The "tolerant" haters of Miss California
They sure show what a sham their tolerance is and what a reality their hate is
There was a day when even the word "prostitute" was not used in mixed company, even to describe women who actually were in fact prostitutes. Manliness constrained their speech, and pseudonyms were substituted like "lady of the night."
It's understandable that males who prefer women's underwear and their mother's earrings would be jealous of someone like Carrie. But it is unacceptable from any person heterosexual or homosexual to abide the types of things these two males have uttered within the last week concerning Miss California. Oh yes, and you can add to that the rather saddest excuse for manhood in prime time cable today Keith Olbermann.
Their criticism was beyond just differing on points of substance. Like pigs they wallowed in rhetorical feces, smeared it on their faces, as well as each others, and then belched it out across the airwaves.
On Friday night Musto, in particular, was extraordinarily girlish and cowardly:
"She's dumb and twisted, she's sort of like a human Klaus Barbie doll..."
"This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa..."
"She thinks that innuendo is an Italian supository..."
"This girl is a ding-dong, I didn't even like her earrings..."
"Perez is the new me. Using the "C" word is something I would do..."
"Carrie Prejean really is getting something off her chest, but what she should get off is the price tag there..."
"And in the meantime she's ratcheting up so much sympathy for the gay movement, she might as well be a paid spokesmodel for them..."
"We're supposed to get rid of her for having 'falsies' and an opinion..."
"Let her deflate..."
"Her husband will be the only person in the world who wants a virgin with breast implants..."
"They also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, sand her Adam's apple, and get a head to toe waxing..."
"I happen to know for sure that Carrie Prejean was in fact Harry Prejean a homophobic man who like marriage so much he did it three times... Now he's a babe who needs a brain implant..."
"Maybe the could inject some fat from her butt... oh they have."
Those little gems stemmed from a two minute interview conducted by Olbermann on his nightly news show in which the big breaking news of someone besides Carrie releasing her medical information was the scheduled topic to be discussed.
Had Olberman even an ounce of dignity, manhood, or integrity within him he would've cut the interview off and gone to break. But instead the adolescent boy within him kept laughing and going.
And here I sit still waiting for even one member of the cable news, or mainstream media circles to formulate an articulate defense of the beautiful, kind, compassionate woman who is being treated this way for simply answering a question honestly.
The fact that few men have had visceral reactions to this demonstrates how weak modern feminism has caused men to become.
Simply put Musto and Hilton aren't just men who struggle with some sort of unnatural attraction to other males. They aren't even, for that matter, males that practice sexual behavior with other males that mind their own business and aren't out to upend the entirety of the free world.
Musto and Hilton are angry hateful males who have no concept of what manhood is. They are jealous of Carrie for the confidence she exudes, the kindness she genuinely expresses, and for the kind of men she is able to attract.
Undoubtedly the tempers in the men who have said and expressed these diabolical statements stems from a deep and abiding hurt in their life that needs to be dealt with in mercy and kindness.
But that still doesn't give them or any of the other hateful haters who hate out there the right to rhetorically bludgeon the name and reputation of a decent woman for answering a question honestly.
In my world growing up my mother made sure that I understood several things. You always hold the door open for the ladies to go first. You never hit a woman. And you never speak to her in coarseness and filth.
In the anonymity of a television studio, or the safety of a bedroom webcam, Musto and Hilton feel they can rhetorically rape the heart and soul of Carrie Prejean. But friend, that's just pure evil. You simply do not treat a lady like that... ever.
British hospital that banned paintings of churches
Hatred of Christianity from the British elite again
It was supposed to be a kind gesture to brighten up a hospital for patients. But a council managed to enrage local artists when it asked them to contribute their paintings to hang in wards. In an unsolicited letter, Havering council in East London made it clear it would accept pictures of any subject - except churches.
The explanation given was that the hospital had to be 'mindful of all religious denominations'. Many artists could not understand why images of Christian buildings were banned, but those of other religions were welcome.
