June 9th: Is he gay or isn't he?

Is it only me who doesn’t care about the answer to this question? From the very first time I saw Adam Lambert on American Idol, I thought he was gay. Did that make any difference to me one way or the other? Absolutely not? What is the big deal people?

Of course, my fav blogger is all up in arms because Adam won’t openly admit that he’s gay. Perez seems personally affronted by Adam’s lack of forthcoming. What is interesting to me is that this is now a rather big story in the mainstream media. I’ve read articles in People, US, and Entertainment Weekly, all speculating about his sexuality.

The article that particularly interested me is from Kara DioGuardi's perspective. She basically says that she never thought that Adam was even in the closet. In The View Episode set to air Friday, Barbara Walters wonders if “Lambert’s controversial loss to Kris Allen was influenced by questions about whether Lambert is gay.”

Okay, people, get real, Adam was in the bottom two of American Idol exactly ONE time. Kris almos t went home a few. Obviously Adam had people voting for him the whole competition. I hope that him maybe being gay had nothing to do with it. I can admit though that there is a section of people who might be turned off by his “penchant for eyeliner, nail polish, tight pants and flamboyant hair styles..” Wait are we talking about Steven Tyler or Adam Lambert here?
Okay, my husband says that I’m stretching my argument here, and I have no idea if I’m on the right track. But is Adam protected by the First Amendment here? Isn’t it within his right to not speak? Of course, it’s within the tabloids right to speculate too?

I guess what really bothers me about this case goes back to Walter’s speculation. Is Lambert afraid to come out because he’s afraid it will impact his popularity? Why the secrecy? Lambert says “You should own who you are and what you’re about, and never make apologies for it.” This is the particular quote that got the tabloids roaring. Adam seems to be contradicting himself. He clearly isn’t “owning” who he is by hiding behind all the speculation. Or is it really just not anybody’s business?

It seems ironic to me that Lambert is so averse to admitting he is gay when it is such a common topic in the media right now. Everybody is talking about in the wake of Proposition 8 and Miss California. Is Lambert afraid of the First Amendment or is he hiding behind it? Is he really that afraid of what this will do to his career? Or is her just terrified of how the media will deal with it?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20281763,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,20007164_20174011,00.html?bcpid=3887239001&bclid=3343000001&bctid=24448789001
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-30-lambert-mocking-the-gay-issue-again

June 2nd - Post Tribune "Your Views"

I came across this nifty little article as I was perusing my mom’s Post Tribune paper. A8 of the paper is typically the Opinion section. The top of the page contains “Our View” editorials of various Post Tribune Staff writers and then the bottom is labeled Your Views, where readers can respond to previous “Our View” articles.

First I find it interesting that directly in the middle of the page amidst the articles and political cartoons is The First Amendment. It’s just right there just below the post tribune editorials. So is it there to remind people that everybody has their own opinions and to not go off the deep end? Is it there to remind people that it is within their rights to respond to these opinions? Regardless of the reason, it’s there. I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see it there, considering the context of this class.

So the “Your View” letter was titled “Academic freedom not the issue at ND.” The writers are responding to a May 10 article by Richard Schneirov who stated that President Obama should be allowed to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement because of academic freedom. The authors say “opponents of the Obama invitation agree with Schneirov that fostering public discourse is part of the work of a university, and that politicians of various viewpoints, even the pro-choice viewpoint, should be permitted to speak on campus. The authors' issue is that commencement is not a planned forum where views can be discussed, there is no debate or Q&A planned.

What Notre Dame is doing is privileging somebody with an honorary degree and the title of commencement speaker who is pro-choice. The authors remind that “the Catholic Church considers abortion intrinsically evil – always and everywhere.” They also present some interesting analogies. Would Notre Dame invite a Holocaust denier to deliver the commencement address or a segregationist?

So I’m a little torn on this issue. I do think that Obama has a right to speak but I understand the other side of the issue. Notre Dame is a Catholic University and Obama is pro-choice. But is this single issue enough to deny him the privilege? Obviously he spoke at the ceremony and protestors protested and eventually the controversy died down. But I think the issue remains. Should Notre Dame have asked somebody who holds principles so opposite to the Church’s.

This whole scenario reminds me so much of my request for reconsideration case. More on that later…

May 26th: Icky Icky Poo

Yes, I will admit – I am a fan of Perez Hilton’s blog. I can’t help it; I’m addicted. Perez has all the most scandalous news on all the celebrities. 90% of his blog postings are very honest – very honestly mean and crude. However, he’s usually right on in his observations. But, I also think that he’s a bit of a hypocrite.

I know this is kind of old news, but I’m still fascinated by all the controversy surrounding Miss California’s statements at the Miss USA pageant. Carrie Prejean got very lucky/unlucky when Perez asked her that infamous question. Prejean hesitated and then answered very honestly – to paraphrase, she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman; that is the way she was raised. Well, as you can imagine, Perez hit the roof, went through the roof, and then just kept on going. If you tuned into his blog, almost every other posting was badmouthing Prejean, using any and every obscenity he could think of.

Maybe I’m lost here, but I don’t understand the big deal. I thought that it took a lot of integrity for Prejean to answer the way she did. This is what she believes. And even though I DO NOT agree with her, wasn’t it within her right to answer honestly. And because she did, she has gotten blasted by various medias, with Perez leading the way. Just recently, she almost lost her crown, and it was left to the “morally virtuous” Donald Trump to decide her fate. Surprisingly, he allowed her to stay, despite those nude photos that surfaced, which Perez was only too happy to post.

So I don’t know if somebody told Perez to take a chill pill, reminded him of her 1st amendment rights, but he’s definitely chilled a little on his blog. Most of the postings of Prejean are archived in a folder called Icky Icky Poo. It’s hard to take him seriously with a folder title like that. However, I also think that Perez has used all this controversy to his benefit. This whole situation happily coincided with many states allowing gay marriages and so on. So while Perez was ticked at Prejean for her conservative thinking, it allowed him to jump on his platform and make some things happen. All of these happy things are located in his folder: Gay Gay Gay.

Every day Perez rips a variety of star figures a new one, figuratively speaking. He freely exercises his first amendment rights and has a huge fan following. I doubt that many of these stars appreciate his very honest comments. However, when Prejean spoke her mind, Perez went off the deep end. Unfortunately, I’m sure many American believe as Prejean does, but fortunately, those beliefs are protected by the Bill of Rights.

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, check out the latest article on Perez's blog discussing Sarah Palin's defense of Miss California: http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-14-duh-sarah-palin-defends-miss-california