Clearly Nebulous

American Idol: Not for Intellectuals Only

I think it’s just great that the simple folk are discovering that they too can enjoy the highbrow entertainment of this uncelebrated talent exposition.

Actually, it’s usually more like “You watch American Idol? Seriously?”

Seriously.

Yeah, sure, it’s not the same without Simon, and there are plenty of episodes where almost everybody does bad (this week was pretty close!), and whereas Steven Tyler has brought some fun, he’s a bit pandering (and enough with his pottymouth and ogle-eyes!)

But J-Lo is lovely — Paula without the potential train-wreck factor — and Randy is a solid anchorman who has easily taken on the role of the heavy, albeit without the clever sting of Sir Cowell.

So a quick wrap-up for last week: Choosing a song from the year you were born.

Yep, the oldest person was born after I graduated high school. And the youngest is barely able to drive. Yikes.

Idol has always been kind of vague about how the choices of songs are presented to the contestants. Come on, tell us — can they actually choose any song they want that meets the criteria, as long as you’re able to secure the rights? If so, it is amazing to me how — season after season — contestants make horrible song choices.

It was the last coffin nail for Ashthon the previous week, and there were some dicey choices this week. But I don’t think that’s what did in the comely Karen this time out.

If the voting had been solely based upon the performances of that night, the unconventional Casey would have been OUT! Cool song, terrible screeching. Karen had a lovely rendition of “Love Will Lead You Back” but I think she was fighting an unturnable tide.

It seems that the big demographics for AI voters is tweenage girls and grandmas. Hence, verycute boys with verylittle talent tend to overstay their welcomes. And the girls who make it through not only have to be outstanding (Pia!) but they have to be relatable (Thia!)

Though fans like my husband may have thought Karen’s neo-Barbarella outfit was muy caliente, tweens and g-mas… not so much. And I don’t know — but the whole bilingual, affable nature kind of gave her a Celine Dion vibe that unfortunately can be (inexplicably imo) off-putting.

Well, AI may no longer have a potential Latin Idol this time around, but Karen Rodriguez can have a long-time career in Latin music if she plays her cards right. All the best to her — she is beauteous.

The Latina Barberella? 

As for this week: Where was Berry Gordy? Maybe after being invited to see the meh performance of Ashthon 2 weeks ago, he was afraid to come back. Well he missed out on some Smokey-hot performances.

Even country-boy Scotty showed he had a little bit of soul, as he delicately walked the line between engaging entertainer and lounge lizard with a rendition of “For Once in My Life” that was reminiscent of ’70s-variety-show-era Glen Campbell.

Jacob and Pia — who have to be odds-on favorites — chose lesser- known hits which can be risky… unless of course you are able to knock ‘em out of the park! Jacob however, has the edge in showmanship, effortlessly adding a little sass to his performance. Pia has The Voice, but she needs to connect more if she wants to win it all.

I have to say the voting results surprised me — but not just for the obvious reason. I feared that the bottom three was going to be an all-(non-Asian) girl chorus again. Instead it indeed included two of the weakest performances.

Stefano (or as I call him, Matt LeBlanc and Matthew Broderick’s secret love-child) chose a cheesy song that David Cook memorably reinvented, but Stefano looked like he was holding back the mother of all sneezes as he tried to keep his eyes open. I thought the tweens would melt at his final doe-eyed glower and tear up the phone lines, but not so.

Thia is cute as all heck, but she just hasn’t had strong showings, so her inclusion also made sense. But of course, the stunner — for even being in the bottom three, let alone the lowest tally — was Casey with his comeback rendition of “I Heard it Through the Grapevine.” No screeching this week, just soulful strains.

Chalk it up to performing first and the voters thinking he’s a shoo-in? Who knows, but the judges were spot-on — though they scared the “shhh-tuff” out of Casey by stopping him from singing for a save — when they immediately decided to bring him back next week.

As he staggered about, visibly stunned, Casey had me and my husband convinced that we were about to see AI’s first instance of on-stage regurgitation. Yeah, sure, nothing new for the likes of The Jersey Shore — but thankfully, it was simply sincere shock from a young man who felt he had been pulled back from oblivion.

By saving Casey this week, the AI judges expanded the tour to eleven performers.

