Culture of Celebrity and Cheaters

Not being a psychologist, I am shooting a bit in the dark here but the media and our culture of celebrity baffles me sometimes. It used to be that someone was famous because they had accomplished something which stood them apart from the masses or had some talent or ability which made them distinct. Today, the popular media has reversed the logic. If you are famous (or infamous), you are portrayed as having special distinction and talent. Completely unaccomplished people who wouldn't make decent dinner conversation are followed by the press and there is an insatiable market for that information.
Well known examples (some are like the proverbial fish in a barrel):
1) Paris Hilton - a girl born wealthy with no apparent talent or brains whatsoever except to immediately strike a pose when a camera is in the same zip code. Interestingly enough, it is always the same pose. She is famous for: being an idiot, not wearing underwear, dropping her clothes at a moments notice in public, and making unflattering sex videos with sleazy guys. Which of those qualities deserves admiration? If it were not for her inheritance, she couldn't get a job at a convenience store. I have vowed to change the channel whenever her image appears. It just makes me feel less slimy.
2) Anna Nicole Smith - It is sad when anyone dies but 24-hour news coverage? She is famous for: posing naked (a common denominator in this group), working as a stripper, bilking an old man out of a lot of money, being an idiot (another common thread), appearing semi-conscious in public venues, and not deciding who of the many men with whom she has had sex is the father of her latest child. Which of those qualities deserve anyone's attention?

My daughter laughs at me whenever I bring it up now but the cult of celebrity is cash-based. The motion picture industry discovered this secret many years ago in the horror film genre. Slasher films do not require a star and make lots of money. Beginning with The Real World and Survivor, television networks discovered the same. Therefore, the explosion of reality shows. Instead of paying $100,000 an episode for a star to do a sitcom, you get a bunch of unknowns who will do anything for fame and a buck and make up some ridiculous contest. Every network does it, even Comedy Central and the Food Network. I personally flip the channels occasionally and almost every channel has some show to which I say "who cares?" In the case of the MTV shows, I see people I wouldn't even want to speak with and don't care a lick if they are upset by each other. You can make the argument that television is becoming more about real people and less about fictional characters but the real people I seem to see are really not very entertaining or interesting. I suppose it is too much to ask to have a Hallmark Hall of Fame or a decent variety show. Those types of shows have quality and that costs money. To paraphrase the leader in Demolition Man speaking of how Taco Bell was the only surviving restaurant, "All shows are reality, except the 17 versions of Law & Order and CSI"

Along the same line, when did cheating become admirable? Does the end truly justify the means? How can anyone in their right mind admire Barry Bonds with all of the performance enhancing substances he uses and the way he lies about it? Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, the list goes on and on. I used to love to watch the Tour De Drugs every summer knowing they were chemical-dependent but the doping there was at least even-handed because almost ALL were using them. At least it was a fairly level playing field. I know, ye of much faith will say your personal favorite never did. Even back in the US Postal days, that team had a reputation. The Discovery Channel team lost riders, T-Mobile lost riders, and on and on. The new preventive program that the Slipstream team has in place is suspect because their coach is a former US Postal rider. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knew, after watching Floyd Landis crack like an eggshell then come back the next day and smoke the field, that something was way fishy about it. Not coincidently, that was the day his test popped positive in both samples. When the New York Yankees won a playoff game with the Baltimore Orioles they should not have won because a young fan interfered with a catch, the boy was treated like a hero by David Letterman, etc. When the University of Colorado beat Missouri on the "Fifth Down" play, they didn't forfeit the win, they claimed a national championship. Willingly accepting cheating is the beginning of a slippery slope. Will we next be celebrating the guy who has a traffic accident with a player intentionally to keep him from attending the game? With that logic, Tonya Harding will be making a comeback and female figure skaters will be wearing hockey uniforms with knee and shin guards.

Apparently, it is too much to ask for the media to exalt people who actually accomplish worthwhile endeavors without cheating and those who actually have talent for anything other than looking good and having bad morals.

Abortion rhetoric

Does the rhetoric drive you nuts, too? "Pro-life" "Pro-choice" are both happy euphemisms for something completely different. I am pretty familiar with life and death decisions in my line of work. So let's look at the issue with some sense. Granted, there are some nuts out there, but I long to believe that most people have some bit of reasonableness in them.

Even the most strident abortion foe cannot possibly believe that making a woman die to give birth, or carry a dead fetus to term is not incredibly cruel and dangerous. If a fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 13, or trisomy 18 (not trisomy 21 Down's Syndrome, before someone goes nuts), anencephaly (baby with no brain), or Tay-Sachs disease, all universally fatal, incompatible with life; who would make that woman continue to carry that fetus around at the risk of her own health and sanity? The arguments for adoption, etc. can potentially be made for rape or incest victims but not for a fetus which cannot possibly live. The people who say "no abortion" are saying they would let women die and/or deliver dead babies. Therefore, any reasonable person should admit that in some set of cases, abortion is an approprate medical procedure.

Even the most strident abortion supporter cannot honestly think that using abortion as a routine birth control technique of convenience is a good thing and that decapitating a healthy late-term fetus is a good outcome. Therefore, if you believe that a fetus is a living being, there should be some reasonable limits set by society about when abortion is an appropriate procedure.

Given those arguments, the discussion becomes not a yes/no absolute but rather, "When is abortion appropriate?" No law or set of criteria will cover all individual cases but the discussion should be couched in those terms. Of course, you don't hear that question because those reasonable terms do not fire up the hard right and hard left primary voters.

The world is not black and white. There are hundreds of abortion and end of life Terry Schiavo-type medical decisions made every day without national publicity. I have been involved in them with families. Except for political gain, there is no reason to stake out extreme unreasonable positions but to raise campaign funds and demonstrate your prostitution to the vote.

Politics as usual and bad actors

It never ceases to amaze. Democrats who stood in line to approve removing Saddam Hussein from power now selectively remember that they were never for the war. Hillary Clinton says she wouldn't have voted for the authorization if she thought the President would actually use it. Liar or moron? You make the call.
Hillary also says "if I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the authorization." Hmmm If Abraham Lincoln knew then what he knew later, he wouldn't have gone to Ford's Theater. What an incredibly inane argument.
The same people who were all for removing Saddam now say the President "recklessly" got us into a war and "misled the American people." Funny how they looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion but where they are pure as Ivory Soap, the President is an evil plotter. I am not sure Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell but at least he said he was against it before it happened. Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama is portraying himself as the second coming of Lincoln. As was once said, "I knew Abraham Lincoln, I worked with Abraham Lincoln, and YOU are no Abraham Lincoln."
I always thought Dan Quayle should have replied to Lloyd Bentsen, "You are right, I am no John Kennedy, I sleep only with my own wife", but you can't criticize someone once they are shot. It is an American rule.
Here is a question: other than to look at the classified ads and sports page, why would anyone with two neurons to make a synapse buy the Washington Post or New York Times? Those papers could burst into spontaneous flame, which would be fine if they kept opinion on the editorial pages. The economy is so good there is a surplus predicted. No credit to the administration. The White House says the Pelosi plane story is ridiculous (which it is), no credit.

Here is a random thought. Some actors (i.e., George C Scott, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman) are an almost ironclad guarantee that a movie will be good, or at least interesting. I have my own list of guarantees that a movie will stink on ice. Here is a partial list (nothing personal, folks):
Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Steven Seagall, Shannon Whirry, and my favorite wood carving of a human being, David Carradine. He was perfect for Kung Fu because he was supposed to barely speak. He has been doing Kung Fu ever since. I will admit I did like Kill Bill but it was despite, not because of.