Image via WikipediaRecently news broke that two seniors were caught growing pot, and police only found this when neighbors reported that two men appeared to have performed an home invasionrobbery. Police arrived, found no car, broken door. They went inside, found pot growing operation.
This is where reporting got very hazy, as there are multiple reports, and while the major parts match, the details do not.
Search of vehicle produced 12000 in cash, baggies for pot, (but no pot), and 7 ecxtasy pills.
One of the suspects in car was linked to another grow house busted by narcs 2 weeks prior.
Sometime between the invasion and today, the two seniors, suspected pot grower of house that got broken into, was arrested.
Nobody got bail (which was set at $100K EACH)
If you check the various news reports, none of them gave the full story. This was pieced together by reading through all the available reports. Why can't they just put in all the info at the same place? Sheesh.
First Chinese immigrants, 2 man and 1 woman, arrived in San Francisco in 1848 onboard the American freighter "Eagle". They were recorded in local records as "Celestials".
In 1849, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill north of San Francisco. The news spread like wildfire, starting the California gold rush of 1849. The news also spread across the ocean back to China, inspiring may residents of Taishan and Zhongshan, provinces of Guandong, the coastal province, to emigrate to the US in the next 100 years. Indeed, San Francisco's Chinese name today is "Old Gold Mountain" (the new Gold Mountain is in Alaska, in case you are wondering).
Image via CrunchBaseChinese News CCTV 13 allegedly played a footage of the Chinese J-10 fighter conducting an exercise on 23-JAN-2011 and destroyed a drone. However, sharp-eyed bloggers caught the footage of the explosion as being lifted out of the American movie Top Gun, even though it only last all but 2 seconds.
Turns out the news is even more interesting. I searched on ToDou, the Chinese Youtube clone, and found a "promo tape" from the fighter maker CAIC#1, which shows the same sequence: missile firing, then the 2 seconds of things blowing up, at 3:07 mark.
So we have two levels of fakery here.
1) CCTV13 was showing STOCK footage, not real missile test footage with no attribution
2) The "stock footage" from the plane manufacturer contained a few seconds pirated from Top Gun
AdroitAlien and I have a little discussion on Cultural Baggage and Entrepreneurship... This is his reply where we were discussion on China, labor, and more. He wrote:
If you were talking about cheap labor in general, how exactly is that exploiting? More to the point, who are we to decide if their labor standards are unfit? And if they are unfit, who is to blame? Do you see my point here? Even if we replace the "child labor" with "cheap labor", my previous point would still be valid. Supply and demand works in favor of demand. If there is a surplus of demand, people will find a way to fill(Supply) it. If there is a surplus of supply, demand falls(Unless they are commodities). It is the US that is the main source of these products. We are the demand.
Well, the point was not about "cheap labor", but rather exploitation of cheap labor is not really entrepreneurship. Any one in business knows "buy low sell high". It doesn't take an entrepreneur to see that. Real entrepreneur creates new products, exploits new market niches, creates new service, and so on.
I don't believe the GDP and annual growth is fiction and I don't expect anyone with the ability to critically think to believe that. I've been following Nielsen for a while now and I am constantly reminded of Asia's growth.
They do market research with measurable data to back it up. I have no affiliation with them.
China's GDP is widely believed be fiction. Just search "China real GDP" and you'll find plenty of economists doubting the numbers released by China. One economist is quoted as saying that the published figures on how much freight is moved doesn't correlate with the GDP figures. Local governments are know to inflate their figures to make themselves look good. China's GDP is a POLITICAL figure, not an economical one, so its reliability is low. The fact that China's Consumer Price Index has jumped to over 5% just in 2010 should tell you their GDP is actually due to INFLATION instead of actual growth.
As far as their banks controlling inflation, how is that different from the Federal Reserve's tactics of printing money[digitally]? Our system isn't even audited(yet). Congressman Ron Paul is pushing for an audit as we speak.