Too Busy to Condemn Misogynist Slurs? N.O.W. That's "Ridiculous"!

Well Bill Maher had me on his team for about a day with his condemnation of Islamist fundamentalism. But then he just had to open his big mouth and use another misogynist slur in reference to Sarah Palin on the March 18th broadcast of his show. He couldn't settle for "dumb twit" -- he sunk to the lowest and bought a different vowel instead.

Supporters of Palin immediately jumped to her defense the next day, wondering where those calls for civility had gone. And then we waited for the castigation from N.O.W. ... and we waited, and we waited.

Come on, in this day and age? A quick tweet? A brief, perfunctory statement?  Nope. Four days later a "communications director" (who may want to review her job description) put up a backhanded chastisement on the organization's website blog telling liberals to:

"Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? ....keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women."

But of course, there are the words that I omitted with those ellipses:

"If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so"

Classy.

 

Sarah Palin also got no respect with the way the MSM ignored her trip to Israel.

But it didn't stop there. Three more paragraphs admonishing conservatives, with complaints about how we're trying to distract them from the real important work of ensuring that the ability to kill a pre-born child for any reason, at any age of gestation remains the law of the land. That they have defended Sarah Palin, but they'll only do it when they feel like getting around to it.

And then the usual canard of, where were conservatives when Hillary was being bashed? Well, the worst I remember in the mainstream was the infamous "beat the b*tch" incident. Although that occurred before I began blogging, I decried that statement (and others about Hillary's anatomy). But today I tried for several minutes to find any hits about N.O.W. defending Hillary for anything -- ok, I'm not the best Googler, but I came up with nothing. You would think that there would be a ton of references.

Well, there are a ton of references for how faux-feminists defended Bill Clinton. And then of course there is the deafening silence from N.O.W. on how conservatives are the ones who have brought about progress in the plight of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also fail to acknowledge the prominence of women in the Bush administration over the current one.

But we all know that N.O.W.'s irrelevance grows as its only true goal -- laying the lives of millions of pre-born women (and men) on the altar of abortion -- becomes less and less popular.

But Palin herself said on March 24th that she doesn't need N.O.W. to defend her:

“Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.”

I would add: Take the ball and take your shot. Don't wait for the self-appointed refs to decide whether or not you "deserve" to be in the game. 

 

No MSM Baby Joseph Stories because it Shows All-Too-Real "Death Panel"?

I have not seen this story at all myself on any network other then FOXNews, and they are correct in calling it an "exclusive" today -- while I was able to find a few older stories (not any from the WashPost or MSNBC) no one but FOX is reporting the victory in this end-of-life case.

Could it be because this story shows exactly the types of decisions that are reached by government-controlled panels under national health care systems? Whereas, of course there should be a review of cases by professionals, when the conclusion reached denies a family the right to carry out their own wishes in how their child will be cared for in their final days, how can such a group be called anything but a "death panel"?

Baby Joseph has a rare disorder that Canadian doctors say will end his life very soon. They wanted to remove his respirator, leading to what would appear to be an immediate death. The family asked that instead, the doctors perform a prodedure that would allow Baby Joseph to be taken home to live out his last days.

 

Father Frank Pavone fought hard to allow Baby Joseph's dad to bring him to a facility that will listen to his family's wishes.

 

But the single story I found on ABC News (from 10 days ago) amazingly recounted that the Consent and Capacity Board, an independent body created by the government of Ontario, refused to allow this. In other words, a board knows better than parents how a child should die.

Supporters of the Canadian system would argue that the child's death is inevitable, so there is no sense in prolonging his life. This, of course, is the conclusion reached by doctors whose job it is to think about bottom lines.

Thankfully, as FOX reported today, through the efforts of Priests for Life and other anti-euthanasia groups (including Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby) Baby Joseph was flown to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri on a specially equipped air ambulance. The Center provides medical care for no cost to children in need.

It will be interesting indeed to find out what the doctors at this Center determine about Baby Joseph's condition.

It's no wonder the MSM has shied away from this story. Not only does it show what is essentially a "death panel" decision, but it shows the compassion of pro-life group's that are willing to care for a dying child to allow him to live out his natural life. And he will be cared for by those who are truly interested in his well-being -- not balancing a budget. This tale clearly reveals scenarios that would be all-too-real here in the U.S. unless we stop Obamacare.