Jo Delaney, the council's arts development officer wrote to art groups in Havering about hanging paintings in Queen's Hospital, Romford. She wrote: 'Whilst the building is spacious, it has many plain black walls which are crying out to be brightened up! 'The matron of patient environment is keen for local artists to use the space as a gallery. 'The hospital has asked artists not to submit paintings of churches as they have to be mindful of all religious denominations.'
Artist Roy Storey said that when he phoned the council to complain he was told it was the matron's decision if she did not want pictures of churches. Local painter Beryl O'Brien, 71, said: 'There are so many religious beliefs, why would they pick on churches? 'What about synagogues? A painting is a good picture because it is a good composition, not because of the religion. 'It seems ridiculous to try to be so inclusive, and by doing that exclude people who are tolerant to some extent.' Mrs O'Brien said the hospital had tainted what was a 'lovely idea'. She did not know anyone who had submitted a painting yet.
A Havering council spokesman said the terms of the initiative were set by the hospital and the council had only been asked to pass on the information. A spokesman for Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS trust said its director of nursing had no knowledge of the letter's content and therefore it had no comment.
Political correctness is torture too
Here we go again. The latest poster conservative for political-correctness-run-amok in a country careening downhill on left-wing, Democratic cruise control is Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx's impropriety: The thought crime of arguing against "hate crime" laws by pointing out that Matthew Shepard - the tragic icon attached to the legislation - represents a salient argument against enacting them.
Mr. Shepard, the gay Wyoming teenager robbed and savagely beaten to death by drug-addled thugs in 1998, is the emotionally charged posthumous force behind the movement to pass hate crime laws. He got that way after a relentless, decadelong mainstream media, Madison Avenue and Hollywood propaganda campaign to make his death a symbol of just-beneath-the-surface sadistic intolerance toward homosexuals.
Three films, a documentary, a play and songs by Melissa Etheridge, Tori Amos and Elton John have made the gay-martyr case a high truth of pop culture. The thematically related "Boys Don't Cry" and "Brokeback Mountain" reinforced the narrative that gays like Mr. Shepard are regularly isolated for cruel and unusual attacks.
But the congresswoman is not buying the Hollywood hype. "The hate crimes bill was named for [Shepard], but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," Mrs. Foxx said on the House floor last week. Immediately, Democrats sought out their unapologetic allies in the media to force Mrs. Foxx into a perfunctory, skin-saving apology.
"The term 'hoax' was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill," she said. "Referencing these media accounts may have been a mistake, but if so, it was a mistake based on what I believed were reliable accounts."
Even though she had the facts to make a strong case, Mrs. Foxx apologized. She realized that the PC media cabal had another sucker conservative in its cross-hairs. Yet apologies are never enough as the Democrat Media Complex trotted out Mr. Shepard's mother, Judy, to make sure that no one else can raise an objection to the controversial legislation.
Mrs. Foxx has been "apologizing for semantics, but not her sentiment, her insensitivity or her ignorance," Mrs. Shepard told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "Everyone knew Matthew's murder was a hate crime, but it couldn't be prosecuted as a hate crime. We couldn't call it a hate crime. Getting this bill passed in the House brings gay rights up to the level of equality."
Judy Shepard like other tragic symbols Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Widows and Max Cleland are trotted out by Democrats to make their arguments not with facts and reason but with the threat that if you disagree with them, you will be publicly shamed as a "hater." This pathetic strategy works as Mrs. Foxx's instant apology illustrates.
While the basic facts of the Shepard case are accepted and the culprits are in prison for life, the motivation for the crime - as with most crimes - is not easily decipherable. But in 2004, ABC News stumbled upon a story that raised some doubt about the cut-and-dry narrative that's been relentlessly pushed by the identity-politics obsessed.
Elizabeth Vargas interviewed murderers Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson along with the cast of characters involved with the case. Mrs. Vargas appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" to summarize her story:
"The prosecutor who prosecuted these crimes says that he never believed it was a hate crime. He believes it was a drug crime. Aaron McKinney, according to Aaron McKinney himself and to several other witnesses, was coming down from a five-day methamphetamine binge. He freely admits he not only used methamphetamine but dealt them, sold them. Five days up with no sleep, strung out on drugs, desperate to buy more, desperate to rob somebody to get money to buy more drugs. This was the motive, according to Aaron McKinney and the other witnesses."
