Danielle Bradbery Wins The Voice

My favorite singer won "The Voice" on Tuesday night...Danielle Bradbery, who was born just 51 years after the singer that performed before she was pronounced the winner, Cher.

None of the previous winners of "The Voice" have gone on to much recording success (wherefore art thou, Jermaine Paul?).  I predict that Danielle certainly has a chance with her pitch-perfect renditions of country songs.  Now that young Taylor Swift is "feelin' 22," Bradbery can certainly fill the "teen country star" niche that Swift has left behind.  The producers of the show know that, too--it was certainly no coincidence that she performed with young country heartthrob Hunter Hayes on Tuesday night.

My only concern is--and here, I can't help but be a dad--the impact of sudden stardom on a 16-year-old girl  that just finished her sophomore year of high school and, up until now, sang only in her bedroom.  Those that  follow music closely know what a grind remaining in the spotlight can be and the resulting rebellious behavior that occurs.

Bradbery was probably not ready to launch a full-scale musical career and I wonder how she'll continue her education and have a normal life.  Hopefully, Blake Shelton will steer her toward some people who can take care of her, as he's already mentored another young "Voice" star, Raelynn.

I think the Swon Brothers will also have a successful country career as small vocal groups are certainly dominating the charts these days.

I do wonder about Michelle Chamuel...she has an incredible voice and definitely can handle pop vocals.  But in a world dominated by performers with limited range and auto-tune...I wonder what type of material she'll be able to access for her first album.

Hosts Make Fun Of Steve Gleason...Realize AFTER It's A Bad Idea.

So here is a post that has the opposite theme to the last post.  Guys who make fun of a man who has ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease)?  Not funny...

I was living in St. Louis as a young man when the "Morning Zoo" concept was conceptualized.  A radio station in town employed a "shock jock" and a couple of other people hired to laugh at the shock jock's jokes.

The shock jock's job was to offer offensive humor.   Of course, this concept has always led to a logical conclusion:  the jock would go too far...he'd be fired...and salespeople would desperately try to retain commercial clients.

After all these years, radio stations still haven't learned that shock jocks eventually lead to sorrow.  Three chuckleheads in New Orleans decided to make fun of former Saints safety Steve Gleason and his struggle with ALS.

So what's more shocking?  That the jocks didn't realize how offensive this would be...or that the radio station was simply asking for an incident like this by hiring the guys in the first place?

And there's no apology that can be offered by any of the jocks that a person can take seriously....how could they NOT know in advance that such a routine would be indecent?

Lolo Jones And America's Lost Sense Of Humor

Lolo Jones is funny.   I became aware of her latest video after an Iowa sportscaster linked to it on Facebook.  In it, she fakes calling her landlord to tell him/her that the rent will be late after she shows off her "paycheck" for pushing a bobsled--741.84.

Why was I surprised that the video generated criticism from other athletes?

As a political activist, I am familiar with the "daily outrage."  But, with the constant presence of social media, it now appears that "outrage" can be generated on any topic almost instantaneously.

It would appear from our online activity that society has generally lost its sense of humor.  Even the person who is trying to defend Lolo, Jazmine Fenlator, is now to impute some higher motive to Lolo's video.  But why does there need to be a higher purpose?   She was trying to be funny.  Followers of Lolo on Twitter understand that.

Or is there ongoing jealousy over the attention paid Lolo compared to other athletes that feel they are better than her?

Coffee Does Not Make Your Life Less Pointless

I don't drink coffee all day, but I do have a "minimum" number of cups in the morning that I need to jumpstart my day.

A new study reveals that coffee does prevent me for getting sleepy, but it does not improve concentration.  In other words:

...researchers found that while coffee does keep you awake, but it does not enhance your ability to concentrate, which is why even though you an sit through an entire work day, it still feels pointless.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering...but don't count on coffee to help."

The Difference Between An Ideology And A Political Party

A friend of mine linked to this interview with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on his Facebook page this morning.  He wasn't so much interested in Christie's presidential aspirations as he was in Christie's comments as to why Christie and other Republican Governors (such as Terry Branstad) are so popular while the national GOP tanks in the polls.

Christie's take (and I think he's right):

"At the state level, they see the Republican Party as being doers, we actually get things done for people and we’re pragmatists and we bring people together—and we do so without violating our principles.”

The friend's link was immediately followed by commenters who claimed Christie is a liberal, he'd only win in New Jersey, conservatives won't support him, etc.  Other commenters said that moderates like Christie could win and accused the other commenters of "conservative purity."

Christie himself talked about the problems in Washington:

“What you’ve seen in Congress is people are playing in both end-zones and nobodies playing in the middle and trying to get things done. They’re just screaming at each other from both end-zones.”

What the reaction to this article demonstrates is the difference between ideology and a political party.

Ideologies such as conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism are dedicated to the promotion of a specific set of ideals and the ideas spawned by those ideals.  

Political parties exist to provide the apparatus to elect candidates.

I understand that political parties are made up of people motivated by specific ideologies and they work to influence the direction of the party.  It's true that conservatives dominate the primary process in the Republican Party and a moderate like Christie must "tack right" to get the nomination.  It's not that conservative activists don't care about electability;  they believe that conservatism is WHAT gets candidates elected and our recent nominees AREN'T conservative enough.