Wisconsin Unions: Childish Charlatans not Freedom Fighters

The Wisconsin unions -- and many non-resident union reps of all kinds -- have made quite a spectacle in Madison these the past weeks. Mainstream media have been quite empathetic, not reporting the hard facts about exactly what the Republicans in Wisconsin were asking from the unions.

Instead, Chris Matthews and his kind allowed union mouthpieces to spout absurdities such as "this vote was like Pearl Harbor" and suggesting the GOP members had done something unethical, if not illegal.

But then again, these are the same people who refused to see how ridiculous it was that Megan Sampson, who was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin, got a layoff notice a week later because her union's collective-bargaining contract chose senior members regardless of how ineffective they may be.

This protestor actually (though inadvertantly, I'm sure) got it right. Sure, go ahead and voice your dissent, but when it's apparent the local citizens are not behind you, it's time for concessions.

Michael Walsh in The New York Post:

Let’s call this what it is: a campaign to nullify the 2010 election, by a sore-loser party that doesn’t like the results.

The Democrats are trying to cast themselves as the heroes — noble prisoners of conscience engaged in an act of civil disobedience by denying Walker a quorum so the vote can be held...

This fight is now about whether we are to have an orderly democracy or legislative and executive anarchy, whether elections can be delegitimized and even overturned by the daily plebiscites of the polls, by the flouting of sacred oaths of office and by the trampling on the laws of the state.

The truant senators were basically hoping that the constant protests and liberal media would sway constituents into telling the Republicans to change their minds. But when that was not happening, they acted as if they were holding on to some higher principle and still refused to come home. They behaved like a bunch of petulant teenagers, holding the legislative process hostage -- so the GOP members did what they had to do.

Let's take a look at what was done:

** The Republican state senators found no reaon to continue to wait for the return of the missing Democrats and went ahead and voted on part of the legislation as they have been telling the Dems for weeks they would. No surprises, no "nuclear option" -- the Dems had every chance to debate this and win over the votes. They refused.

** The legislation they passed still leaves Wisconsin union members more rights than federal workers and the public union members of about half of the other statesin America. 

** The WI GOP made a serious move to deal with a deficit of over $6B, which the state reached (no) thanks to a Democratic governor who repaid his teachers union campaign supporters with a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the state's taxpayers -- you won't believe this -- $101,091 per year for each teacher!

The governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, faced a similar situation a few years back. He made tough decisions that made him very unpopular at the time. Now Indiana is one of the few states in the black, and Daniels is a hero.

My guess is that the citizens of Wisconsin will do the same for Scott Walker, and one by one other states will follow suit -- and the days of the charlatans will be behind us. 

 

The New Egyptian "Democracy": Women and Christians Need Not Apply?!

Buried on page 14 of the Washington Post today was a story that is a bad omen for women in post-revolutionary Egypt. A march of about 300 women in Tahrir Square on International Women's Day ended when men began attacking the women, shouting at them and sexually groping them. (Apprently Egypt is second only to South Africa in the sexual molestation of women.) 

The article stated: "Gone was the spirit of equality and cooperation between the sexes that marked most of the historic mass gatherings in the square." Although a chain of men had surrounded the women to protect them, they were overpowered by those who feel that women should not have a place at the table as Egypt forges a new constitution.

But at least this story made the pages of WashPo -- there was no mention of another clash between Muslims and Christians, who make up only about 10% of the Egyptian population, that killed one Christian man. (We'll see if a story on their website today about a clash that killed 13 Christians will be fit to print tomorrow.)

UPDATE: That story did make the front page and the article extensively reported on the struggles of women and Christians in the new era in Egypt. They listened to me!

 

On March 9, there was turmoil that left 13 Christians dead. It started from a feud involving a modern Romeo and Juliet -- animosity between the families of a Muslim and Christian who have fallen in love escalated and a Christian church was torched leading to further clashes.

 

While all media were saturated with front-page stories about the protests that led to the ousting of the old regime, tales of the growing pains of the nascent "democracy" (that conservative outlets forewarned would more than likely occur in the predominantly Muslim nation) are not worthy of prominence.

