Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another blow to the religious right's latest fake hero/martyr. CNN reports that Carrie Prejean was forced to settle her lawsuit against the Miss California pageant because a sex tape surfaced starring her - and apparently her alone.
The veil of secrecy was partially lifted Wednesday after celebrity gossip Web site TMZ reported the deal was sealed after pageant lawyers presented an "extremely graphic" home video involving Prejean.TMZ Managing Editor Harvey Levin said during a webcast Wednesday that he obtained the Prejean video during the summer, but found it "too racy" to post on his site. He indicated Prejean was alone in the video.
The source with knowledge of the settlement talks told CNN those details were accurate.
Seriously, what's it going to take to get the credulous religious righters to realize that this woman is a fraud, not a hero who was persecuted for her Christian faith?
Politics
Comments
She's prettier than Sarah Palin (and waaaay prettier than Ann Coulter), and she says the right things. Therefore, she is persecuted by the evil athiest[sic] communist liberal Nazi fascist[sic] Obama-worshiping MSM. QED.
Posted by: chancelikely | November 6, 2009 9:36 AM
Jesus weeps for those boobs no doubt.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 6, 2009 9:37 AM
OMG, she's an....Onanosexual? Masturbosexual?
Posted by: Adrienne | November 6, 2009 9:39 AM
Ed:
This is just so typical of you Liebertarian smear tactics. You allewd to a Sextape, but you don't provide it. We want the truth, dammit! We can handle the truth. I need to see that tape--many, many times--to determine its veracity. Do you know if it has a Barry White soundtrack?
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 9:42 AM
Religious rightists never learn--because their ideology is specifically structured to accommodate (even encourage) hypocrisy such as this. How many of these red-nut leaders have been caught doing naughties? The trick is simply to either repent convincingly enough (a la Jimmy Swaggert's prostitutes) or artfully and forcefully deflect the allegations (a la Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse). All Prejean needs to do is express adequate levels of regret, couched in full, humble-seeming Christian repentance, and she'll not only be forgiven, but she'll be embraced as a shining example of Jesus' transformative power.
One of the conveniences of a religion with such an easy get-out-of-hell-free card.
Posted by: gary l. day | November 6, 2009 9:47 AM
But more importantly, where's her birth certificate?
Posted by: Coryat | November 6, 2009 9:53 AM
Maybe the devil made her do it!
I'm picturing a particular scene from the exorcist - at least she still gets to keep her cross close!
Posted by: Sigmund | November 6, 2009 9:59 AM
This thread is useless without the link. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | November 6, 2009 10:03 AM
Seriously. What could she possibly have been doing on this tape?
Oh well. She's now just a step or two away from porn. Go Carrie! Go!
Posted by: FishyFred | November 6, 2009 10:05 AM
I want to know if it was pre- or post-enhancement.
Posted by: chris | November 6, 2009 10:16 AM
Ed, Ed, Ed. You are looking at this all wrong. This tape is proof (PROOF, I SAY) that she was the right choice for the Religious Right. Not because of what the tape is, but what the tape isn't. It isn't a tape of her engaged in pre-marital fornication and it isn't a tape of her engaged in The Gay (tm). See?
Posted by: carlsonjok | November 6, 2009 10:17 AM
@carlsonjok - true, but it does apparently show her as a woman having an active sex life and not hating it.
That's more than enough for some people I'm sure.
Posted by: David Durant | November 6, 2009 10:24 AM
I thought the Religious Right claimed that masturbation was gay sex and therefore one of several reasons it's sin. Ms. Prejean argued at the pageant against gays based on her religious beliefs. Is this another Larry Craig / Ted Haggerty moment?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2009 10:25 AM
I can't get past anyone thinking there is something wrong with making a solo sex video. What's next, charges of making a cooking video with graphic buns?
You'd think some people were getting their morality from thousand year old parchments...
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 6, 2009 10:26 AM
@11 - Exactly! Indeed the tape can be thought of more as an instructional video for other young Christian women on how to save yourself for marriage.
Posted by: Norm | November 6, 2009 10:27 AM
I've been on Internet forums long enough that I seriously expected a VOIDH response from someone. How disappointing.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 6, 2009 10:27 AM
Just because you demanded it, here's a link. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2009 10:29 AM
But was her battery powered companion American made or was she copulating with a foreign dildo?
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 6, 2009 10:37 AM
Wait a second.
There's a video of a leading Christian opponent of same-sex marriage both performing and receiving sexual activity on and from a member of the same sex?!?
Baby Jesus will shriek and howl for days!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 6, 2009 10:43 AM
you have it all wrong.. she was praying to the Lord of Hosts...
