Sunday, May 03, 2009

Wherein Harrogate Expresses Disgust for Perez Hilton, Keith Olbermann, and Others

This whole flap over Carrie Prejean is so stupid. Here are some observations:

1)Perez Hilton is a paparazzi imbecile. The Rhetorical Situation is that he was judging a Donald Trump event. First of all. And so that's where his ethos starts.

2)Perez Hilton has been all over cable television and video blogging about how Prejean shouldn't have injected politics and religion into the pageant. BUT HE ASKED THE FUCKING QUESTION. What was she supposed to do, lie? This is like the worst caricature of liberal academic "political correctness" come to light. David Horowitz must be so pleased.

3)What assholes Olbermann and this other callow, snippity paparazzi hound look like in the clip below. Can you believe that Olbermann said that the flap makes Perez Hilton look like an "intellectual titan"????? Fucking seriously.

4)Anyone who would object that Prejean is taking advantage of her newfound Rightist celebrity by touring the pundit circuit, all Harrogate can say is, so what? It was "liberal" pundits that fired the first shots, and went out of their way to demonize her for answering the question.

5)Anyone who would object that idiot rightist pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh have turned her into a hero, once again showing the banality of the Right: Harrogate acknowledges that there is some truth to this inasmuch as Prejean is clearly no political theorist.

At the same time however, again, let's remember that it was the ridiculousness of Perez Hilton that threw this into the blaring media lights. Let's also remember this:

6)Barack Obama is on record opposing gay marriage. So these people can beat up on Prejean and other opponents of gay marriage all they want. But until Olbermann and his idiot contributors are willing to speak of Obama in the same way they spoke of Prejean, Harrogate's advice for them is to grow the fuck up.

7)Harrogate is in favor of gay marriage but has long been annoyed with the desire of some to turn this into a revisitation of the 1960s civil rights struggle. It is in fact in no way like that.


The Roof Almighty said...

AT the end, though, she didn't even oppose "non-opposite" marriage. She said that non-opposites and opposites alike could choose how they are married.

Thus, non-opposites can just choose to marry opposite, because that was the way she was born.

Or, in the modern parlance, queers are given the choice to choose between "normalcy" and "a thing which is illegal and wrong" and they keep making the wrong choice because they weren't raised right.

Or, to further reduce: "fags don't know better."

This became an anti-gay marriage brouhaha hours and days after it was just basic, ridiculous pig-ignorance.

Now, does it deserve to be national news commented on by such illustrious minds of out time like Michael Musto?

solon said...

While I think that the kerfuffle over Carrie Prejean remarks is a bit trivial, as most comments concerning our celebritized culture are--- i.e. most celebrities on the right and left make poor political statements, and that includes you Hannity as well as you Sean Penn—there are some really important aspects to this story.

Prejean’s comments seem very sophomoric, especially in the sense that a high school student or college student would say, “It’s just my opinion,” as if there can be no challenge to an opinion because it is “how I feel.” But her statement requires a public defense, not only because it occurred in a public forum but also because it concerns public rights, duties, and obligations. Why is it that democratic majorities can strip away the fundamental rights of other citizens? No one thinks to ask her this question.

But it continues. In a later interview, Prejean stated homosexuality is, "behavior that develops over time." Prejean asks others to show respect in the debate but she can deny others who they are because, “it is her opinion.”

She is courageous for sticking up for her Christian values. But why is her religion necessary to make state law in a secular state? Why does her religious beliefs trump other religious beliefs? What is her method of biblical interpretation?How can she pull some quotes from the Bible out to use for a public debate but neglect the myriad number of other rules that do not seem to apply in a modern society (e.g. the prohibition on shell fish because of dietary concerns)?

All of this is left understand because neither she nor the media can extend an argument.

But it continues:

In the National Organization for Marriage ad campaign, which Prejean will be a spokesperson, the tag line is that “Gay Marriage will have consequences.” Well, so will denying people fundamental rights. But, since she believes that are not real people anyways, there must not be consequences.

Further, she is attempting to turn the tables, as the religious right has on this issue, by claiming it she/ they who are the victims. If SSM becomes law, I will lose my religious freedom. Well, no, unless you believe that your religious freedom requires you to condemn others, verbally insult others, and prevent others from pursuing liberty, which is not a great form of religion in the first place. In fact, SSM would not require any person to get marriage so the level of coercion is quite low. But, the religious right sees their rights at stake, and as Prejean shows us, their rights are more important than other people possessing the opportunity to possess fundamental rights in society.

As for Olbermann, while I have not watched Olbermann since moving from Texas (Olbermann is not worth the time invested between 8 and 9 est), he has been very vocal about defending same-sex rights, especially over Proposition 8 where very similar sentiments stripped away the rights of same-sex couples. The clip you posted is rather tasteless but this is just brings us back to methods of interpretation.

If Prejean is on the touring circuit then she best be able to provide an articulate defense of her ideas. And this includes extending the argument.

As for Obama, many on the left have attacked him for his position. Though, he may reiterate his beliefs, but he would not go against the expansion of marriage rights or make stupid comments against the fundamental right.

While this may not be completely like the 1960s Civil Rights fight, it is still is a fight for Civil Rights.

solon said...

A shorter version of my previous comment:

The media coverage of Prejean reveals her as being another "Young Goodman Brown" where a public person desires to make the argument, "Morality for thee but not for me."

Now because of her "beauty" and because of her "beliefs," she is the victim.

If only the woman from North Carolina would have
"played to type" and performed herself as a "southerner" who makes "ignorant comments." But, alas, it was the woman from California who decided to break the mold in a beauty contest....

Next- I hear the Octomom is a stripper? Wait, Brittany, what have you done now while out drinking? Lindsey, e tu?

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I'd take the whole thing more seriously if she were a man and not some cyborg skank from Gayofornia with non-opposite genitals.

That may sound sexist to you, but it is only my opinion as sanctified by the United Methodist Church and my penis.

And Penistruth trumps any nonsense spouted that close to her abominable menstruation.

Steve- Virginia said...

this guy is an ass, this girl is not stupid because she answered with the truth. why is a big deal not to support gay relationships? What now everyone is going to tell me how to think ??? Fuck that and Fuck them ! ever heard of freedom of speach --- ? fuck this pole smoker who needs his two cents? Hes the one sitting on the couch waiting for something to talk about...never seems to surprise me how worthless people can be. if we were stuck on an island with no food we would eat him first...lord knows he wouldnt be good for anything else and the meat would be tender - Steve, Virginia

The Roof Almighty said...

Wow. OK. Two things:

1) Yes. Everybody tells you what to think. They always have and always will. It is called communication. And all of it is covered by free speech precedents as anything Prejean or you just said. And I can assure you, the majority of the people getting upset on this blog are not on the couch when it happens. We sit on thrones of roughly hammered together abortions at the bottom of empty swimming pools--because if you are going to wildly assault our intentions and lifestyles, have fun, be inventive.

2)You are against same sex couples being in love but you are anticipating cannibalism? Isn't eating human flesh an abomination as well? What about the tasty dick-steak?