Is the mainstream media afraid it would be anti-Muslim to mention the oppression? Sure, go ahead and ignore the plight of Christians as usual -- why should that change? But to relegate stories about the blatant sexual harassment and domination of women to the back pages?

We have the opportunity to lead the rest of the world in setting high expectations for the new government. Let's not fail the women of Egypt -- and all the emerging newly-led nations.

The Inconvenient Truths of Planned Parenthood Funding

The Susan B. Anthony List has Planned Parenthood spinning it wheels -- figuratively and literally.

The SBAList set out across the country in a great big bus to spread the word that now is the most opportune time to finally rescind all public funding from PP. Knowing that they are losing ground in this current fight over funds, PP started out with a $200k tv ad blitz -- but when that still wasn't moving the needle, they decided to join the bus tour to counter-protest.

While the SBAList message is simple and clear: 

The banner on the top half says "No More Tax $$ for Planned Parenthood"

Methinks the Planned Parenthood bus doth protest too much:

There are a few inconvenient truths missing from this list of facts.

It screams, "Look at all the good we do!" but it is misleading. First the "cancer screenings" have not been explained (please if you have info on this, I will be happy to include it) but I'm guessing are not much more than passing out the pamphlets that the Susan G. Komen foundation pays for and gives to PP (okay and maybe they talk to you about your risk and then give you a referral). While apparently they do perform manual breast exams, they do not provide mammograms although they choose wiley words to make you think they do.

And of course there are some missing inconvenient truths: PP itself reports that the org performs over 324,000 abortions per year. Are we supposed to ignore that fact because of all the "good" they are doing? Oh, and don't buy the line that taxpayer money does not fund abortions. That is simply an accounting trick.

Another missing fact: From 2002 to 2007, PP took in $388 million more than they spent on programs and services. Why do they need federal funding if they already are in the black?

And of course PP fails to mention their track record of undercutting parental rights and shielding sexual predators, as Lila Rose and LiveAction.org  have so bravely exposed.

Supporters of PP are going around acting as if the org will have to shut its doors and patients will have nowhere to go if this funding is denied. Hard to imagine, but even if that were true, there are  1,200 Federally Qualified Health Centers that provide the same care PP does -- but also provide mammograms and other health care services for the entire family. FQHCs provide much more comprehensive care and no one would be deprived of what they may need.

But of course, PP isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. Not as long as they continue to tell their workers to push their abortion numbers higher -- another sad fact missing from the group's laundry list.

Let's make this happen. Go to www.sba-list.org to see how you can help stop taxpayer money from going to this abhorrent organization.

 

HuffPo Thinks Palin Family Threats are a Joke

While BBC News had a fairly even-handed story about Sarah Palin (although they mistakenly used the word "cross hairs" when it should have been "surveyor marks" -- a distinction liberals reject, but only if it pertains to Palin and not Democrats who used actual cross hair targets on maps -- but I digress...) the Huffington Post chose to report on just one part of that story, with a mocking headline.

If this were a liberal family, say the Kennedys, the headline would have been "Kennedy family stalked by gun-toting lunatic."  But the part of the story where the Heaths explain why they keep their firearms so handy was left out:

"Palin's father Chuck said a man recently had sent the family photocopies of a receipt for a gun he had bought, together with a photocopy of a one-way ticket to Alaska.

The family had laughed it off, but the man subsequently turned up in the state and was arrested by the FBI, Chuck said.

'We sleep with the guns,' Palin's father admitted. "

And from that disturbing passage, the HuffPo pulls out the liberal-snicker-inducing "we sleep with guns." Classy.

 

While the Palins and the Heaths seem to take threats in stride, and they know that being in the public eye makes you a target, does that mean the media should ignore a very real danger and make a mockery of how the family chooses to protect themselves?

Where is the uproar? Is not every public figure who has received a very real threat -- not just anonymous letters and phone calls, the vast majority of which are just spurious tomfoolery -- worthy of our concern? Would the media have made jokes and ignored the very real peril if Loughner had sent the threatening letter the authorities found in his safe and was then stopped near the Tucson Safeway with his gun?

Nope, Sarah Palin and her family are just a big joke to them. The liberal media will keep making fun of her, hoping to wipe out what they seem to think is a bigger threat -- Palin herself. Childish.