Sunday, May 24, 2009

Dear Carrie

Latest Newspaper column:

An open letter to Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

Dear Carrie:
First off, congratulations on keeping your title as Miss California, despite all the brouhaha over allegedly "racy" pictures and your, uh, surgical enhancements. I've seen those pictures online, and they seem pretty vanilla, at least compared to some of the other things I've seen online, but hey, let's not go into that.

As for the other thing: Hey, it's California, right? I thought implants were more or less mandatory out there. And it's a good thing to have Donald Trump behind you. Just don't let him get too close behind you, if you know what I mean. The guy's reportedly a major hound.

Frankly, Carrie, I've been pretty uninterested in the whole kerfluffle surrounding your not getting the Miss USA title. And since a girl from my home state of North Carolina took home the crown, I'm pleased, to the extent that I care at all, which is not much.

But I do feel like I need to address one thing you said in public. Apparently you're unhappy with what happened when you answered a ­question about gay marriage by stating you felt marriage was only between a man and a woman. Your words were, I believe:

"On April 19th, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech and I
was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It
­undermines the constitutional rights which my grandfather fought for."

When I heard that, I felt I really needed to speak up. Because, see, I'm a major, major fan of the First Amendment. I'm talking pre-teen-girl-crush-on-the Jonas-brothers level of fan. I don't actually write "Dusty + First Amendment" inside a great big heart on the cover of my notebooks, at least not anymore, but still. Big, big fan. So when I heard your complaint that your First Amendment rights were being violated, I felt I had to speak up.

Carrie, you're very pretty, and you seem like a sweet girl. But here's the thing, darlin', and I say this with all due respect: You're ignorant. Now, I could be a jerk and call you dumb, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I'm ­awesome like that. I'll attribute this boneheaded statement to your never having been taught right, rather than any kind of mental defect.

I'll just assume that while you were learning ­little beauty pageant tricks like putting Vaseline on your teeth to make your smile wider that no one ever taught you what the First Amendment really says. But unlike stupidity, ignorance can be cured. And Carrie, I'm here to help. Because I'm a giver. I give. It's what I do.

Now, on to the First Amendment. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ­establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Get that first part? Congress shall make no law. Now, if Congress was trying to pass a law to shut you up, I'd be hollering as loud as anyone. But they're not.
You got criticized. People said nasty things about you. One of them was the contest judge to whom you addressed your comments, a bitchy Internet gossip columnist who's about as far out of the closet as you can get.

And you ­didn't win. But imagine if you'd been in Alabama, and the judge was the head of the local Baptist church. And imagine if you'd made the comment that you were all for gay marriage. You probably wouldn't have won that one either, and the same people who are shedding tears for you now would be applauding the judge who voted against you.

But none of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't mean no one can disagree with you, or even that they have to be sweet to you when they do. It doesn't mean you can insult a contest judge and still win.

So, and again, I say this with respect: Come down off the cross, honey. We need the wood.

27 comments:

Fran said...

Oh my, that's the most accurate and humorous response to the little twit I've read yet! Thank you!

charlie stella said...

I'd probably be as enthused as Fran, JD, except our President not only said the same things regarding gay marriage, he actually flip-flopped on it (because he supported it once when running for the senate). I guess the pool of potential voters (for the presidency) was too big for him to maintain his honor ... or maybe he really did change his mind. He's been doing that a lot lately, it seems (and voting/siding with the past administration over and over and over).

I know your comments were about the first amendment and I suppose Obambi knows the difference, so while he might "agree" with Ms. CA (regarding marriage being between a man and a woman only), he gets "a pass" from some democratics for knowing the law a bit better than Ms. CA.

I just have to wonder which is the more important issue to Democrats these days ... Ms. California's inability to understand the First Amendment or providing equal protection under the law for EVERYBODY.

JD Rhoades said...

(because he supported it once when running for the senate).According to a gay tabloid in Chicago, Obama (or more likely someone in his campaign) answered a questionnaire on the subject by saying "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

This was in 1996, when he was running for the State Senate. In the U.S. Senate and in his presidential campaign, he's moved away from that position. In both the US Senate and his campaign, he's had the same position: "Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality." (As I've said before, I disagree with Obama on this point).

