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.