What happens when you take African American blues artist Tracy Chapman and remove all of her skin pigmentation a'la Michael Jackson and then dye her hair blond to match?
Crystal Bowersox happens.
I mean really she is great at what she does, but whether intentional or not, what she does do is a blatant Tracy Chapman impression.
I mean careers have been made on less.
Hanson, for instance only became famous because "MMbop" sounded like a lost Jackson 5 recording (that's 2 king of pop references in one post for those of you scoring at home). Of course once they tried to create their own identity apart from "those white guys that look like girls and sound like the jackson five" everyone (except my sister Stephanie) lost interest and they fell into oblivion.
The question for Crystal Bowersox, who I'm picking to win American Idol, is can she develop her own identity when the parallels to Chapman are so strong (same voice, same style, same guitar, same fricken hair-do) and will people still like her if she does??
On a side note, these are fun to come up with. People who could be twins except one is black and one is white.
Can you think of any others?
I remember watching "Who wants to marry a millionaire" when it originally aired on Fox 10 freaking years ago. My mom was pissed!! She said it made a mockery of marriage, and was disgusting, and made us change the channel. If I remember correctly my mom left the room and dad changed the channel back (or maybe it was me, or more likely my brother Brian), and we got to see Rick Rockwell emerge from his dark balcony and choose Darva Conger over my favorite Barker Beauty from the Price is Right (I have no proof of this but trust me, I remember that very distinctly). Needless to say mom was pissed when she came back in at the end of the show and found us watching it again. We of course augured "what's the big deal?" Mom's sticking point seemed to be that a relationship much less a marriage can't be started instantaneously with out 2 people taking lots of time to get to know each other, therefore this was about 2 people wanting to have sex and not about a life together. (Of course Rick was stonewalled on the honeymoon by Darva, citing her guilt at betraying her religious beliefs, and mom was vindicated. That is until Darva posed naked in Playboy for the $$. I don’t remember how much she was paid but it was less than a million and that apparently was more than Rick had to offer, which meant the show's title was inaccurate, Ergo, mom was right the show was a mockery, but she was wrong it wasn't about sex it was about money, which I think we all knew in the first place. But I digress.)
Of course my mom is a big fan of the Bachelor. A guy slowly eliminates one woman after another until he finds his perfect soul mate, all on national TV in front of a camera and production crew. And as disgusted as she was with who wants to marry a millionaire, she is that enthralled with the Bachelor (Of course she also is enthralled by "the Ghost Whisperer", so make of that what you will).
Now I'm here to tell you that if you’re looking for a model of how to go about finding someone to marry and spend the rest of your life with, Who wants to marry a millionaire is the way to go.
The Bachelor certainly tries to give guy every opportunity to find out all he can about these women and make an informed slowly (painfully so) thought out decision. That is good in that you can say "I didn't rush into this" but that is even a bit of a misnomer.
Basically the bad thing about the bachelor is that it perpetuates the myth that there is one special person out there for you, and the happiness in your future depends on choosing the right person. While marrying a miserable person will make you miserable yourself, there is no perfect person for anyone, and so any good persons will do nicely. The real key is your commitment to the relationship. The problem with all the emphasis on choosing "the right one" is that when things don’t go so swell, you automatically blame the current problems on "I made the wrong choice" and that is an excuse that makes divorce not only easy, but inevitable if not altogether necessary, because of course you made the wrong choice in women. It's a fatal attribution error, blame the past for the present. This is Dr Phil stuff.
John Gottman, who is a big shot marriage expert, researcher, author and former professor at the University of Washington explains finding a marriage partner like this. "You are choosing a problem you want to deal with for the rest of your life." Life is full of problems, they are unavoidable, but you can exercise some control in the type of problems you have in life.
The most recent Bachelor is a good example of this. Jake is down to Tenly and Vienna. Now most people, my wife most of all, hate Vienna and believe her to be a fake, ugly, classless, lying, gold digging slut, with a boob job. On the other hand Tenly is a sweet, loving, shy, good-natured girl, who has been hurt in the past.
OK now you’re Jake and you have to chose the problem you want to put up with for the rest of your life; Vienna might cheat on you, or Tenly's paranoia that you will cheat on her.
Macho bravado and arrogance can compensate for your own insecurity, but there’s little to nothing you can do for someone else's insecurity.
So in Dr. Gottman’s view Jake picking Vienna is not such a bad idea.
The bachelor before that is a good example of how the myth of choosing "the right one" complicates things, but also shows how well things can go if you can eliminate that myth. Jason chose Melissa and for whatever reason decides almost immediately that he made the wrong decision and goes back to Molly. Now tough luck for Melissa, but for Molly and Jason this is a god-send. Now that Jason has already plaid the "I made the wrong decision card" he is committed to Molly. Molly
took him back so quick because, 1.) It validated her telling herself and America in the limo ride to the airport that Jason made a mistake, and 2.) It shows she is not petty and vindictive. Unlike most reality TV fixups, this relationship has a chance.
Jake and Vienna have a chance too because when it comes down to it, Jake picked Vienna in his heart of hearts from the very beginning. He had to of. He had every reason to cut her at any point and he didn't. Why? Because he picked Vienna and then left it up to the rest of the girls to prove themselves better than her. That is impossible because attraction is not a conscious decision. However love and commitment are. And you will never make a commitment to someone if you put the onus on them to illicit that commitment from you. You have to give love and commitment freely. However if your attracted to someone, be it via sex, compassion, laughter or otherwise, giving them love is easy.