I heard her clearly.. "Oh god oh god ohhhhoohhh gooooooddd oh oh oh god oh god oooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.... ahhhhh eeeeeeee!"
Abby Norm - very funny. there must also be some joke about dog's butt.. but .. this is all I could find..
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dre1008l.jpg
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | November 6, 2009 10:59 AM
But who's holding the camera?
I heard a radio talk-show host saying softly, "Dear God, let whoever was holding the camera be a woman."
Amen.
Posted by: Elf Sternberg | November 6, 2009 11:08 AM
Don't be so sure. Jimmy Swaggart and Rush Limbaugh were men. As far as the Religious Right is concerned, men can repent, but once a woman is ruined, she's ruined.
Posted by: Seraph | November 6, 2009 11:32 AM
pics or it didn't happen
Posted by: bourgeois_rage | November 6, 2009 11:36 AM
Who makes a sex tape starring only himself or herself? I mean, if I were ever moved to do such a thing, I would have to have at least one other person in the thing to offset the raw damage viewing just me playing with myself would do to someone's eyes. Even then, I would balk at watching.
It's not as though the world was unaware that this Prejean woman is a complete fucking idiot already, but this just adds spice. I love Schadenfreude.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | November 6, 2009 12:27 PM
"woman is a fraud"
I don't follow. How is she a fraud?
She was a teenager when it was made.
Why are you trashing her here? This is vaguely misogynistic.
Posted by: Isabel | November 6, 2009 1:01 PM
Masturbating and being a conservative christian are not mutually exclusive...
...how is it being hypocritical to play with yourself?
Posted by: whatev | November 6, 2009 1:04 PM
I don't think it matters how old she was when the tape was made, nor does it have any bearing on the suit she brought (since it came out after the fact).
I don't even think it has anything to do with same sex marriage, and I personally don't find anything wrong with the fact that she masturbated on camera. I just think it was stupid in that such things are NEVER kept private. If she wanted it private, it was a mistake to make it.
Then again, I think miss america etc is a den of stupid, so...
Posted by: rpsms | November 6, 2009 1:11 PM
Well, I think you summed up what I was thinking, rpsms.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 6, 2009 1:13 PM
Don't conservative Christians tend to market themselves as "professional virgins" (until they're married anyway)?
Just lucky they never asked her about abstinence only 'sex education'. :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 1:17 PM
Of course, Prejean can always blame it on Satan.
Posted by: Tommykey | November 6, 2009 1:34 PM
There are so many possibilities...
The Ken Ham sex tape...involving dinosaurs.
The Kirk Cameron sex tape...involving bananas.
The Sarah Palin sex tape...involving a future edition of Playgirl.
The George W Bush sex tape...involving "weapons of ass destruction".
The Dick Armey sex tape...involving teabags.
The Ann Coulter sex tape...involving Rush Limb...no, maybe not that one.
Posted by: Kapitano | November 6, 2009 1:41 PM
gary l. day: One of the conveniences of a religion with such an easy get-out-of-hell-free card.
You can get your own Get Out Of Hell Free card for a very reasonable price.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 6, 2009 1:49 PM
shame it wasn't a girl on girl tape. that would really show the hypocrisy....
Posted by: shane | November 6, 2009 2:12 PM
How is it "vaguely misogynistic" when several people have pointed out several examples of right-wing men doing the same thing? This is common of them: Tout perfect morals, and then do exactly the opposite, and then "repent".
RPSMS: I'm sure her very right Christian views say that masturbation is ALSO A SIN.
She, like so many other right-wingers, are claiming to be above everyone else. And then they do hypocritical shit like this.
The hypocrisy NEEDS to be pointed out, which is what Ed is doing.
Posted by: marilove | November 6, 2009 2:39 PM
Elf Sternberg wrote: "But who's holding the camera?
I heard a radio talk-show host saying softly, "Dear God, let whoever was holding the camera be a woman."
Amen.
I heard the same talk-show host this morning reveal that the camera was indeed held by a woman (or girl, if I'm reading the comment about Prejean's age at the time correctly.) So God does answer prayer (despite the talk-show host's assistants joking that God had blocked her number.)
By the way, is there a reason we're tiptoeing around the name of this host? I won't mention her name, but her initials are Stephanie Miller. ;-)
Posted by: Chris Winter | November 6, 2009 2:46 PM
She was having sex with HERSELF???
Eeeeewwwwww. Must be a lesbo.
Posted by: Bill | November 6, 2009 3:06 PM
To a fundamentalist Christian masturbation might not be a sin but a sex tape is, oh my lord, da evil porn, thats mighty sinfull.
