Perez Hilton needs to just go away already.

04/23/2009 9:55 am
Rate this Blog
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Internet celebrity gossip blogger/shtick-gay Perez Hilton has somehow found fame himself. Most recently he was a judge at the Miss USA pageant when this went down:



Note the crowds reaction.

The two have been on numerous talk shows since then.

Matt Lauer asked Perez why he thinks that the girls should pander to the Judges, rather than give their honest answer. Perez responded: "I want someone to be politically savvy...and that means saying things that will make everyone feel welcome... for example, you know she’s a Christian, but ... I don’t want her talking about Jesus-Jesus-Jesus because that’s offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Atheist Americans... it’s about balance.... unfortunately she was not the perfect Miss USA."

In other various interviews he has reiterated over and over that she "doesn't represent america" and that "it's the first time a contestant has ever been booed at a Miss USA pageant."

Here's the video he posted immediately afterward. Sadly, it does not end with a cruise missile flying in through the window.



I'm really getting sick of these kind of people. He has some modicum of a point in that generally contestants stick with lame non-answers as to not step on any toes, but one could just as well argue that that's what makes the whole process pointless and lame. However, in regards to her answer "alienating" people, the opposite answer would have rubbed just as many people the wrong way.

You can agree or disagree all you want, or lament the state of things in America, but the fact remains her position does indeed "represent america" just as much, if not slightly more, than the answer Perez was apparently hoping for. (I have a feeling that were her answer "I think the federal government should step in and legalize it nationwide" he would have considered that a great answer, even though that's the opposite of what he says her non-positioned answer should have been.)

It's also preposterous to repeat over and over that she was "booed." There may have been some smattering of jeers, but he flogs this point like she was booed of the stage in tears. People cheered when Perez mentioned Vermont legalizing Gay Marriage, and just as many people cheered her response.

I'm sick of the Sesame Street notion that people have to constantly watch their tongue in legitimate matters of opinion, lest they offend someone. If you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist you might not be thrilled with someone professing their views to you, but if you are actually offended by it, that speaks to a larger problem on your part.

The people that say her answer was just like of she said something along the lines of, "It's great that we live in a country where you can choose in certain states, but in my family I was raised to beleive that only White people should be allowed to vote." are idiots. First and foremost, that's just different, plain and simple. Secondly, gay marriage is a legitimate debate right now and her answer is being evaluated right now.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
04/23/2009 @ 10:10:05 AM
 Quote this comment
So Jeremy dislikes diplomacy. Check.

This girl opposes gay marriage. Good for her- but you say she represents America based on that? She doesn't represent anyone but herself, it seems; and perhaps it could be argued her state- but not America. Get your ears open- many many many people (myself included) believe that GLB's should have marriage rights. By this fact alone, she doesn't represent me.

As for not winning Miss USA because of her answer- that is the prerogative of the judges, regardless of who they are. The folks that run the show chose the judges, and that's that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
04/23/2009 @ 10:17:59 AM
 Quote this comment
I believe that opposition to gay marriage is, by most accounts, the majority position in this country. So in that case, you could say, like Jeremy did, that she "represents America" on this issue better than if she gave the opposite answer.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 10:19:41 AM
 Quote this comment
She represents just as much of America with her answer as she would have with a "yea gay marriage!" answer, if not more. That's really not the point. I just made that comment to address the fact that making her answer out to be as if she was one of the last people left in America to beleive something is unfair. Diplomacy has its place, but sometimes we want actual answers to questions. *

Besides, she's not running for president, the idea that she's going to "represent" anyone is sort of silly. The content of her answer, assuming it's not outright offensive, and doesn't contain the phrase "death to america," should be rather unimportant. To me the questions are about "can this person form a coherent sentence under pressure, or will she ramble about maps and "the Iraq," and such"

*Edit: Certainly calling her a "dumb bitch" is about 20 steps over the line.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 04/23/2009 10:26:43 am
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
04/23/2009 @ 10:33:27 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 10:17:59 AM
I believe that opposition to gay marriage is, by most accounts, the majority position in this country. So in that case, you could say, like Jeremy did, that she "represents America" on this issue better than if she gave the opposite answer.


By who's count and by what standard? 51% could be a majority but it would by no means constitute a comfortable margin of victory in any vote, let alone when it comes to something like this.

