This is, I suspect, an unpost

Susan Boyle and Carrie Prejean, objects of scorn:

In both cases we find people being treated as beneath contempt — as not meriting the slightest basic human decency — as, essentially, unpersons — unless and until they meet certain conditions. It so happened that Susan Boyle met those conditions by demonstrating an unsuspected and unlikely-seeming artistic talent. Carrie Prejean, meanwhile, excluded herself from those conditions by demonstrating an incorrect opinion.

This is graphable:


And the combination thereof:

The lesson for us all:

The priorities for someone wishing to be treated decently are clearly:

1. Conform to the correct opinions.
2. Have some artistic talent of some sort that will impress people.
3. Be beautiful.

At the very least, make sure you conform.

I am so screwed.

(Via Tatyana.)





30 comments

  1. Lisa paul »

    7 May 2009 · 4:38 pm

    I’m not sure Prejean is reviled for holding an “incorrect” opinion as she is for hypocrisy. She presumes to tell others what is “normal” and “natural” while flaunting her large silicon “paid for by others” breasts. She signs a contract swearing that she has participated in no cheesecake pictures (although in my mind, wouldn’t that be well within the job description of a beauty queen?), and continues to swear to that effect as more and more nudie shots of her turn up on the Innertubes.

    She would have been just fine if she’d just answered the pageant question this way: “Same sex marriage isn’t for me, so I won’t enter into one. All the rest of you, make your own choices accordingly.”

    Plus she’s dumb as dirt and, as pointed out, untalented. But again, not a barrier to Beauty Queendom. As my Gay friends say, “At least Anita Bryant could sing!”

  2. Tatyana »

    7 May 2009 · 5:04 pm

    Plus she’s dumb as dirt and, as pointed out, untalented.
    Gee, isn’t it what was said (from similar sources ) about Sarah Palin? Are you recycling that memo? How untalented of you.

    Your gay friends, Liza paul, including one “Pariz Hilton” (what a dumb-as-a-dirt name) have no business to judge female beauty contest. Oh yeah, I know they HAVE OPINIONS. Let them stick use them for familiar act. But they are not qualified, by their very nature. It’s like asking a leggless [from birth] cripple to judge the “lift” of balerinas. They understand female beauty as much as a pig understands oranges.

    As to the rest of your very, very unoriginal rant: it’s all explained here.

  3. Tatyana »

    7 May 2009 · 5:06 pm

    Correction:
    “Perez”. Or “Peretz”. Or even “Perues”. Same shit.

  4. fillyjonk »

    7 May 2009 · 5:24 pm

    Stupid me. And here I always thought you got treated decently by treating others decently in the first place.

    I guess we’ve gone off the Golden Rule standard, as well.

  5. CGHill »

    7 May 2009 · 5:55 pm

    I am of the opinion, such as it is, that cheesecake photos are de rigueur for beauty queens, except perhaps in Saudi Arabia.

    As for Mr Hilton, I always thought the pseudonym was the best thing about him.

  6. Tatyana »

    7 May 2009 · 6:14 pm

    …and seeing how dumb it is, the rest of him doesn’t seem to carry any appeal at all.

  7. Sonic Charmer »

    7 May 2009 · 6:15 pm

    CGHill: Thanks for the link.

    Lisa Paul writes:

    I’m not sure Prejean is reviled for holding an “incorrect” opinion as she is for hypocrisy. She presumes to tell others what is “normal” and “natural”

    “presumes to tell”? You mean when she was specifically and literally asked her opinion by a judge in a contest?

    By your own standards stated here the only way for her to have avoided her supposed “hypocrisy” would have been to answer the question differently. Which is to say: you revile her for having an incorrect opinion, you just dress it up in a pose against “hypocrisy”.

    And then you mention her boobs for some reason.

    Best,

  8. Lisa Paul »

    7 May 2009 · 8:24 pm

    Just pointing out that it’s funny that she’s become the authority on what’s “natural” in marriage, while having what is “unnatural” in a body.

    Anyway, the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. She’s entitled to her opinion. But then so are the people who react to that opinion.

    For her to cry foul and claim “her honest cost her the pagent” is bogus. Especially when the judges have said there was a big enough difference between her point score (how ARE these things scored?) and that of the eventual winner that she was never in any danger of taking the tiara.

    As for the cheesecakes shots, she’s entitled to have those as well. Except when she signs a contract for admission to the contest testifying that she has never done such a thing. That could strip her of her Miss California title, but not for her opinion, but for breach of contract.

