Skip to main content
Alright, I can't stop myself. I am officially jazzed about the new changes on American Idol. It does lead me to fear that the ratings are slipping. The fame of the celebrity judges is increasing. Why would you do that unless you had to?

I know that Tim likes The Voice, and I like elements of it. But Christina Aguilera reminds me why a pretty face (and body) is not enough. She's so annoying. She must know that her career has been something of a disappointment. A voice like that should put her in "The Conversation" (best female singer in my lifetime) with Whitney, Mariah, and Celine. But she isn't. Maybe it's how she started (child star). And she hasn't really had a signature hit, or a series of them, to make us think anything other than, "Really hot, in a shameful, guilt-inducing sort of way" or, "Used to be a Mouseketeer." [Karen Carpenter was briefly alive in your lifetime.--ed.] Yeah, but she did most of her work in the two decades prior. Did you know she was a world-class jazz drummer on the side? Yeah, if I made her eligible for "The Conversation," she'd win. I can listen to her sing for hours.

I digress. I hope they still do Mariah Week on Idol. Don't even act like you don't love that week. Considering that she's only had one legitimate solid album from beginning to end (Daydream) and is known as a singles artist, and wrestled for creative control, and musically got lost in the woods, her stature is impressive, and even a bit surprising. [Dude, she's hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 18 times. She's the best-selling artist of the 1990s. What are you talking about?--ed.] She could have been even bigger, too.

But whatever we could whine about the deleterious effects of AI on our culture, I love the show. It reminds me why I love pop music. I wonder who will fill the other judge chair? How about this guy? Nobody who watches the show has any doubt the last two years who the funniest guest/mentor has been. Just sayin'.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un