Ultimately I think Jeremy is right, the answer itself is not importat, unless it is truly "Death to the Infidel!". What is important is how she answers the question.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 04/23/2009 10:35:58 am
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 10:36:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:19:41 AM
*Edit: Certainly calling her a "dumb bitch" is about 20 steps over the line.


agreed

guess I didn't see this part
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
04/23/2009 @ 10:50:17 AM
 Quote this comment
51%, 50.5%, an exact, to the person, 50/50 split, it doesn't matter. Hell, even if the scales were tipped 60/40 in favor of, the fact of the matter is that to make her opinion out to be like it's something that only she, and 4 other nut jobs, share, is unfair. (Most recent polling has only 33% of Americans in favor of Gay Marriage)

But that brings us to this, there's also some gray/semantic area here. There are people who are against Gay "Marriage" who aren't at all opposed to some legal recognition of gay couples, they just don't want a precedent where their church would be forced to marry a gay couple against its will. I'm not sure if that's what legalizing gay marriage would mean, but if so, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. Gay people should be allowed the same legal benefits that "opposite" couples get. I don't think, however, that this should automatically mean that your local Catholic Church would be legally obligated to do it. Truth be told though, I think even that is more fear-mongering/paranoia than anything, because I doubt most Gay couples want to be married in a church, and our priest made it crystal clear to Sarah and I that he was under no obligation to marry anyone. (Like for example, if the Bride was pregnant. Which wouldn't be an auto deal breaker, but they would have to convince him that they wanted to be married and that it wasn't out of obligation or parental pressure.) And all that assumes that's even what it would mean anyway.

Part of the problem is that to part of the population the word "marriage" carries additional weight to it, and to another portion of the population marriage, civil-union, etc are all interchangeable synonyms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4917681.shtml
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/23/2009 1:09:38 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
04/23/2009 @ 10:50:18 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:33:27 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 10:17:59 AM
I believe that opposition to gay marriage is, by most accounts, the majority position in this country. So in that case, you could say, like Jeremy did, that she "represents America" on this issue better than if she gave the opposite answer.


By who's count and by what standard? 51% could be a majority but it would by no means constitute a comfortable margin of victory in any vote, let alone when it comes to something like this.


Well, 51% is a majority, but the point is/was that her view is not a "fringe" position. Whatever way she answered the question, she would be "representing" a large portion of American and "not representing" a large portion as well. To ask that question (or one like it) and then be angry about the answer not being "inclusive" enough is ludicrous unless your definition of inclusive is "the way I believe", as it seems to be in this case.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 11:21:09 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Lauer asked Perez why he thinks that the girls should pander to the Judges, rather than give their honest answer. Perez responded: "I want someone to be politically savvy...and that means saying things that will make everyone feel welcome... for example, you know she’s a Christian, but ... I don’t want her talking about Jesus-Jesus-Jesus because that’s offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Atheist Americans... it’s about balance.... unfortunately she was not the perfect Miss USA."

This explanation is also pretty flimsy. In her answer she never mentions religion at all. Now, you could infer from her answer that it was likely, or maybe it was common knowledge among the judges at the time, but even then it still comes down to him basically saying that since she's a Christian, she will offend non-Christians. This, of course, leads one to wonder whether he would have voted for a Jewish, Muslim or Atheist-American, since, by his logic, they would "offend" Christian-Americans.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 11:41:41 AM
 Quote this comment
I think it was common knowledge. I think he mentioned something somewhere about being happy when he drew "the really Christian" one, implying he knew going in. (FYI, I'm not saying the prior statement implied anything, but that he went on to say/imply they knew.)

Another judge also stated her answer hurt her because you're supposed to stay in "neutral" ground, so like I said, in that sense he has some point. As far as the pageant goes, it was a bad answer. But then again, just going off his "ideal answer", he asked her "Do you think every state should follow suit." If he really wanted to test her civics knowledge with the ends being an answer balancing state/federal rights, than he easily could have asked "[Stuff about Vermont]What do you think the roles the federal and state governments should play in determining this issue?" But he didn't. He asked her opinion ON the the issue, and, I suspect, had it jived with his, he would have been all for her not responding about state rights. (Which, by the way, wouldn't have been any sort of an answer to his question.)

