I have not watched a beauty pageant since I was around 7 years-old, when the Miss America Pageant was 1970s “must see T.V.” I certainly do not plan to start watching pageants now. Since it was all over the news this morning, I can’t help but laud Miss U.S.A. contestant, Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California, who, when asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton, whether she thought every state should follow Vermont and the three other states that have given legal recognition to same-sex marriage, responded: "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."
It was not enough to ask a baiting question and accept the answer given, Mr. Perez, who is a well-known and very vocal advocate for same-sex marriage, lambasted Prejean after the contest, saying that her answer was "the worst answer in pageant history." Why? One can only surmise that it is because she neither came out in favour of same-sex marriage, nor did she choose to be "diplomatic" and avoid answering the question directly. Isn’t this a bit like seating a V.P. of Citibank as a pageant judge and her asking contestants what they thought about Hank Paulson’s TARP legislation? In fact, it was a question about bank bailouts that Prejean’s competitor, Kristin Dalton, Miss North Carolina, who went on to be named Miss U.S.A., was asked, but not by a bank vice-president.
Being a generous man, Mr. Hilton went so far, after the pageant, to suggest an answer he would not have found offensive: "Perez, that’s a great question and that’s a very hot topic in our country right now. I think it’s a question that each state should answer for themselves because that’s our forefathers designed our government. The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal." Looking back at Carrie Prejean’s answer, I think she did state what Hilton suggested as regards what it means to live in a constitutional democracy, like the U.S. Her apparent misstep was answering his question in its entirety, a question that asked what she thought about the matter.
It is also important to note that her opinion is the opinion of a majority of Californians who went to the polls last November and democratically rejected giving legal status to same sex marriage, thus popularly overturning an edict by the California Supreme Court. It may bear reminding Mr. Hilton that the only state that recognizes same-sex marriage that has done so by anything like a democratic process (i.e., not by judicial fiat) is Vermont. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa it is something imposed by state supreme courts. Further, wherever same-sex marriage has appeared as a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, including California (and Utah), it has passed, the California vote being far and away the closest, though Colorado and Arizona passed marriage amendments with majorities of 55% and 56% respectively. I will concede that while Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriage as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling, subsequent attempts to amend the state constitution have been defeated in the legislature. New Jersey and New Hampshire both have civil partnership laws, like Vermont did prior to the recent vote to override the governor’s veto of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
Sadly, Hilton was not able to limit himself to dismissing her answer with prejudice. Posting a video blog he went on to call her " dumb bitch." I would expect to see feminists take issue with a gay man calling a woman a dumb bitch, just as people did when Isiah Thomas, defending himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit, claimed that it was alright for an African American man to call an African American woman a bitch, but it was not alright for a white man. Just to be clear, it is not okay for a man of any colour or sexual orientation to conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner, especially under these circumstances, in which she was merely giving an honest answer to a question he asked!
It is true that her answer likely cost her title Miss U.S.A., but that is a small price to pay for maintaining her integrity. Perhaps Perez Hilton should just stick to asking himself questions, that way he’ll always get the answer for which is looking.
I think this event is very instructive regarding the current cultural circumstance in which we find ourselves. The question for us, attending to the totality of its factors, how do we live this reality, how do we give witness to Christ in this reality? Part of the answer lies in giving honest answers to questions, questions that are ultimately about meaning and purpose, our meaning and purpose, even in the face derision and hostility.
While I am at it, note to Janeane Garofalo: just as it was not inherently un-patriotic to criticize Pres. Bush, it is not inherently racist to criticize Pres. Obama.
Showing posts with label Faith and morals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith and morals. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The on-going immorality
You've presided over the biggest corporate failure in history and help oversee a company that is a financial blackhole so large that $170 billion of tax payer money has not yet been able to fill it. Yet, unlike Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns, but like Hank Paulson's own beloved Goldman Sachs and Citibank, you have been deemed to be too big to fail. So, what do you deserve? Your super-sized welfare payment, of course! That is why A.I.G., despite being on federally funded life-support, is doling out $165 million to their clueless, slack-jawed executives who did their part to guarantee the demise of our financial system.
I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!
While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"
I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!
While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"
Monday, September 15, 2008
Not proportionate reasoning, but actual proportionate reasons
UPDATE: Hmmm. Five former secretaries of State think we should talk to Iran, including Henry Kissenger, whose opinion I value very little.
The current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, in addition to featuring Ross Douthat's insightful piece on pornography, to which others have drawn attention, also has an insightful article, which articulates what is perhaps the main proportionate reason that pro-life Catholics are either supporting or considering supporting Sen. Obama. The article, by Jeffrey Goldberg, is entitled "The Wars of John McCain".
Another article worth considering is by Fr. John Kavanaugh, SJ, who, after writing a well-reasoned and impassioned open letter to Sen. Obama on the issue of abortion, writes to Sen. McCain about the same issue tackled by Goldberg, in which he tells the senator: "Your problem is a war problem".
You may also find Doug Kmiec's response to Fr. Kavanaugh's open letter to Sen. Obama interesting.
The current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, in addition to featuring Ross Douthat's insightful piece on pornography, to which others have drawn attention, also has an insightful article, which articulates what is perhaps the main proportionate reason that pro-life Catholics are either supporting or considering supporting Sen. Obama. The article, by Jeffrey Goldberg, is entitled "The Wars of John McCain".
Another article worth considering is by Fr. John Kavanaugh, SJ, who, after writing a well-reasoned and impassioned open letter to Sen. Obama on the issue of abortion, writes to Sen. McCain about the same issue tackled by Goldberg, in which he tells the senator: "Your problem is a war problem".
You may also find Doug Kmiec's response to Fr. Kavanaugh's open letter to Sen. Obama interesting.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Open Christianity by Msgr. Luigi Giussani
This article by Don Giussani was published in Logos, but I see now that it's available at the CL site also: "Open Christianity."
"He, Jesus, is the prominent figure, not I with my faults. His face is at stage centre and not the features of my poverty. Gazing upon Him I will realize that He alone can resolve all problems, all of my problems and those of others." (p 5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)