So when it comes down to finding someone to love, the question is not who or which one?? But it's a yes or no to whoever you’re with at the moment. When the bachelor says he is falling in love with all 3 of these girls, then he's in trouble. You see once you reach a yes, the search should be over, but the series has 12 more episodes to shoot. That means 12 more episodes of making the bachelor look for reason to doubt his decision, only to have to make an arbitrary one based on suedo-information like his families' opinion after meeting her once for dinner. (I find it funny that the families snap judgment is considered good, but the guy is supposed to agonize back and forth forever to make a good decision.)
Ultimately, a show like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" forces someone to make a decision based on instinct and attraction ( the millionaire) , and then forces the yes/ no decision on "can I live with this person" (the woman when picked and proposed to with a $35,000 ring) and then forces both people to commit right then and there. Now of course the big question is do they really mean it. And in Darva and Rick's case they didn't and you see what happened. But in a lot of the Bachelor cases, I think maybe they did mean it, but it didn’t matter because they went about it all wrong.
My fellow "sort of later day saint" Glen Beck went off on "social justice." I only say his comments third hand on the Colbert Report and lil Stevie Col-BERTTT was too hilarious to try and top, so I'll just comment on this notion of social justice.
In Beck's view the danger in social justice is in the socail part.
Social, as in socialism, which means taking your hard earned money away!
(I should point out that the money taking in socialism always puts that money to a worthwhile cause, like medical care, and education, providing these free of charge for those whom the money was taken from and the rest of the citizens of that nation, although some do pay disproportionately more than others, which is a relevant to note as you will see late, Ergo, I digress.)
Most red blooded Americans if asked would say they feel more comfortable with the notion of justice than with the notion of socialism. After all justice is up on the list with good and right.
But it's the justice that should be feared in social justice.
For 2 reasons
Reason #1: Justice in unattainable.
Because justice can be applied 2 opposing ways depending on what is most advantageous to the party screaming injustice at the time. Justice can mean equality as in everyone gets the same amount, or justice can mean fair as in everyone gets according to their needs.
If someone is deemed to need more of something than others, rest assured the others will feel slighted and cry out for justice. If all are given equally, you can bet someone will claim to be special and demand justice be given them.
Obviously you can't have it both ways. But justice is an abstract concept utilized since a the beginning of time try and to do just that, never succeeding. If it were possible we would have lived in a just world by now, at least for a little while. But it's never happened and it never will because justice is at best unattainable and more likely straight impossible. To pursue it ultimately will lead to ruin.
Reason #2: Justice is really code for revenge.
It is. This is pretty much self evident. I don't even have to explain this, but I'll try just to make this post longer.
Old Mosaic law defined justice and "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". When we go to court and it's sentencing time, we always root for a severe penalty. You know it;s just a pursuit of vengeance because we apply whichever meaning of justice, fair or equal, yields a harsher punishment.
I'm more concerned about people hell bent on revenge running around punishing those they feel slighted by, than people taking my money so I can go to school and the doctor for free.
By the way socialism does what justice can not. It has it;s cake and eats it's it too. As far as equality and fairness go, socialism accomplishes both at the same time.
While it is fair in it's disproportionate taking of the money, more from the rich than from the poor, it provides the benefits equally, meaning everyone gets the best they have to offer.
Ok, so maybe only in theory.
But in a perfect and just world....
"The competition committee recommended to the 32 owners Monday that a team losing the coin toss and then surrendering a field goal on the first possession should have a series of its own in OT. Such a rules change would need 24 votes for ratification. Statistics examined by the committee showed that since 1994, teams winning the coin toss win the game 59.8 percent of the time. The team that loses the toss wins the game 38.5 percent in that 15-year span, or since kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30.”
I’ve had this idea for changing overtime in football for a while now. If the coin toss is an unfair advantage, then just get rid of it. In a tie game the fourth quarter ends and the teams just keep on playing until someone scores. Treat it just like the end of the 3rd.
TV time out, switch sides, and pick up play where you left off.
Turn off the clock .
The game just continues until someone scores.
It’s sudden death!
I honestly can’t see a down side to this. The only minor change is the offenses has less of a sense of urgency to score by the end of regulation in a tie game because they will automatically keep possession in and field position in OT. But that is compensated by the new sense of urgency by the defense to force a turnover because they no longer have the luxury of “holding on till overtime” where they have a 50/50 chance to win “60/40” odds, with a consolation prize of field position even if they do lose the coin toss.
Am I missing something?? What is the down side?? This seems really really obvious to me. I can’t possibly be this smart. Someone check my ego before I start thinking I know things.
Is healthcare a public obligation or private enterprise? I guess it depends on your perspective.
You could see the advances in medicine and technology as equipping the state with the means to protect and sustain the lives of its citizens not only from external danger like terrorist attacks but from internal dangers such as disease as well, and feel it is the government’s obligation to provide this protection, and any failure to provide such protection when that protection is possible is then seen as moral abandonment. Ultimately it is an ethical question for those in power and their responsibility to their subjects,..Ahem… constituents.
Or you could see healthcare as a personal obligation if not merely a preference of the quality and duration of one’s own life, weighing the personal co$ts and benefits of treating the illness verses the relative inconsistencies and limitations of the disease. Ultimately it is a personal choice. Freedom. Personal responsibilities for ones’ own self alone.
Which is better?
I don’t know.
But what I do know for sure is Health Insurance (and all insurance in entirety) is a private enterprise, and most certainly not a public obligation.
Which makes this notion of forcing people to buy healthcare insurance or pay the penalty (literally), kind of backwards, given that it is the centerpiece of the the plan championed by the people claiming healthcare is a public obligation.
Going one step further….
Is healthcare a right?
And if it isn’t, should it be? Ethically, it would seem hard to argue that it shouldn’t be, given the resources we know to exist.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One), or TTP1 for short, covers everything from emergent technologies to Victorian literature. Nothing is impossible and even less is sacred. To learn more press the button.