China's Central Bank has FORCEABLY ALIGNED thei Yuan (RenMinBi) to the dollar, refusing to budge even a few pennies. It is only late in 2010 that they allowed a TINY rise in exchange rate, and that was huge news. However, it did not prevent their CPI from taking a sharp rise, and real estate market going into a bubble. They are trying to manage the bubble, hoping it doesn't go KABOOM.
The approach is one of indirect control, vs. one of direct control. VERY different.
If Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, isn't that still Asian? A contractor often times outsource work. This is nothing new. They're still working for Apple. And when you say cheap labor, you're saying it like it's a bad thing. Very strange coming from a pro-business article. And this relates with my point on the prison industrial complex here in the US. Even if we conclude it to be a bad thing, we are doing the same. Why hire workers for $10 an hour when we can outsource the work to prisoners for 65 cents an hour?
The point actually is the "innovation" is NOT in China, but rather, in the US or elsewhere. Chinese companies are NOT known for their entrepreneurship and innovative spirit. China is known for being a copycat, producer of cheap clones, and for industries, a lot of industrial spies. It's not about whether the innovator is Asian or not.
Okay, I'll give you that. Sure, they have plants in the US and Mexico. Does that justify them kicking our butts in our own country? When nationalistic American say "Support America, buy American." Will, you raise your hand and make a point to support Toyota for having plants in America?
Then the point of "protect American jobs" goes away, doesn't it, if these "foreign" cars are actually built in the US? Boycotting them would be pointless. In fact, every new car sold in the US actually has a label that explains where the vehicle is assembled, and how much of the parts used were imported.
I'll humor you again. If the Japanese auto makers are getting "bailouts" for decades, who is to blame? The car makers for getting the bailouts or our governments for giving them? BTW, I don't consider loans "bailouts" no matter how low the interest rates are. A loan is a loan.
It wasn't blame. It was simply very different circumstances. Besides, the "bailout" in the US is a loan. US paid a lot of money to become part owners of GM, and the money WILL be paid back when the shares are sold later. Chrysler's version is a little different, but basically they sold a big chunk of themselves to Fiat.
So the difference between a business and a job is measured in time? If so how much?
The original quote is "if you have a business in which you spend most of your time, what you have is a job".
The point is that a business is supposed to generate PASSIVE income... that it makes money without your personal involvement. It's okay to be self-employed, but then, self-employed just means job, except you are your own boss. It's not really entrepreneurship.
I don't want to turn this into a east vs West or China vs the world thing. I know Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc are all part of the eastern culture. I just don't buy into the hate. Recently, China has limit the amount of precious materials, like Lithium, for export and they've been getting bad press for it. I say, how is that different from what we did to Cuba? This is not a debate on Eastern business culture = bad, Wester = good. I am taking no sides. I am here to say, "The pot calling the kettle."
It's NOT hate. it's simply DIFFERENCE. You have to unlearn part of the upbringing about conformity and all that (that's in the original Hub article). It wasn't really about east vs. west economic war, but more of an IDEA or CULTURE conflict.
Btw, just to clarify a few things. Morally, I do not support the child labor in China or anywhere but I do understand it. Also, innovation goes well with efficiency. Whether or not we agree with it, China and other parts of the world have made electronic good cheaper for us, the consumers. They are an industrialization country right now. We can't expect them to innovate as well as Japan or the US.
And if they ever want to become a "first-world country" they need to actually innovate instead of copy. Japan did that.
Watch the driver actually got ejected as the car broke apart, flew off, BOUNCED off the road, slid across THREE LANES of asphalt, landed 10 ft in front of the guy's car as he slid to a stop!
Do you know why Arizon's SB1070 (and its revisions) are safe from any court challenges from ACLU and other organizations?
In order to challenge a law in court, one must demonstrate that the law in question is in conflict with an existing law, and the conflict must be resolved by the court, who then must rule. The resolution can be a full overturn, or explain that there is no conflict, or anything in between.
