American Idol Season Finale

Way back in January I gave my opinion on the beginning of the 4th season of American Idol. I talked about it being not so entertaining (somehow really bad singers don't float my boat). I also said may I would update along the way. Well, here I am nearly 45 minutes after the finale aired and I am just now updating!

What an interesting season it has been. So at the risk of sounding like every other news report and blog, I will rehash some of the more interesting things.

First, Mario Vasquez. This kid can sing. He would have won too ... if he actually stayed in the competition. He made it to the all important final 12 the left for "personal reasons". I think "personal reasons" in this case means he found a better offer. I am sure in the near future we will be hearing about his debut album. I could be wrong of course. He might of just gotten to close to Paula Abdul.

Speaking of getting to close to Paula Abdul (hahaha, like my segue?) ... Corey Clark said that Paula not only coached him on the show, but had an intimate relationship with him. I think this is a case of pond scum attempting to sell his book and CD. And, by the way, boo to ABC for that Primetime special.

My final rehash: Scott Savol. Rare is it that I want to just plain smack someone (especially someone that I don't even know. But somehow, Scott just brings that out in me. The man is creepy and cocky. Worse, he doesn't even have good reason to be that cocky. Guy can't sing. PLUS I am disgusted that people would cheer for a man who threw a phone at the chest of the mother of his child. I don't care how sorry he is, that is just wrong. Along with Scott is the whole votefortheworst.com thing. I had no idea it existed. On the one hand, it is kinda funny (take that producers who put creepy guys in the pool). On the other hand, Constantine should have lasted longer.

Moving on to the actual show. It was basically one hour and 55 minutes of fluff and filler that I personally could live without. First, I have no desire to rehash those really cheesy (and some creepy) Ford commercials. But it was sweet that both Carrie and Bo got Mustang Convertibles. I assume they will be making enough money to cover the insurance ... and repairs. I have no need to hear all the bad singers again. I have no need to see those two poor boys who became friends. But I do have to admit bringing out David Hasselhof was freakin' hilarious. Idol's attempt at satirical parody was a nice idea, but very poorly executed. ABC does deserve some ribbing, but the college students I supervise could have come up with something better. The Idols singing with their idols was okay. I really only needed to see Carrie, Bo and Vonzie. If the rest of the performances magically did not make it to my TV, I would not have been sad.

Finally, Mr. Seacrest tells us that Carrie is our American Idol. And I called it right! I liked Carrie early on, but Bo was really starting to grow on me. I only voted for the finale and my votes did go to Carrie. I was reading on MSN.com that Carrie is the essence of Idol: sweet, pretty and truly new to the biz. I think they are right. Bo still rocks my socks though. Besides, we all know that he will get a recording deal too. And, if we are lucky, Vonzie will get her own deal.

Last Words: It was a good season, the right person won, I will probably buy both Carrie's and Bo's records!

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Well hello little blog. Long time no see. Hello Stars Wars movie. Long time since the saga began (30 years apparently ... that's older than me!)

Anyway, like thousands of Americans, I wandered off to see Anakin Skywalker finally take the plunge into the dark side. For Mr. Lucas, this is the end of an era of his movie making (well ... almost. Let's just wait for the 3D editions and the TV series before we make that statement final). I think, the Revenge of the Sith is a fitting end (er, middle?) to the Star Wars saga. However it was not without it's flaws.

For the most part, it was an entertaining movie. There was some cheesiness (reference Padme asking Anakin to hold her like he did by the lake in Naboo). There were some giggles. And I know there were some hard core fans who tried really hard to stifle there cheers when we finally see the Vader we all know and love.

Let me talk for a second about the non-human creatures. First, Yoda. Rocks, Yoda does (sorry, resist I could not). First it is just nice to see Yoda as more than a muppet (he was rather muppet-ish in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi wasn't he?). Plus, we get to see again what a powerful Jedi he is. Now, the wookies. I got all excited about the wookies. I love Chewbacca and every magazine talked about the wookies. But I did not see nearly enough of them. Maybe that is just me.

Moving on. It was a lot nicer to see Anakin as something other than annoying little kid or annoying teenager. My biggest beef against the movie is, unfortunately, the point of the whole thing: Anakin's turning to the dark side. We are presented with many reasons for his turn, but nothing that really feels like it is enough. I just wasn't feeling the total darkness. But, then again, now that I am thinking about it, maybe that was the point. Vader did after all, save his son in Return of the Jedi.

Easily, Ewan McGregor is the best part of this movie. He did a great job with Obi-wan Kenobi. I could definitely see him as a younger Alec Guinness. He exuded confidence as well as humor. I am glad we got to see so much of him. All in all, the movie is good. While it doesn't quite have the magic of the first... last ... uh... original? three, it is by far better than Episodes I and II. Plus, the movie is nice piece of digital eye candy, if you know what I mean!

Last Words: Good it is, recommend it I do, buy it I will (when the Episodes 1-3 come out as a set)

FDA Ban on Gay sperm donors

CNN.com - FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex - May 5, 2005

Not the newest news, but I have been wanting to comment on this one for a while. If you have, for some strange reason, read my blog before, you may guess how I feel about this. Yes. The nut jobs have struck again.

This is, at its very core, discrimination at its worst. The science behind it makes no sense. Or, more accurately, there is no science behind it. As far as I know, there is no study that shows that gay men "pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus". Common sense should tell us that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, who have had unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive (or even someone he did not know) is a higher risk than a gay man in a long term, monogamous relationship.

The critics quoted in the CNN article make a lot of sense. It is much more practical to base screening of donors on their behavior rather than their orientation. This quote from Leland Traiman in the CNN article should highlight that: "Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years." And Mr. Traiman should be accurate, seeing as runs a sperm bank!

Last Words: It is discriminatory, I recommend screening of behavior!

r blog by Rosie O'Donnell

r blog

Am I allowed to blog about another blog? I think I am. I mean, I said I have opinions about everything, right? So, I think I found out about Rosie's blog in magazine or on a news site. I just remember something mentioning her comments about Kirstie Alley and her apologizing about it. So, naturally, I went in search of it.

I have always been a fan of rosie. I remember first catching a glimpse of her on some show on VH1. Spotlight. Remember that? Anyway, I thought she was hilarious and I watched whenever I could. I love A League of Their Own. Rosie seemed very comfortable in that character. It suited her. When he daytime talk show came on, I began watching nearly obsessively. Unfortunately,or perhaps fortunately given that I have always watched too much TV, I have a tendency to get distracted from talk shows pretty quickly. But I did love the show. It was fun. She was always witty and sometimes a bit irreverent (on a side note, I had to look up irreverent to be sure it means what I thought it meant. Apparently, it does).

Her blog, I would say is definitely irreverent. Speaking of definitions, I don't mean irreverent in the that lack of respect way, but in that satirical, questioning the status quo way. She is still definitely witty. Her blog really is no holds barred. I was at first a bit stunned at her blatant honesty. But, after reading a few posts, I find the more adult, mature humor refreshing.

She writes in a poetic style, although she says she is not writing poems. When I first saw the formatting of her posts, I thought they were poems. Apparently, that is what fits her style the most. I, on the other, cannot think in short succinct little lines. I apparently think in paragraphs. But that is a tangent I really shouldn't go off of now.

If you are, were or are not a fan of Rosie, you should check out her blog. If nothing else to get an interesting view on the world. Besides, she posts (I am sure the appropriate word in blingo -- that's blog lingo just made it up like it? -- is "she blogs") daily so there is always something new.

Last Words: It is interesting, I recommend it, I have it bookmarked.