  9. jen »

    7 May 2009 · 8:28 pm

    I didn’t have a problem so much with Prejean’s answer as I did with her comments on the circuit in the following days. “I did not give the politically correct answer, I gave the Biblically correct answer.” I blogged about this and ended up being maligned because I live in Oklahoma.

    What bothers me is that plenty of people (sane or not) think Beauty pageants aren’t Biblical…and the soft porn pictures – well, you could argue that they are a form of pornography.

  10. sya »

    7 May 2009 · 8:37 pm

    For some reason, this is making me think of Turing tests and fembots….

  11. CGHill »

    7 May 2009 · 8:40 pm

    According to some mindsets, certain pages of the old Sears, Roebuck catalog were “a form of pornography.”

    Me, I preferred Spiegel, but let’s not go there.

  12. Andrea Harris »

    7 May 2009 · 9:01 pm

    “Stupid me. And here I always thought you got treated decently by treating others decently in the first place.”

    That’s hypocrisy, in the eyes of the New Attitude, which isn’t all that new — it is a direct descendant of the “tell it like it is” Brutal Honesty movement of the 70s, which is a grandchild of the Holden Caulfield “No Phonies Allowed” movement of the 50s. Of course, it’s only hypocrisy if you reveal you have incorrect thoughts, as Miss Prejean did. If you are an unpleasant jerk famous for scurrilous gossip — sorry, amusing celebrity news — but you display fashionable beliefs and are a member of a currently-beloved minority group (Hilton is gay, and therefore by the standards of today a better person than a Christian) then you can get away with behavior that just a few years ago would have gotten you treated as a persona non grata.

    As for Miss Prejean’s loss, personally I think that the girl who won was prettier than her. But I’ve only seen a couple of photographs, so I could be mistaken. And prettiness might not even be the criteria she won on — usually all the contestants in these things are more or less equally pretty. The fact that such a charged question was asked of Miss Prejean makes me think she was somewhat set up. After all, I don’t think that the fact that Miss Prejean was Christian was a secret. But that’s just my suspicious mind. No doubt Lisa paul has a contemptuous remark that will make my fears look foolish.

  13. Lisa Paul »

    8 May 2009 · 12:07 am

    Who would have thought this would be such a hot button issue? But it occurs to me that it’s playing out differently in the rest of the country than it is in California. For those of you outside the Golden State, let me explain.

    The morning after her rambling answer to the judge in the pageant, there was no rioting in the street in California.

    In fact, the NEWS in this state was that, after a full year of a bitterly fought battle on Prop 8, she gave the answer she did. And the issue wasn’t that she was for or against gay marriage, but that she said she was “glad she lived in a state where there was a choice.”

    Huuuhhhh. NO there isn’t. A more than $80 million dollar campaign that absolutely saturated the airwaves and plastered every telephone pole with anti gay marriage rhetoric insured that this is a state where there is NOT a choice. The only legally sanctioned marriage here is between a man and a woman — the words of Prop 8.

    So to think you had a choice in California, you either had to be “dumb as dirt” or living in a cave for more than a year with no access to any radio, TV, newspapers, Internet…

    I heard of no outrage against her comments AT THE PAGEANT. Most people were shaking their heads and saying “And where was Miss California during the last year or so? How could she have missed this?”

    The anger started when she lost the pageant and then started a media blitz to all the conservative media outlets in the state, styling herself the spokesperson for traditional marriage. Even worse, she’s darkly hinting to all who will listen that it may be some sort of (perhaps Gay backed?) conspiracy that cost her the crown.

    Now we just want her to shut up and go away. Again, those of us not living under a rock for the last year or so heard all this stuff ad nauseum during the Prop 8 battle. We don’t want to hear it all again.

    Again, no one begrudges her saying whatever the hell she wants at a pageant. We usually don’t pay that much attention to what beauty contestants say. But NOW she’s set herself up as a spokesperson for a specific cause. So those opposed to that cause are feeling they have the right to disagree with her.

  14. paulsmos »

    8 May 2009 · 3:23 am

    As far as I’m concerned, all sodomites and their toadies can consume copious amounts of bat guano. Prop 8 passed, you pooftahs lost. I’m tired of anything to do with the letters LGBT. You want letters, try this ….STFU!! What you do in the privacy of your own godless hovel is your business; leave it out of the public domain. I couldn’t give a lusty crap that you feel like second class citizens. If I wanted to live on a diet of dead burnt babies, I’d be a pariah, too.