Edit: I watched the video again to get his exact phrasing. There was really only a small smattering of applause when he mentioned Vermont, despite his 'hold for appause' pause/smile as if he was personally getting a standing ovation. The reaction to her answer was much much more boisterous.

Edit2: I guess your response to her response might also depend on how much you read into her use of "in my country." You could read into that "in my country [if I had my way] there will be no gay marriage." Personally I completely ignored that as a slip of the tongue with "in my family" being the correction.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 6 times, last at 04/23/2009 12:02:55 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
04/23/2009 @ 12:10:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, you could say that it was a "trick question" and that the "correct" answer in this case is to give a politician-like answer in which you don't really say anything at all and thus, don't really answer the question. Of course, if she answered in support of gay marriage, my suspicion is that her straying from "neutral" would not have been as much of a problem.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 04/23/2009 12:15:10 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
04/23/2009 @ 12:21:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, all in all add this to the pile of examples where someone gets asked a question, then gets crapped on for actually answering it, and not necessarily because of the answer. As a society we've decided that the only acceptable responses to questions are answers we could have auto-generated before we asked them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/23/2009 12:24:00 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 12:25:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Even assuming the neutral answer strategy is the correct one, can you imagine the outrage if she would have answered in favor of gay marriage and then been docked because of it? There has been a fair amount of fervor over this as is, but I have to imagine that if it went the other way, the uproar would be immense.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 12:34:44 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not so sure on that. I think there are a lot more media venues for "OMG Look at the liberals punish the conservative!!!" than there is vise verse. Plus most of the deal is what a jackass Perez is being, which, though he could have made a deal out of "fighting for her cause" or something, wouldn't carry the same weight.

The only issue could have been the non-neutral answer, whereas now you have a bunch of openly pro gay marriage judges that may or may not be using that as an excuse.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 04/23/2009 12:42:42 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich
04/23/2009 @ 01:02:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Sorry I couldn't keep up with the rapidfire posts, I don't seem to be able to read them as quickly as you can respond (I'm at work, working).

I'll end my contribution by saying "Do What Thou Wilt Shall be [part of] the Law". In other words, as long as you're not hurting me or taking rights away from someone else, have a good time, knock yourself out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 01:59:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Can we actually answer the real question here, which is when did people like Perez Hilton and Keenan start being Miss America judges?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/23/2009 @ 02:19:52 PM
 Quote this comment
The fact that we even know who Perez is makes me worry for the future of our civilization. People are constantly ripping on the Paris Hilton's of the world for being "famous for nothing," meanwhile this "guy" gets famous for gossiping about these people that supposedly shouldn't be famous in the first place.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy
04/23/2009 @ 02:37:13 PM
 Quote this comment
I've never actually been to his site. Does it contain skanky pictures of Miley Cyrus, because then I might have to check it out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
04/23/2009 @ 09:07:55 PM
 Quote this comment
I've seen him before somewhere, but before reading this page I wouldn't have been able to tell you anything about him from his name. And I would've preferred to keep that way. You bastard Jeremy!

There is some assumption of intent needed to make this proclamation, but I think his question was very poorly phrased. If you take it word for word (say what you mean and mean what you say people!), he was either asking her if the other states should just do what Vermont does because Vermont knows best, or if she personally believed that all states should legalize same sex marriage. The first question is just a really dumb way of asking whether same sex marriage should be allowed/disallowed at a state or federal government level, although that's kind of the question that he gives his hypothetical answer too. The second question is a total land mine question, and would have to be considered almost unacceptable probably for a beauty pageant question, that he apparently didn't mean to ask because he says that she shouldn't have given her personal beliefs on the issue. And then despite the fact that he total mangled his question, she still kind of answered it by mentioning that we live in a country where people can choose and so on.

So maybe if he would've used his half a brain to PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME a decently worded question, she could have spit out a better answer in 10 seconds in front of a crowd. Then he has the gall to declare HIMSELF "the YouTube moment of the show", call her a dumb bitch with half a brain (takes one to know one), start his hypothetical answer with "Perez, that's a great question!", and not even remember which Carolina won.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
04/23/2009 @ 09:23:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:59:59 PM
Can we actually answer the real question here, which is when did people like Perez Hilton and Keenan start being Miss America judges?


