Californ-I-A
It's time to discuss a subject I really didn't ever think I'd touch here: Miss America.
The scoop: Miss California came in second in the Miss America contest literally because of one question: she was asked by Perez Hilton what her stance on gay marriage was. While being as polite and dignified as possible, she answered that her family and religious beliefs led her to the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. She apologized if she offended anyone, but said she felt it important to answer honestly and say what she believed in.
It was the best possible answer one could give on such a controversial issue. She gave her honest opinion--something so rarely seen at these events--but did not come off as condescending or hateful towards gays.
Hilton looked angry immediately at the answer, and not only bragged afterward at ruining her score--which, as the Runner Up, proved that that question did, indeed, cost her the crown--but also called her a "bitch" and said that if she has won he would have run onstage and pulled the crown off her head.
There is an outstanding report on msnbc.com, where Matt Lauer interviews both Hilton and Miss California. Go check it out; my favorite part is the, "Oh shit, I am totally FUCKED" expression on Cali's face as the question was being asked. Remember that as it will be important later.
I don't want this post to be about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed; that topic has already been addressed here. My questions are thus: should she have answered honestly or given a token answer, and should she have been penalized for giving said honest answer?
**********************************************************************************
To me, this debate symbolizes everything that is wrong with modern America. First, let's look at the pagaent itself.
The Miss America pagaent is truly dead as something that young women should aspire to if worthless fucks such as this goofball Perez Hilton are judging. First, why is this asshole a judge? What are his qualifications? What has he done that has earned him a spot on a national stage? Apparently he's another creepy, flamboyant, rude blogger to the stars who has done ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING TO HELP BENEFIT SOCIETY. Nothing. I'm a blogger, too, and I enjoy doing it, but you are not helping society and the human race advance by doing so. It is what it is. Yet this guy is somehow qualified to judge who is the best of young women in America? Are you fucking kidding me?
If his background was not proof enough that he shouldn't have been there in the first place, then his actions after the contest surely are proof that he doesn't belong. Referring to one of the top 50 young women in the country as a bitch? Really? That's how you want a judge to act? Bragging that he would have made an embarrassing and illegal (grabbing the crown off her head would be Battery) scene had the result not been what HE had decided should be? Oh so that's how the contest works! A panel of judges gets to decide, but if their decision isn't what Perez Hilton wants, then he gets to attack Miss America! That's a great contest! Finally, his nonsensical ramblings in the Lauer interview (basically a spoiled child screaming over and over again, "I didn't get what I wanted, so screw her!") show that he doesn't have the basic intelligence to judge anyone. He didn't explain his position with grace and dignity. He rambled, contradicted himself, and looked like the worthless asshole he is. Truly a fantastic choice as a judge.
So we've placed an idiotic, worthless blowhard in a position of authority because he caught a niche of celebrity. Awesome, and sadly too true of modern America. What's next?
Next, of course, is freedom of speech and the consequences therein, or should she have been penalized for her answer? No, I don't think she should have been penalized, regardless of which way she answered the question. To me what should have been judged is how she answered the question: did she answer with grace and aplomb; did she state her opinion clearly; was she fair in her assessment of the situation; did she intentionally try to demean/antagonize those who believe the opposite of what she believes? She obviously did a great job on all of those criteria. What was most refreshing, to me, too, was that she actually answered the question, even though she knew it would hurt her chances. Again, look at the expression on her face as she is being asked the question. She isn't caught off guard at all. She was praying that this question didn't come to her, because she knew that her honest answer would unquestionably hurt her. IN SPITE OF THAT, she answered the question with her beliefs instead of the PC answer that she knew is the norm.
Too often in America today in all walks of life--politics, entertainment, sports, the news, even in our day to day lives--our era of over-political correctness rules the day. People are afraid to say ANYTHING because it might be perceived as unpopular by some/anyone. It is my firm belief that it is a huge problem in America today. What America needs most of in the future is people who are willing to stand up and state their points/beliefs, and do so in a way that isn't meant to attack/insult/demonize those who believe the opposite (as happens so often in politics today). It's just an honest assessment of their opinion; it's simply an honest answer of a question asked to them. THAT is what America needs more of, not the nonsensical, unintelligable dribble that so often is spewed forth at pagaents such as these...and in political debates...and in interviews...and in answers to questions asked of coworkers or others we meet on a day to day basis. Stop CYAing, and just answer the damn question. And sadly, in today's world, that's not what is acceptable, which is why Miss Califonia is the runner up.