Now, I suppose you could call having a change of heart on a position you held 13 years ago a "flip flop", especially if you're obsessed as you seem to be with discrediting Obama and turning every single comment on this blog, no matter what the subject of the original post, into a rant about how Obama's just like Bush.

But I've thought over and moderated some positions I held in 1996, and I imagine a lot of thinking people have too. It's called growing. But don't let that get in the way of your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Joseph Travis Garnett said...

What I find so laughable is: why those on the Left feel so threatened by a runner up to a beauty pageant contest?

All I can say is "you go girl!"

charlie stella said...

JD wrote: especially if you're obsessed as you seem to be with discrediting Obama and turning every single comment on this blog, no matter what the subject of the original post, into a rant about how Obama's just like Bush ... But don't let that get in the way of your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I'll quote you on this one: "I don't even have to try."

I guess I find it funny how you ignore the bigger issues of the day (especially when they seem to turn Obama's campaign promises on their head) to continue toasting people like Ms. CA and the irrelvent Dick Cheney.

I'd love to see the guy succeed, but I'm sure a lot of people (including me) felt that way about George Bush. I guess I'm fed up with politics as usual ... one thing for certain is it has nothing to do with "change" ...

Besdies, you need someone to ground you, brother. Really, teeing off on Ms. CA is pretty weak.

JD Rhoades said...

Really, teeing off on Ms. CA is pretty weak.Charlie, unlike you, I can take aim at more than one target.

And I see Joey's still ripping and reading right out of the discredited wingnut playbook...today's moldy oldie is "you're making fun of us, therefore you fear us."

No, Joey, Don't read more into it than is really there. I'm making fun of you because you're fucking ridiculous.

The PaulR said...

I'd just like to remind Ms. Carrie of the conservative reaction to the Dixie Chicks when they said they were ashamed George Bush was from Texas. The most polite comment I heard was that yes, they had the right to say what they wanted but the "people" had the right to not support them. I guess if I thought like JTG I'd have to wonder why the conservatives were afraid of three female country music stars.

And for Charlie, I can't take anything you say seriously as long as you keep referring to the president as "Obambi".

charlie stella said...

JD wrote: Charlie, unlike you, I can take aim at more than one target.

Sorry for the miscommunication. It's your democratic party (right along with the republican party) that I'm aiming at. It isn't just Obama whose gone back on his word. Nope, it's your entire party (or most of it since they're in the majority in Congress and have been since 2006).

You know us Naderites ... it's almost as much fun watching democratic loyalists (especially those with blind faith), continue to take aim at irrelevant issues while ignoring the fact they (the loyalists) aren't holding their party to account.

I mean ... where's the change, brother?

Last week the Dems in an overwhelming vote, ignored the president's request on Guantanamo ... he's also reversed himself on Abu Grahib pictures (siding with Bush once again) and his Sec of the Treasury approved DEREGULATED compensation for business executives of bailed out corporations, banks, et al ... Obama is starting to look like Bush-Light to me and the funny thing is, just like when Bush was President, the Democratic Congress is going right along with the game plan.

As for fear ... I keep telling you, Ralph isn't afraid of Wall Street or the concept of equal rights for everybody.

Seriously, speaking of the constitution, how do you support a president and/or party that doesn't support the most basic constitutional right -- equal rights?

Joseph Travis Garnett said...

Easy Rosie:

You're proving my point again.
"I'm f..king ridiculous?" You're the one thats getting so riled up about one point of view by a 22 year old girl from California!

You're real manly picking on a 22 year old girl.

I'm still laughing cowboy, still laughing...

JD Rhoades said...

You're real manly picking on a 22 year old girl.Yes, I'm sure she cried bitter tears over my column every night.

And coming from a supporter of the party that stalked and demonized a 12 year old and his family over his comments on child health insurance, that's pretty damn rich.

charlie stella said...

