbal attacks?...retreating to her 'safe space'.
By , at
Wed May 13, 11:36:00 AM:
"The question is how much damage this has done to the gay marriage cause."
Certainly some. (Full disclosure, I'm ambivalent).
All the world was reminded that CA recently sided with Prejean in a recent election.
All the world was reminded that the President has the same position as her (ouch!).
All the world saw Hilton's Gollum like performance on his video blog.
And, here in CA we are reminded of the bitter, vindictive, hateful followup to the defeat of the CA initiative with pro-gay marriage partisans scouring the donation reports to publicly embarrass and vilify those who donated to the proposition.
I suppose this is all just a part of how we as a diverse, vocal and democratic society work through contentious issues. I come down with TH on the question of whether this matter should be decided in the courts or legislatures.
Justice Ginsberg once remarked that she thought it was unfortunate that Roe v. Wade was decided by the Court. I believe her point was that a really divisive issue like abortion must find it's own equilibrium within society, and not have a resolution imposed from above---because it is not a stable solution and it probably discredits the Court.
When I was in high school the word "gay marriage" hadn't been invented. There was no need or reason for it. It's easy to be distracted by the tumult on the surface and miss the power of the currents below.
The tide will tip against angry change from above and Prejean will have been a factor.
M.E.
By Andrew X, at
Wed May 13, 12:27:00 PM:
RE: But since when has ANYONE had the legally protected right to say whatever they want without fear of counterarguments or even [shudder] verbal attacks?
Casandra, you are absolutely correct, and your argument is one I have made many times over the past year.
But the point is that the Left largely DOES beleive in a "right" to be shielded from any argument they don't like. This is the "hate speech laws" issue in a nutshell. It is they who are all about dis-allowing "hostile environments", dis-allowing anything that they can CALL racism (whether it actually is or not), etc etc.
No one has propesed "outlawing" the likes of Perez Hilton. What DOES need to happen, is that he needs to be treated exactly as he and his ilk are willing to treat a Klansman they may happen to come across. And even more importantly, from here on, when EVER we are attacked for being "hateful" it is time to swing back and hit hard, and show such poeple that we will not take such attacks lying down.
It is time to react to being attacked by the likes of Perez Hilton exactly as he would respond if someone specifically attacked him with anti-gay slurs. With both barrels and full broadsides, come what may. It is our cringing repspones ("we're NOT racist, we're NOT... we promise.... please don't think we are.... ) that allows Hilton and his ilk to do this with impunity.
By , at
Wed May 13, 07:42:00 PM:
Who cares. You all gave this cipher more than her 15 minutes of fame. Enough!!! More important things in the world to get upset about.
By Andrew X, at
Wed May 13, 09:47:00 PM:
- sigh -
Anon - What'd I just say? The "cipher" is not the issue. It's the contemptible behavior of her detractors, cipher nonwithstanding.
Many of us are "ciphers". i.e. not in the "elite". And this is how our "betters" will treat us at the drop of a hat.
All due respect, those "more important things in the world to get upset about" is EXACTLY what allows them to get away with it. Strangely enough, the likes of Hilton et al seem to feel there are NOT "more important things to get upset about", and thus they get away with their contemptible bahavior.
I, for one, say it is time to say "no more".
By Cassandra, at
Thu May 14, 10:46:00 AM:
It is our cringing responses ("we're NOT racist, we're NOT... we promise.... please don't think we are.... ) that allow Hilton and his ilk to do this with impunity.I have thought about this for a long time. Though I don't agree with you, I think that encapsulated in this comment is an extremely important insight.
I would re-phrase it slightly:
It is our cringing responses ("we're NOT racist, we're NOT... we promise.... please don't think we are.... ) that erode our credibility when we attempt to rebut the arguments of the LeftThe purpose of ad hominem attacks is twofold:
1. To distract your opponent from the real issue and put him on the defensive.
2. To disguise the fact that you failed to advance a convincing argument for whatever you are proposing.
To the extent that we insist on defending fellow conservatives from stupid, distracting ad hominem attacks rather than refusing to get upset or be distracted and keeping our eye on the freaking ball, we offer nothing but positive reinforcement to those who think personal attacks are an effective debate tactic.
We never learn :p
