Mike McGuire on Facebook

Freedom of Speech: Only for Minorities in America?

In recent news, Carrie Prejean, who is better known as ‘Miss California,’ has come out against the political conundrum that is ‘gay marriage.’ An article in that appeared in the Kansas City Star Newspaper on April 30, sought to bring new light to the debate whether it was right for Miss California to voice her opinion regarding gay marriage during the Miss USA Pageant. Today, May 6, 2009, an article on the same subject appeared in the MetroWest Daily News, in Farmingham, MA, which emphasized an aspect about the debate, which I believe is being forgotten.

To briefly summarize the events that transpired during and after the Miss USA pageant will not take long. During the ‘Question and Answer’ section of the pageant, Perez Hilton, who is a renowned Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LBTU) advocate, directed a politically pointed and loaded question to contestant Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Hilton, citing the four states that have legalized gay marriage, questioned whether or not Miss California thought gay marriage should be legalized throughout the country. Prejean, hesitating only but for a moment, stated, “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage…And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised,” (MSNBC, ¶ 12). Although Miss California received a mixed response from the audience, she was applauded as she returned to her designated spot, next to the other contestants. When all was said and done, Miss California was runner-up to pageant winner Miss North Carolina, who had not been questioned about gay marriage, but another political topic (which was not a hot button issue). While questions were raised about whether Prejean lost the crown because of her ‘politically incorrect’ answer, the icing on the cake came later that night when Hilton slammed Miss California for her traditional views. Calling her a “white bitch” in a video on his website, Hilton held nothing back, reaming Prejean from his LGBT/entertainment soapbox. It will forever remain uncertain whether Miss California would have lost the pageant if she had been given a question that was not a ‘hot button’ issue, like gay marriage. Moreover, we will never know if her honesty lost her the pageant.

My response is simple: Miss Prejean was entitled to her opinion and should not have been penalized in the least for expressing her opinion. The question, a politically pointed and loaded one, was the equivalent to ‘kryptonite’ to Prejean, who was considered to be a front runner the entire race. Upon answering, she was booed by the audience, scoffed at by the judges, and maliciously slighted by LGBT members online. Prejean is entitled to the right to freedom of speech that every American is given; unfortunately, her words may have cost her the crown because others were not willing to accept her opinion as an opinion. Imagine for a moment if the young woman had spoken out as a proponent of gay marriage and the LGBT agenda, what would the response have been? I doubt social conservatives would have berated her as Hilton did. Rather, it is my opinion that Miss California, had she been a supporter of gay marriage, would have been welcomed into the position of Miss USA, complimented by Hilton, and praised by the liberals nationwide. This scenario, where injustice seems to prevalent, has compelled me to consider Prejean’s plight from an objective and intercultural perspective. Were her words discriminatory, or were Hilton’s? Was Prejean forcing her ‘majority identity’ opinion on those who have a ‘minority identity,’ or was Hilton forcing Prejean to accept his ‘minority identity’ opinion? Finally, where does the freedom of speech play a role in this situation?

According to the Kansas City Star article, Prejean claims “I was attacked for giving my own opinion onstage at a Miss USA contest,” (Kansas City Star, ¶ 5). Undoubtedly, although Prejean admitted that her words were her opinion, not intended to hurt anyone, Hilton’s words were an undeniable and direct attack on Prejean, her beliefs and her statement. MetroWest Daily News reports, “What did Carrie Prejean do that was so wrong? She answered the question she had been asked. Yet, Perez Hilton, the person asking the question subsequently became enraged, called her a name, and said she had given "an awful, awful answer," (MetroWest Daily News, ¶ 1). The article, written by Jennie Maroney, continues, “Freedom of speech is a precious right guaranteed to all our citizens. No one person or group should have a monopoly on it,” (MetroWest Daily News, ¶ 4). Indeed, Hilton’s response, accompanied by the LGBT community’s adamantly spiteful recourse, has me wondering who is guaranteed the freedom of speech. In this communication age, where minority groups have the ability to voice their opinions with strength, will the supposedly ‘dominant’ majority identity opinions be respected? Do Prejean’s opinions have no place in a friendly, open-ended, ‘question and answer’ section of the Miss USA Pageant?

The query remains, however, whether Carrie Prejean was the victim of reverse-discrimination by the LGBT/‘ally’ community. In my opinion, the fact that those with a minority-identity did not accept her opinion as an opinion, and publicly ridiculing her, is blatant discrimination. Regardless of Hilton and the judges’ opinions, Prejean’s right to an opinion and freedom to express that opinion is assured to her by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; Hilton’s malevolent words were not tolerant of a view that was contrary to his own, and the judges’ votes, although I will assume there were fair, should not be based on personal preference or ‘political correctness.’ Presuming the words in question are not slanderous or libelous in nature, we must fight to protect the freedom of speech and all opinions.