Or is the real question, Miss America pageant, better to win or get your 15 minutes with the "YouTube moment of the show"?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/25/2009 @ 08:15:38 AM
 Quote this comment
Hilton says that she lost not because she opposed gay marriage, but because she didn't say something like "I think the states should decide." I'm sure he would have been just as upset if she simply said "Yes, I believe other states should allow gay marriage because everyone has the right to marry whoever they want." I'm sure he would have booed her off the stage then.

Actually, someone may have touched on this point too, but I'm not sure she got booed at all. There was a bit of a gasp in the audience for about 1 second, but then there was actually what appeared to be a dignified smattering applaus.

Anyway, believe what you want, I respect someone who has the characer to say something on that type of stage knowing that the voice of opposition is going to be loud (not necessarily in the moment of the show, but for the after-the-show-talk).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
05/06/2009 @ 05:57:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Christians need to stop whining when they get attacked for their beliefs. This Miss California has the courage (in my opinion) to state her beliefs about a sensitive issues, knowing that there very well may be some backlash. She gets attacked for her beliefs, and she does nothing but complain about it.

First off, Jesus himself said that believers will get attacked for their beliefs, and that when they do they should consider themselves blessed. The Bible says that their reward will be in heaven. Well, when you complain about things like these, you are not considering yourself blessed, and according to the Bible, you are no better off for it.

Secondly, the girl poses nude, blames her attackers for leaking the photos as part of the attack, then defends the nude photos from a Christian basis. Maybe Perez Hilton was right that she is just dumb. You can't defend taking nude or scantlly clad photos to sell lingerie from a Christian perspective. It's not that the act of posing for racy photos is bad in and of itself. But, the Bible says that believers should be careful not to take actions that may cause other believers to stumble. In other words if I knew of a friend who had a gambling addiction, I shouldn't invite him over to play poker. For a Christian to say that because she is also a model that taking nude or racy photos is justified, that Christian is doing nothing to be careful not to cause others to stumble. Lingerie photos are as much about perking up the male appetite for sex as they are for making women want to buy them.

The moral of this rant: if you are a Christian and you express your beliefs, do not complain if they make you unpopular. If you are a Christian and you express your beliefs and you complain and then your nude photos come out from a few years ago, don't defend your actions. Say you are sorry, say you made a mistake, and understand that now your credibility will forever be shot.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2009 @ 11:40:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Well I hardly think the Christian right was planning on turning to Miss California to be the face of the movement (which supposedly has nothing to do with Christianity anyway). Although they do seem to have an affinity for wanting to see beauty queens in power, I'm not sure anyone is worried about her credibility*. This isn't a big brouhaha because she voiced her opinion on the matter. If Keenan asked this question, got this answer, and that was that, do you really think we'd have even heard about this? This story only has legs because the "queen of all media" was a complete and utter dick.

Again, yes, she should have stuck to neutral ground because the contestants are traditionally forbidden from actually answering questions. Instead they're expected to give rambling, politician like, answers that mean nothing and answer nothing. In that sense, it was a bad answer, and in that sense, she deserved to take a hit on the scoring. This isn't anything without Perez calling it "the stupidest answer ever", and calling her a "dumb bitch," then turned ruining her into his personal mission.

Here's the answer Keenan really got to his question. At least Miss California answered the question, and kept the incoherent babbling to a minimum.

*Edit: Though, as a corollary, maybe Perez should stop and think about if he's helping or hurting his cause as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 05/06/2009 11:48:03 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/07/2009 @ 12:05:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, is it really relevant what "racy" pictures are out there? The picture in question could be shown on prime time television. Every Victoria's Secret commercial is 50 times more salacious. As long as she doesn't turn out to be the star of "Back Door Sluts 14: This time it's personal" I really don't see how these women keep getting "toppled" by some underwear pics. There's a freaking bikini contest to determine the winner! The Miss California USA Pageant payed for her to get breast implants to go compete for Miss USA. I really fail to see how these women are somehow seen as pure and chaste role models, until an old photo comes out, at which point they're common whores that can't represent an entity as virtuous as theirs: The entity that paid for the boobs she's waving around in the next pageant.

I mean really?

Shining beacon to the Lord. All that is good, pure and holy. Everything we want our women to be.
Gutter Trash. May as well be a prostitute. Baby Jesus is crying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 05/07/2009 12:06:36 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
05/07/2009 @ 12:22:24 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:40:02 PM
If Keenan asked this question, got this answer, and that was that, do you really think we'd have even heard about this? This story only has legs because the "queen of all media" was a complete and utter dick.


