It has been lately announced that Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, might not be deprived of her crown after all, even though Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss USA pageant, and who holds the power to make the final decision over Miss Rees head like the Sword Of Damocles, declared in a recent interview that her situation doesn't look good. Although Trump declared he preferred not to say which way he was leaning in making his ultimate decision, Katie's chances are certainly problematic. More so than in the similar situation involving Miss Kentucky/Miss USA Tara Conner.
This is because, in the case of Miss Conner, there were no pictures of her antics to grace the Internet. The pictorial evidence is abundant in the case of Miss Rees, however. It must be pointed out, on the other hand, and in all fairness, that these pictures were taken a good three years ago, long before Miss Rees was considered, or herself considered, being involved with the pageant.
Frankly, I hope Trump is as merciful and gracious to her as she was Conner, who committed her evident breach of contract while wearing the crown of Miss USA, and with a Miss Teen USA pageant winner to boot (who has in the meantime been denounced by the organization MADD due to her alleged involvement with underage drinking). Still, Trump, in a public press conference in the company of a tearful and repentent Miss Conner, declared her to be a good person, and that she would be given a second chance. She would, however, be expected to conform to the pageants requirements from here on out, and undergo rehab.
I personally thought Trumps handling of the situation with Conner was actually quite commendable. Unfortunately, I do not hold out hopes for him offerring the same clemency to Ms. Rees. And this is due to no other reason, I believe, than his feud with O'Donnell.
I don't know for sure what O'Donnell's hang-ups are, but she started this fight, which was right up Trump's alley. She has been known to be strident and obnoxous when it comes to not just criticizing, but slamming and belittling people whose views waver from her own, something that she seems to think is unacceptable. Most people that have gotten on her bad side, which seems to be notoriously easy to do, fold up like cheap mattresses in awe of her wrath. They might protest their innocence or good intentions, such as Tom Sellick when he was bushwhacked on her old show over his membership in the NRA.
Or as Kelli of Kelli and Regis, when she jokingly chided Clay Aiken when he put his hand over her mouth (I don't know where that hand has been), which O'Donnell insisted was "homophobic".
But Trump has not relented, nor do I believe he ever will back down, from asserting his rights as the pageants owner, nor do I suspect he will apologize for calling O'Donnell a "fat ass" or "ugly" or by asserting that he could send one of his friends over to steal O'Donnells live-in girlfriend. Nor did he mince words in pointing out O'Donnells many failures, foibles, and foolhardy gaffs over the years.
O'Donnell has treaded carefully since all of this output by "The Donald", responding mainly by giving him a dirty look from the safety of the cameras of "The View". Other than that, she has not said a lot, though on her blog, she did write a poem called "Miami", in which she compared Trump to a pimp, and O'Conner (and it would seem pageant contestants in general) to prostitutes who are little more than slaves to the pimp.
I still don't understand what she is mad about. I get the oppossition to beauty pageants, but why this one in particular?
Is she mad because Trump gave Conner another chance that she did not deserve? Is she mad because he seems to feel he has a right to decide one way or another, and seemed to be making a big production out of it? Or is she merely incensed because Conner was engaged in lesbian acts, and so she feels obligated to be her staunch public champon?
What the hell is her problem? Is it just Trump in general? Is it all nothing but a cheap grab at more publicity on her part?
Trump hasn't been much better, in all honesty. The personal insults as to O'Donnells appearrance, for example, are pretty childish. And when you get right down to it, his comments about sending someone over to "steal" her girlfriend could possibly be construed as downright menacing.
I would not want to get on the bad side of Donald Trump. This is a man who has the power to destroy a person if he wants. A billion dollars worth of power could put a lot of hurting on somebody. Obviously, Trump could ruin O'Donnell, if he really wanted to put all the power of his wealth, influence, and connections into it. And he could conceivably do it just to make a point, all the while being careful not to overstep any legal bounds in doing so.
Well, if he wants to do it, fine, O'Donnell has been asking for it, for some time now. The majority of people not only would not really care, they would probably enjoy the spectacle.
But I hope that he does not use Katie Rees as a pawn in his willful and malignant assault on O'Donnell. That could well be where this is going. Since Rosie seemed to object to Trumps dealings with Tara Conner, maybe he decided he would destroy Katie Rees, just to spite Rosie. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope it doesn't come to that.
If Trump and O'Donnell are going to duke it out like the two immature school kids they both seem determined to prove that they are, they should keep it between themselves, and meet somewhere after school and have at it.
And may the best man win.
6 comments:
I understand how this may sound. But I for one have no problem with Miss USA dancing, drinking and "canoodling" with members of the same and opposite sex. She is only young and I am sure EVERYONE at some point of their life have done things like this.
I don't see what the big problem is and I think that this has completely been blown out of proportion. Trumpy should just turn a blind eye.
I don't care either, but the contestants are under contract, and so are obligated to the pageant and it's owners to live acorrding to terms of contract, during their years renure.
By the same token, Miss Rees engaged in her activities years in advance of signing any cotnract, so yes, in her case I would have to agree, Trump should give her a break. She is just as deserving, actually more so, than Conner, who actually DID violate her contractural agreements.
Trump and O'Donnell.
*shudders*
Why am I suddenly reminded of this video?
Tom Accuosti
The Tao of Masonry
Tom-I don't know what it is about YouTube and my computer, I guess it's becasue I'm on dial-up. But it will run for a few seconds, then stop, then run for a few seconds, then stop, and sometimes I have tokeep clicking to get it to move.
Hell, I can't hear it anyway, I think my speakers are messed up, plus I don't have the right kind of headphones. Too bad, I'd like to make some videos myself some day, if I could ever get the right equipment, but I just don't have the money for that, as of now.
Sorry, PT, I didn't know you had dial-up. It's not your computer, it's your connection. It's hard enough to get streaming audio on dial-up.
The video was the old Frankie Goes to Hollywod "Two Tribes" (extended version). If you can't remember, it was a characterization of Regan and Yeltsin going at it in a wrestling match - which became a free-for-all. Totally surreal.
Goddess, I miss the 80s sometimes.
Tom Accuosti
The Tao of Masonry
Tom-that's alright. I did try to watch it, though I can't hear it, but all I saw was a few seconds of Richard Nixon, talking to a camera, though I had no idea what he was saying. It then cut to some other guy, though I don't know who it was, though it wasn't Yeltsin or Reagan.
I'm surprised that you're that taken with the eighties, though. There are some artistic gems from that era,like Ozzy and The Black Crows, and a few others, but not that much. I've heard of Frankie Goes To Holywood, but am not familiar with their body of work,
But then again, they only had two albums. There might have been quite a few artists that are worthwhile, but this is about the time that producers started going more for the flash and image than the substace, and of course the end result was not much of merit, in my opinion. And that is still true today.
I think the death of Lennon at the beginning of that decade might have been somewhat of a portent of what was to come. Or,rather,what was to go.
Post a Comment