MetroWest Daily News (2009, May 6). Maroney: Free speech for Miss California. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/letters/x2089279393/Maroney-Free-speech-for-Miss-California.

MSNBC (2009, April 20). Miss North Carolina crowned Miss USA 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30298051/.

Kansas City Star (2009, May 6). It's on! Miss California to fight gay marriage. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1171672.html.

Three Theories

Just to warn you, this is an apolitical blog.

Currently, there are three, major theories of how life began on our little planet Earth. They all three suggest completely different beginnings, but have the same conclusion, which is the current version of Earth's living organisms.

The first theory is also the oldest, determinism. This vaguely familiar form of fatalism suggests that actions, past, present and future, have worked in unison to create what reality is and will be. Different forms of determinism exist, including theory's such as "theological determinism," which states that there is some "higher being" who created the Earth and known universe through His/Her omniscience and "planning." (To a degree, this is what I believe as a Roman Catholic, that God knows all actions, past present and future. This beliefs holds that God has put certain events into motion, but allows those with free will to determine how they will contribute to, or react to the events.) Other forms of determinism include, but are not limited to, environmental determinism, psychological determinism, biological determinism and cultural determinism. With regards to the overarching theory of "past, present and future actions work in unison to create reality," there has been little changed with the argument, other than the generalization of its thesis. Moreover, this belief holds that there are few, if any, irrefutable, absolute truths in the universe. Philosophers who have dealt with this argument include, but are not limited to, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Niels Bohr,

The second theory is even simpler than the first! The "theory of randomness," or the the "random chance theory," maintains that reality is nothing more than a series of positive and negative chance occurences, combined with a series of chance mutations in living organisms. For example, it is like saying, "if you give an unlimited amount of monkeys an unlimited amount of computers with an unlimited amount of time, eventually they will produce the complete works of Shakespeare." Although scientifically sound in reasoning, this theory would have the person who believes it, also believe that we are nothing more than a series of random occurrences and mutations.

The third theory, on the other hand, has been introduced to humanity through many science fictions films, including, but not limited to, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "Knowing." The second movie I have mentioned, "Knowing" is still in theatres and I encourage you to go see it! What these movies, some scientists, and many Trekkies propose, is simply that intelligent, extraterrestrial life created life on this planet. In "Knowing," aliens were the source of human life on Earth, which they supposedly usurped from another planet and placed on Earth. The movie also contends that alien life forms continue will continue to usurp human life and plant it in the most hospitable location. A very intriguing theory, it holds that humans are not merely present because of actions, both past and present, working in unison, nor are we completely here by "accident." Rather, it proposes a hybrid theory, which holds that human life was created/started by alien lifeforms, in the same manner that we humans create "new species" of fruits and animals through genetic manipulation and splicing. An intriguing concept, it eliminates the need for the vast leap of determinate and/or random chance assumption(s). Simply, aliens created/started life, like theological determinism suggests, but also leaves room for random chance, because the aliens have allowed Earth's history of life play out randomly.

All in all, I wholeheartedly endorse theological determinism because of my religious beliefs and thorough personal reflection. I do believe, however, that the "extraterrestrial life" theory holds some ground. After all, aren't we humans performing similarly? Don't we believe that we have the power to create/destroy life? Moreover, don't some humans wish to send life to other planets in order to foster it and watch it grow?

Wouldn't it be interesting, if in the future, we humans started life on another planet?

Akron Deserves Better than 'King Don'

"There will be a special place in hell reserved for those people who went out and misled the voters of Akron, who told them things that absolutely were not true, for their own personal satisfaction, for their own political gain."

You may recognize this quote. It's a statement taken from the City if Akron's mayor, Don Plusquellic, who was commenting on the defeat of his ballot initiative to lease Akron's sewer system. Although the mayor had the right intentions, his "initiative" was riddled with flaws which had the potential to hurt the citizens of Akron.

That's right, 'King Don' pushed his political with little concern for the ramifications of his political actions.

However, this wasn't his first and only offense. In fact, there is documentation proving that the mayor has repeatedly wasted tax dollars and broken the law during his time in office.

