Saturday, May 16, 2009


Quick Note on Miss California and the Constitution

I am in a hotel room in North Dakota doing a radio interview for my book. (It's on a commercial break.) I just wanted to blog this quickly before I forget. Did you hear Miss California's statement at the press conference where Donald Trump said she could keep her crown?

I don't have time to dig up the exact words, but she said something along the lines of her uncle (grandfather?) fighting in Korea to defend our freedoms. And that the Constitution gave us freedom of speech, and it was crazy that in America today, people like her could be persecuted for speaking her beliefs.

[UPDATE: Here is the video. My original recollection was off; her grandfather had fought under Patton in World War II. But just watch it for 60 seconds and you'll see what I mean. She seems to think the Constitution protects the right of someone to say she believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and then not have others criticize her for saying that. No, the Constitution has nothing to do with that, and her grandfather should have taught her better.]

I'm sorry young lady, but your relative didn't do a good job explaining to you what the Constitution does. It doesn't put limits on what beauty pageants can ask of their candidates. Just like the Constitution doesn't protect Don Imus' "right" to make an ass of himself on the air.

What really stunned me was not that Miss California would play that card, but that "great Americans" and big fans of American history and the Founding Fathers (like Sean Hannity) played the excerpts of her speech without even mentioning, "Of course folks, she's being a little off here, but you get the idea..."


"May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Carl Lantz, an interest-rate strategist, and James Sweeney, a global strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG, talk with Bloomberg's Tom Keene about the shadow banking system, Federal Reserve monetary policy, and the U.S. and European economies."

These two guys recently published a research report that may be of interest regarding recent (1-2 yrs) monetary policy and the inflation outlook, so I figured I'd give you a heads up. They speak specifically on the market technicals of how the monetary injections are impacting the real economy. The interview is certainly interesting. If I can dig up a link to the report I'll try to post the link in another comment. It's half an hour long by the way.

the link above seems to have been cut off. it's the third episode down on the list at the moment.
I agree with Bob on the right of beauty pageants to ask whatever they want. Similarly people often complain about Google "censoring" the web. It does no such thing, Google may sometimes censor Google. I don't think we want a "Fairness Doctrine" for Search Engines.
Bob, is it really so puzzling? Politicians, pundits and others on the right have long indicated that they don`t give a rat`s ass for the Constitution, its vision of government or what it says.

They are only interested in scoring points, acting as spoilers and covering up their own responsibility.

They certainly care little for the rule of law, as I recently noted:
"I'm sorry young lady, but your relative didn't do a good job explaining to you what the Constitution does. It doesn't put limits on what beauty pageants can ask of their candidates."

You seem to have twisted what she was saying. She isn't objecting to being asked the question, she is objecting to the vilification and attack for her answer.

What ever happened to "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Gay pageant judges get a pass on that one?

But what do I know... I'm just a normal hetero male... what do I know about women's beauty pageants?

I am not following this close enough to state I am 100% accurate in the facts, however, if the facts are the way I suspect them to be, then she has a right to tell others to go to hell.

From what I believe, Trump owns the Pageant and he says there is no problem with her statement. Thus, she is not violating any obligation to the pageant, and she has a right to tell anyone else to go to hell.

Perhaps, however, she should be corrected on whether the fighting in Korea had anything to do with protecting our freedom of speech.
Just has she has the right to say things that might piss off others, those who have been pissed off have the right to tell her to go to hell.

Suppose I went up to some guy and said, "Man, your wife is ugly." He will most likely be upset with me and reply hostilely.

People should keep in mind that freedom of speech does not equal freedom of reproach for speech.

Amendment I says that Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of speech. It doesn't say that everyone has to agree with my speech or, if they don't, keep their thoughts to themselves.
Bob isn't saying she's not entitled to denounce them. His point is that it makes no sense for her to claim that it's un-American or vaguely unconstitutional for a beauty pageant to have rules, or to be upset about what she said to the point of wanting to revoke her crown. That has nothing to do with the First Amendment, any more than the First Amendment entitles you to barge into someone's house and harangue him.
Yeah guys (except Tom W.), you are missing what I'm saying. (And I wonder if all of you know what the Constitution does and does not protect. :))

I have updated this post with her actual statement. C'mon guys, she has no idea what freedom of speech means.
"Yeah guys (except Tom W.), you are missing what I'm saying."

Um, don`t look now, but I agreed with you.
You're right TokyoTom. Actually, there were only two people who even vaguely disagreed with me; sorry for impugning all others.
I am stunned that you could be stunned by the likes of Sean Hannity abandoning principles (well, "principles") for partisanry.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]