BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, four days after the Miss USA pageant debacle, Alicia Jacobs, one of the lesser-known personalities on the judges' panel spoke up. Jacobs, an entertainment reporter for KVBC-TV in Las Vegas, wrote smack about Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, and attempted to rebut the charge by judge Mario "Perez Hilton" Lavendeira that it was the political-incorrectness of Prejean's response to his loaded gay marriage question that cost her the title.I discovered it through a link from a Los Angeles Times blog, but apparently Jacobs thought better of her remarks, and took the post down Thursday at around noontime. That post has been saved via Google cache and reposted in my blog, below.
This morning, she added a new post to her blog, which is a brief video interview of her conducted by The Advocate, America's most popular gay-themed news magazine.
The following is my reaction, which at this moment is still online at Alicia Jacobs' blog.
_________________________________________________You told The Advocate that you took down your blog post "Pretty is as Pretty Does!" because "[T]o be perfectly candid, there were some threats..." Really? I have on my computer the cache of your blog shortly after you deleted it Thursday afternoon (April 23), and there was not a single "threat," much less "some threats." Even if there were threats, what does that have to do with what YOU wrote? You could have always removed any violent or cruel comments (and alerted authorities) without stifling your own voice.
So what's the REAL reason you took it down, Alicia? Only you know the true answer to that, but judging from the comments responding to your post, the only real "threat" was to your credibility as a fair, impartial judge or as a "journalist," as you call yourself. Responders were calling you out on your remark about Prejean's supposed breast enhancements being paid for by Keith Lewis (which you cut out of your post, but not before they were linked and quoted by Richard Abowitz of the Los Angeles Times) and your contradictory remarks about freedom of speech and the right to one's own opinion.
You also promised that your later discussion with Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler would reveal in detail the actual scoring in the late rounds in order to prove that Prejean did NOT lose because of the gay marriage question. Whoops! Neither your Wednesday night report on KVBC nor your Advocate quick video hit even addressed the scores. And you are in good company lying like a rug about "very loud booing" after her answer -- I dare ANYONE reading this to produce a video in which any booing after her answer was not drowned out in the cheers as she stated her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It is my opinion that there is NO answer that would have satisfied Perez Hilton, you, or anyone else who is beating the drums for same-sex marriage. If there was, you (as a former "pageant girl" yourself) would have provided an example of what answer she could have possibly given that would have displayed "social grace" (whatever that means), "diplomacy," "compassion" and "heart" while at the same time saying "No." If I am wrong, and such an answer exists, I suspect you wouldn't dare state it publicly. If you did, that would suggest there is an acceptable answer other than "I think gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states." But that's not what you want. People like you just give lip service to valuing opposite opinions on this dilemma.
Worst of all, Ms. Jacobs, is the fact that you fault Carrie Prejean for not considering the feelings of her audience and the judges, and repeat that she has no "social grace," yet you have NOT A SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM FOR PEREZ HILTON. Minutes after the ceremony, he took to the internet and called her a "dumb bitch," later amending that on national television to "the c-word," which is to say "cunt." He also promised that if she had actually won, he would have yanked the crown off of her. How is it that Prejean is being judged for her lack of "social grace" or "diplomacy" by someone whose entire reputation is built on having absolutely NONE?
You twittered that Hilton introduced himself to the other judges by saying "According to Criss Angel, I am the world's biggest douchebag." (You seemed to think he was being funny -- perhaps he was just being candid.) You wrote about Prejean's "lack of good judgement (sic)." As compared to the good judgment of Donald Trump, Phil Gurin, and Paula Shugart in letting a foul-mouthed, self-promoting loose cannon be a judge and make the entire pageant about HIM? Now you're making an effort to promote Miss North Carolina's victory (what's her name again?), but if what you say is true, and Prejean's answer didn't cost Prejean the title (despite your own declaration that "if I could have made her 51st runner-up, I would have"), Hilton is wrong in saying that he's the reason Miss North Carolina won. Yet, all the criticism from your ilk goes to Prejean, NOT Hilton.
All of you involved in this debacle -- the other judges, the producers, the entertainment media, even the mighty Donald Trump -- are running scared of upsetting Perez Hilton. WHY? Has he got dirt on ALL of you?
Like I said, only you know the REAL reason why you took "Pretty is as pretty does!" off your blog. But if I accidently spoke from my heart and revealed myself to be one of the bitchy, catty, petty, vengeful people behind an American institution that is struggling to maintain its relatively clean reputation, I would have deleted that post too.