Whenever you're worried about a shortage of the loons, the golden rule is to turn towards the United States of America.
I'm sure there's an abundancy of loons in Russia and China and India, but we speak the same language, sort of, and after we've seized control of New Zealand (an easy job once we've kidnapped those Flight of the Conchords guys and forced them to do pro-Oz comedy routines), I expect soon enough we'll become the fifty first state, or at least the second federal district of the grand ol' USA.
That means we'll be close kissing cousins with the likes of Miss California, sweet Carrie Prejean, who has done a galactic trip through the outer limits of loonery and her allotted fifteen minutes of fame with her recent cavortings in the media.
For those who came in late, Carrie blamed her loss in the fabulous Miss USA pageant on her answer to a question about same-sex marriage:
"I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."
"And you know what? I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
She only landed runner up, and nothing to do with her being a dumb blond, but only because of her PC right wing commentariat views on opposite marriage.
Then she rushed off and did an ad with NOM (The National Organization for Marriage) which has done some of the sickest, which is to say silliest, campaigning on the issue you could find anywhere in the world.
It seems that like puppy dogs, traditional marriage is very dear to Carrie's heart. I'd have put up the ad but it's been yanked from YouTube because of a copyright claim from Mario Lavandeira, otherwise known to the world as gossip blogger Perez Hilton (so you have to go to NOM here to see it in its short lived glory and Perez calling her a dumb ***, okay).
Here's how Right Wing Watch described the ad:
Joined by Carrie Prejean, the now-famous beauty contestant who lost her crown when she spoke up for marriage, the National Organization for Marriage today launched the second in a series of television ads to be released as part of NOM's ongoing Religious Liberty Ad Campaign. The new ad, "No Offense," opens with footage of Ms. Prejean's response to a question she was asked regarding same-sex marriage during the Miss USA competition on April 19, 2009. The ad highlights the efforts of same-sex marriage activists to silence and discredit pro-marriage advocates, calling them "liars," "bigots," and worse. Over the protests of gay marriage advocates, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars (including scholars both for and against same-sex marriage) recently warned the Connecticut legislature that a bill codifying the state supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage raised the potential of "widespread and devastating" effects for religious liberty, if robust exemptions were not provided for faith groups and religious organizations.
The most interesting part comes near the end with the narrator asserts that advocates of marriage equality are trying to silence those who oppose it "because they don't want to debate the consequences of same-sex marriage. They want to silence opposition. Some of the nation's foremost scholars warn that gay marriage can create widespread legal conflicts for individuals, small businesses, and religious organizations."
The NOM ad then flashes the quotes "will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflicts" and "effects would be ... devastating" on the screen, but doesn't say where they came from.
In turn, this led David Shuster on MSNBC to do an attack dog routine on NOM's spokesperson Brian S. Brown (you can catch the clip here at Crooks and Liars):
Shuster: Brian, your ad refers to legal scholars and says same sex marriage will lead to damaging wide spread legal conflicts for small businesses and religious organizations. That's only half of the sentence of their conclusion, isn't it?
Brown: Well, that's the focus Doug Laycock, Robin ... people on both sides of the debate agree ...
Shuster: Let's talk about Doug Laycock because he supports same sex marriage and the fact is that in their conclusion they say without 'religious accommodation' it will create legal conflicts. You didn't put that "religious accommodation' or in your ad or press release, you simply took the last half of your sentence simply say "Oh, this is going to lead all sorts of problems, it's like saying your car is going to break down unless you fill it with gas and you leave out 'unless you fill it with gas," why did you do that?
Brown: Well, that's the focus Doug Laycock, Robin ... people on both sides of the debate agree ...
Shuster: Let's talk about Doug Laycock because he supports same sex marriage and the fact is that in their conclusion they say without 'religious accommodation' it will create legal conflicts. You didn't put that "religious accommodation' or in your ad or press release, you simply took the last half of your sentence simply say "Oh, this is going to lead all sorts of problems, it's like saying your car is going to break down unless you fill it with gas and you leave out 'unless you fill it with gas," why did you do that?
And then of course came news of the saucy Carrie Prejean photos, as revealed by theDirty.com.
And then of course she told what seems to have been a few porkies - that it was taken when she as 17 years old, a minor, when she was first getting into modeling, when she was naive and young. And that there was only one.
Victoria's Secret - our favorite American brand, beloved of naval boys everywhere - has confirmed the lace lingerie in the photo wasn't manufactured until 2006, and poor porkies Carrie's eighteenth birthday was in 2005. Prejean went on the counter-attack and Victoria's Secret backed off, saying that they needed to see the underwear in person before confirming the details. (In this house I have trouble finding where the Victoria's Secret mail order catalogue is hidden).
Now it seems there might six topless photos in total, and the Miss California competition officials are looking again at whether to strip Prejean of her crown, in much the same way as the photographer stripped off her bra for the nude shot. According to one reporter, the other shots are more explicit, and "potentially explosive". Ah civilization reduced to a quivering wreck at the sight of a bimbo's tits.
Oh it's all a vile attempt to belittle Carrie's Christianity, and her unwavering faith, and her defense of traditional marriage. Poor Carrie has tried to explain:
Well there should be more Christian girls like her, willing to take off their clothes for Christ and a career.
If you take a peculiar interest in this kind of perversity, you can also catch Carrie Prejean going on the record at Faux Noise (here) where she spends most of the time saying she hasn't got an answer for the question to hand, but that she does think people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.
Come on Carrie, surely they should only be allowed to be treated by a vet, along with all the other flea ridden mutts disrespecting the lord.
Ah America, ain't it grand. It offers that tremendous combination of festering religion, weird politics and wonderful nubile sex, carefully crafted in equal measure so that everybody gets agitated and stays agitated about everything and everybody. And of course it offers a blood sniffing pack of media sharks and a small glimpse of stardom to anybody who can get a pageant to pay for a boob job. Like sweet Carrie.
Arguing about Victoria's Secret, Christianity, nudie shots and gay rights all in teh one breath.
Now we have Sean Hannity talking revolution, and Bill O'Reilly attacking Bruce Springsteen for praising Pete Seeger at a tribute concert.
There's only one solution to save the world from that socialist Obama. We must see Carrie Prejean's tits and we must see them now!
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
(Below: Carrie saturated in pigs' blood after the media frenzy. Can a role in a horror movie be far away for the nubile believer in traditional marriage?)
No comments:
Post a Comment