Where American Idol Went Wrong

The many things I would like to see change about American Idol. The auditions: I do not like to see people making fools of them. I guess a good portion of America likes to see that (it makes them feel better seeing other people fail). I never really thought it was that funny and kind of felt sorry for them. The main thing is that I wanted to see some decent singers. Part of the enjoyment was to ‘play along with the show’. I want to see singers that are 6’s, 7’s, and 8’s in addition to the 9’s and 10’s. The 6’s thru 8’s are more fun to assess. Do you agree with the judges or not? Where is the anticipation of seeing whether they go to Hollywood or not if the singers are primarily 9’s, 10’s and 0’s? The save: Here is the problem I have with the save. There is no way they are going to use it in the first 3 weeks or so. Just no way. So, why bother? Oh, I know. Much of America is well. not very smart, and probably thinks there is a chance they use it early on, so AI wanting to boost ratings in any way possible, will sell out to do so. The judges: I did not watch it for the first five years, and part of the reason is that I did not like how the judges influenced voting. It just seemed clear to me. In season 6, when LaKisha Jones sang in the round of 24, Simon said something to the effect, “Everybody else might as well pack their jobs; this competition is over”. Well, according to Dialidol (which estimates number of votes), she was head and shoulders ahead of everyone else in the voting that week. She did end up finishing fourth, but the fact is that she lost her luster and in my opinion it was because she fell out of favor with the judges?. Did she lose her singing ability in those few weeks? No. This is not to say that the judges dictate all winners? But their influence is strong. You know what I think would be a neat idea. Let the judges assess the NEXT night. That way the vote is completely clean. Do we really need judges? Nicki Manaj? Steven Tyler, who had used the word ‘beautiful’ 7481 times. Okay, I am exaggerating a little, but not by much. The other problem with the judges is the criticism they have when a singer does not want to be ‘pigeon holed into singing a certain way. For instance, if they expect a singer to sing a soft rock song, and they sing something else, they might say something to the effect “you have not defined yourself”. If that is the case, then I guess the Beatles, Lady Gaga, and others never defined themselves either since they were quite versatile also. I think the judges have to say something, to make it look like they are really mentoring. Spare me. People such as Jimmy Iovine are more needed than the judges. The judges are also too partial to some of the newer music. I guess much of the public likes it (yes, I am as dumbfounded as you), but further, they not only deter singers from singing older music but will then likely say that that ‘song did not fit you, ya da ya da ya da’ , as they did with Charlie Askew when he sung a somewhat obscure song by Genesis, it only reached 73 on the American charts …… I thought he did a nice job, and it was soooooooooo nice to see him pick what I thought was a catchy song from the eighties from a big name group. Keith Urban said he thought he was disconnected; I thought the song perfectly captured him and his admitted struggles in life. So, the judges dissed him, America followed along, and he was out. Another case where I can almost guarantee you that if the judges had praised him, he would have been safe. The last song on the final night of the competition: With the finale, both singers should end with the exact same song. The voting is too song dependant (you remember the last song by each more vividly), and this was never more clear than last year when Phillip Phillips had the catchy song ‘Home’, and I have to believe it heavily swayed the voters. He might have won anyway. Of course, AI likely does this so they can market two new songs. They never miss an opportunity to sell out. The voting: Speaking of selling out, the voting is really laughable. Restrict it to one vote per person, and you have a more legitimate process. The guest singers; the overall production: There is way too much dancing and newer stuff. Can’t we just see people sing great songs? Interview them for a few minutes (I think that would draw viewers also). If you saw somebody like Phil Collins and he talked for a few minutes about what he has been doing recently, I know I would be watching. I know that it is hard to get some of these singers from the 70’s and 80’s, but you have hundreds to choose from. As it is, I surf the net (or go to the kitchen to make a smoothie drink) during much of the AI telecast. My wife and I watched about 10 minutes of AI this year, after being devoted followers for the last 6 years. Sadly, we do not even miss it. Bring back Charlie Askew, and get judges who will say relevant things, not just talk for the sake of talking, and we may rethink our position.

Setting the record straight with Mother Teresa

A recent Canadian study has stated some unflattering things (to say the least) about Mother Teresa (to say the least). @Kimberly Schupp-Miller stated this “The researchers mentioned, ‘her dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political affiliations and her overly dogmatic views about contraception, abortion and divorce…… The study even went on to claim that Mother Teresa found it beautiful to see the poor suffer” I am not going to pick each of these things apart, but will make a few comments. I have always believed that anybody can take anybody else, and make them look bad. Even Mother Teresa. Heck, lawyers frame things all the time to influence people. Perception becomes reality. To begin with, we are all human. We all have flaws. Even humanitarians can fall short of society’s expectations of them, and their expectations of themselves. So, let us take a step back here, and look at the objective evidence. Mother Teresa dedicated her life to God. That is a reality. Anybody who does not understand that needs to have their head examined. Now, did she make perfect judgment along the way? Nobody does. One of the chief complaints about her was that she did not use the millions of dollars that her foundation raised to help the dying. The quote above, ‘found it beautiful to see the poor suffer’, makes it sound as if she wanted that to happen. Nobody truly knows what went through her mind, but my guess (which is as good as anybody’s to the extent that nobody can truly get ‘inside her heart’ ) is that she might have had the Beatitudes in mind. Further, this was a response to a question that asked “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot”. She did not say that she taught the poor to endure their lot. She seemed to be saying that many poor are acting as Christ would want them to. There are millions and millions of homeless, dying people. She knew that even with money she raised, there was a limited amount that she could do. Yes, she probably could have saved some people that ultimately died. Did she want them to die? Of course not. But she knew that many would, and her life was dedicated to comforting those who were ‘likely’ dying. Do people think she gave all her money to the Church?She started with 13 members in Calcutta and it eventually grew to more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers, etc. etc. Did she mismanage her money? Probably But she was not a business woman. If you want to say she could have had better judgment with the money her charity raised, fine. She probably did. But to largely smear her name by distorting what she did and her intentions shows ignorance to what she was all about. She was about as selfless as anybody in the last two thousand years. She was committing to following Christ’s teaching, and was as non-wavering as the North Star when it came to her single minded devotion to God.