Here's a list of offenses/problems that you may find interesting:

• The United States' Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) sues the City of Akron for $128 million Formal Lawsuit: USA v. City of Akron, OH



• Mayor Plusquellic has put the City of Akron $760 million dollars into debt! Official Financial Report as of 12/31/2007



• 'King Don' accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution from the Summit County Democratic Executive Committee, when the limit is $300, a clear and distinct violation. Campaign Violations (3/2/2009 - Letter to Law Director Rothal)



• The Mayor used taxpayers' dollars to pay his girlfriend $31,000 for "consulting fees." Checks for "consulting fees" and other services/things

For the past 22 years, Don Plusquellic has been the mayor of Akron. Any citizen of Akron knows that these haven't been "years of plenty," and obviously, the actions of our local government have not inspired businesses to flock to our city. How much longer will the citizens of Akron allow the mayor to waste tax dollars and break the law?


I encourage each of you to visit Change Akron Now and join the fight for change!

Akron deserves better!

Twitter: the Random Cyrstal Ball

So, we're all used to it.

Technology, that is. We're all used to the never-ending terabytes, the unceasing upgrades and the continual ease of manipulating technology to better our work, play and social interaction. Myspace, Facebook, Digg, Flickr and now Twitter, are all household names.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no whiz at tech and I don't know what the next big online site is. Rather, I'm far from what is considered "savvy" on the comprehension spectrum. However, I do consider myself an admirer of technology.

The reason for this blog is to write about the importance of Twitter, and my fascination with it. For those unfortunate few of you who aren't familiar with this incredible new social networking site, Twitter is one of the newest, fastest-growing sites online. And because I'm writing on a blog, I know you'll like this: it's a mini-blog! "Mini-" meaning that it only allows you to write 140 characters per entry.

I encourage you to explore it if you haven't already done so, at Twitter.com, and friend me at twitter.com/mikeus and twitter.com/mikemcguire2020. (I maintain two sites; one for fun, the other for strictly politics, respectively.) But, I digress.

The random crystal ball that is Twitter, is named such because of its first and greatest quality: the rapid dissemination of incredible amounts of either meaningless or unequivocally significant suggestions/ideas/blogs/sites/news. The internet has never seen something so immensely powerful. In 140 characters, news from Gaza can be summarized via a phone's texting capability, messaged to Twitter, and spread to tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of people within seconds. But it doesn't stop there; those who received the message can then immediately respond/forward such a message to thousands more within just 10 seconds. Within a mere 30 minutes, all of Twitter could be buzzing with the news.

Now, some of you may say, "isn't that what e-mail does? It rapidly disseminates information to thousands, nay, millions of people?" My response: only if you follow that particular news source, and only if you choose to read the message in its entirety, will you understand the update. What Twitter allows is rapid dissemination, regardless of your party affiliation (we're bound to have Democrat/Republican friends who follow another news source), and regardless of your length concentration (140 characters is a mere sentence). While a complete and detailed story is forfeited, quick, easy-to-understand and citizen-pertinent information can be read my millions in the blink of an eye.

For those of you who would argue that "details make the message," I reply that links can be added to a short message. For example: "Israel attacks/invades Gaza! http:www.cnn.com/FRONTPAGESOTRY." This mere 60-character Tweet (as they are called), contains nearly all the information one needs, presuming one is interested in the story and had been following it from its onset, just days ago (which also would have speedily replicated through Twitter like a virus).

Overall, it is clear to me that the future of online messages may well be Twitter. It's rate of dissemination, scope, and precision, offer society something not seen since e-mail. Perhaps, then, Twitter can be seen as an upgraded version of e-mail. Needless to say, it's reach extends daily and its followers remain loyal.

That's right--move over blogs, society just got a technological upgrade.

Let the good times roll...

Hi, I'm Mike.

Alright, now that introductions are done, let me get to blogging.

I'm not new to the the blogging scene, but I am new to blogger.com. It's a pretty nifty site. Before this, I used my Facebook's "Notes" application to write my thoughts. Facebook's ok for blogging, but that's definitely not its purpose.

Social networking site =/= blogging site.

So, a little more about my thoughts. They're not incredibly insightful--sorry. No, they're much more carefree and personal. Honestly, this is more of a "personal reflection" blog, as opposed to a "let me teach you the universe" blog. I've got some good things to say, some bad things about which to rant.

In general, though, I'm a normal guy with a normal blog.

Sometimes I'm sophisticated; other times I'm carefree. Mainly I'm repetitively redundant. We'll see how things progress.

In closing, then, let me thank you for reading.

Have a merry Chrirstmas Eve!

Mike