Idol Gives Bleck

I am glad that American Idol has decided to utilize its ratings for charity. I think the idea of Idol Gives back is a great idea. But I have to admit that I hate how they do it. I do not want to see a bunch or celebrities stumping for charity. I have said it before so I won't waste time saying it again, but I find sickeningly wealthy people asking us regular folks for money supremely distasteful. I also do not in the slightest enjoy watching live music performances and random awkward comedy routines. Especially not while a credit card donation hotline number flashes before my eyes. It is boring, and self indulgent and in general I feel it is done not to actually help people, but so that everyone can later go home, revel in the luxury their grandiose paychecks have afforded them, and feel good about themselves.

But I have a DVR, so what do I care, right? I can just zip through the whole thing or delete it completely - who cares what celebrity said what for which charity? Doesn't matter to me, I'm already on to my other recorded shows.

But isn't that kind of the point? Aren't they trying to reach all their millions of viewers in order to raise awareness and money and donations? Kind of defeats the purpose if we aren't watching. Not to mention - how much money did it cost to put on this whole production? I bet that could have fed some kids.

I wish they would just put aside this whole self serving rigamarole and start charging for votes. believe me, it isn't going to cut down on the number of people voting by that much if it only costs $.10 or even $.05 per call. And every votes every week the entire season? That is hundreds of millions of votes - which would be millions of dollars raised without doing a single thing differently. They could find a way to shorten (or dear god, please get rid of) those horrible Ford videos and show a few minutes of one of the various charities being benefited through the whole season's accumulated donations.

It would all be simple, straightforward and behind the scenes - everything Hollywood hates.

So I won't hold my breath. But I will hold down my FFWD.

Perception*

Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007. The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time approx. 2 thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After 3 minutes a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

4 minutes later:
The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

6 minutes:
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

10 minutes:
A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.

45 minutes:
The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities.

The questions raised:
*In a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?
*Do we stop to appreciate it?
*Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made.
How many other things are we missing?


*I did not write this. It was sent to me as a viral email and it was so thought provoking I wanted to put it here. If you wrote it, or know who did, please let me know so I can give you proper credit.

VMA-gate: And We're Suprised Why?

Okay. So you may or may not be aware of the brouhaha stemming from last nights' VMAs (since probably only my dad is reading this, that stands for video music awards. yeah, that's what I'm talking about here. Bye Dad). Basically, Kanye West acted like a dickhead and hijacked Taylor Swift's acceptance speech to say that Beyonce's video was the best one. Commence jaw dropping and much Tweeting/internet chaos. Truly, it was wonderful fodder. But basically, I just have to say, really? Are we THAT surprised that Kanye West acted like, um, Kanye West? The guy makes all the regular asshats out there seem like saints. Yes, it was amazingly rude, and yes, it was totally crazy that he actually got up and did that, but honestly, after watching the clip, the only thing that really surprised me was how polite he was when speaking. The overall message was unforgivable no doubt, but he was actually quite tame with the words coming out of his mouth. Which in itself should demonstrate the heights of douchbaggery he regularly attains, when something so heinous can come across as sort of civil. Dickweed. I would like to suggest that we all stop discussing such abominable behavior and giving the prick what he wants - attention. Don't tweet his name, don't write it on your blog. Make up some nickname (King Douche perhaps?) and use that. So that egomaniacal (and talentless, face it, anyone with his producers could do what he does) fame whore can't search for himself and revel in his controversy. The only thing his name should be used for now is as a verb to explain when someone steals your thunder and/or reaches new levels of wankosity.
ie: the best man totally KANYED their wedding when he got drunk and made out with the bride's dad

Drink This

I have been seeing the following ad in magazines everywhere:

and I really hate it. (If you can't read it it says "an overly caffeinated world deserves a sensibly caffeinated water"). First of all, the eye bugging thing is not only totally gross, but also not quite used correctly. According to almost every cartoon that utilizes the eye pop, it is an expression of shock or disbelief- not anger and frustration as this ad implies. I mean, really, are we supposed to think that this woman is surprised that her kids are fighting over the video game? Doubtful - and seriously, if you are too stupid not to buy one for each kid you deserve all the wars that will result - if you can't afford two, buy none. Secondly, where exactly is the depiction of people being overly caffeinated? Is it saying the kids are fighting because they are all hyped up (and why is she giving her kids caffeine anyway?), or is the mom blowing her top because she had one too many double lattes? It's confusing and stupid. But the third and by far the most grievous error is the tag line. It is not only stupid, but completely contradictory. Yes, this world is over caffeinated, but are they actually suggesting that caffeinated WATER is the solution? That somehow drinking water with caffeine will provide a solution to being over caffeinated? Because I'm not sure how that works. Seems to me the solution to being overly caffeinated is to drink LESS caffeine (or God forbid, even NONE), not put it into products that don't naturally contain it. In my opinion there is a sensibly caffeinated water - it's called water, and it has nothing in it at all. Water doesn't need flavor, or vitamins, or coloring (I've discussed this before), and it certainly doesn't need to have caffeine in it. Stop kidding yourself that you are drinking something healthy just because it says "water" on the label. If you want a sugary, caffeine fix bite the bullet and drink a Coke. As for me, I'll be the one without a racing pulse drinking plain old water from the tap.