The primary approach expected to challenge SB1070 is the preemption argument. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some constitution law scholars claim that Arizona law is preempted by Federal immigration laws. The US Constitution specified that only Federal government may enact and enforce immigration laws, not the states. Thus, Arizona law is preempted by the Federal laws on immigration.
The secondary approach is the rights argument, specifically 14th Amendment, in that States shall pass no law abridging any citizen or lawful resident of their Federally guaranteed rights. Their argument would be that the normal citizen or legal resident rights are violated by SB1070, and therefore SB1070 must be repealed.
Did you actually read the law and the updates? Or did you just believe what people on TV and whatnot tell you to believe?
Did you know that Governor Brewer had actually revised the laws on 30-APR-2010, to further fix up the language to avoid any confusion as to the intent of the law?
Did you know that the law exactly mirrors the Federal law, and thus, cannot be pre-empted by Federal law, no matter what ACLU would like to claim?
In universal healthcare, nobody will be happy, and I am talking about the three parties: the people (who will use the coverage) the providers (doctors, hospitals, and etc.), and the insurers. Here's why
The people want to be covered for everything, and pay nothing. Right? The reality is they can only get covered for something, and pay a bit more than something.
Providers want to provide everything, and get paid for everything at price of their choosing. The reality is providers can only provide something, and get paid for what the insurer chooses to pay up.
Insurer want to pay providers nothing, take in lots of premiums from the people. The reality is They have to pay providers something.
The needs are mutually exclusive, and it's a THREE-WAY relationship. So in short, nobody will get everything they want. Thus, nobody will be happy when the solution is available.
In other words, you are not really supposed to enjoy social security, even though you did pay for it. Yet you cannot opt out of it either.
What's more, the earliest social security law excluded almost 50% of the workforce. No domestic help, no hospital worker, no agricultural worker, and a lot more exclusions (see wikipedia)
That was 70+ years ago. Guess what the life expectancy is now? 78 (okay, 77.8, same link above, as of 2005). Yet the retirement age, i.e. time to enjoy social security, is still 65. And the payout groups have grown steadily larger, and larger.
No wonder social security is going bankrupt. In fact, 2010 will be the first year that Social Security is actually running a deficit. It hasn't yet because it had built up a huge reserve in the past 70 years, but if the retirement age isn't adjusted upward, or the payout severely reduced, social security will cease to exist.
A bunch of students have taken over several University of California campus buildings at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, as well as other campuses. The students are "outraged" by the increase in fees, to over 10000, roughly 32%. So what exact did these student "protest" this lack of funds? By causing massive police presence, occupying buildings, forcing police to break in, trespassing, and destroying rooms and general vandalizing. They were finally evicted by police, charged with various misdemeanors and infractions in some cases.
Their protests actually COST the university system more money.
They claim they are expressing their outrage over the fee increase, but they are actually contributing to the problem by causing general mayhem, thus causing the school to lose even MORE MONEY.
Also, if the classes would be cut due to lack of funds, wouldn't you want to get your money's worth NOW, instead of cutting class and join this "protest" that actually costs the schools MORE money?
What's more, a bunch of yahoos then messed up the UC Chanceller's RESIDENCE building, and vandalized the entire front porch, plus throwing a TORCH at it, essentially trying to firebomb it! That's completely OUTRAGEOUS! These are ****ing terrorists, not student activists!
By now, the entire nation has probably thought about why did a Major in the US Army opened fire on other soldiers in the deployment processing area of Ft. Hood, Texas.
Strangely, I actually think I have an answer for that.
In my opinion, the problem here is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is depressed, either covertly or overtly. The depression, along with other stressful events, lead him to believe that 1) he must 'save' others from getting deployed, and 2) in doing so, he can 'save' himself from getting deployed as well. It is just unfortunate that he chose two pistols and more ammo as his tool to do the saving. And there are many factors that lead to his present day.