Paul. My bad. I'll try better not to do that (Obambi). It was a slip. I actually like the guy a lot (mostly because he is smart). In fact, I don't believe for one second he's against gay marriage; I think that was (and is) politics. If he manages to provide equal rights for gays to include marriage before the end of his term(s), I'll like him even more. I'm a frustrated former liberal democrat who ran to the Republicans for a "change" back in 2000. Yes, I fell sucker to the fear mongering and that was a mistake. A big mistake. Now both parties have alienated me pretty much equally, although I do think the dems are the lesser of two evils ... that said, I'm gonna be 53 next week and I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils (or for the party I think might provide a better national defense). I pick on Obama because he's the head of the party now. I aim for the dems because they continue to dissapoint at just about every turn. What both parties did to the American worker during this fiscal crisis makes it impossible for me to take either one serious. I'll vote for Nader or the socialists or the communists before I vote for Wall Street ever again. They've (both parties) taken the American worker back to 1930 and hardly anyone has raised a stink while workers lost jobs/homes and millionaires were protected in the process.

So, I am sorry for the Obambi. My bad. I'll do better. Promise.

David Terrenoire said...

Dusty,

As usual, I enjoyed this, but I'm getting weary of the same ole same ole comments.

Charlie (I love you man, but I've stopped reading your comments) comes back with more delight in the fact that Democrats are screwed up and the economic recovery gives away money to the banks and and and...

Yeah, as Will Rogers said...

And then we have some winger with 3 names (I don't trust female writers or males in general who insist on using 3 names) with some manly man taunting, another couchborne ranger waving his studly fists about and calling you Rosie. Because he's challenging your manhood, see, from the safety of the web and when you click on his name, it goes nowhere, much like his party.

Charlie, this is a great example of my point: the Democrats are vastly flawed and up to their hips in hypocrisy, no question.

But the Republicans? They're just fucking crazy.

Joseph Travis Garnett said...

To correct Terrenoire, I'm not a right winger. I consider myself more in the middle. But I strongly believe the wrong direction for our Country to head, is towards a radical left platform.

Just to make thing clear...

JD Rhoades said...

To correct Terrenoire, I'm not a right winger.Bullshit.


the Democrats are vastly flawed and up to their hips in hypocrisy, no question.

But the Republicans? They're just fucking crazy.
Terrenoire for the win.

Joseph Travis Garnett said...

Rosie: Are you a referee now?

charlie stella said...

Dave: I love you too, brother, but I'm not about to let up on the Dems for what they're not doing. I take pleasure in them proving there is little difference between them and the Reps, correct, but also in the fact that sooner or later, if things don't "change" (for lack of a better word), people will have to see there are alternatives to both parties. That does makes me happy.

And I don't think all Republicans aren't crazy, Dave. I don't even think you think that.

And you're not ignoring my comments. You're ignoring what your party isn't doing and that's blind faith (and too often what your blog and JD's blog read like; calling Reps nuts or jumping on nonsense issues as compared to the bigger picture (my "and, and, and," you don't like to read but don't seem to deal with).

Seriously, last week I argued with a wingnut friend of mine for gun control. She refused to read government statistics that prove violent crimes in American have steadily declined since 1993. You guys not wanting to deal with Democrats voting like republicans (the ones you call crazy) makes me wonder WTF.

Seriously.

And JD, saying you disagreed with Obama (or any other Dem) on a particular issue doesn't make your posts objective. The bulk of your posts seem like tryouts for the Keith Olbermann show. No disrespect intended, but that's how they often read. Ms. California? Who cares? Why didn't Geithner's DEREGULATION of exec salaries upset you half as much (or enough to post about that rather than Ms. CA)? Or maybe you're in favor of the executives writing their own checks with our money.

That said, Dave's post today on his blog was very admirable. Now, put half that much passion into expecting your party to get something done rather than beat up on has beens and you're that much closer to Nader ... maybe even political nirvana.

Peace.

JD Rhoades said...

Ms. California? Who cares?Well Charlie, your fantasy girl Sarah Palin certainly seemed to:

“What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what the President and Ms. Clinton believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Palin added. “Our Constitution protects us all — not just those who agree with the far left.”