If she was asked this by another judge and the judge later commented (respectfully) that this cost her the title, I think there would still be a big story. Maybe it wouldn't have gotten as big, maybe some parts of the media wouldn't have noticed (at least right away), but there would still be a big story.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
05/07/2009 @ 12:44:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, you're probably right to some extent, since we don't listen to reason as a society, but if the pageants immediate reaction was to explain why the answer was a bad one, by their established standards, I think that would stem the reaction a little bit. She wouldn't have done the 1500 talk show circuit if it wasn't for the "something might happen between her and Perez factor." The only angle to work would have been the vast liberal conspiracy, which would have gotten some play, but not nearly as much. (Not that her saying something that was obviously contrary to most of the judges person feelings couldn't be a real factor, but then again, even if that was a factor, that's still just an example of someone lacking political savvy, which is exactly what they're saying she needed to be more of.) If you aren't an avid viewer of the 700 Club, I doubt you would have heard about it, though I suppose it could get a mention from the O'Reilly's of the world.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
06/11/2009 @ 07:28:47 AM
 Quote this comment
I wonder if the Fox News lead outcry about the "attacks" on Carrie Prejean will still try to defend her after this. Apparently she's just a jerk afterall.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
06/11/2009 @ 08:46:46 AM
 Quote this comment
I heard about that on CNN radio yesterday. You don't hear her side of the story though, and with Trump there's always a chance that they made it up to save face. Either way; don't know, don't care.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
06/11/2009 @ 10:59:26 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't know if I would buy this as a face saving move. It was clear they wanted her to stay on. If anything they bypassed lots of precedence set by keeping her on after the photos surfaced. Not only did they keep her on after the perfect excuse to get rid of her, they made exceptions to long standing guidelines to do so. About the only thing you might be able to argue is that they kept her then, and are dumping her now, because they like the fact that an event that usually isn't a blip on 99% of people's radars keeps making big news, and this was the best way to get back in the news.

I might be willing to accept that this was a calculated move on her part. She gets to look like a martyr, yet again. She also realized, correctly in my opinion, that she's now bigger than the pageants, and can probably swing something much better on her own. (Sort of like how you want to be an American Idol finalist, but might actually be better off not winning it, because then you can do whatever you want.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
06/11/2009 @ 12:00:31 PM
 Quote this comment
any news is good news? celebrity crotch-shots and rehab stints and the like? you have a point.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
06/11/2009 @ 12:22:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:59:26 AM
I don't know if I would buy this as a face saving move. It was clear they wanted her to stay on. If anything they bypassed lots of precedence set by keeping her on after the photos surfaced.


I'm not sure this is true. The California people wanted her gone from the start, just because of her answer. Shanna Moakler basically quit because they didn't take her title away. The pictures were pretty borderline. I guess they could have used them as an excuse to get rid of her, but stories were already coming out about previous contestants who had similar (or worse) pictures and nothing happened to them. Plus, it was still too close to the pageant and people would have figured (perhaps quite rightly) that she was being fired more for the answer than for the pictures. In the end, Trump probably saw that it would be more trouble than it was worth to get rid of her then.

As for now, who knows. Maybe she was missing obligations like they said, maybe she wasn't like she said. Maybe they just figured that if they waited a bit there wouldn't be as much of a commotion. One thing I will say in her defense though, is that it was pretty clear that the higher-ups at Miss California wanted her gone, and were never really supportive of her (publicly disagreeing with her answer, leaking the story about the breast implants, etc.). If she was cold towards them or tried to have as little contact with them as possible, then I can't really blame her. Now, that doesn't mean she can skip out on legitimate obligations, and if that was the case than its probably better for everyone that she was let go. If, however, they just wanted her gone and decided to use a technicality or vague contract language to get rid of her, then I think that would be kind of sleazy. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, as more details are sure to come.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
06/11/2009 @ 12:47:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 12:22:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:59:26 AM
I don't know if I would buy this as a face saving move. It was clear they wanted her to stay on. If anything they bypassed lots of precedence set by keeping her on after the photos surfaced.