  15. Francis W. Porretto »

    8 May 2009 · 4:07 am

    “I’m tired of anything to do with the letters LGBT. You want letters, try this ….STFU!!”

    I think I have a new hero.

  16. Sonic Charmer »

    8 May 2009 · 5:42 am

    Lisa Paul

    Just pointing out that it’s funny that she’s become the authority on what’s “natural” in marriage

    Who said she’s “become the authority”? She was asked a question (a very dumb question for a beauty pageant btw) and gave her opinion. If her opinion had been pro-gay marriage, would you now be finding it “funny” that she’d “become the authority”? Of course not. So once again, the single thing she did to trigger your comments here is nothing more and nothing less than to have the wrong opinion.

    She’s entitled to her opinion. But then so are the people who react to that opinion.

    Right, and I’m entitled to point out when the latter are acting like rude, boorish, puerile, cliquish, and/or herdlike thought-police. We’re all entitled all around.

    For her to cry foul and claim “her honest cost her the pagent” is bogus.

    Pretty sure it was “Hilton” who said that her answer cost her the pageant. Perhaps you should direct this comment at him since he’s the one who said something (as you say) bogus, right?

    Now we just want her to shut up and go away.

    “Shut up and go away”. This is supposed to debunk my post about high-school type behavior?

    Again, no one begrudges her saying whatever the hell she wants at a pageant.

    Plenty of people clearly do from the way they’re behaving, including the guy that asked the question.

    We usually don’t pay that much attention to what beauty contestants say.

    Right – unless/until they say something wrong, i.e., give an incorrect opinion. Then they become unpersons, and so, the gloves come off: telling them to “shut up and go away” is fair game, digging up photos of them is fair game, discussing their boobs is fair game…. everything is fair game.

    But NOW she’s set herself up as a spokesperson for a specific cause. So those opposed to that cause are feeling they have the right to disagree with her.

    Which for some reason requires talking about her boobs, digging up photos on her, etc etc…

    I feel kinda guilty, you’re really making this easy.

  17. Lisa Paul »

    8 May 2009 · 7:57 am

    Again, no one seemed upset by her answer AT THE PAGEANT. I think everyone can guess that the Miss Universe Contest hired Perez Hilton to be a judge exactly in the hopes that he would ask the sort of question he did and goose up the ratings. What was the topic of discussion the next day was not whether Prejean was for or against gay marriage, but that she was completely oblivious to one of the biggest news stories in California. (If you thought the media was saturated with Obama and McCain ads during the election, you should have been in California. The two candidates combined didn’t account for as much political advertising as the Prop 8 proponents did. I mean the ads were EVERYWHERE including flyers on every telephone pole.)

    WHat sticks in everyone’s craw is that Prejean IS NOW setting herself up as an expert on what should constitute marriage. She’s made a whistlestop tour of every media outlet in the state it seems SINCE THE PAGEANT and is styling herself the defender of marriage (or perhaps “opposite marriage”, as she terms it.) So it’s her actions AFTER the pageant that are the issue. Not the blindsiding question Hilton asked her — which most people give her credit for answering honestly although with a surprising cluelessness about the whole Prop 8 thing.

    You are right that the Prop 8 people won. Which is why we’re all so sick of hearing about it. Prejean is causing the reaction here that would probably be caused in your neck of the woods if an army of Obama media flacks came blasting into town with a big campaign about why Obama should be President.

    Your reaction would no doubt be: “Yeah, we had that election. You won. Now go away and get off the airways.” Which is exactly what we’re feeling.

    And it all becomes somewhat annoying when someone with what others might term “unnatural attributes” is lecturing the rest of us on what is “natural”. If you are going to moralize for others, you kind of have to be above suspicion. Ask Larry Craig and Ted Haggard about that one.

  18. Lisa Paul »

    8 May 2009 · 8:50 am

    Again, let me stress that there was no flak, at least not in California, about Prejean’s IN PAGEANT comments. Even our most avid proponent of same-sex marriage rights, SF Mayor Gavin Newsome, defended her IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PAGEANT:

    “I want to challenge her on her point-of-view,” Newsom said in an appearance. “She challenged me on my point-of-view and she spoke her conscience. What more can you ask? I speak my conscience, she should speak hers. So, I think she’s being a little unfairly maligned.”

    Other California media pundits agreed with about the same sort of shoulder-shrugging attitude: “She’s entitled to voice her opinion.”

    Believe me, the always shrill Perez Hilton was not liked for his comments about her on his blog. It was clear he was trying to capitalize on a controversy of his own making to spin out his already overextended 15 minutes of fame.