The wingnuts have tried to make this whole thing a cause celebre (possibly because they couldn't find anything to get outraged about in Obama's menu last week). Pointing out their general fuckwittedness is part of what I do. You don't like it, don't read this blog. You think some issues aren't being addressed here enough to suit you, feel free to start your own blog. It's free and easy!

charlie stella said...

Nope, tough shit. Takes too much time (running one of these). You don't like what I have to say, block me.

The problem with pointing out "their" fuckwitidness is you start to sound (and act) just like them.

I don't like what he's saying so I won't read his comments. Very mature.

I don't like his pointing out that my party is full of shit so I'll tell him to scram.

Hey, you scram me. Trust me, I won't kill myself.

But I'll still love you both.

LongHairedWeirdo said...

Charlie:

You know what you need? A blog of your own. So you can point out how stupid all your beloved "brothers" are and how morally bankrupt the Republicans and Democrats are, and how horrible "Obambi -oops, I mean Obama" is and so on.

The best part is, you have all the fun of saying nasty shit to (and about) people, but without actually having to address it to someone in particular.

You might even start to develop an actual set of ideas and start to express them well.

charlie stella said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JD Rhoades said...

Sorry, Charlie. That one was over the line.

charlie stella said...

Long Hair: Let me be clear (and clean). "Brother" is a term of endearment for me. I like both JD and Dave. I like them a lot (no matter how much in denial they may be about their political party). I tend to disagree with them sometimes (and I apparently blind and/or bore Dave into a coma since he can’t bear to read my comments any more). I don't say "nasty shit" about them.

And you'll have to trust me on this, but I'm not the type to use or need a keyboard to tell somebody off.

I post facts, my dear friend (and brother). When I say Tim Geithner just okayed the DEREGULATION of executive compensation to bailed out companies/banks, etc., it’s a fact.

As regards the “nasty shit” I allegedly say to people. Go find me something, please (but make sure there isn't something nasty preceding it). It’s your alliance who call people names (just for the record). I ask questions (i.e., How can you support a party that rejects equal rights?). It was Dave who called republicans “fucking crazy” and JD has called some dissenters some nasty choice names, too. And he’s certainly a master of sarcasm.

I might try for sarcasm and maybe succeed once in a while, but don't confuse that with saying "nasty shit" about my brothers, you putz(that was a retort so it doesn't count).

Just once try and get the facts straight. I've noticed in the past how you have problems getting things straight.

Really, just once.

As for expressing my ideas … I think the level of angst I cause at blogs like this speaks for itself. Some don’t seem to want to confront the facts. Others ignore them. And there are those who see what they want to see (like me saying “nasty shit”).

So, my brother … next time do your best to read the lines instead of between them. You’re really seeing “nasty shit” that just isn’t there.

In the meantime, hugs and kisses to you, my brother, Long Hair.


Now, for the rest of you gals and pals. I thought I was banned from here and mentioned it to one of my right wing friends who insists I wear panties. He’s a regular feature on my email bulletin and will be on my blog (Yes, JD, I took your advice and started my own). Unfortunately for tough guys like Long Hair, they won’t be able to comment because I don’t have the time to dick around with keyboard tough guys and/or annonymous cowards.

So, In the meantime, here’s what my dear friend DOC had to say after visiting this blog:

Hey Chaz,

I found that blog that banned you.

Good grief! what a bunch of pedantic putz’s.

So now that you're free, come join our vast right wing conspiracy.

- buy a gun
- eat a steak
- drive a gas-guzzling truck
- cut those tags off your pillows
- club a baby seal
- smoke in public places
- cut down a redwood
- mix your recyclables with regular trash

Your tree-hugging buddies have revoked your panties.

Come sample our garden of earthly delights.

Mention my name and get a free belt made out of Nancy Pelosi's titmouse pelts.

Welcome back, brother. We've missed you.
Doc

Notice, Long Hair, how we use “brother” so freely. Maybe you should loosen up some, eh?

JD Rhoades said...

As you can see, Charlie was not banned. One comment was moderated because it was over the line.

As for your friend there, seems like he's a likely candidate for the SWORS ward.