I'm not sure this is true. The California people wanted her gone from the start, just because of her answer. Shanna Moakler basically quit because they didn't take her title away. The pictures were pretty borderline. I guess they could have used them as an excuse to get rid of her, but stories were already coming out about previous contestants who had similar (or worse) pictures and nothing happened to them. Plus, it was still too close to the pageant and people would have figured (perhaps quite rightly) that she was being fired more for the answer than for the pictures. In the end, Trump probably saw that it would be more trouble than it was worth to get rid of her then.


Right, but if it was a face saving maneuver fueled by the controversy over her answer, then that's exactly what they would WANT people to conclude. They had a much better excuse back when it would have been a much better "statement" to let her walk. Perhaps the right people did change their minds in the meantime, but everything we know so far about this he-said/she-said argument has me leaning toward the pageant, especially since, as I said, it's also in her best interest to break away now while she's still in the public eye and try to get a gig on TV somewhere, which is what most models are hoping for. She's been "discovered," she doesn't need them anymore. Getting dumped on vague grounds lets her play the victim card, if need be, and move on.

In other words, it seems more likely to me the Pageant is telling the truth, and her lawyer is telling half truths, than there's something sneaky going on on the Pageant's side.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
06/11/2009 @ 01:08:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, but as I said, the California people wanted her gone from the start, and dismissing the photos wasn't as big of a leap as you make it sound (especially at that time). What probably happened is that both sides are telling the "truth" (at least how they see it) and they couldn't see eye to eye on how she should use her time. If there were shenanigans on one side though, I think it is more likely that they decided to wait a month, fire her because of supposed contract violations, and hope that enough time had passed that they could escape too much backlash; than a scenario where she "forced" them to fire her. Not that it's not possible, just that I think it's less likely.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 2 times, last at 06/11/2009 1:20:05 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
06/11/2009 @ 01:47:21 PM
 Quote this comment
There's just as much backlash to be had as praise though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 06/11/2009 1:56:05 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
06/11/2009 @ 02:01:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, for the record, I'm not saying it's likely that this was a grand plan of hers to get out of the deal. All I'm saying is the motivation for the pageant to dump her for spite is largely not there anymore. The anti-civil-rights people are still going to read into this and make a big deal out of it, and gay rights supporters are most likely going to see it as a "too-little-too-late" thing. She's been around, you did nothing while she spread her hate speech, and now that no one cares about her anymore, you're chucking her on some technical snafu. On top of that, I was just saying that if anyone has any motivation to be working some hidden angle, it would be her.

Edit: And I'm also not advocating that people's dislike of her is playing no part what-so-ever.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 06/11/2009 2:14:54 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
06/11/2009 @ 02:54:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:01:16 PM
All I'm saying is the motivation for the pageant to dump her for spite is largely not there anymore. The anti-civil-rights people are still going to read into this and make a big deal out of it, and gay rights supporters are most likely going to see it as a "too-little-too-late" thing.


Except the motivations you listed are p.r. related, they don't have to do with spite. If you want to fire someone out of spite, it doesn't really matter that the gay rights supporters will think it's too-little-too-late.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
06/11/2009 @ 02:57:52 PM
 Quote this comment
And waiting to fire someone our of spite to wait to "escape the backlash" is PR related too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
06/11/2009 @ 03:00:24 PM
 Quote this comment
I never said it wasn't. Just that it would make it easier to act on that spite.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
06/11/2009 @ 04:09:18 PM
 Quote this comment
snore
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Since 1980!
06/12/2009 @ 09:05:23 AM
 Quote this comment
x2
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
06/12/2009 @ 11:01:26 AM
 Quote this comment
I can't find the article I read last night on this, but it seems more and more clear that she is just a jerk. She requested that they "not filter her" in any way in regards to the requests for her, then got pissed when "they asked me if I wanted to do playboy." The two sides sat down to negotiate whether or not she could write a book about the pageant while under contract, only to find out that she had already basically gotten the book deal, while fully aware she was not free to do so. She was also often invited places and spoke out against gay marriage, and other such non-sanctioned events, while under the guise of being Miss California.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
06/12/2009 @ 11:40:22 AM
 Quote this comment
She was on the Today show this morning. She is definitely carrying herself as a proud victim. It was as if she was looking for something to make her a lightening rod for her cause.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
06/12/2009 @ 11:48:49 AM
 Quote this comment


x3? or x4? I don't know, I've pretty much ignored this whole thread.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.