Smaller Government Is Better... For Those We Agree With, Anyway

This is one big contradiction that I just can't seem to wrap my mind around. For the most part, republicans preach less government, less government, less government.

Until, of course, it comes to an issue that they don't agree with. Take gay marriage, for example. All of the sudden, we want to pass laws or even make amendments to the Constitution telling homosexuals that they cannot do something? (I'll save why I believe they should be able to marry for a later post.)

A quote in this article on the Huffington Post says "Even though [Santorum] would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right." (He holds a similar position on contraception in this article.) So while he says he would not personally ban sodomy (which I wouldn't hesitate to guess is solely for political purposes), he thinks states can ban it because it "is not a constitutionally protected right". So... the states have the power to ban anything that isn't specifically spelled out word for word in the Constitution? Whether or not this is legally true doesn't really interest me (as far as this particular train of thought goes, anyway); but it sure doesn't sound like "smaller government" to me. 


I guess I just find it amusing that the party of less regulation and the party of "you have to act this way because the Bible says so" are one and the same. 

American Idol -- Counterintuitive?

Ever since the winner of the inaugural season, Kelly Clarkson, went on to make a very successful career for herself, the winners of the competition have largely fallen flat on their faces as soon as the competition ended. Sure, there have been a few successes, like Carrie Underwood in the country scene. But for the most part, we never hear from these people again.

Why is that? In theory, American Idol showcases the best and brightest talents in the country. They are whittled  down week by week until, finally, we have the best (according to popular vote anyway...) singer in the competition. So what's the problem?

The answer lies in the question: American Idol produces singers. Increasingly, however, it seems that vocal talent is not what Americans look for in their music choices. A quick check of the steady success of Britney Spears should attest to that fact. Artists nowadays are forgoing actual vocal talent in favor of Auto-Tune, sensual dance moves, and over the top production value. And Americans can't get enough of it. (I'm not saying that there are no talented popular artists; for example Adele certainly has loads of talent, and despite her antics, Lady Gaga is actually a very gifted vocalist.)

So maybe it's counterintuitive to hold singing competitions anymore... we should probably be voting on who can don the most outrageous costume and gyrate like a spinning top.