One such factor is his ethnic background. Some reported him as "Jordanian-American", though he seems to have identified himself as more of a Palestinian, according to his local mosque former Imam, even though he is born in Arlington, VA. His parents have long since passed away and his brothers and cousins are living here in the US. Reports say that his family "has Palestinian roots". It is likely he grew up with the stories of the difficult lives of his parents, whom eventually fled to Jordan, then emigrated to the US.
Did you know that in New York City, 92.2% of OB/GYNdoctors have been sued for malpractice at least once? And the average is 3 times each? The effect is OB/GYN driven out of the city altogether, or just GYN, no more OB.
Another OB/GYN doctor remarked: in 1981 his medical malpractice insurance is only $8000 per year. Now it's $155000 (2009). His practice can't pay for the insurance, at about $50 per appt, so he's getting out of the business. Average malpractice insurance for non-OB/GYN doctors in NYC is $40000.
Stats show that less than 30% of the malpractice suits actually have a chance of winning. The rest are frivolous.
Every time US goes to war, such as against Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on, some "peace protesters" dominate the news by staging huge rallies, disrupt people's lives in general, raise a lot of ruckus all over the place. In the nutty place known as Berkeley California, there's even a protest right in front of an Armed Forces recruiting station. What exactly do they hope to accomplish with such actions?
It sounds like the protesters themselves don't even really know. If you ask them "how will your actions today stop the war and achieve peace?" Their answer is pretty much, "we need to show the government that fighting is not the answer!"
With California budget in such a mess, it's no wonder some folks with ulterior motives are trying to lobby CA to legalize marijuana for some additional revenue.
Frankly, this is going to cause so many issues, esp. with the Federal government (esp. the DEA, among others) that it's automatically a non-starter.
However, I may consider voting for it given that following condition(s) are met:
* any person who voluntarily choose to smoke pot will NO LONGER be eligible for ANY government-sponsored health care, be it city, state, or Federal funded, except detox. They may be reinstated provided they go through detox successfully.
WHY: If you choose to mess up your own body, why should we spend taxpayer money to fix you? If you want to get fixed, sure, go through a rehab program first. Relapse will mean a PERMANENT ban from public-funded healthcare, PERIOD.
This may require the state to create a detox prison, for addicts ONLY. After all, do you really want to lock up the users along with the peddlers and other hard-core criminals? No, you can fix the users... IF they want to be fixed. And a threat of NO HEALTHCARE EVER may scare them enough.
What are satellite babies? It's a term believed to be coined by Yvonne Bohr, a chilinical psychologist at York University in Toronto. It describe children of Chinese-American families, whose parents are working so hard, they decided to send their recently born children to live with grandparents in China, and bring them back when they are old enough to attend preschool.
The problem is, these satellite babies grow up to have MASSIVE psychological issues adjusting to life in America after spending their earliest years in China, and they are not old enough to recognize and discuss such issues. Some refuse to recognize their parents, some want to leave and are perpetually unhappy, some cry for no particular reason (that adults can see), some even turn masochistic, such as hit their heads against walls or other self-harm acts. Many are initially (and mistakenly) diagnosed as autistic. ALL needed psychological help, and not all are getting it.
Interestingly, it is a phenomenon virtually unheard of outside the Chinese-American society, due to several... peculiarities of the Chinese culture.
1) Chinese value their filial duty, and many defer to their grandparents when it comes to childrearing 2) Living standards in China are much cheaper than in the US, even if you count the plane tickets and long distance calls 3) Chinese families often live on opposite sides of the world. The old generation stay behind while the younger generation venture out and establish life in America, 4) The Chinese parents are working way too hard to provide any sort of proper family life (many are small business owners who works like 80 to 100 hours a week), and 5) these said parents want some Chinese culture indoctrination for their children early on, lest their children turn into... banana (yellow outside, white inside, a derogatory term for American-Born Chinese who looks Chinese, but acts completely American, with no trace of Chinese heritage other than genetic) 6) the grandparents have NO exposure to American culture, language, and so on. 7) a mistaken belief that young children will more readily adapt to new environment
If you are a satellite baby, your earliest memories would be a Chinese upbringing. Everybody is speaking Chinese. Every care is taken care of around the clock. You learn to be quiet until spoken to, and to appear obedient and cute (in other words, passive, don't stand out, don't make waves...) and mostly, be spoiled rotten by doting grandparents.
