Now that IS interesting... kinda.

I don't really care to think much about entertainment-related stories. But this one was interesting to me. Apparently, there's a guy named Adam Lambert who was supposed to be on a cable morning news show, but was dropped after he kissed a guy on live TV... dropped for Chris Brown who admitted to physically abusing a fellow artist and girlfriend. And the outrage has begun.

It is fascinating that this network would make a (VERY OBVIOUSLY) controversial decision to bring on Brown (of all people) for Lambert. But not surprising in the least. I tend to be "suspicious guy" when it comes to networks doing controversial things, simply because I know there's a guy in a suit somewhere thinking "...ratings-advertisers-money...". But generally, I think we often condone what is illegal versus what some consider amoral. Illegal acts are often accompanied with sincere apology, tears, interviews, change, and a very understanding and accepting public. Because, in theory, they are no longer committing the illegal act.

But Lambert is still gay, and still kissing guys. And if you find that amoral, then you're likely not going to want to see him throwing it in your face (so to speak). But Chris Brown's "road to redemption" can be played from many angles. Regardless of what I feel, it's not my network, not my show. And if I'm upset I can still choose to not watch... or I can watch and then complain that it happened. No doubt, there is a group of guys in suits hoping I do the latter and consider buying a Jeep during the commercial breaks. I guarantee you that articles of outrage, public statements, and the like may as well come with Network promos and logos. Not watching and often not caring is the most powerful voice of anger.

An evening out...

A lot has been made (positive and negative) about the White House state dinner recently. It was a big event that happened amid a catastrophic domestic economy, overseas wars, and the like. All of this is very true. People have suggested that this should not have happened amid such circumstances. Well...
-State dinners are not domestic affairs, they are for bridging/celebrating international relationships
-One might suggest that India is a little bit worse off than the US economically, and we might be doing good will in helping them and building a stronger tie
-Probably no state dinner goes without the sincere objection by the public for dressing up fancifully and eating food that's way better than left-over pork chops.

At the end of the day, there have always been issues that cause us to (rightly) question the pomp and circumstance of such an occasion. But it is a traditional occasion that has yielded "good feelings" for the involved countries for a very long time. One can criticize the expense, but don't stop there... criticize that all Presidents have lived in a big fancy house, with attendants, fly on their own plane, have a chef, amid other things that will add up to much more than one nice dinner with a few hundred friends. While homeless veterans live in squalor a mile away.

This is not unique to President Obama, it is an aspect of our (and every) society.

It is my hope that we ALL do more to alleviate that.

Really???

Lately, it bothers me personally that people can get away with saying things that have no logical basis. There was once a time when people thought before they spoke. Checked to be sure things were right before "going there". That day has tragically come and gone. I will write about such instances here.

I offer my opinion on things people say. That's it. Nothing grandiose. Nothing "liberal". Nothing "conservative". This is just a plea to ask yourself when you read or see extremely biased things, just think... really?