Posted by: Rev, Billy | November 6, 2009 3:20 PM
She will become more famous for it, "The devil made me do it, and the Lord saved me from his clutches," she will shriek!!
Posted by: impal | November 6, 2009 3:26 PM
"And they'll know we are Christians by our self love, by our self love
Yeah they'll know we are Christians by our self love"
Posted by: NJ | November 6, 2009 3:28 PM
Another blow... hee hee...
Posted by: Jeff | November 6, 2009 3:56 PM
It's "vaguely misogynistic" because Isabel is a well-known chronic troll.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2009 4:06 PM
I'm sure the first thoughts that popped into Sean Hannity's mind yesterday after hearing the above news were:
a) Cool! I wonder if I can download it tonight? Maybe Mark Levin has a link. Text him to ask.
b) On the way to the computer room at 2AM, avoid the sixth step on the stairway. It creaks, and the wife is a light sleeper.
c) Get box of Kleenex on the way home from work (triple-strength).
Posted by: CHV | November 6, 2009 4:38 PM
CHV, whatever was going through Hannity's mind at that moment was probably far darker and more frightening than we dare imagine.
I mean of Lovecraftian proportion: something so foul, so unspeakably, damnably grotesque that we mere mortals would find our very minds perched at the edge of a howling abyss of insanity were we to witness it. You know, that sort of thing.
And here's a nice quote from Lovecraft, just for fun:
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity."
Posted by: Leni | November 6, 2009 4:54 PM
Azkyroth;
The batshit crazee is strong in that dingdongisabel.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 5:00 PM
The fact that the tape exists (although I am still waiting for the PROOF) will be spun as a vicious attack by those rude atheists. It's Dawkins' fault that she made this tape just so she could be made to look ridiculous.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 6, 2009 5:01 PM
LOL. I bet it was Dawkins holding the camera. We won't know for sure until he proves he wasn't.
Posted by: Leni | November 6, 2009 5:09 PM
Leni @ 44:
Hannity isn't nearly as deep or disturbing as Cthulhu would have you believe. He's as simple-minded and hypocritical as they come.
Posted by: CHV | November 6, 2009 5:10 PM
Oh I don't know, CHV. Being simple-minded does not preclude one from being demented and creepy. Haven't you seen Deliverance?
Posted by: Leni | November 6, 2009 5:17 PM
Actually, I think Banjo Boy led the opening prayer at Michelle Bachmann's House GOP rally against health reform on the Capitol steps yesterday.
Posted by: CHV | November 6, 2009 5:36 PM
How is it "vaguely misogynistic" when several people have pointed out several examples of right-wing men doing the same thing?
You don't understand. In right-wing parlance, disagreeing with a conservative woman or pointing out her hypocrisies is misogyny. Actual misogyny is sanctioned by god and/or tradition. See?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 6, 2009 9:56 PM
@47
I did what now?
Hannity isn't one of mine. I have much more class than that.
Posted by: Cthulhu | November 6, 2009 10:28 PM
One of these days, I want to see a beauty pageant contestant say, "Yeah, I did a self-sex video. So what? Everybody's doing it, and nobody's getting hurt by it." And they'll be right.
So if Ms. Prejean had been an atheist, she wouldn't have any reason to be ashamed of her behavior. It's only the Christians who are freaked out by bodily functions.
Sigh. I love it.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 6, 2009 11:31 PM
OMG Leni you're right!
Carrie (bucket 'o blood) Prejean is Glenn Bek's "one who got away" !!! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 11:43 PM
Depending upon her age when she was taped, Carrie Prejean could be charged with manufacturing child pornography. A number of teenage girls who used camera phones to titilate their boyfriends ("sexting") have been charged by overzealous prosecutors.
From CNET News - March 30, 2009 4:00 PM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10207408-238.html
"Sexting" is the practice of taking a sexually revealing picture of yourself, typically from a cell phone, and sending it to someone. Legal consequences aside, it's a dumb thing to do, especially for younger age groups in which it has become something of a fad.
For minors, there's another risk: serious legal consequences. Creating, transmitting, and even possessing a nude, seminude, or sexually explicit image of a minor can be considered child pornography. It can be prosecuted as a state or federal felony and can even lead to having to register as a sex offender.
Crazy as it seems, some prosecutors have gone after kids for taking and sending pictures of themselves. There was a case in Florida a couple of years ago in which a teenage boy and girl photographed themselves nude and engaged in "unspecified sexual behavior."
One kid sent the picture to the other, and somehow, the police got involved. They were tried and convicted for production and distribution of child porn, and the teen who received the image had the additional charge of possession. An appeals court upheld the convictions.
