For the third time, President Obama held a press conference within his first 100 days in office. For anyone keeping track, that is one just about every five weeks. Frankly, he might consider having his own series if he intends to keep that pace up. Think of the irony: an actor-turned-politician, Ronald Reagan, elected president in 1980, while a politician-turned-actor would currently hold office. After all, Obamanomics is replacing, if not already destroyed, Reaganomics.
Obviously, Obama is attempting to emulate FDR’s “Fireside Chat” broadcasts during the Depression. Certainly, the objective is to tell us, the American people, what his administration plans to do, mostly concerning the economy. The difference being modern-day technology brings him directly into our homes through the medium of television rather than radio. Fortunately, there are more than enough channels to switch to – on the radio and the television – than there were back then in order not to listen.
While it is one thing to keep citizens informed, I have always been one to believe, as the 17th century philosopher John Locke did, that “the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” In other words, show us don’t tell us. Understand, despite being a writer, I have never ascribed to the notion that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Words can be manipulated, if not manipulative, and they can be hollow when not backed by the substance of action. Indeed, a vast lexis exists from intellects through the ages, yet truly measurable achievement (agriculture, exploration, industry, etc.) has only come from the hard-working backbone of humanity.
So, while it might be cozy for Obama to keep reminding us of his already-exhausted promise of “hope and change,” many from both sides would prefer he delivered upon it. But he cannot, and he knows it. That is how a con artist operates, building up their mark’s confidence with talk until the moment the swindle is ripe to payoff. As it currently stands – in spite of his incessant cry of “inheriting” a one trillion dollar deficit – Obama’s swindle of the American people stands at a pork-bloated budget of $3.4 trillion. It only aims to get worse before it gets better.
Apparently, Miss California Carrie Prejean caused a major uproar in her bid for the Miss USA title. I say apparently, because I did not even know it was pageant time. Nor, in spite of a healthily hetero predilection for beautiful women, did I really care. Anyway, when asked about same-sex marriage by Perez Hilton – an openly gay man and a controversial gossip blogger – Prejean answered that she believes, due to her upbringing and beliefs, a marriage should be between a man and woman. The backlash began immediately, with Hilton stating he gave her a “0” for the answer – which almost certainly cost the crown to her ostensibly long-lost twin, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton. (Both blonde, both hot. Let your mind wander on that thought for a second…).
By saying Prejean gave the “wrong” answer to a politically charged, morals-based question, the judges criticized her politics and morals while in the same breath wanting her to agree with theirs. Hilton even qualified his question by asking “why or why not” she would feel that way. Though apparently looking for a well-argued opinion on the subject, it is obvious he was looking for an answer more in step with the gay community. Consequently, she was judged not on the quality of her answer, whether agreeable or not, but rather on her political correctness, due in large part to an apparent bias on the part of, at least, one judge in favor of same-sex marriage. That is a textbook example of the liberal mindset of the Left, awash in self-congratulatory smugness considered intellectually absolute.
The contention is not the validity of the question. In a country founded on individual freedoms, civil rights should constantly be part of the dialogue. Rather, the contention is the reaction to Miss California's answer in light of obvious assumptions of what constitutes the “proper” one. I hate people who ask a question, and then act stunned when the answer is not what they were looking for. Then do not ask the question.
The real question is because contestants’ answers are in opposition to a certain lifestyle – one shared by a few of the judges on this year’s panel, mind you – it should constitute an automatic mark? Such a double standard is absurd. That it happened at an event chastised in the post-feminist era for its allegedly sexist exploitation of women makes it even more hypocritical. How do you question political correctness in a pageant seen as anything but by certain standards of society? Expecting tolerance for rights is one thing, but it comes with being tolerant of expression for or against those rights as well.
With Sean Penn’s recent win at the Oscars for his portrayal of Harvey Milk, gay rights are once again a hot topic. Should Miss California been sensitive to that circumstance? Maybe. After all, the point of the Miss USA pageant is to choose a contestant best fit to represent the ideals of the United States. Ultimately, they are judged on their integrity and character as relates to the values of the nation. However, one’s personal principles speak to integrity and character, and compromising them to conform to another’s speaks as well. Again, the judges seemed more concerned with the latter than the former – yet another tenet of the liberal agenda. Prejean did not compromise her principles in stating her respectful opposition to same-sex marriage. Whether you agree or not, that is the criteria upon which she should have been judged.
It is becoming increasingly rare that substance wins over style. Why should it be any different at a pageant where style is queen?
Do you know the main problem for planet Earth, and quite possibly the entire solar system, galaxy and universe? The most sentient being, presumably, living among it – humans. Pseudo-activist ones at that, who blindly preach the sin of our "carbon footprint" and believe they can effect change on a global scale that will result positively or negatively. "Earth Hour" to save the planet? Really? Turning off lights for an hour means nothing, not even symbolically. All it does is put us further in the dark.
The planet has been around for billions of years, living harmoniously among the cosmos, bombarded by everything the universe, not to mention itself, can throw at it – horrifically torrential weather patterns, chillingly lethal volcanoes and catastrophically devastating asteroids. And the planet is still here. Earth does not perceive us, does not care about us. We are not its children. Despite man's attempts and measures to control nature, nature always will humble man's hubris of such grasping inclination. The only threat we pose is unbalancing the equation in arrogantly thinking that it needs to be rebalanced through a quasi-cult movement that insists turning off our lights, picking up a few plastic bags or filling our gas tanks after the sun goes down can "save the planet."
All the planet, the universe, and quite possibly even the invisible man so many are keen to worship will do is permanently turn out our lights – long after the sun has gone down on us – and scoop us into the galactic trash can with the rest of the cosmic garbage.
