Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:04:22 PM
Carrie Prejean is back in the news. Andrew Malcolm has a hilarious blog entry at LATimes.com about the latest. Be sure to click through to read the whole thing.
Carrie Prejean, some might remember, is the California beauty queen who gained instant ignominy in some circles by agreeing with President Obama's ridiculous notion that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
I suspect Malcom is being sarcastic here.
This was said to make Prejean outrageously conservative although Obama, who is a male and said the same thing throughout the endless presidential campaign, was ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate a year ago now. That must be what passes for progress nowadays.
Wow. And this on a Los Angeles Times blog.
Both liberals and conservatives have been bickering and chuckling and pointing fingers of hypocrisy ever since.
Yes, I will talk about that further down.
Also, Prejean had breast augmentation, some keen-eyed critics noted, which is certainly unimaginable for any American female let alone ones successfully participating in the beauty business.
He keeps it coming. Click over to read the entry. Funny stuff.
Prejean replied -- insert teasing pause here -- yes, there was a tape she had done as a teenager.
She was 17, if reports are true. That makes everyone in possession of that video a criminal, doesn’t it?
She made it for a distant boyfriend whom she loved at the time.
You know, I was recently reading from Leftist types that we should consider that okay, or at least not get upset about it. But that was before news of her video.
Prejean said it was the "biggest mistake" she'd ever made in her not-yet-lengthy life. She regretted it. She felt mortified talking about it, but it was her own fault. And that as a Christian she'd never claimed to be perfect.
Yes, she's handling it well. If she was a Leftist, it would be "none of your business" and "everyone does it" and "who are you to judge?"
Additionally, we should note that, as reported here last week by The Ticket, someone named David Plouffe was also on Fox News last night, also selling a book. Plouffe, some might remember, was the manager of the Obama presidential campaign that hasn't really ended yet.
ZING!
Check out the comments. Some people don’t get it, or they have no sense of humor.
"Scott" wrote November 10, 2009 at 05:46 AM:
She is the typical do as I say not as I do Christian.
Hey Scott - one of the requirements of being a Christian is admitting to being a sinner. Thus, Christians, while they promote holy living, are not perfect, and readily admit this. We say "Do as Jesus would" not "do as I did". See my comments below.
"Jack" wrote November 10, 2009 at 09:21 AM
If she is alone, I wouldn't really call it a "$ex tape" - but maybe I should not be asking President Clinton about these definitions.
Good one.
Let's get real here. She is being continually attacked because she dared to express the same opinion as Obama and the voters of the state she represented. Naturally and historically, and in most places, legally, marriage unites the sexes. That people feign outrage over such a notion is laughable. What isn't laughable is homofascism. I've seen people refer to her as a gay-basher simply because she affirmed marriage in her pageant answer. She did not criticize homosexual people in her answer.
There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.
Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let’s say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy.
We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone’s actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.
The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.
In this case, even if Prejean was proven to be a hypocrite, it would not negate the truth of what she said when she gave her answer in the pageant, and it does not make it okay to neuter marriage. But that's not really the point, is it? What's really going on here is an attempt to silence those opposed to a radical agenda. It's not working - at least not in her case. Prejean appears to be handling the situation in the best way possible, by using the media interest in her to warn others against making the same mistakes she made, but also to stand by their convictions.