In January this year, three teenage girls from Pennsylvania were charged for creating child porn, and the three boys who received the images were charged for possessing it. And, according to CBS News, a Texas eighth-grader in October spent a night in jail after a coach found a nude picture on his cell phone, sent by another student. http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10207408-238.html
Wonder what the sentencing guidelines are for manufacturing and distributing child porn?
Posted by: NJOsprey | November 7, 2009 2:13 AM
"Masturbating and being a conservative christian are not mutually exclusive..."
So no Catholics are "conservative christians?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | November 7, 2009 3:24 AM
daniel rotter:
I used to be a Cath-O-Lick and it's just like other christian faiths in that regard. You can't palpate the pope without you commit a mortal sin = BAD Cath-O-lick. However, you can bop the bishop, enjoy the sin, go to confession and have it erased = GOOD Cath-O-Lick. Rinse, work yourself into a lather, repeat.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 7:37 AM
If she is the same dumb bitch who insisted that "Irish slavery" was "just as bad" as minority slavery in the Americas, this has to be the understatement of the thread.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 7, 2009 6:49 PM
Azkyroth:
Hard to tell. The last "Isabel" that was here wouldn't own up to being the same person, but I think her pattern of posting gave her away.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 11:18 PM
Link?
Posted by: Ian | November 8, 2009 12:17 AM
Wow. What a den of hateful, blinkered intolerance. Which is, of course, your prerogative.
But if hypocrisy is her sin-- the only real one to be manufactured here-- then all of you should take a good, hard look in the mirror before you lecture someone on the importance of being open-minded.
Because the stench of hypocrisy here is overwhelming.
Posted by: karlub | November 9, 2009 2:12 PM
Bravo to the posters here who "get it." There are far too few of you out there right now.
When are Prejean’s bashers going to get it?
There is nothing wrong whatsoever about a Christian making a sex tape--per se. If there’s anything un-Christian about this sex tape, it’s that it was made with a boyfriend instead of a husband–in other words, premarital sex. Why are the voices in chorus against her not decrying the countless others who have not exactly clung to the rules of premarital chastity? Which is damn near everyone…
The matter of the relationship may be a question to be debated. Even among sincere Christians there is some call to rethink the strict rules of the past.
The sex video itself is incidental.
And who said this: “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. And for me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.”
Another right-wing homophobe? Well you decide.
This are the words of then-candidate Barack Hussein Obama, campaigning in Lake Forest, CA.
Where is the chorus of accusation against him? I guess what is reprehensible for a pretty conservative is perfectly OK for a darling of the left.
And they say SHE is a hypocrite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWtYdqbGNio
Posted by: RHSimard | November 9, 2009 4:21 PM
Why is it an either/or? Obama IS a hypocrite on the subject of gay marriage. More accurately, he played a thoroughly dishonest political game with the issue throughout his campaign (and continues to do so today). I don't see how that absolves Prejean's hypocrisy one bit.
And yes, I will continue to find it amusing that the religious right has made a hero out of a woman with fake tits and a sex tape.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 9, 2009 5:15 PM
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
Could you please respond with the numbers of the comment posts posted by those you believe "get it". In addition, what "it" are you specifically referencing? Reading the rest of your post I'm pretty confident you belong in the population I've observed either do not "get it" or are unable to "get it". Unlike you, I'll specify that observation.
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
Hmmm . . . does repeating the same point somehow make a vague insult while naming no one convincing? What bizarro world is able to get away with that lame rhetorical device?
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
You certainly have the right to believe that. But if you claim to talk for a group of people which it appears you claim to do given you distinguished some who "get it" and others who don't; please provide some links of empirical data regarding the groups of Christians who have defended Ms. Prejean in the past and support her right to make a sex tape prior to a contest which has rules about that sort of thing. I've got a strong hunch that population did not exist prior to this news. If such a group suddenly sprung up after the fact, I'd argue it's another observation of social conservatives playing cafeteria Christianity in order to either defend the behavior of the group's spokespeople and leaders or avoid condemning them.
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
When social conservatives are condemned by the rest of us for this sort of behavior, it's because of their advocacy to criminalize a sort of behavior based on their religious beliefs where such behavior harms no one and isn't condemned by other freedom loving Americans, in this case gays and their families wanting to exercise their rights. Ms. Prejean advocated that the government should continue to deprive gay people of their equal rights based on her own personal religious beliefs instilled in her by her church and family. This is not a theocracy and in ths country, we are supposed to be fighting for the liberty rights of others, not fighting against them. Here's my favorite Ed Brayton quote that nails this concept, which is also perfectly consistent with the ideals espoused by our framer's: ""We are obligated, by virtue of demanding our own liberty, to protect the liberty of others."