Water, Hold the Artificial Flavor

Propel Fit Water's new slogan is "how fit is your water?" and the commericals all feature people at the gym who are horrified to learn that they will have to do x amount more crunches or laps or whatever to burn off the calories in their sports drinks. Now, I definitely appreciate the message here - people often wonder why they continue to be overweight despite exercise and eating right because it is easy to disregard calories in drinks. And that's nice that Propel only has 25 calories per drink so it isn't as big a detriment to your diet. But seriously, what is wrong with plain water? It tastes like nothing, has no sodium or sugar, and has zero calories every time. Is it really that important to have something taste like raspberry? As someone currently trying to lose a few, I view every calorie as important, and I'm not about to waste any on something as stupid as flavored water. If you really can't stand water on its own squeeze a little lemon into it - it adds nothing but flavor and can be good for your digestion. As for me, plain water works just fine - the purpose is to hydrate my body not entertain my taste buds. They get enough stimulation from all the sugar I eat anyway (I'm still working on the whole 'eat right' part.)

Keep Your Eye on the Target

Apparently there is some controversy brewing (thanks for the heads up, Dad) about a Target ad in Times Square featuring a girl laying across the Target symbol in a snow angel-making position. Feminazis think this objectifies women because her "special area" is strategically located right on the bulls eye. Now I can't say I particularly think this is a great ad - my first reaction was "why is she on the target - should we shoot?", but I didn't especially notice where her genitalia was placed because let's face it - I hardly ever pay attention to that on people unless it happens to be somewhere it's not usually found or in immedite danger of jumping out at me. The people up in arms about this would no doubt be just as mad if it were some other 30 ft high ad featuring a girl - you're using women to sell objects - that's objectifying women! Duh, losers - pretty girls sell stuff to stop your whining - which I'm sure is just based in not looking like this yourselves and never getting picked in gym class or asked to the homecoming formal- and go back to filling your fat mouths with cheetos or ding dongs or all natural organic granola so we don't have to listen to you anymore. Here are some other people's views on the subject.

We Don't Need Your Charity

'Tis the season to be give, and also for countless commercials begging your donations and generosity for others. I firmly believe in helping out the less fortunate in any way possible, but some of these so called charities have gotten me a little peeved. I hear all kinds of commercials asking for donations of new toys or clothes or whatever, and to me this seems very greedy and more than a little tacky. I realize the desire to have new things, but come on people - this is charity. It might seem a little harsh, but in my opinion people in the position to need charity should be happy to have whatever they get - beggars can't be choosers as the saying goes. Now, this doesn't mean that they should get worn out or ruined things, but there are plenty of barel used toys and clothes out there that have a lot of life left in them and could use a new home and someone to love them. Forcing people to buy brand new items for donation is just feeding our already over-consuming culture and creating more and more garbage and cast off items. I hate throwing things out, and I end up filling my house because there are practically no places to donate things to anymore - earlier this year I tried to give some practically brand new window blinds to a thrift store and they wouldn't take them because they were used. Um, hello - thrift store! I will happily donate brand new food items (obviously an area where used isn't feasible), but beyond that I will only patronize charities like the Salvation Army or Goodwill whose goal is to minimize waste as well has helping the needy.
some charities who will take donations of used items:
The Salvation Army
Goodwill Industries
Vietnam Veterans of America
Soles4souls

Truth in Advertising

Shouldn't there be a little more truth in advertising these days? Ads for wrinkle cream should have old people in them, or at least someone over 35. I understand the motivation, and I certainly prefer looking at attractive people much more than I do total dogs, but there should still be some relevance in the people cast and the product they are selling. I'm pretty sure there are some models out there over the age of 50. Maybe it's her, maybe it's Maybelline? Well guess what? It's her. I can buy all the Maybelline I want- it ain't gonna make me look like those girls do. Commercials for cleaning products are also to blame. Squirting ink on a shirt seconds before washing it doesn't indicate stain fighting effectiveness - no stain sets that fast. And spraying cleanser on spills that are obviously fresh isn't helpful either - i could wipe that up with a paper towel alone. Show me some real, ground in messes! One particular commercial that has been brought to my attention is for Tide Pure Essentials with baking soda. It features a little boy and his blankie and the voice over is saying that the blankie is dirty and tattered, etc, except that it is clearly brand new. Would it have killed them to get an old blankie? Or at least drag the new one around the parking lot a few times to actually get it dirty? Stupid.