For the record:

- buy a gun

Already got one.

- eat a steak

Love 'em.


- drive a gas-guzzling truck

Sorry, I'm partial to my Mustang.

- cut those tags off your pillows

I don't need pointless gestures to prove I'm "edgy." But if it meets some need you have to feel like a rebel, go ahead.

- club a baby seal

See pointless gestures, above.

- smoke in public places

Sure, g'head. I don't care. just stand downwind.

- cut down a redwood

They make excellent guitars, i hear.


- mix your recyclables with regular trash

Check. Because the Uhwharrie Waste Management (the company the town uses) sorts it at the plant. That's why they got the contract. And word has it they're making good money selling the recylcables. Good old green free enterprise at work.

We now return you to our usual love fest.

LongHairedWeirdo said...

You saying something nasty, Charlie?

Don't be sorry for me, brother. You're the one pursuing change with blind faith ... just don't be surprised when you run into that tree.Why didn't that take me very long?

charlie stella said...

Long hair quoted me: "Don't be sorry for me, brother. You're the one pursuing change with blind faith ... just don't be surprised when you run into that tree."

You must be one sensitive dude, Long Hair. I mean, seriously. That's nasty?

I'm thinking being called "fucking crazy" or "stupid" or ... well, just go through some of the comments on this blog.

Do you understand what I meant? Maybe not. In case you didn't, I'll do my best here and now:

I was accusing someone (i forget who) of not being objective ... and that so long as they followed their political preference with blinders on, they would be jolted (i.e., the tree) by a surprise (probably something political that might stun them--see Davey 3x's blog where he was upset at how Dems in the Senate had single-payer proponents arrested rather than sit at a table loaded with big business interests--something usually associated with Republicans).

Now, I can list a bunch of other such surprises liberal democrats have already had to deal with post the election of change, but that might put Davey 3x's into a coma (that's a figure of speech, Long Hair ... I'm not looking to put Davey 3x's into a coma with a baseball bat).

I don't know "brother" ... but either you're super senstive or really having problems understanding stuff.

I'm like one of the Jets in West Side Story .... misunderstood.

Have a great weekend, bro.

LongHairedWeirdo said...

You must be one sensitive dude, Long Hair. I mean, seriously. That's nasty?
(snip to)
I was accusing someone (i forget who) of not being objective
Ah, so since you didn't use the word "stupid", and instead, merely used words that mean the same thing, it's not *your* fault. It's not like you said "stupid" or "fucking crazy!"

And people just don't *understand*. Why, being insulted isn't nastiness, so long as you avoid specifically using nasty words like "stupid" or "fucking crazy".

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty pathetic comeback. Yes, you were making a nasty accusation, and no, it's not that I'm too sensitive, or that I don't understand what transparent justification you choose to use to justify attacking others.

Oh, and Dusty? You forgot to slam Obama for picking a Supreme Court Nominee. *BUSH* picked Supreme Court Nominees!

And did you know he's *still* breathing out quantities of CO2, *JUST LIKE BUSH!* Where's the change, brother? Your blind love of Obama is overlooking his contribution to global warming which is killing people!

charlie stella said...

Long Hair, my brother ... blind faith might suggest someone is so passionate they don't see outside the lines ... but if you insist it means stupid, I guess there's nothing I can do for you.

As for the rest of your last rant ... wow. First off, JD doesn't blast Obama; he might nit pick, but he never blasts (as I understand the term) Obama.

Thank God I didn't slip and type Obambi ...

As for the CO2 ... take some valium brother (I suggest that sincerely. Looks like you're getting hysterical again).

I do like the supreme court pick, by the way (I'm liberal, remember?) ... Bush chose a conservative. That is change, but it's pretty standard change when it comes to presidential supreme court picks (that they go with someone closer to their political ideology ... as they should).

A supreme court pick will definitely mean something down the road (and I prefer a liberal court), but, my brother, that doesn't change what Obama and his party just did for Wall Street vs. his voters.

Except for you ... you seem to be in favor of big business ... (steady yourself for this one, Long Hair) .. just like Bush and his Republicans