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
I'd highly advise you to take some lessons in critical thinking skills. I think a fifth grader could distinguish the difference between taking a personal position specific to one's religion versus advocating that one's religious position should deny others equal rights, especially in a country where religious freedoms are individual and the government supposed to be prohibited from favoring religious beliefs over others or none.
Here's some added perspective given it appears some remedial teaching is in order and given the condescending tone of comment 61. There are tens of millions of women in this country who can not imagine themselves aborting a pregnancy, yet they still advocate that their position is a personal one and they have no right to demand that their positions criminalize the position of other women.
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
President Obama has been taking constant heat from the grass roots Left when it comes to gay rights. Just a couple of weeks ago there was a protest in D.C. regarding his and the Congress not moving out more quickly to end DADT given his campaign promises.
In addition, a number of news articles have come out about the President not lending his support for the Maine gay marriage bill. However, the President never made a promise to advocate for such, but instead for equal rights for gays. Even so, he's been taking heat, along with the Democratic party, for not taking a stronger stand on behalf of gays that extends beyond his current position and promises. The DNCC was especially chided for attempting to rally Maine voters to call NJ Democrats to get out the vote last Tuesday all the while leaving their Maine liberals high and dry on gay marriage. But this is not hypocrisy, it's either an honest disagreement between the President, party leaders and social liberals in the Democratic party or what most people loyal to liberty rights believe, moral cowardice by the party to protect their future electoral chances. But hypocrisy? I don't see it.
Given you are not aware of these activities in spite of there being heavily covered, may I suggest you consider expanding upon your media sources.
RHSimard @ 61 stated:
Well yes, I suppose "they" do, whoever "they" are. I certainly do. I can't think of a better example of a hypocrite to join the current club comprising Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Larry Craig, Craig Vitter, Ted Haggard, and on and on and on. I'm sure we can get some Democrats and liberals in there as well, though to do so would miss my primary point: It's not merely where you stand that defines hypocrisy, but also how you act and how you impose your beliefs on others in spite of who you act.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 9, 2009 8:01 PM
"When social conservatives are condemned by the rest of us for this sort of behavior, it's because of their advocacy to criminalize a sort of behavior based on their religious beliefs where such behavior harms no one and isn't condemned by other freedom loving Americans, in this case gays and their families wanting to exercise their rights. Ms. Prejean advocated that the government should continue to deprive gay people of their equal rights based on her own personal religious beliefs instilled in her by her church and family. This is not a theocracy and in ths country, we are supposed to be fighting for the liberty rights of others, not fighting against them."-------------------You just beclowned yourself. What prominent conservative politician advocates making masturbation a criminal act? I agree with you to a certain extent that conservatives are much more open to charges of hypocrisy than liberals. No one expects liberals to have morals, so when one of them has a moral failing (which happens a lot), no one really cares and one never hears charges of hypocrisy. Conservatives are held to a higher standard because we at least claim to have morals and society is justified in holding us to them. By the way, gay people have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. I'm not gay and I'm not permitted to marry someone of the same sex, just like gay people. I know. You feel kind of foolish now, right. You're welcome.
Posted by: RickS | November 9, 2009 9:24 PM
A fraud? Her claim to fame is that she was not allowed to speak her opinion without consequences. How does this tape cancel that right or her assertion that it was violated? You should eat fewer saturated fats they're blocking your cerebral blood flow.
Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2009 10:50 PM
RickS stated:
Reading comprehension challenge I see. I never claimed any conservative advocated that masturbation should be a criminal act and I challenge you find any such statement from me making that claim.
Ms. Prejean has advocated that gays and their families continue to be denied their rights based on her family and sect's understanding of biblical dogma. That dogma as its commonly expressed within the Religious Right movement also argues for constraints of other types of sexual behavior and most importantly in this case, advocate the rest of society abide by such strictures, either through law or practice. The relevant example being the publishing or use of pornographic material. I noted her hypocrisy in advocating against gays enjoying equal rights while she has also behaved in a manner also outside the norms considered sin by that very sect. While I don't know the Religious Right's current stance on the criminalization of pornography, historically they've been the most powerful force in America wanting to criminalize it and I assume they continue as a matter of practice it's a sin to publish, distribute, and use such pornographic materials.
RickS stated:
Can you back up that first claim with empirical data? Both others' expectations and the inference that they actually have less?
And no, that is not the point as I explained to RHSimard. We can all fail at some point to always maintain high standards of morality or integrity. It's been my experience that most people are a forgiving lot when non-hypocrites own up to their indiscretions and are authentically contrite.
