Out of the Ashes...

Ol' Swiney is ignored - enter Miss California USA

I failed to do something during the last post. I completely neglected to thank VOTE:ObamaDramaOverIn2012:D for the neato-dandy-awesome-cool (NDAC, for short) ribbon thingy. Apparently she thinks I’m funny... *snicker* Oh, if she only knew.

Anyway, thanks! I’ll try not to let it go to my head.

*sigh*

Alas, there is yet ANOTHER slow news week going on. Completely bored with reporting on the non sequitur Swine Flu, and bringing that silly episode to a close with headlines like “Life Getting Back To Normal In Mexico” *rolls eyes*, the news outlets are now grasping at something even more absurd.

Miss California USA - whatever the heck that really means. So this “beauty queen” of that rather purty yet financially broke state was asked a question during the Miss USA pageant...about her views on gay marriage (pro or con?). The question was asked by none other than Prima Donna celeb blogger Perez Hilton. Since he (it?) was a judge, he (it) already knew Miss Cali-USA’s political bent and family background. The question was an obvious setup. Answer to HIS (its) pleasure and get whacked by fellow conservatives. Answer against the flaming H’s desires, get whacked by the almighty, all-accepting and loving liberals. Obviously, she’d be a minority by staying in conservative territory...and that’s exactly what she did. She conveyed the truth as she understands it. It just happened to fly in the face of every person in - well - SoCal. Well, every person that matters, anyway - and that means, dear ones, if you’re famous, maybe rich, and at least slightly aggressive in all the political ideals that DON’T matter. Walk that fine line, Miss Cali did not.

*taps finger - thinks - ignores the pain*

Why that rebellious chick! How dare she?!

So, Mr. (Miss/Ms/Mrs??) Hilton decided to go on a public rampage against Miss Cali, calling her all kinds of nasty names...including that dreaded B word. Classy, huh? Yeah, I think so, too. *shakes head*

And people watch this crap? Amazing...

Anyways...

So Miss Cali gave the wrong answer...BUT...became the runner up. Not bad, really, all considering. Trump might not be giving her a place to sleep, a generous salary, and whatever tiny 15 seconds of fame comes along with the Big Title, but hey! She came in second out of 52 entrants and that's pretty cool. Right?

Well...apparently some folks are getting even nastier with this youngster. Ya see, just prior to the pageant this one decided to undergo breast implantation. Yep! Them knockers ain’t the real deal no mo’! So that was reported...and no one cared. So the loving, generous, all-encompassing liberals tried another tact.

Apparently, when she was a mere teenie bopper type (that means below 18 to me), she had serious desires to become a model. Now, what little girl doesn’t dream about that at least ONCE in her wee years? She actually tried doing something about it. Well, she made a mistake. A hired gun convinced her to pose semi-nude, using her prime desire (at the time, I think) that Victoria’s Secret might take notice...then hire her to be spank material for the male masses (really, do WOMEN look at those periodicals? Doubt it... *snicker*).

Mind you, the pics are not racy at all. Quite tasteful, especially when thinking about in which age we live now. No sexual poses...no implied activities with the photographer or some hired stand-in model type...nope! Nada, ‘cept for she wasn’t entirely clad. At 17...

And yet they’re going after HER? What about the hired gun (who obviously had to be male)? How about the photog? Did either of these folks realize she was a MINOR? Have any of the newsies trying to make their bones reporting on powder puff issues considered that? Hmm...?

So, the kid might end up losing her “crown.” Any why? Because she stood for her beliefs in regards to the meaning of marriage. That’s where it started, fanned by the flamer Perez Hilton, and now picked up by limp-wristed, weak-minded, wimpy libs who just CAN’T extend their “love everyone” philosophy to those who disagree (about ANYTHING).

SHOCKER! Miss Cali made sexy pics! Wow... There’s a reason to destroy her, yeah?

Oh, oh! And NOW, she’s signed on to do a commercial (I think) that supports marriage as between man and woman (that means different genders, for you bleeding heart non-thinkers out there). And guess what? She’s being painted as a big ol’ meanie.

And people wonder why I give the nickname of Gomorrah to LA and Sodom to Washington DC...

*hysterical laughter*

Okay, for the record. I am Conservative...mainly. I am heterosexual, which means I must (sadly) put up with the occasional insanity that is woman (thanks, God!) But I do not agree with Miss Cali. I respect her beliefs, and anyone who holds the same such or similar, but I am not on that side. I will NOT say what I believe how marriage should be legally defined. That’s for me and those close enough to me to trust with such information. What I WILL state here and now is that...it doesn’t matter.

Really, think about it. How in any way will allowing same genders to marry rip apart family values? That won’t effect me in any way, honestly. I’m still attracted to them female types. There's just something about girly-girls that do it for me, ya know? If I decide to marry again, it will NOT be to a man (girlie or not). As such, my personal values will not change. Family values ARE personal...not societal...so again, how would changing the legal definition of who and who does not wed harm society?

For ME it’s between male (me) and female (whomever I dang well choose). It’s not my place to define said institution for anyone else. Except for Fundamentalist Mormons, of whom I am soooooo jealous. Bastards...

Even if I do not completely agree with Miss Cali’s stance, I support it. Not that that matters even a little, but still...I do. This particular issue is not worth going to war over...even politically.

I would much rather see the governments and the self-professed Fourth Estate set themselves to resolving the current problems within the legal marriages...as in rampant divorces. For example, it should be very difficult to gain a marriage license AND be doubly hard to end said marriage. Irreconcilable Differences just doesn’t cut it, ya know? I mean, women should want to know whether or not the newly divorced man was unhitched because he likes to bully or lay hands on physically weaker and smaller folk...right? Just as likely men would want to know if a woman is a cheater (serial or not). That kind of thing should be available to future marks of either...right?

Want to get hitched? Go to pre-marital counseling. A GOOD session or few, too. The kind that really puts your feet into the proverbial fire via realistic what-if situations. Want a divorce? Same thing...kind of. I kid you not - THESE should be addressed even before we seriously consider changing the legal definition of which genders can marry ... whatever.

Having children should be regulated, too. Screw this “reproductive rights” BS. We license drivers of automobiles of every kind...we license marriages...heck, we even license FISHING, for God’s sake. But begetting our future, the actual things that matter (children, for those who are lost)? Nah! Go have one, just for kicks! No problem! If you suck at parenting, so be it. We can easily vacate or build a prison cell just for your progeny, complete with 3 hots and a cot, 24/7 protection form undesirable outside influences, AND bodyguards courtesy of the Latin Kings, various Aryan Nations, Black Muslims, or Queenies.

The point?

Marriage (as it is or isn’t now) and procreation have a direct effect on society and are thus more important to seriously address at legislative/administrative levels. If you’re a jerk, you’re a jerk. If you’re cool, you’re cool. The GENDER issue really doesn’t matter at all...does it?

So, Miss Cali...you go girl! Kick some liberal tail! Some of us out here have yer back, baby!

PS - I wonder why super-heterophobe Prez Hilton has not attacked Barak Obama in any way. Do you? After all, our current Prez HAS publicly stated that marriage should be legally defined as it is (between man and woman). And yet Hilton, and the sesationalist press, says nothing about that. Kinda makes me wonder...do liberals actually secretly and deep down HATE women as they obviously do "minorities"?