Newsom's Uncomfortable Interview With Hank Plante
Chilling Account of a Muni Mugging
-thumb-110x110-460161.jpg)
Cops Get Tough With UC Berkeley Protesters
This Could Be Our Skyline, In a Couple of Decades
Jim Hammer Named Police Commissioner
Sleep easy, defenders of free speech and a vengeful God. Pro-discrimination Miss California, the lying whore who famously told the audience at the Miss USA pageant that same-sex marriage was icky and wrong, will get to keep her crown. See, after Carrie Prejean became a spokeswoman for anti-gay bigotry, a spokeswoman who also failed to disclose that she had posed nude for cash when she was a teen, many thought the 21-year-old San Diego native should be dethroned. However, while the "USA pageant strongly criticized some of the actions of title-holder Carrie Prejean," pageant officials said it's "not their decision whether she should be stripped of her crown." Only Donald Trump, who owns the rights to the annual Boring Sluts of America competition -- remember, folks, this wasn't the Miss America pageant, which is typically thought of as a klassy glass of Chardonnay compared to the 3 a.m. bodyshot that is the Miss USA pageant -- can make that decision.
Miss California Gets to Keep Title, Says Pageant Officials
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (28) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
i 'm new to sfist.com I was amazed at SFMOMA Avedon photo exhibit. i've done some research and writt
[more]
Great job with the Ms Bryant photo.
Nice similes.
Hey Man, it's a free country.
Agree to disagree.
No wait, I forgot. All of the Left just changed their mind and have now adopted George W conflict resolution strategies.
You’re either with us or you're dead.
What does basic rights have to do with left/right wing? Why are you trying to polarize the issue?
Does she also get to keep her tits?
Does she also get to keep her tits?
This thread is useless without photos.
It just outrages that they let someone keep the Miss California title when she has the same position on gay marrige as President Obama.
Left wing bigotry and hate is just as ugly as right wing bigotry and hate. Just sayin.
that's just not true. at all.
but nice try.
oh, and that you view this as a left-wing/right-wing issue is creepy in its own right. ew.
i would totally give you "lying hypocrite" or "lying bigot," but honestly your throwing around of the words "slut" and "whore" in here really, really bother me. i don't like her or agree with her (nor do i like pageants), but that doesn't give me the right to throw around misogynistic slurs.
there's nothing wrong with being a 'whore' or 'slut.' really, i would know.
The way you use the word "whore" says otherwise, Brock.
Take a deep breath, and read this through before you click "reply":
The reason why this is seen by many as a left vs. right issue is because people who support the right wing are generally against equal marriage rights; "right-wing" is a reasonable umbrella term to encompass both Christian fundamentalists and strict constructionists.
Sorry Brock, but bigotry and hate are bigotry and hate, no matter what direction it comes from.
The woman was asked a leading question and gave an answer that simply stated her opinion and how she came by it. I have yet to see any footage from the pageant where she said anything beyond that. Has anyone else? As far as I can tell, she didn't go further until after Perez, Brock, et al. started pitching a hissy fit. Only then did she go out on tour are started spewing nonsense. (Point being that if people had just made a face and GBTW, she never would have been put on the bully pulpit in the first place.)
Whether you like her view or not, she speaks for a substantial number of people. From all of the polling I've seen, the country seems to be split right down the middle on equal marriage rights. The tide's already turning, by this time next year, she'll be in a clear minority, and it's only downhill from there. Although we shouldn't submit questions of rights to popular vote, we do. The solution to that is obvious: get more people that support your cause to vote.
People are entitled to a view, and to express it, even if it's an ill-informed and hateful one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we consider that a core value in this country?
As far as being a "lying whore" goes, I for one would love to see her take up sex work. She looks like the type that would do gonzo porn. But "posing nude"? Unless Brock is viewing pictures the rest of us aren't, I have yet to see anything sleazier than garden-variety fashion shots: no nipple, no catflaps, no starfish. Jeez, we've seen more of Lydia Hearst's tender bits in the last week than we have of Carrie Prejean's.
(What's the accepted definition of "semi-nude" anyway? "Full breast with nipple and, covered bottom" is the one I've gone with for the last 30 years. Anyone have something better?)
Nevertheless, she should have been more forthcoming about her portfolio from the get-go. So she lied: "stretched the truth" is closer to the reality.
