Miss USA Gone Astray

Some of you out there may recall a time when beauty pageants emphasized qualities in women such as as “wholesome”, “virtuous” and “principled”.  Unfortunately, those days are long gone.  The emphasis these days is squarely on “values” cherished by the far left – basically an outright rejection of the former.  To support my assertion, let us analyze recent events:

1. Rima Fakih of Dearborn, Michigan, a 24-year-old Arab American grabbed the 2010 Miss USA title effectively putting the Arab-friendly politically correct icing on the the Miss USA cake. At first glance, one would think that the pageant was simply trying to appear inclusive. However, “inclusion” in the case of the Miss USA pageant apparently does not apply to marriage between one man and one woman. If you recall, last years’s winner, Carrie Prejean has been excluded from the Miss USA “circle of trust” due to her support for traditional marriage. During the controversy , according to Miss Prejean, pageant officials said this:

“You need to apologize to the gay community. You need to not talk about your faith. This has everything to do with you representing California and saving the brand.”

2.  I can’t say I have much confidence in the pageant’s vetting process of potential Miss USA candidates.  Barley 24 hours had passed after the crowning of Miss USA 2010 when questions were raised concerning pictures which have reportedly been widely available on the Internet for several years.  The pictures in question feature Miss Fakih pole dancing in the 2007 “Stripper 101” contest arranged by the Detroit morning radio show Mojo.  Are we to believe that this apparently widely available information simply “slipped by” pageant officials?

3.  Addressing the socially controversial and longtime favorite issue of the left, Miss Fakih was asked if she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance (which of course means citizen-provided healthcare as of this year) to which she offered the following left-friendly response:

“I believe that birth control is just like every other medication, even though it’s a controlled substance”

4.  Generating an awkward moment and an unnerving booing in the audience, Miss USA judge Oscar Nunez asked Miss USA 2010 First Runner Up, Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard if she supported Arizona’s right to enforce the law, which requires police to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally to which Woolard responded:

“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America, so I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.”

So, lets summarize and recap, shall we:

  1. Arab-American pole dancer – Winner
  2. Non-minority supporter of traditional marriage – Loser
  3. Public healthcare advocate for “Women’s Health Issues”  – Winner
  4. Advocate for secure borders – Loser

Conclusion: I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself. Take careful note – this is just one small piece of the far-left’s long standing plan of reprogramming traditional American values and our society in general.

Oh and few final thoughts (or should I say parting shots) on this subject:

  1. Miss Fakih’s rather fantastic statement that birth control pills are a “controlled substance” is false.  According to Title 21 USC, Section 802 of the Controlled Substance Act, the term “controlled substance” refers to substances listed in Schedules I -V and Part B of which neither Progestin or Estrogen (the active ingredients in birth control pills) are listed.
  2. One need not wonder what Iranian Muslim cleric Hojatoleslam Kazim Sadeghi would say to this photo of Miss USA 2010 (aka “earthquake generator”) although I’m sure it’s nothing that would ever merit serious attention at a post-pagent party.

Published in: on May 17, 2010 at 7:18 AM  Leave a Comment  

Healthcare Today, Holidays Tomorrow

If you want to get a glimpse the future political and social climate in the the U.S., you need not look any further than our European “comrades”. An April 18, 2010 article in the TimesOnline site reports that Brussels has just declared holidays as basic “human right”. You heard it right – not free speech, not freedom of religion, not even healthcare as liberals in the U.S. decreed this year with the passage of the healthcare reform bill. The Belgians contend that holidays are as much a basic human right as the right to life, liberty and freedom. And since many initiatives by our liberal left including healthcare and financial “reform” (otherwise known as “nationalization”) mirrors what the Europeans accomplished decades ago, it is not inconceivable that a similar bill may soon be submitted to Congress for consideration right here in the land brave and home of the “was free”. Still think socialism doesn’t lead to a “lazy” society?

Published in: on April 19, 2010 at 9:45 PM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Wikipedia’s Left(ist) Slant

Wikipedia’s article on Che Guevara is yet another example that illustrates the obvious left slant of Wikipedia.  Writing is not just about simple facts; a skillful writer uses verifiable facts and sets the the tone of the writing to assist in conveying a specific message or idea.  Unfortunately, sometimes this skill employs a very careful design of exclusion, obfuscation or manipulation while maintaining an appearance of legitimacy by retaining some verifiable facts.

In the Guevara article, there is little or no mention of opposing points of view that are supported by facts and first-hand accounts of atrocities committed by Guevara and the Cuban Revolution.  The Cuba Archive is a database archive of well-researched examples, including first-hand accounts of these atrocities.   There are numerous books and articles that effectively counter the Wikipedia point of view by authors such as Humberto Fontova. The general tone of the article is positive and one can even argue that the words  paint Guevara as a force of good by describing Guevara as:

“…an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution.  Since his death, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol and global insignia within popular culture.”

The article continues documenting Guevara’s life in such a manner to portray him as a romantic, swashbuckling, Errol Flynn sort of character; a tireless fighter of the have-nots.  Not surprisingly, historical figures with opposing political views are not exactly described such a sprightly manner.  Take for example Wikipedia’s own article on Luis Posada Carriles.  This Wikipedia article begins be describing Posada as simply “a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-communist militant.”  The article then immediately continues to document Posada’s so-called “terrorist” activities which ultimately accounts for the vast majority of the content in the article.  There are little or no inspiring anecdotes about Posada’s past, his experiences as a youth or the ornate language as was the case in the Guevara article.   While many of the facts concerning Posada’s “terrorist” activities are largely accurate, it is how these two articles convey vastly different messages – Guevara as a romantic “freedom fighter” and Posada as simply a CIA-backed “terrorist”.  One has to wonder whether this is simply an oversight or a carefully architected design.  Given the political “feel” of Wikipedia articles in general, I tend to believe the latter.  At the very least, the disparity in the tone of these two articles stretches the limits of the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  This is not first time that accusations of liberal bias have been levied against Wikipedia. The site Wikipedia Bias is dedicated to addressing specific instances of bias in Wikipedia articles and in Wikiquotes.