Then suddenly, when you're three or four, old enough to be preschool, start to have some ideas about the surrounding world and how it works... BLINK, you're in America. Unfamiliar surroundings, nobody you'd really recognize, everybody speaks ENGLISH except at home, NONE of the stuff you learned in the past few years apply any more. Who are these adults (parents) that are taking care of me but don't really have time? Where are the kind people that took care of me? Why doesn't any one else speak my language? Who are all these strange looking people? Why doesn't anything make sense?
No wonder some kids go bonkers! It's like taking them from Earth and drop them in the middle of an alien culture! Combine that with the Chinese upbringing they already got (internalize everything, don't make waves, etc.) it's small wonders why their heads aren't more messed up! Children without the early Chinese conditioning will act out violently, such as fights, screaming, and so on. But Chinese children are taught NOT to cry, not to make waves, and so on. So they turn into self-harm, passive aggressive behavior, and so on. They internalize, often withdrew into their own world where they are in control, or act out control fantasies such as superhero (and everybody else is "bad guy", including the parents).
And I can attest to this bad adjustment first-hand. I have a friend who has two rambunctious kids that had been living with grandparents in China for past several years. They almost appear to be twins, even though they are a year apart. They show absolutely NO discipline when they first got here. I personally witness them them HIT (punch) their own parents! They aren't as bad though as these parents go back every few months, and I think the mom stayed in China for several months to acclimate the kids before bringing them back. Still, it was NOT a happy family for a while.
This phenomenon is not new. During WW2, Germany Luftwaffe was bombing London daily in the period known as the "London Blitz". Some children were evacuated from London without their parents, often with their parent's wishes. Later psychological studies show that many of these children were so traumatized by the separation, it may have been better to let them endure the danger of the bombing instead.
And the idea of satellite babies is not new either. Immigration experts pointed to Chinese women who were smuggled over over a decade ago, often from the Fujian province of China, having children here, but due to various circumstances, chose to send their children back to China for initial upbringing. These children, however, are brought back much later, often as elementary school students or even later. It was only in recent years, when free all-day childcare became available in the US, that younger and younger children are brought back, and the problem exacerbated.
What can be done? Don't create satellite babies in the first place. If yo're too busy to have children, then don't! If you got them, then make time for them! If you don't pay the price now, you will pay later... WITH INTEREST TACKED ON.
So what to do if you already have satellite baby(ies)? Find professional help ASAP. Most large cities have a "Newcomer's Center" which can often refer you to child psychologists who can help deal with the issues. Also check with your child's teacher(s) and other school resources, as some areas have recognized the problem and have developed therapy for such children. Even so, expect years of adjustment, and even then the child may not fully recover.
Just to show you that EVERYTHING has a price. You may not pay it, but your children may instead.
Judicial activism is currently defined as a judge using his or her position to affect/change law, instead of defining/interpreting law.
A judge's role is often to clarify law, like when multiple laws come together which one has precedence, would a law apply to a new situation previously unintended or never before existed, and so on. For example, on many constitutional issues, some local laws are claimed to interfere with such rights as Bill of Rights and so on, by one side, and the government on the other side, claiming the laws are perfectly fine as written.
A while back, several CaliforniaSupreme Court judges declared that the California constitution, which protects against discrimination against various things, including sexual orientation, trumps over any local law or even state assembly laws that blockss "gay marriage", despite the previous State Assembly passage of "In Defense of Marriage Act". They are accused of "judicial activism", as religious right accused them of "imposing their minority view on the majority of Californians".