    If Carrie Prejean had just left it alone, the tide of sympathy was certainly in her favor.

    BUT she has now styled herself a spokesperson for the issue and is espousing her beliefs on every outlet that will have her. So that suddenly makes her something different than a pageant runner up. Now she’s made herself a pundit and a spokesperson. She’s now lecturing and pontificating us all on what God intends and how we should live. As such, she’s open to debate, criticism and disagreement. And as every pundit knows, that debate can get pretty harsh, especially if there are some skeletons in your closet.

    This is NOT a story of a poor little beauty queen who flubbed an unfair answer. If it were, there would be no controversy at least in this state.

  19. McGehee »

    8 May 2009 · 10:02 am

    If Carrie Prejean had just left it alone

    Unfortunate, then, that it’s so “normal” when attacked or criticized — as she was by this Perez Hilton thing — to respond.

    She should’ve just kept her pretty little mouth shut, shouldn’t she?

  20. Lisa Paul »

    8 May 2009 · 12:20 pm

    If she had responded to Perez Hilton specifically on his behavior, public opinion here — even in the Gay community — would have remained on HER side. And she would truly have fit the role in which you are trying to cast her: poor little beauty queen who spoke her heart’s honest truth and was unfairly maligned by an Internet blowhard.

    No one argued with her right to her beliefs. However, I’d suggest that a smarter, more strategic move — since there was originally was so much sympathy for her — would have been to let others denounce her attackers. Believe me, there were plenty of editorials here by Gay Rights advocates denouncing Perez Hilton and Trump for setting up this manufactured controversy.

    However, she’s done something very different. She’s stepped out of the role of Miss California, styled herself a pundit, and is now showing up on all the talk shows, staging media events and allying herself with a number of political groups.

    As such, she’s become a different animal. She’s now a political figure, a TV pundit, someone who aspires to affect public policy, and, in many interviews, a lecturer to the rest of us on what God wants and doesn’t want us to do. In that role, she’s fair game to have her views and statements questioned and her apparent hypocrisy revealed.

    (Ironically, this turnabout position is 180 degrees from her rambling answer at the pageant which did seem to say: “I don’t believe in it personally, but it’s everyone’s choice.” So now she’s even contradicting herself.)

  21. jen »

    8 May 2009 · 2:25 pm

    hahahahahahaaha. i remember the Sears Catalog controversy. LOL! and, Spiegel. Oh, lord. $400 for a camisole. Ahhhhhh. The 80s. You can buy that same camisole today for 1 dolla at the Dollar Tree.

  22. Sonic Charmer »

    9 May 2009 · 7:18 am

    Lisa Paul,

    1. FYI, contrary to your capitalized assertions, some people in the audience did indeed boo her answer. There are contemporaneous reports saying so. Mr. “Hilton” said so. (Not sure why this matters or would have justified anything that came later; but, for the record….)

    2. Re: “clueless about Prop 8”, all you really seem to mean by this is that she opposes gay marriage and expressed that view. In other words, knowledgeable about Prop 8 = supports gay marriage, while opposes gay marriage = clueless about Prop 8. As this is just (yet) another way of saying she holds the wrong opinion, I’m not sure how it’s supposed to debunk anything I said.

    3. The shrill juvenile criticism of her began before she did anything you can term “styling herself the spokesperson” for anything. It began immediately after the pageant. Best I can tell Mr. “Hilton” started shrieking about it on his blog that very night. You seem to be trying to reverse all this chronology so that you can pretend the former is merely a reaction to the latter (as if that would make it ok). It is not so.

    4. I will say I agree with this part: “As such, she’s open to debate, criticism and disagreement.” Hear hear! I’m all for open, adult, reasoned debate, criticism, and disagreement – of her views.

    But that is not what we get. Instead what we get is snap, reactionary, sexist, rude, crude comments like ‘dumb b**tch’, ‘needs a brain implant’, gabbing about her bosoms, gabbing about photos of her, gabbing about her parents, ridiculing her endlessly, etc etc etc., and the (overused and abused) concept of ‘hypocrisy’ used as an endless excuse to investigate/dig up anything and everything about her biography.

    For your information: that is not “debate”. That is what people do when they don’t have real arguments to debate with. It is, instead, the reaction of insecure adolescent bullies.

    I actually haven’t seen anything whatsoever resembling or meriting the term debate over her views. All I’ve seen is the equivalent of playground snickering. And that was my point.

