Odell’s and the other Robert’s denigration of Clarence Thomas because he does not ‘conform’ to their stereotype of an African-American, and he fails to think and act as they believe all African-Americans think and act, is racist, and bigoted. The only difference between theirs and the old racism is that the white sheets and pointy dunce caps of the Klu Klux Klan have been replaced with a shroud of false liberalism.

Hal; Fred Phelps was an extreme example, but in truth both men have shown an unsavory disregard for others in their pursuit of profit and agendas. Phelps has demonstrated a loathsome callousness towards the grief of others, while Perez Hilton disregards the grief he brings to others. I personally find Phelps the more despicable, because he tries to mask his wrongs by perverting religion. But such a comparison isn’t an excuse for Perez Hilton—who tried to turn a beauty pageant into an obnoxiously silly PAC. Both men have jettisoned principles of honesty, respect, compassion, and decency in the drive for their chosen goals. Both men are intolerant, self-serving, and bigoted in their own separate way. So, even if they succeed in obtaining...

Hal; Whether it’s “never asking for an opinion if you’re not willing to accept (the application here of the word ‘accept’ infers ‘to receive’) the answer”, or as you note “Don't ask the question if you are not willing to hear the answer”, the final meaning remains the same. Perez Hilton asked a question and was unwilling to hear the answer. If he found her answer unacceptable, it was within his rights to judge Prejean solely on that. But we both know that is not what he did. Hilton was not satisfied with her just losing the pageant; he took his dissatisfaction outside the pageant, politicized it on the internet in an effort to destroy the character of the woman. And, in anticipation of snide innuendos concerning Prejean’s character:...

Hal; I’m beginning to honestly suspect your seriousness in posting your responses. If anyone was being political in the Miss USA pageant, it was Perez Hilton, who posted her answer on his blog and made it political. There’s and old saying about never asking for an opinion if you’re not willing to accept the answer. I heard and read Prejean’s response to Hilton’s question; besides Hilton’s blog, where did you acquire all this additional verbiage you infer? Where in her answer to Hilton did she condemn homosexuals, or promote a ban against them? She didn’t. She was asked a question and answered honestly, even if in a noncommittal, almost apologetic manner. Her response wasn’t the answer that the judge was soliciting and he set out to...

lilly; In the political debate we tend to concentrate on left and right (which are social/political philosophies) as the two extremes—important considerations, to be sure. But what we often overlook (or attribute solely to the other side) in the discussion, is the two extremes in the degrees of government—on one end anarchy and on the other totalitarianism. Government is an exercise of power, the more it exercises, the more it reaches for. So, unless pushed in the opposite direction by unforeseen events, government (if left to its own machinations) will pull itself towards the total. Under totalitarianism it will not matter if the government is deemed leftist or rightist, the oppression will be the same. And if anarchy is caused by...

Jakk; If you listen to, or read what Prejean said, it is difficult to find it to be much more than a dose of typical beauty pageant smile-placebo. Delivered with less emotion or hint of resolve than one would expect to find in a claiming a preference for vanilla ice cream. She’s almost apologetic in tone—a far cry from Maines delivery and resolute stance. Prejean’s offence wasn’t in what she said; it was that she didn’t say what the judge wanted her to say. I didn’t say that her plight was the result of Marxism, but it was a poor display of tolerance by groups who claim to promote tolerance as central to their beliefs. As for healthcare: in every system there will be some who (for any number of reasons) cannot afford to pay. The more...

Hal Donahue; It amazes me how you seem able to read while not reading. Carrie Prejean is not a member of the Dixie Chicks. Prejean answered a question from a judge during the Miss USA pageant. Ms Pregean did not take a political position, nor did she denigrate any person, State, or country. Simply because her answer did not conform to, or support the judge’s social/political agenda, she was set upon and punished. That is oppression and an exercise in thought control. The Dixie Chicks offered, unsolicited, a political statement during a performance in London, England. It was Natalie Maines decision to make that statement; it was not required as part of the performance. Personally, I did not like the statement primarily because a short...

Vampire’s Reflection; A quick point on your posts: Hollywood’s true love is profit and fame. Ideology (along with every trait of humanity) takes a backseat to those two things. If the current offerings being produced now stopped being profitable, Hollywood would embrace whatever promised to return fame and fortune. Such character may sound hollow and crass, but in Hollywood little else matters in the gaining and keeping of celebrity.

Jakk asked for someone to show him where and what freedoms were being taken away. Perhaps you could talk to Carrie Prejean about her Freedom of Speech (and perhaps her free exercise of religion) at the Miss USA pageant, when her answer ran afoul of political correctness. Hers is not the only incident, but it is telling. Oppression doesn’t always begin directly with the crushing hand of government, that hand can simply wave it a pass. And the road to tyranny opens. It is ironic in many ways that the group in the 1960-70s who yelled ‘Freedom of Speech’ loudest, are among the promoters of political correctness, today. Your 2nd post mentioned Healthcare and the traits of Barack Obama. Healthcare could have been made more affordable &...

Yoshi 7/4/2010 11:09:10AM Regarding compromises in the Constitution, most all of them could be considered minor technicalities that were adjusted in language. The major compromise, concerned the issue of slavery (something that was diametrically opposed to the principles, spirit, and intent expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which was the driving influence of our founding), and we all know what the results of that compromise was. Some things, simply, cannot be compromised.