More recently, Supreme Court candidate justice-to-be Sonia Sotomayor was accused of judicial activism by no less than Senator John McCain, former presidential candidate. This is probably fallout from her "wise Latina" remark made years ago.
So what's the point? I believe there's a fundamental logic problem with the critics who accuse ANYONE of judicial activism.
If judges are to interpret law as written, irrespective of public opinion, then if they do pass a decision that is unpopular, they will be lambasted as "judicial activists who are forcing their will on the public", correct?
But the whole idea of a judicial activist is someone who used his/her opinion, instead of law as written, to interpret the law, isn't it?
So what are the critics saying? That it's okay for the judge to use PUBLIC OPINION to interpret the law, but not his or her own opinion?
Even though a judge is ONLY supposed to use the law exactly as written, and perhaps, a bit of background information to guess at the circumstances and the original INTENT of the lawmakers who passed those laws, correct?
So what are the critics really saying? That any judge that makes judgments against public opinion is a judicial activist?
I always thought "activists" are those who are trying to make a difference (I make no judgment on the worthiness of their cause). It seems that only among POLITICIANS that activist is a NEGATIVE word.
So the politicians are against judicial activists (who are best defined as judges who buck public opinion, according to above). Which would make sense, since politicians fight for public opinion.
But what about the rest of us? Perhaps we should just embrace judicial activists BECAUSE the politicians hate them.
Guess what regulation California wants to pass regarding your car?
A regulation concerning PAINT.
That's right, a proposed legislation will regulate what kind of paint / color you can get in California.
WHY?!?! You ask.
Well, black or dark color car gets hotter in the sun, right? So if you require cars to have lighter colors, you'll use the AC less, and thus, improve mileage, and reduce global warming, right? It sounds like someone from the Sierra Club or Union of Concerned Scienetists would propose: it sounds good, but it's unscientific.
So is the color black doomed as a car paint choice? Not quite.
Now you're going to say, but that made sense to me! But wait!
The problem is... Most of the heat in the cabin came through the glass, not the skin of the car covered by paint. Just think about it. The glass area is right at the cabin, while the area with paint is over the area mostly UNrelated to the cabin.
So how much gas can this idea save? About 10 gallons per car PER YEAR, and this would add over $50 to cost of the car, by most estimates. Not to mention this will severely limit your car's paint choice (black is out, closest is a very dark brown).
It took a study from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to prove that this idea is a non-starter and that California Air Resources Board (CARB) should axe the idea, and CARB did.
Now CARB is back with another idea: requring glass that reflects a LOT MORE light than the current safety glass, which reflects a mere 6%. According to the proposal, the new windshield must reflect 30% of light (which matches current law of 70% light pass-thru). Side, rear, and sunroofs require even MORE reflectivity.
Please note that the regulations say REFLECT, not absorb. Which means tint is NOT acceptable.
In fact, the reflectivity requirement will jump to 45% by 2014, though in all honesty, it's for new cars only.
The problem is so far, only one company had came up with a new glass formulation that meets the 30% reflectivity... and it's EXPENSIVE, as it involves a nanolayer of silver between current safety glass, among other things. It does not affect visibility.
And what's more, the layer of silver blocks radio signals due to the Faraday effect (any one know what a Faraday cage is?) Thus, radar detectors and internal GPS receivers and anything else that receive radio signals inside the cabin will have problems (yes, even your cellphones, though that can be fixed by special antennas). Oh, and those toll transponders (Fastrak in Northern CA) that used to go inside your car... Now they have to go OUTSIDE.
As you can guess, this will severely affect the cost of a car, adding a few hundred, due to the exclusivity of this glass formula, and the added cost of the glass. In other words, CARB will grant monopoly to this glass maker, if this proposal passes. Yet the gain in energy savings is still debatable.