That being said, to all of those who point out that she should have gone with the neutral or PC answer, I have a response for you: Thank you for helping to make America weak. Thank you for helping to ruin the future of discourse not just here, but in the world. Thank you for continuing the assault on honest, frank conversation, and instead encouraging the era of cowardice that we live in now where everyone is scared to point out that the Emperor is--in point of fact--standing there butt-ass naked. Yes, we all know that the safe answer would be to be PC. Thanks for that brilliantanalysis. The safe answer, though, isn't always the best answer, and if all you care about is winning some silly contest that no one really cares about anyway, then continue to destroy the world around you and play it safe. The best answer, though, is the one that helps make the world a better place by encouraging people to be honest without being insulting, and that shows people that it is okay to have an opinion and state it simply. That's the best answer. And that's what people get remembered for, and that will allow Miss California to look at herself in the mirror at night. Can you?
The scoop: Miss California came in second in the Miss America contest literally because of one question: she was asked by Perez Hilton what her stance on gay marriage was. While being as polite and dignified as possible, she answered that her family and religious beliefs led her to the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. She apologized if she offended anyone, but said she felt it important to answer honestly and say what she believed in.
It was the best possible answer one could give on such a controversial issue. She gave her honest opinion--something so rarely seen at these events--but did not come off as condescending or hateful towards gays.
Hilton looked angry immediately at the answer, and not only bragged afterward at ruining her score--which, as the Runner Up, proved that that question did, indeed, cost her the crown--but also called her a "bitch" and said that if she has won he would have run onstage and pulled the crown off her head.
There is an outstanding report on msnbc.com, where Matt Lauer interviews both Hilton and Miss California. Go check it out; my favorite part is the, "Oh shit, I am totally FUCKED" expression on Cali's face as the question was being asked. Remember that as it will be important later.
I don't want this post to be about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed; that topic has already been addressed here. My questions are thus: should she have answered honestly or given a token answer, and should she have been penalized for giving said honest answer?
**********************************************************************************
To me, this debate symbolizes everything that is wrong with modern America. First, let's look at the pagaent itself.
The Miss America pagaent is truly dead as something that young women should aspire to if worthless fucks such as this goofball Perez Hilton are judging. First, why is this asshole a judge? What are his qualifications? What has he done that has earned him a spot on a national stage? Apparently he's another creepy, flamboyant, rude blogger to the stars who has done ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING TO HELP BENEFIT SOCIETY. Nothing. I'm a blogger, too, and I enjoy doing it, but you are not helping society and the human race advance by doing so. It is what it is. Yet this guy is somehow qualified to judge who is the best of young women in America? Are you fucking kidding me?
If his background was not proof enough that he shouldn't have been there in the first place, then his actions after the contest surely are proof that he doesn't belong. Referring to one of the top 50 young women in the country as a bitch? Really? That's how you want a judge to act? Bragging that he would have made an embarrassing and illegal (grabbing the crown off her head would be Battery) scene had the result not been what HE had decided should be? Oh so that's how the contest works! A panel of judges gets to decide, but if their decision isn't what Perez Hilton wants, then he gets to attack Miss America! That's a great contest! Finally, his nonsensical ramblings in the Lauer interview (basically a spoiled child screaming over and over again, "I didn't get what I wanted, so screw her!") show that he doesn't have the basic intelligence to judge anyone. He didn't explain his position with grace and dignity. He rambled, contradicted himself, and looked like the worthless asshole he is. Truly a fantastic choice as a judge.
So we've placed an idiotic, worthless blowhard in a position of authority because he caught a niche of celebrity. Awesome, and sadly too true of modern America. What's next?