Chick-fil-a President on Gay Marriage

Michael Hitzlik, in a recent article from the L.A. times felt "the President (Don Cathy) of the company crossed a line and should keep his mouth shut". His article never made a good point. He instead distorted what Mr. Cathy had to say. For example, the President of the company said "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." No other than Ruth Graham (Billy Graham's wife), who not exactly considered divisive said this, "If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Mr. Hitzlik believed that was like saying Cathy had a direct line to God (paraphrasing). He believes in the Bible. So, if you believe in the Bible, as most Americans do, you are now being arrogant to the point of thinking that you have a pipeline to God? It is also Mr. Cathy's belief to state his beliefs as God wants up to speak about his word. He stated his beliefs on an appropriate forum: a radio show and in an interview. Was he very smart about the corporate implications? I don't think he cared. Quite simply, he did not sell out. He should be commended for that. Michael Hitzlik went on to say, "Cathy's outburst ignited a very predictable outbreak of partisan posturing centered on the choice: ban or boycott?" There is a third choice, which is to support it. We are 45 minutes from the nearest one where we live, but my wife and I are making a special point to visit one this Saturday. I have actually never been to one. I think I will make it a point to start patronizing it.

Totally Gutless

Mike Ditka is absolutely right about the book that Jeff Pearlman "I think it's ridiculous to me," Ditka said Thursday on "Carmen, Jurko & Harry" on ESPN 1000. "What's the point? What's the point? The point is one thing only -- to sell books. That's all it's about. It's a bunch of crap, first of all.”

He is referring to the controversial new book by Jeff Pearlman about Walter Payton.

"If you're going to wait 12 years after somebody's passed, come on. This is the sign of a gutless individual who would do this. Totally gutless who would hide behind that, and that's what he's done."
"I learned a long time ago people can point the finger, say anything they want to say," Ditka said. "What gives [Pearlman] any credibility? What's his expertise? I know he's an author, and the only way he would know anything is to get information from other people. Who's to say the other people he got information from gave authentic information? He didn't get it from the horse's mouth. He didn't get it from Walter. I have a lot of questions about the authenticity of the book."

Even beyond the authenticity, this wreaks of a person buying into the ‘Howard Stern’ mindset. Hey, most of us have skeletons in our closet. That is what happens when you are human.
Pearlman addressed Ditka’s comment and justified it with having talked to 678 people, including close family members. But this goes beyond credibility. It gets to human decency. It might be interesting to see what might be found behind Pearlman if somebody ‘went there’.

Pearlman admitted he did it for money. Okay, yeah, he writes for a living, but there is nothing that says one has to seize every ‘opportunity’ they come across. If so, they are selling out; that is selling out with regard to their principles. Well, maybe not. Apparently, Pearlman has no principles.

American Idol

Well, another year has come and gone with American Idol.

We saw two new judges, one that added very good insight (along with a lot of beauty) and another that added no insight, but a lot of wit and charm.

I was always amused at listening to people that said the show was in trouble with Simon leaving. It is easy for me to say now, in retrospect, but I just didn’t get it. Were people really that impressed by Simon, but further, did they tune in primarily to see what the judges said? Why watch the show, then? First and foremost it is a singing contest.

But further, Simon duped people into thinking he was better than he was. People made him the authority and that mindset seemed to influence others into believing he was brilliant in evaluation performers.

He is a talent scout; not a musician. He is good (not great) at recognizing talent. But hey, how good, could he have been if he originally said no to Chris Daughtry going on to Hollywood?

AI will endure for a long long time. It does not matter who the judges are.

How the NFL will shape up this year

Division Winners:
AFC: Baltimore, New England, Indy, San Diego.
NFC: Atlanta, NY Giants, Green Bay, San Francisco


Wild Card:
AFC: NY Jets, Cincinnati
NFC: New Orleans, Minnesota

Super Bowl:
New England over Green Bay

Biggest surprise AFC: New England. Okay, okay I know what you are thinking. How can these guys be a surprise? Well, for one thing everybody is picking the Jets to win the division. New england played a tough schedule last year and still won 11 games. Of course, when they were plastered by the Ravens in the playoffs, many said their decade long reign was essentially over. The Pats are still alive and well. Their defense will be average, but their offense will be league's best

Biggest bust AFC: Tennessee. As much as I like Jeff Fisher, the OL (one of their perceived strengths ) has some question marks, and something tells me that Vince Young will still be a bust.

Biggest surprise NFC: St. Louis. Nowhere to go but up, I think Bradford will be decent, their OL improved, and Steven Jackson still a great runner.
They could win their division at 8-8. Some places have them as high as 20 to 1 to win their division.

biggest bust NFC: Dallas. Their OL also has some question marks, and the playmakers on offense and defense don't seem to correlate with expected wins.

Over/unders on seasonal wins I like the most: (odds will vary by site, I found these on World Sports Exchange)
Seattle under 7.5 (-170)
Dallas under 10.5 (-130)
San Diego under 10.5 (+100)
New England over 9.5 (-140)

Divsion winner: In the NFC West, I love St. Louis at 20 to 1.

Each week, I will post my Carib picks, along with a sentence or two about the game.