    Best,

  23. Lisa Paul »

    9 May 2009 · 10:10 am

    It helps to read the whole argument, not just cherry pick a sentence here and there.

    1. I never said she wasn’t booed or that Perez Hilton didn’t malign her. My point was that, the morning after, the editorials and pundits in California were for the most part roundly condemning Hilton and the booing of her. Public sympathy was on her side, even from prominent Gay Marriage activists (see Gavin Newsome quote above) who mostly felt the situation had been engineered by Trump and HIlton for their mutual publicity purposes. We are all in agreement that the booing and Hiltons comments were out of line. The consensus was that the whole stunt did not advance the Gay Marriage cause.

    2. Her “cluelessness”, as I pointed out, had NOT to do with her stand on the issue, but that she seemed unaware of the outcome of the vote. She stated that she was “glad she lived in a country where there was a choice.” The whole import of the passage of Prop 8 was to ensure that there was no choice. Gay marriage is illegal/not recognized in CA. With only four states now recognizing it, there can’t really be said to be choice in the country. California pundits were amazed that with all the space this issue took up in the news, that she was unaware of these facts. I’m not sure what a beauty queen’s duties are, but it seems at least a cursory familiarity with one of the biggest, if not the biggest news stories in the state for well over a year might be one of them. I’m just going by the whole “she represents California” thing. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe knowledge of California is not a requirement.

    3. You requote mostly Mr. Hilton, who, as I think we both agree, was not part of the “debate” but a publicity seeker roundly condemned on all sides. I do think her breasts are fodder for the debate when she herself turns the subject to what is “Natural in God’s eyes.” Some of us may question whether silicon breast would be “natural”. It’s as valid a question as to whether God would consider Gay Marriage “natural”. She brought up the point about “naturalness”. It’s now fair game.

  24. Tatyana »

    9 May 2009 · 10:21 am

    If anything the above conversation is a great illustration of a great proficiency leftists have: a proficiency in demagogy.

  25. CGHill »

    9 May 2009 · 10:59 am

    “With only four states now recognizing it, there can’t really be said to be choice in the country.”

    Because it’s impossible to imagine that forty-six states (or, if you believe Barack Obama, fifty-three), might choose otherwise?

  26. Sonic Charmer »

    9 May 2009 · 1:54 pm

    Lisa Paul today:

    1. I never said she wasn’t booed

    Lisa Paul yesterday: “no one seemed upset by her answer AT THE PAGEANT.”

    I’ll let you two settle that one amongst yourselves.

    She stated that she was “glad she lived in a country where there was a choice.” The whole import of the passage of Prop 8 was to ensure that there was no choice.

    You seem to be arguing against one particular interpretation of the word ‘choice’, which was not the interpretation she was using: it seems clear from context that the act of voting was the ‘choice’ she was referring to. Californians had a choice as to whether their state should certify same-sex marriages, and evidently chose no. The fact that you (presumably) don’t like the choice they made doesn’t invalidate her statement. Neither does (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreting it.

    You requote mostly Mr. Hilton, who, as I think we both agree, was not part of the “debate” but a publicity seeker roundly condemned on all sides.

    I’d like to believe he is roundly condemned on all sides. I don’t see that.

    I agree he is “not part of the debate”. Nobody is. There is no actual “debate” taking place. There is just schoolyard mudslinging and namecalling in a reactionary attempt at character assassination.

    In any event, I cite Hilton because my comments were directed at Hilton (and Olbermann and folks like that). If you’re saying I need not quote such people because everyone agrees their behavior has been reprehensible, then we’re done here, because you’re conceding the point I was making.

    I do think her breasts are fodder for the debate when she herself turns the subject to what is “Natural in God’s eyes.”

    I disagree. Contrary to what most people nowadays seem to think, “hypocrisy” is not a bulletproof argument. It’s not an argument at all. It is a form of changing the subject (and as I said, a loophole through which all sorts of dirty uncivilized mudslinging somehow becomes allowed).

    Let’s play devil’s advocate and suppose you’re right that she has breast implants and that this is unnatural. So therefore she’s a “hypocrite”. But so what? How would that make her claims about marriage wrong? What does it even have to do with what she’s saying about marriage? I’m not even saying I agree with her about marriage necessarily, but to argue against her you have to actually argue against her.

    “You’re a hypocrite because lookit what I found out about you” is not a real argument. It is part and parcel of the schoolyard behavior I am identifying and deploring. Best,

  27. Lisa Paul »

    10 May 2009 · 9:34 pm

    When you talk about choice, YOU may be talking about the choice to vote. But if you read her exact response, it was pretty clear she was talking about the choice to choose the type of marriage you want: same sex or “opposite marriage”, as she termed it.