What makes people go after conservatives harder when they fail is that prior to their scandals they ride the high moral horse advocating the criminalization or ostraciziation of people when they themselves, given they're human, are also prone to commit the very sins they argue others should be punished for doing. Craig Vitter's wife's strident condemnation of Hillary Clinton for forgiving Bill's cheating and lying and staying with him is one example. Ms. Vitter's husband was of course subsequently found to be cheating and Ms. Vitter's previously sanctiminous judgment on the proper act for the wife is to leave her husband went ignored. So no, these failures are not viewed in a vacuum or where the sinner's political ideology is the only considered factor, it's instead the hypocrisy of the behavior that inflames people more.
RickS stated:
Actually no. Do you have any empirical evidence for that? All the data I've seen argues that there is an inverse relationship between good societal outcomes and the religiousity of a nation. So I expect to observe the opposite to your claim, i.e., that red state areas will suffer from bad behavior in a manner worse than liberal areas and one can parse such details by socio-economic class, education, or the degree of religiousity. The U.S.'s far higher abortion rates relative to Northern European countries would be one of many examples.
RickS stated:
No, foolish is not how I feel; intrigued is more like it. Why can't conservatives embrace paragraphs? Are they considered against God's law?
In addition, "they already have the same rights" is both transparently idiotic and willfully ignorant given we already have married gay couples in this country whose rights, along with their family's are denied. For example, in the state of Michigan, gay couples can not get health insurance for their kids through public employers if the non-biological parent is the employee, even if that parent has adopted the kids. Actually, there's hundreds of examples of government policy or law where gays and their families do not have equal protection under the law.
I do understand your argument. I'm wondering if you realize how intellectually dishonest it is given the state of the science on sexual identification and whether you realize how transparent your bigotry and your distaste for the American ideals of individual rights loom, especially regarding life, liberty, happiness, and equal protection under the law.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 9, 2009 11:19 PM
Dan @ 65:
Re your referring to "that right": In this case she has no free speech protections regarding her answer at the Miss USA contest given those belong to her employer or are subject to the contract she entered into as a contestant (I believe the latter applies in this case). Such restrictions extend to whenever Ms. Prejean was appearing as Miss USA California or Miss USA 1st runner-up. It's no different than a Ford Motor Co. marketing executive not having the right to make statements to the press that GM's cars are more attractive than Ford's. In that case Ford has the right to fire such an employee, expect in this case the pageant's rights were extended by contract rather than an employer/employee relationship.
However, there is no evidence her speech was the cause for Miss USA California claiming Ms. Prejean was in breach of her contract. What the Miss USA California organization has claimed caused them to dehtrone her was attributed to a failure to make scheduled appearances, refunding them for a boob job, and appearing nude - all supposedly causing Ms. Prejean to have breached her contractual commitments.
I have little doubt that Ms. Prejean's post-pageant rhetoric exposing her rank bigotry was the reason that the Miss USA California pageant chose to hold her to her contract commitments. However, the evidence shows she also grossly misrepresented herself to pageant officials when she signed a contract with them so I have zero empathy for her.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 9, 2009 11:52 PM
*yawn*... a bunch of liberals with STD's arguing on a msg board? no thank you.
Posted by: Blah | November 10, 2009 5:38 AM
So who is arguing? We just want to see the tape. Good for the STDs, you know.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 10, 2009 7:00 AM
leave this woman alone and mind your own business!!!!!
Posted by: anna lynn | November 10, 2009 11:56 AM
anna lynn seems to be channeling Chris Crocker.
Prejean voluntarily chose to make herself a public figure, and an advocate for bigotry at that, so you can cry me a fucking river when her hypocrisy is exposed in the harshest possible way.
@Blah #68: Ignoring for a second this bizarre comment about STDs, it really says something about you that you posted a blog comment announcing that you had no interest in posting comments on that blog.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 10, 2009 12:02 PM
This post and the majority of the comments are just addtional evidence of the intolerance of the self pronounced and self congratulatory "tolerant."
Any of you reality based types care to acknowledge the real nature of the "sex tape?" No - that would interfere with the narrative, wouldn't it?
You are delusional.
Posted by: purple haze | November 10, 2009 2:39 PM
purple haze: Without the step from silence to "I'm not going to put up with your bullshit anymore", nothing would change. When group A damns group B for their failure to live up to group A's standards, and group A itself fails to live up to the standards that they demand of others while simultaneously denying or ignoring their own faults...