One needn't bring in medical experts to explain that a five-day drug binge is not good on the body, mind and soul. Meth-fueled violent crime is a sad cliche of modern American life, yet hate crime advocates who use Mr. Shepard as their ultimate weapon want to overlook the obvious and insist on arguing the unprovable. When the case that is used to make the case for hate crime law is so fundamentally weak, what does it say about the law's very premise?
No one will ever know exactly why Matthew Shepard was killed. It's too bad that most of his advocates are against the death penalty. Because McKinney and Henderson deserve a fate worse than life behind bars.
Mrs. Foxx joins me and gay journalist Andrew Sullivan as public figures who refuse to accept the Shepard mythology. We choose not to impugn Mr. Shepard's memory or grant his murderers committed a "hate crime," when it cannot be proved. The left will not accept this because it is built around divisive identity politics. It dismisses "E Pluribus Unum," America's formerly helpful marketing slogan, and promotes strategies that ensure the fault lines of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation are exploitable for political gain.
On college campuses, in newsrooms and now in the highest corridors of power, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, the politically correct left is wielding its weaponry with the confidence that it can take down any group, anyone or anything. The thought police are now officially in charge.
The real hate crime these days is the Orwellian intimidation wielded by the left against those that don't think the way they do. It's worse than waterboarding.
Many serious offenders do not go to court at all in Britain
Magistrates want ministers to halt the widening of on-the-spot fines for offenders, warning that serious crimes are not reaching the courts. They have told Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, that the use of the fines in cases involving assault is undermining confidence in the justice system.
Defence solicitors say that serious offences are being dealt with inappropriately, or not at all, for lack of police time and resources. A dossier collated by Edward Garnier, QC, the Conservative justice spokesman, indicates lawyers’ concerns that their clients are being “let off” over alleged assaults and even rape rather than prosecuted. Out-of-court penalties now account for half of all cases “brought to justice” in England and Wales, and Mr Straw plans to consult on extending their scope to a further 21 offences.
According to magistrates and lawyers, the system is already being abused. Magistrates have drawn up a list of circumstances in which on-the-spot fines or penalty notices should not be used. These include where an offender has caused injury, has previous convictions or cautions for disorder offences or planned the crime. John Thornhill, of the Magistrates’ Association, said that some minor offences could be dealt with out of court but other offences should be brought before the court so that “justice can be seen to be done” and treatment — such as where there is a problem with drink or drugs — can be arranged.
Mr Straw has indicated that he may exclude shoplifting from the proposed new list of offences. Possession of cannabis is to remain on it. In a paper to Mr Straw the magistrates say that in one area of Staffordshire a solicitor has claimed that only two of 12 suspects interviewed by police are being charged. “One or two may be given a fixed penalty or caution, but the majority are being allowed to leave on the basis that there is insufficient evidence,” it says.
Mr Garnier, who approached law firms in the West Midlands, said: “Sometimes the accused gets off scot-free; sometimes they are given a caution. The solicitors say that this is partly caused by overwork and partly because the police have too much to do without chasing evidence for an over-cautious Crown Prosecution Service.” To take the matter to court “would involve too much paperwork and administrative hassle when the chances of potential witnesses coming to court to give evidence are pretty slim”.
A lawyer who had a case in which the victim of a serious assault required stitches to the head said: “We fail to see how this assault could be dealt with by way of caution as it was, according to the victim, accompanied by a threat to kill, the use of a weapon and a repeated attack.”
Mr Garnier said: “My concern is that people who on the face of it have committed serious crimes are being let off when at the very least they should be charged and prosecuted. It’s for the courts to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant — it is not for the desk sergeant to make that decision.”
The Justice Ministry defended out-of-court penalties as an efficient use of resources: they “enable police to deal swiftly with low-level offending, freeing them to spend more time on frontline duties and investigating violent, dangerous or sexual offences as well as freeing up court time for more serious offences. Out-of-court disposals are not suitable for contested or more serious cases and would not normally be considered for those who offend repeatedly.”
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.