Next, of course, is freedom of speech and the consequences therein, or should she have been penalized for her answer? No, I don't think she should have been penalized, regardless of which way she answered the question. To me what should have been judged is how she answered the question: did she answer with grace and aplomb; did she state her opinion clearly; was she fair in her assessment of the situation; did she intentionally try to demean/antagonize those who believe the opposite of what she believes? She obviously did a great job on all of those criteria. What was most refreshing, to me, too, was that she actually answered the question, even though she knew it would hurt her chances. Again, look at the expression on her face as she is being asked the question. She isn't caught off guard at all. She was praying that this question didn't come to her, because she knew that her honest answer would unquestionably hurt her. IN SPITE OF THAT, she answered the question with her beliefs instead of the PC answer that she knew is the norm.
Too often in America today in all walks of life--politics, entertainment, sports, the news, even in our day to day lives--our era of over-political correctness rules the day. People are afraid to say ANYTHING because it might be perceived as unpopular by some/anyone. It is my firm belief that it is a huge problem in America today. What America needs most of in the future is people who are willing to stand up and state their points/beliefs, and do so in a way that isn't meant to attack/insult/demonize those who believe the opposite (as happens so often in politics today). It's just an honest assessment of their opinion; it's simply an honest answer of a question asked to them. THAT is what America needs more of, not the nonsensical, unintelligable dribble that so often is spewed forth at pagaents such as these...and in political debates...and in interviews...and in answers to questions asked of coworkers or others we meet on a day to day basis. Stop CYAing, and just answer the damn question. And sadly, in today's world, that's not what is acceptable, which is why Miss Califonia is the runner up.
That being said, to all of those who point out that she should have gone with the neutral or PC answer, I have a response for you: Thank you for helping to make America weak. Thank you for helping to ruin the future of discourse not just here, but in the world. Thank you for continuing the assault on honest, frank conversation, and instead encouraging the era of cowardice that we live in now where everyone is scared to point out that the Emperor is--in point of fact--standing there butt-ass naked. Yes, we all know that the safe answer would be to be PC. Thanks for that brilliantanalysis. The safe answer, though, isn't always the best answer, and if all you care about is winning some silly contest that no one really cares about anyway, then continue to destroy the world around you and play it safe. The best answer, though, is the one that helps make the world a better place by encouraging people to be honest without being insulting, and that shows people that it is okay to have an opinion and state it simply. That's the best answer. And that's what people get remembered for, and that will allow Miss California to look at herself in the mirror at night. Can you?
Labels: Free Speach, Miss America, PC
posted by Michael Pondrom at 12:08 PM
3 Comments:
I agree with your assessment.
Technically it was the Miss USA pageant. You might be tempted to ask why I know that information or why I'm aware that there is a difference, but on second thought I think you'll remember exactly why I know that. :)
I agree with you, and I am tired of politicizing things that should not be political. If someone gives a coherent answer in English that’s what they should be judged on, not having the “right” answer.
But I think this points to a bigger issue that Americans need to face. Proponents of homomarriage really, truly, believe that being against homomarriage is the moral equivalent of being a racist. I think we should take them at their word. That means that being against homomarriage should have the same legal and social consequences as being a racist has in today’s society. We should not pretend that would not entail significant restrictions on individuals rights to free speech, religious liberty, and freedom of association. It will.
The ugliest example of the direction we are going so far is the campaign against the Mormons in California. Why did they pick on the Mormons for supporting marriage? Why not pick on Catholics or the black community (which voted in favor of marriage)? Because Mormons are kind of a strange minority and not well-liked or understood (just ask Mitt Romney). And since this is Hollywood, they couldn’t just blame it on the Jews, as would be traditional when looking for a scapegoat. That is ugly politics.
I will not pretend to know how this issue is going to play out. I have a hard time thinking of another issue in which a committed minority has pushed so hard for something that is so clearly opposed by a majority of Americans. Unfortunately, I fear that this will be “decided” not by any democratic process, but by how many nominations Obama gets to the US Supreme Court. I think the Supreme Court hates being less progressive than the lawless state supreme courts who have been pushing this.
Well said, Mikey.
Post a Comment
<< Home