We see a lot of logs in the eyes of those who delight in pointing out the splinters in the eyes of others.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Hypocricy is an issue, of course, but we shouldn't let it obscure the larger issue, which is: the far right's morality and values are, quite simply, a sloppy mishmash of ignorant, simpleminded, often obsolete, poorly thought out, mindlessly applied, and downright destructive rules that, in sum, simply don't do real people any good in the real world without considerable skeptical inquiry and modification. Even the good bits are often applied and interpreted so stupidly, or so hatefully, that they become wrong.
Calling people out on hypocricy is fun and easy, but if we keep on doing it year after year, as a reflexive response, it only makes us enforcers of the moral code we should be opposing and debunking. Do we really want the Carrie Prejeans of this country to be replaced by people who actually BELIEVE all the crap they spew all over the planet?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2009 3:26 PM
But, Raging Bee, except for the cons and the shills at the top, they already do believe. It's the follow through that they have problems with. That's why they're so mad about us enjoying our pill-protected, condom-covered, alcohol-enflamed, Bolero-soundtracked, sweaty coitus. Where they've effectively cut themselves off from pretty much everything that reduces the consequences of the sweet, sweet, sexy sex that they can't stop having, those dang lib'ruls have gone and gamed the whole damn system. Worse, those lefties don't even feel bad about it.
And I don't see how we can "debunk" them, since they're right and we're, y'know, Darwin-worshipping, secular State-supporting, gay marriage-having, abortion not-banning, book-reading, NPR-listening, tooth-brushing, IKEA furniture-assembling...I've lost my train of thought. It was something about us being not just wrong, but evil.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 3:48 PM
modus - Your posts are just additional further evidence of what I wrote.
Under your view, a person's failure to unerringly meet a standard invalidates the standard. You've either never fallen short of whatever standards you have - or you have no standards.
Posted by: purple haze | November 10, 2009 10:15 PM
Purplehaze - To quote an earlier comment:
This time, read and comprehend... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2009 10:29 PM
purple haze "modus - Your posts are just additional further evidence of what I wrote."
What, that I'm kind of a goof? If I went around proclaiming my lack of goofiness while marginalizing those around me who were goofs, you might have a point.
"Under your view, a person's failure to unerringly meet a standard invalidates the standard."
Doesn't anyone get badly mangled biblical references anymore? I mean, seriously people, I'm an atheist and I get the log/splinter bit.
"You've either never fallen short of whatever standards you have - or you have no standards."
I fall short all the time. Look, I drink too much. I do not, however, position myself in the public eye as a paragon of teetotaling, while taking sips from a hip flask when the cameras are off before stumbling down the stairs after everyone leaves, nor do I demand that other politicians step down in shame when they get caught half in the tank.
...
When someone on their third wife talks about "the sanctity of marriage" or of "lib'ruls and their adultery and quickie divorces", they're talking out of their ass.
When someone damns "the homosexual lifestyle" or says that it's a choice, all while secretly proving that it's not a choice, repeatedly, in a public washroom, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone talks about the sacred "free market" and the invisible hand thereof while their company accepts tax benefits or bailouts or State interference that benefits themselves or their backers at the expense of others, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone talks about "those Mexicans stealing our jobs" while moving American jobs overseas and/or employing, say, an illegal as a gardener or nanny, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone says "buy American" and virtually nothing they own is, they're talking out of their ass.
When a bunch of adulterers called for Clinton's impeachment (they know who they are), they were talking out of their ass. (And, for the record, I think he should've stepped down. Not because it's adultery, but because "Hey baby, I'm the President of the United States" is a gross abuse of power when used as a pickup line)
When someone talks about "American values" or the Constitution, while ignoring the former in their own lives and tearing up the latter (or, ironically, supporting a flag burning bill), they're talking out of their ass.
When someone says, essentially "it's not torture when we do it", they're talking out of their ass.
When someone complains about "those lazy so-and-so's lazily suckling at the public teat" while being a lazily suckling at the public teat, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone talks about how much they value "our men and women in uniform" while casually throwing their lives away on a lie, they're talking out of their ass (and when they talk about how much they support the troops, while sending them over without things like bullet-resistant vests or cutting their funding when they come home less a leg, they're talking out of their ass).
When someone talks about "fiscal responsibility" while racking up absurd debts, even during booms, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone purports to follow "Christian values" while strutting onstage with a little bikini holding up fake tits, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone who talks about "personal responsibility" has none, they're talking out of their ass.
When someone who is now rabidly anti-State is the same person who, just a couple of years ago, equated simple "dissent" with "treason" and/or that the State we had to trust absolutely before is the same one that we can't trust in any way now, he's talking out of his ass.