I'm sorry to be so rational. I know that's not allowed on the Internets, but I just can't help myself. Please forgive me.
According to your argument, we should accept Nazis, the pro-slavery movement, people in favor of genocide, etc. I bet you wouldn't have called Brock a bigot if he had been picking on a Nazi, would you?
But then you spent several paragraphs on a very simple point: the reason people use homosexuality as an "issue" because it's (currently) socially acceptable to hate on gays.
Pretending this is acceptable is simply not an option. Hating someone for their opinions is perfectly valid; opinions can change. Hating someone for the way they are made is not.
First, I'm pretty sure I never called Brock a bigot in the first place. But when he implied that nobody on the left could be a hate-filled bigot, I had to call shenanigans.
Second, I'm not real big on applying today's standards too far back into the past. (Something tells me that we're not going to look good to people living in 2250.)
Now that we have that out of the way, I'll take your points in no particular order.
a) There were Nazis and then there were Nazis. Not all members of the Party were evil, although it makes them easier to hate in retrospect. So to go back to your hypothetical, it would depend on the Nazi, I guess.
b) Actually, I would say that it's not socially acceptable to hate on gays in most places. But many people distinguish between "hating on gays" and "equal marriage rights" and most of that is tied up with their religion. (My mother was like this until recently, for example.) Since an awful lot of those people are 50+, they'll be dying off soon. With the exception of some fools like Ms. Prejean, the younger generations aren't terribly upset about equal marriage rights.
c) So, the question is: should we accept genocidal maniacs and white supremacists (since we don't have that many Nazis or slave traders left)? Of course not. But to compare these groups to someone who simply believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is overdoing it, and although it may make you feel better, it's kind of counterproductive. We're getting there anyway, faster than I thought possible. (Six states including Iowa, and 2009 isn't half over? Pinch me, I'm dreaming.)
So, before you accuse me of not looking at broader implications, I suggest that you turn down your hyperbole a notch or three.
"First, I'm pretty sure I never called Brock a bigot in the first place. But when he implied that nobody on the left could be a hate-filled bigot, I had to call shenanigans."
Once again, you're wrong -- even amid your impressive powers of bolding. Yes, there are, as I have mentioned many, many times in the past, loads of hate-filled, left-wing nuts out there. (Welcome to the site, by the way!) They aren't, however, as scary as right-wing nuts. This is inarguable, my dear South Park fan.
Depends on your perspective, I guess. What makes a right-wing nutjob scarier than a left-wing one? I'm dying to know.
Right-wingers always choose hollow points.
See, now we're getting somewhere.
Godwin's Law FTW!
Oh, and for the record I'm not gay and really have nothing at stake here. It just pisses me off when people try to make an argument without considering the broader implications.
You're not gay? Don't worry, I won't hold that against you. (kidding...)
Actually, I think much of the problem is that the people who are against marriage equality are somehow convinced that they have something at stake here. That's why they're so upset.
Example: I remember one conversation with Mom where she claimed that the sanctity of marriage was on the line, to which I responded, "This is America. The government's not in the business of sanctifying anything." (I think that flipped one of her switches, because we had a few go-arounds after that, but for the last six months or so, she seems to have accepted the reality that equal marriage is coming and fast.)
The bigger question is, why would a woman who relies so heavily on her appearance make the blatant misstep of pissing off queers?
Does Prejean honestly think that she can turn over her fragile looks to Geneva's House of Beauty and not step on to the street looking like a caricature dancehall girl?
Anyway it's all a moot point; she's going to waddle out of that creationist college pregnant as a barnyard sow.
Just remember, stupid people are people too.
Unfortunately.
Quote of the day: "she's going to waddle out of that creationist college pregnant as a barnyard sow." Love it.
Hope she doesn't plan on breastfeeding the little spawn. Silicon does not give milk.
Silicon ≠ silicone. The first is an element, the second is a polymer.
(the more you know....)
I simply cannot understand the supposed controversy over the idea that a woman who is winning an award based entirely on her physical appearance is somehow thought questionable or in danger of losing it due to posing nude. I mean, shouldn't that be encouraged? Should it not be a part of the competition itself? The crazy prudish nature of the country will never make any sort of sense to me. We award someone with, essentially, "girl we most want to see naked" and then throw a fit when she she either poses nude or nude photos of her at an even younger age are revealed.