    Again, taking one sentence completely out of context, my entire paragraph pointed out that “Californians did not riot in the streets” the day after the contest. I then pointed out that “the news in the state”, which referred to editorials, news stories and leaders on both sides of the issue were saying. In the news sources I get here, no one had Perez Hilton on. He was mentioned only in context of the events at the pageant and in passing by the people interviewed who mostly said he’d not acted well and had, in fact, set the movement back.

    There are always nuts on both sides of any issue. I think we all look to people with some credibility as the real people who are “in the debate”. Do you claim as one of your own that whack job fundamentalist preacher who pickets funerals of gay people and shouts at their bereaved parents that their children are burning in hell? Probably not. Whether you agree with him or not, most sentient people would agree that traumatizing parents at their children’s funerals is beyond the Pale. So, I usually don’t assume he speaks for my conservative friends.

    We may disagree on this, but I think if you set yourself up as a spokesperson for a particular cause — you’d better not be in a position to be accused of the very thing you are condemning or fighting against.

    For instance, Larry Craig who has been an opponent of Gay Rights, but apparently slips out of the closet in restrooms. Or, if you believe Craig was set up, how about Ted Haggard, who preaches against Gays, but admits he’s had Gay affairs. Or, if you’d like me to draw an example from my side of the aisle, if you are in a position to enforce taxpayer payments, you darn well better have paid your taxes (Timothy Geithner.) Therefore, if you are on a crusade using the criteria that something is “unnatural”, you’d better be as natural as Ivory Snow (but perhaps not as natural as their one-time spokesmodel, porn star Marilyn Chambers!)

    But we’ve probably beat this dead horse to a bloody pulp. Let’s call a truce.

    Apparently this whole issue was covered in a very different way in California than it was in the rest of the country. In California, the debate was very civil and with much sympathy to her treatment at the pageant.

    Please believe me, when I say, people who are credible in this debate on the pro-Gay marriage side, from the Mayor of San Francisco, to nearly every editorialist, politician and Gay leader who chose to address the issue in the media here, found Perez Hilton and Trump’s stunt reprehensible. They were prepared to, and did defend Prejean’s right to say and believe what she wants.

    Until she became a spokesperson on the other side of the debate. Which puts her and any actions that seem to contradict her position very fairly in the debate. And she HAS set herself up as a spokesman — engineering press conferences and media events, signing on as a spokesperson for an anti-gay marriage political action group, etc. etc. Again, maybe that didn’t make the news elsewhere. But here’s she’s ALL over the media. Which makes me wonder if she isn’t, at heart, as big seeker of publicity at any cost as Perez Hilton and Donald Trump.

  28. CGHill »

    10 May 2009 · 10:09 pm

    With that in mind, let me throw in this crazed notion from Robert Stacy McCain:

    Given evidence of Prejean’s long and friendly association with … pro-gay pageant officials, my tipster speculates that Perez Hilton’s “gotcha” question about gay marriage was actually a setup. The whole point of the stunt, my tipster speculates, was to catapult Carrie Prejean to national celebrity as an anti-gay spokeswoman. And then — carrying the conspiracy theory forward — Prejean will have a “road to Damascus” conversion, claiming to have “seen the light” and declaring herself in favor of same-sex marriage.

    Paranoid tin-foil hat stuff? Yeah, sure. But weirder things have happened.

    And the price of tin is up a third since the beginning of spring.

  29. Lisa Paul »

    11 May 2009 · 1:23 am

    Sorry, I’m not buying that Perez Hilton was willing to share the spotlight with anyone. His question and responses afterwards were solely in the quest for more hits on his website. Which he got apparently in magnitudes. Trump’s inclusion of him as a judge was done in the hopes that he would do exactly what he did and bolster the sagging ratings of the pageant. And Carrie Prejean? She’s proven herself to be exactly as opportunistic as Trump and Hilton in making media hay out of PR opportunities. I think it’s been every man, or Beauty Queen, for him/herself in this fracas.

  30. CGHill »

    11 May 2009 · 7:10 am

    It would certainly seem unlikely that Perez Hilton wasn’t thinking first (and second) of Perez Hilton.

    On the upside, I’m been avoiding all such events for the last couple of decades; I am somewhat relieved to note that such avoidance has been eminently justified.

RSS feed for comments on this post