...and there are many, many more examples, on both the Left and the Right. The difference is that the Right has made faux outrage, false populism and pious hypocrisy their official platform. Well, that and "Government doesn't work. (Put us back in power and let us prove it. Again)" and "Pointy-headed liberals think they're smarter than you. (I know this from my years at Yale)".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 11, 2009 1:01 AM
Pah, DingoJack beat me to it, by sneakily sneaking in after I opened this window and forgot about it for an hour and a half. Plus, he quoted some handsome genius with piercing blue eyes, a sharp wit and devil-may-care hair. I can't compete with that. Woe!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 11, 2009 1:05 AM
MO - Luckily, you're not holding yourself up a a paragon of modesty. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 11, 2009 1:16 AM
DJ, modesty is for average people.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 11, 2009 1:48 AM
MO - Ordinary? Or is that Common People. ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 11, 2009 1:57 AM
PurpleHaze:
Let me just say that your heroine is an opportunistic slut--with fake tits--,you fucking idiot.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 8:41 AM
Now THAT was misogynist, democommie. No slut-shaming.
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2009 1:27 PM
marilove:
Although I disagree with you completely as to her qualities...
"Let me just say that your heroine is an opportunistic liar and a woman who uses her physical attributes, much like Sarah Palin, to dazzle the crowd--and she has surgically augmented breasts, to that end.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 11:54 AM
OK. so where can I see the tape???
Posted by: Dan | November 12, 2009 4:35 PM
The only place to view the full, REAL version of the carrie prejean sextape, leaked by TMZ, can be seen at http://carrieprejeansextapevideo.com/ there's also a streaming version found at http://carrieprejeansextapestream.carrieprejeansextapevideo.com/
Posted by: renee | November 15, 2009 2:15 PM
YOU GUYS, IF YOU'RE HONEST ENOUGH TO YOURSELF AND TO OTHERS ARE ANYTHING BUT SQUEAKY CLEAN TOO, AS ALL OF US ARE. YOU JUST LUCKY YOU FOUND SOMEONE TO BLAME YOUR OWN DIRT AND IF THIS PERSON IS A CHRISTIAN SOOOO MUCH BETTER SO YOU CAN ALSO MOCK GOD AT THE SAME TIME!!
I don't think Carrie should be labeled as a Christian hero oppressed by bunch of gays or gays' patronizers - as we know we are a culture that always wants a hero and wants to be a hero all the time. She might not even a Christian in the true sense of what Christianity is all about. By the way the gays have no right at all to dictate what I should believe, and what my ministers have to preach and no right at all to change the bible just because they decided to erect their own lifestyle.
BUT YOU GUYS, IF YOU'RE HONEST ENOUGH TO YOURSELF AND TO OTHERS ARE ANYTHING BUT SQUEAKY CLEAN TOO, AS ALL OF US ARE. YOU JUST LUCKY YOU FOUND SOMEONE TO BLAME YOUR OWN DIRT AND IF THIS PERSON IS A CHRISTIAN SOOOO MUCH BETTER SO YOU CAN ALSO MOCK GOD AT THE SAME TIME!!
Posted by: Immerine | November 19, 2009 12:56 PM
Immerine "YOU GUYS, IF YOU'RE HONEST ENOUGH TO YOURSELF AND TO OTHERS ARE ANYTHING BUT SQUEAKY CLEAN TOO, AS ALL OF US ARE."
Do you see anyone here claiming to be either clean or squeaky?
"YOU JUST LUCKY YOU FOUND SOMEONE TO BLAME YOUR OWN DIRT AND IF THIS PERSON IS A CHRISTIAN SOOOO MUCH BETTER SO YOU CAN ALSO MOCK GOD AT THE SAME TIME!!"
So, her naughty tape is really me? Wow, I'm considerably more female than I thought I was.
"I don't think Carrie should be labeled as a Christian hero oppressed by bunch of gays or gays' patronizers..."
...except that the label was, in part, self-applied. When one holds oneself out as an example, then is shown to be a poor example...
"She might not even a Christian in the true sense of what Christianity is all about."
Here's the thing. Every Christian is a True Christian to themselves. It's only every other Christian who isn't.
"By the way the gays have no right at all to dictate what I should believe..."
Unless they're digging around in your head, they can't.
"...and what my ministers have to preach..."
They aren't. Whenever you see the Christian Right go apeshit over a proposed "Hate speech" law, they are almost invariably lying to you, as the proposed law will almost definitely be a "Hate crimes" law. Your padre can use that passage from Leviticus all he wants. You can call "the gays" abominations until the cows come home. What you can't do is beat them up.
Stop repeating the lie.
"...and no right at all to change the bible just because they decided to erect their own lifestyle."
Freudian Slip in aisle one!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 1:26 PM