Tension results when a nominee isn't judged "ideologically pure enough" for an activist.  Does that activist work for the good of the party at that point or decide that a specific ideology is more important?

I think about these issues as 2014 and 2016 approach and we see more reports from groups like the College Republicans that point the party in a different direction than past elections.  I wonder if those demanding absolute fidelity to the party platform will be able to live by that principle when the party platform contains planks with with they disagree.

Okay, Enough With This "Promposal" Business

YouTube is full of really cool ways that men have proposed marriage to women.  But this is outrageous.  It's the video posting of elaborate "promposals."   Yep.  It's boys asking girls to the prom in incredibly elaborate ways, including flash mobs.

Dear teenagers of today:  no.  Sincerely, Jeff.

My own prom history is not a good one.   I asked a gorgeous girl who had a boyfriend in the Navy at the time and I thought she'd at least appreciate a date to the prom.  Nope.

I did go to the prom in my junior year with a pretty girl who agreed to go with me after the guy she REALLY  wanted to escort decided to go stag.   She spent most of the night mooning over him.  I should have known better (but I was 17).

My senior year I took a girl who broke out in fits of uncontrollable laughter when I tried to kiss her.  She told me I was a horrible kisser.  Flash forward thirty years, sister--my wife now begs to differ.

To be fair to these pretty girls, I was very nerdy looking in high school--don't look for a link to a picture, it ain't gonna happen.  So I was lucky to have a date.

But let me tell you the most gut-wrenching experience of the prom season:  working up the courage to ask the girl.   If you had a steady girl, sure, it was easy, but I didn't (see above "nerd" reference), so I had to nervously scope out the unattached girls and evaluate who just might say "yes" when I finally mumbled my invitation to the dance.

Today's teenagers definitely don't need the added pressure of trying to think up a "promposal" that will be regarded as the "BESTEVER!" on YouTube.  And...can you imagine the pressure on the girl who wants to say, no?

There is a wonderful aspect to the new social media in regard to prom.  I am Facebook friends with all three ladies mentioned in this post.  They all say nice things about me, and the one who turned me down now says she wishes she had said, "yes."

Maybe she now feels sorry for the adult nerd I've become.

Married Couple Stabs Each Other Over American Idol

People who meet Tara and I often ask how our marriage works, given our opposing views regarding politics and theology.  My new answer will be, "We discuss religion and politics and avoid American Idol."  Police in York, Pennsylvania report that a couple stabbed each other during an argument over who should win "Idol."

Tara and I don't watch "Idol," and I guess that decision is turning out to be the safe choice for our relationship.  Or, perhaps, people shouldn't mix alcohol and reality television?

Both of us prefer "The Voice."  The judges are funnier and often have affectionate interactions, while the show is overwhelmingly positive.  Contrast that to "Idol," where it's been rumored that none of this season's judges will be asked to return.

Plus I get to stare at Shakira unashamedly because Tara is distracted by Adam Levine.

Scandals Are Now About Us, Rather Than The Government

The greatest challenge faced by our American society today is not partisanship--it's teamism.   That's the belief that something is okay when done by your political party, but bad when the other political party does it.  It's the ultimate "ends justify the means" philosophy.

The latest Obama Administration scandals are a test of teamism.  And so far, teamism is prevailing.  Nate Silver reports that President Obama's approval rating is holding steady despite the scandals.

Silver attributes that to an improving economy.  I attribute it to teamism.

There was a time when we, as an American people, each possessed a certain ideology.  As citizens, though, we understood that our government was meant to serve us, not to rule us, and we all viewed politicians and political power with a healthy sense of skepticism.

But now we train all our fire on the opposing political party.  So, if it's your "team" that's committing the transgression (say, like, violating the first amendment), well, it's not so bad if you disagree with the ideology being targeted.  Just yesterday, in the midst of the AP and IRS scandals, some of my Democratic friends were calling for a radio host to be jailed for expressing reprehensible views.  You know, like that guy who created the video that DIDN'T inspire the Benghazi attack.

When I was growing up, bipartisan married couples joked about their differing ideologies--they'd often say, "we cancel each other out."  Now folks wonder how Tara and I can continue to be happily married.  That's says something about the toxic environment in which we express our political views these days.

As citizens, we should be true to our principles, be they conservative or liberal, and hold government accountable for operating within those principles.  Deciding that we are only concerned when our principles are being violated by the OTHER party is a threat to the continued preservation of our freedom.

Who Wants To Be Nominated For The Death Panel?

We like to label and demonize our ideological opponents in the bloodsport known as "politics."  Political activists seem especially predisposed to use the "dumb" label against a specific candidate or political figure.

So when "dumb" Sarah Palin talked about death panels, there was a monumental effort to label such talk as...yes...dumb...or even dumb AND crazy.

Except a death panel does exist.  It's called the Independent Payment Advisory Board and President Obama is yet to nominate anyone to it.  The board is to determine which cost-effective treatments will be covered by the government.  In other words:  if you're old, no transplant for you!

I'm guessing that the delay is occurring because the administration can't figure out how to prevent the nomination process from inspiring a national conversation about death panels.  But don't worry, the head of Health And Human Services can make these determinations alone if there are no nominees.   And we all trust  Kathleen Sebelius to make our medical decisions for us, don't we?