Okay. I wasn't going to go anywhere near the latest in the Carrie Prejean saga because, well, I didn't care enough to bother. Then the "topless" photo "scandal" broke. Now it's out there, and I feel the need to vent.
First, if she's topless, but her back is turned, and her arm covers all but about 10% of her breast, does it really count as topless? I have a pretty simple definition of topless; if I can't see nipple, it don't count.
Second, since the woman is a beauty pageant alumnus, seriously, how much more exposed can she be now, than she already was? Seriously, is this, racier than this?
Third, why is it that behaviour the left actively encourages, is scandalous when engaged in by a member of the right? Right here in my "beloved" homeland, some lefty bint ran around Guelph topless, for a week, trying to get arrested, in order to test the constitutionality of the law which made women's toplessness indecent. Eventually she was, she did, and the law was struck down, and the left celebrated this as a victory for "women't rights." Now they're upset about 10% of Carrie Prejean's right breast? Riiiiight.
I know, it's about the hypocrisy. Again, riiiiight. Ted "the Lifeguard" Kennedy, champion of women's rights, kills Mary Jo Kopechne, no hypocrisy there, just 300 more years in the Senate, but let a beauty queen expose 10% of her right breast? Burn the witch.
Fourth, although she didn't win the pageant, she is now one of the most famous women in America. Let's see, beautiful? Check. Famous? Check. Rich? Not yet, but if you don't think she will be shortly, I'd better get a tip jar installed so you can deposit the down payment on a bridge I've got for sale.
Crapola. And it's all I'm going to say about it. It does, however, give rise to other issues, namely, standards of beauty, "gay marriage" and the ongoing rape of language by people who can't win an argument on its merits. But those will be covered in follow up posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment