American Idol and possible voting problem

There is possibly more buzz about who will be the next American Idol than who will be the next American President. Now in season 7 the American Idol franchise is obviously a huge hit. Every year there seems to be rumors of a voting scandal as viewers watch their favorite singer get the boot as others with less talent stay safe.
The best example of this was in 2004 season 3 as Jennifer Hudson got sent home earlier than expected and even the judges seemed surprised. She was a favorite to win the entire competition and claim the title of the next American Idol. So, what went wrong? My theory is that when people see a contestant that shines above the rest they feel confident that everyone is voting for that person and they are certain to win. So, they vote for who they want to see come in second, assuming that the favorite will remain safe. However, when millions of viewers cast their votes for their second favorite (or whoever they want to see perform again, Sanjaya) people like Jennifer Hudson get left behind.
My prediction for this season is that it will happen again. My best guess is that it will be David Archuleta. It's still too early to tell if he will grow as needed and continue to out perform the competition. But just keep in mind that you should always vote for your favorite and never assume that they will be safe.

What you do, defines you.

I am a coffee drinker. Why? Because I get up every morning and I drink coffee. If I got up every morning and had a glass of orange juice, I would be an orange juice drinker. What I do, defines me. It took me a while to understand the meaning of this concept. It is the actions that I do every day that defines me and makes me who I am.
Sometimes, it defies logic. I am a smoker. I quit smoking and after just one day of not smoking I felt better, had more energy, could breathe easier and food tasted better. So, you would think that I would never smoke again. Well, that would make sense but I gave in to the cravings that I would get even after the physical addiction had been overcome. After weeks of not smoking, I went back to it because my past defines me as a smoker. Past behavior is the best way to predict future behavior.
Obviously we are not locked into these behaviors, people can change. If I was trapped on a deserted Island like Tom Hanks in castaway, I couldn't go to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes. So, I would have to quit. I guess it takes will power or a lack of resources to invoke change.
So, here is the formula for making changes in our lives. Do it for one hour. Repeat that 24 times and you have changed for a day. Repeat that 7 times and you have a weeks worth of change under your belt. Do that 52 times and you have a new history for the past year. Use that history to predict your future and what you do will define the new person that you are. Next year at this time I will be a non-smoking orange juice drinker.

Amusing look at socio-economics

It seems that all of the presidential hopefuls are promising to help the "middle class". I've heard promises of Tax cuts, relief, and new jobs for the "middle class". The problem is that there seems to be a little bit of confusion about who the "middle class" is.
Depending on who you ask, there are many ways to determine if you are in the middle class. You add up your household income and if it's more than this and less than that and if you have more than so many people in your house, etc, etc.
I have a very simple test to determine your socio-economic status. Gather up your receipts from shopping for the last month. Now, look at the top of those receipts. If it says, "Wal-mart" at the top, you are most likely "Blue collar" or "Working class". If it says, "Neiman Marcus" at the top, you are most likely, "Upper class". What you are looking for is the bullseye. If the top of your receipts has a bullseye and says "Target", you are most likely "middle class".
Although I wrote this for entertainment value alone, there may be some truth to it. Socio-economic status should not be determined mostly by income, it should be determined by the way you spend money. While there is no such thing as "extra money", I believe that how you value a dollar is a good indicator of what economic classification you believe that you are a part of.

The Economy

It seems that all we are hearing about lately is the economy and what is wrong with it. What is wrong with the economy? Interest rates are the lowest they have been in years, property is affordable and it hasn't been a better time to buy a home in years, so what is missing?
The answer is "Consumer confidence". We have several presidential hopefuls making their bid for the white house and they all have the same message, "The economy is bad and I can fix it". This makes people scared and sets them in the "Wait and see" mood. As long as that is going on, money will not change hands and the economy will remain stagnant.
We went down this road before during the first Gulf war, the other Bush was president and the news was constantly reporting that there was a recession. President Bush lowered the interest rates to stimulate the economy. What that means is stimulate people to borrow money to get money changing hands, flowing, trickling down. However, with the news creating fear of recession and an election coming up, people waited. It wasn't until Clinton took office that people decided that they better act before rates go back up. Before you knew it, America was singing praises of President Clinton for getting us out of the recession. The truth of the matter is that it was actually Bush who did the work Clinton just restored "Consumer confidence".
Here we are again, in the same situation, interest rates are low, housing is affordable and an election is on the horizon. It really doesn't matter who takes office, people will know that it is now the time to start borrowing and spending money and the economy will recover.

We humans are fragile creatures

Lately, I have noticed that more and more people I know are going through a divorce. Being divorced myself, I often joke, "50 percent of all marriages end in divorce and the rest end in death. At least I got out alive". Seriously though, it seems to be more common these days. We have gotten away from building families and staying together. Family values seem to have gone to the archives like 8 track, vinyl and beta.
Part of the problem is that we get bombarded with propaganda encouraging us to be strong and independent. Television shows like "Sex in the City" portray single women in the most glamorous ways. The radio waves are full of songs by women artists lashing out at men. Kelly Clarkson "since you've been gone" and "because of you", Beyonce "Irreplaceable" are just a few examples of songs that encourage women to be single.
Don't get me wrong here, I think that women should be strong and independent. I just have to wonder if it isn't going beyond that. Are we getting to the point where it is better to be strong than happy? You can fluff it up as much as you like but it still takes less than an ounce of pressure to pierce human skin and even less than that to break a heart. So, are we really as strong as we think we are? No matter how you look at it, we humans are fragile creatures. Not a single one of us ever got anywhere without someone else. Even Oprah, the most powerful woman in America, has Steadman.

It's not newsworthy

One of the first things I learned in High School journalism class was, "What is newsworthy". If I go to the store for a loaf of bread or a pregnancy test, it's boring. If Britney Spears does the same thing, it's news. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that celebrities gave up their right to private life when they decided to be famous. But did they give up their right to privacy? And even if they did, are the mundane routines of life newsworthy when they are being performed by a celebrity? Personally, I don't find it any more interesting that Gwyneth Paltrow went to the hospital than anyone else. I hope she is alright and I think that she is amazing. I also think that if she wants to make a press announcement about her hospital visit, there are some people that would be interested and if not, it is none of our business. What is our business and what we have the right to know is what movie she plans to do next, how she got the role, who wrote and directed it, etc.
I just think that the paparazzi and the reporters need to spend efforts, time and airways talking about movies, scripts and the art of acting.
Now, for a moment, back to Britney. She goes to the store to buy a pregnancy test and it makes the news. One of two things is possible here. One, she can afford to have an assistant go to the store for her and get the test so it doesn't make national news and she just didn't think of that. Or, she has been famous since she was a fetus so she did think of that and is trying to use the media to create a buzz about her being pregnant so that her name stays in the headlines.
You might think that she is a crazy, mixed-up, dumb blond. I think she fooled everyone and played this just the way she wanted to, not because I am a huge fan of Britney but I am a fan of Ockham's Razor.

Side Effects

I was watching TV which I don't do very often, and I saw a commercial for a new drug. I won't mention the name because I fear repercussions (actually, I just don't remember the name). I believe it was an allergy medication. Now, while they try to distract me with these images of people smiling and strolling through a field full of beautiful flowers, the announcer mumbles the side effects. "Side Effects may include headache, nausea, dizziness", he says. Now, as an allergy sufferer myself, I think I would rather just deal with the sneezing and runny nose. But wait, the announcer is still going, "Some patients may experience loss of hearing, rectal bleeding...". I remember the old saying that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. We aren't talking about Rabies here, we are talking about allergies. Believe it or not, he wasn't done. He continued my saying that, "In rare cases stroke or death may occur". Well, as long as there aren't any serious side effects. Did you say death? That sounds more serious than a runny nose.
Has our society gotten to the point where the drug companies no longer actually care about our health? It just doesn't seem profitable to me to kill off your customers. Another good question is, "What is the Food and Drug Administration thinking about this"? It should be up to the FDA to look closely at the fine print for little side effects like death.