Revisiting The Irrelevant About Whom We Keep Talking

So this is my effort to talk in a fair and unbiased manner about two people who irk me and shouldn't be held up in such spotlights as those they have found, but who will continue to polarize for fundamental reasons that aren't going away anytime soon.

I'm talking about Joe The (unlicensed) Plumber and Carrie Prejean, Miss(ing the spirit of human kindness) California.

1) Joe The Plumber has come and gone and shown up again. I'm not sure why he keeps being interviewed. Today, though, he has talked about gays, which you just know will surprise everyone with his inclusive and progressive perspective.

Ha.

Samuel Wurzelbacher is, in fact, the embodiment of the hypocrisy of the "No offense, but . . ." statement.

He talks about how gays are 'queer' in that they are strange and unusual from his perspective, which therefore must make it okay for him to say that, because he says that it isn't a slur.

I'm getting dizzy. I think my spin meter must be broken.

The capper is this quote, though: "I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

Maybe they were friends to him. He's obviously not a friend to them. 'I wouldn't have them near my children'? Nice.

2) Carrie Prejean. Oh, Carrie. Yes, your answer to Perez Hilton's question cost you the title of Miss USA, and I'm not sorry for it, because even if the Miss USA was something more than an objectification of women, and even if I could find an ounce of possible inspiration in the results of that contest, you would not represent me (and soon, you might not even represent California, judging by the articles exploring your violations of the contract from the pageant, not that those 'scandals' are anything that I give a damn about--you posed for a lurid photo, and your image is being used for non-pageant-administration-approved advertisements and videos; who cares?).

Here's the thing. I saw the video of your response, and yes, there was a hint of fascism to your "In My Country" rhetoric, but you were, essentially, expressing your own belief, to which you are entitled. I was willing to give you a mild pass on that.

But then you turn around and actively work for a 'defense of marriage' campaign. That's just heartless, and belies what you said about it being a great country where people could do 'that.'

Evangelism, proselytization, these are offensive things to me. You can believe what you want to support your own life. But to act to inflict your views over those of others on such a subject as love and marriage, that's wrong; that is not a love of other people.


Why is it that we keep talking about these people? What century are we in again?