Not to mention this idea is pointless in the northern states. In the sunbelt, absolutely. But northern states? Nah.
Yet you know everybody follows CA when it comes to emission and energy stuff.
But there are HUGE implications when it comes to completely changing the formula of autoglass that is in use for the past several decades. I am sure it'll pass visibility and crashability, but what about replacement cost, widespread availability of such glass at places OTHER than the dealer, not to mention effects on interior electronics, effect on other drivers (increased reflectivity will affect other driver's visibility THROUGH your vehicle, say into the traffic beyond), and so on?
Then there are additional problems. If an owner is forced to replace these uber-glass with regular glass, maybe due to breakage, lack of parts, and so on, is the car still "legal"? Can it be registered next year like smog test? Will CA charge a "mitigation fee" to register out-of-state vehicles like it current does with cars that doesn't meet CA emissions? Do owners of such vehicles get refund for electronics that no longer work inside, or get a stipend to install conduit antennas to keep these electronics working?
While the intent is good, there are always unintended consequences. I am just not too certain if the consequences of this proposal has been fully realized yet.
Who the **** is Perez Hilton? What gives him the right to ask a deeply divisive question on national TV, forcing a contestant to choose between which portion of the nation to alienate, and thus, her fate in the pageant?
There is no doubt in anybody's mind (certainly not mine) that Perez Hilton set up Miss California, Carrier Perjean, for the question. Any way she answers, she's doomed. She's in a no-win situation.
Please keep in mind that Perez Hilton is openly gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, I personally support gay marriage. However, that is NOT the point. Think about it. This is on national TV. Either way Carrier Perjean answers, she'll alienate a large part of the public. At the end, she chose to speak her heart, that her family upbringing states that marriage is between a man and a woman, so no, she does not support gay marriage personally.
It's a choice between "Yes, I do" and it'd be a lie, or "No I don't", and get a ZERO from Perez Hilton, which may be enough to cost her the crown, esp. when she's the front-runner in the contest.
Say "Yes I do", and alienate the majority of the people who passed Prop 8, not to mention the religious right. Not to mention it'd be a lie.
Say "No I don't" and alienate the entire nation's LGBT population. However, that's still a minority.
Heck, Perez Hilton even claimed after the event that he will personally run up stage and RIP the crown from Miss California's head had she won the crown. What a ****ing grandstander. You call THAT "standing up for gay rights"?
Why don't YOU, Perez Hilton, "gay bigshot", ask Miss North Carolina what's HER stance on gay marriage? There's no plan to legalize gay marriage any time soon in NC, and AFAIK it doesn't recognizes gay marraige done in other states either. But no. He had to pose the question to his own state's rep, Miss California, and thus pretty much denying her the crown. To Mr. Perez Hilton, that opinion alone would make her unfit to be Miss California, much less Miss USA, never mind the selection committee and all the work that came before that. He doesn't like that answer, and with that divisive question, he destroyed the chance of Carrier Perjean becoming Miss USA.
What a ****ing... poo for putting her in that ****ing situation.
Technically speaking, there is a THIRD option... She could have added a statement that while she personally does not believe in gay marriage, as Miss California she is neutral on the issue, neither for nor against. After all, entire California is decidedly conflicted on this issue.
But then she would have sounded too much like a politician.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fd6cded2-d0d3-4d2e-806f-18fadc601310)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=be63257f-c734-4e9d-8b4c-b6ed96e065e9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=39f6503a-f8f7-4490-a647-6b5bb8ab688b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=126f1882-1343-4c72-98e5-7e83b705851c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=80d806ba-524a-4214-a487-480dd728b4ba)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d7479c3a-576e-492f-b072-7f45a6e7d198)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=37f231be-2c5c-40b7-8ae0-5ec4baacc712)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=facd3328-ff06-42c5-a2d3-6539a5732207)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=75b81721-6580-48fd-b876-7fdbd1568eb6)