Since everyone wants to make his American Idol loss a gay/straight thing, I suppose it is time to comment on why my wife and I both voted against him (repeatedly).

It wasn't his sexuality. After all, we are both pretty gay-friendly -- indeed, I've spoken with only two non-family members on the phone this weekend, and neither of the two is straight. Indeed, one of them certainly qualifies as my best friend. So personal feelings about sexuality didn't do it.

Neither did religion. Both of us are seminary trained, and my wife was, for a time, pastor of a church in a liberal, gay-friendly denomination.

And we both voted for Clay Aiken, assuming he was gay long before he came out of the closet, because we liked his style and were put off by the constant shilling of the judges for other contestants during that season.

So why not vote for Adam, and instead pick Kris Allen?

Easy. We didn't like the "hard sell" tactics of certain of the judges on the show. They were declaring Adam to be the winner weeks ago, even though it was not at all clear to us that he deserved the crown. I was fond of Danny & Allison -- indeed, I thought the final three should have been Adam, Allison, and Danny, with Kris disappearing when they reduced the crew to three. And of the final three, my pick would have been Danny because I liked his voice and his style. I thought Kris had the same sort of stuff going for him.

Which brings me back to Adam. Aside from the shameless shilling by the judges, there was one other problem -- Adam was too theatrical in his style. No, that isn't a code for "gay" -- it is a recognition that Adam has a long history as a stage performer, and that he sings and presents himself like a stage performer.. Indeed, his phrasing often reminded me of this.

Well, maybe not quite that bad, but Adam Lambert was just a little bit too precise in his delivery -- great for Broadway, not so much for pop or rock music. Even when he rocked out (and I'll concede, Adam gave some great rock performances) it all seemed a bit . . . artificial, sort of like the example above.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't pay to see Adam Lambert -- I would, but probably not as a concert performer. If, however, he were to be the lead in just about any musical, I'd buy a ticket and go -- and be thoroughly pleased by his performance.

But who knows -- Adam may yet have a fantastic career as a solo artist. And I may yet become a serious fan. But my faith and his sexuality won't be factors in that change, either.

So when I see an analysis like this one, I simply have to laugh at how misguided those who put forth this thesis really are.

UPDATE: Lots of traffic on this one -- I'll open the comments for you. Play nice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

I won't say anything about who I want to win or who I think will win. I've written nothing about the show, and had planned to keep it that way.

However, the performance by Rod Stewart has broken my resolve.

Don't -- please don't -- for the love of God don't -- sing Maggie May again.

Collect your books and get on back to school? How about collect your walker and get on back to the nursing home? That is a young man's song -- and you aren't any more.

But here's the song -- a favorite from my childhood some three-and-a-half decades ago -- when you were in your prime.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if non-traditional, cross-racial casting is such a good thing for the bio-pic of Frank Sinatra, why not have a white guy play the slain civil rights icon? As such, I may have to join Debbie Schlussel in her call DreamWorks to give serious consideration to casting the very white, very blond Wilson as the lead.

Are you offended by the suggestion? If so, IÂ’m sure you must be equally outraged by the suggestion of Jamie Foxx as OlÂ’ Blue Eyes. After all, there is something quite silly about such casting decisions in historical or biographical features.

This puts me in mind of a discussion I had over 20 years ago when I was doing a graduate fellowship with the Coro Foundation in St. Louis. When a couple of my colleagues argued that race shouldnÂ’t matter in casting decisions, I caused quite a stir when I made the following observation.

“Sometimes race really does matter. After all, no one is going to cast me as Chaka Zulu, and there would be an uproar if someone did. When you are dealing with historical facts, such things as race and gender can and do make a difference. And since the original historical person was a white peasant girl, no matter how talented a black actress is she just cannot play Joan of Arc.”

Friends, that isn’t racism. It is common sense. Otherwise we will see such absurd things as Ben Stiller playing Barack Obama, or Morgan Freeman as Ronald Reagan. And while a bit of gender bending by John Travolta in Hairspray might be good clean fun, do we really believe that audiences will suspend their disbelief sufficiently to allow Nathan Lane to play Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in a movie – and should they even be asked to do so?

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Were it not for Alec BaldwinÂ’s threats of violence against political opponents. Instead, IÂ’m actually much more amused by this threat of violence against Baldwin by a politician.

Alec Baldwin's joke about getting a Filipino mail-order bride provoked a sharp response in the Philippines, with one senator saying Monday that the "30 Rock" star faces violence if he ever visits.

Baldwin, 51, who is divorced with a teenage daughter, said in a May 12 interview on "The Late Show" with David Letterman that he would love to have more children.

The Emmy-winning actor quipped that he was "thinking about getting a Filipino mail-order bride at this point ... or a Russian one."

Baldwin has been involved in a bitter dispute with his ex-wife, Oscar-winning actress Kim Basinger, over custody of their 13-year-old daughter, Ireland.

Philippine Sen. Ramon Revilla said Monday that Baldwin's comment was "insensitive and uncalled for" and an insult to millions of Filipinos.

He called the actor "arrogant" and said he is apparently unaware that the Philippines has a law against mail-order brides.

"Let him try to come here in the Philippines and he'll see mayhem," Revilla said, using a local idiom that implies the speaker will personally administer a beating.

What I particularly love is that Baldwin has pissed of the Filipino version of Chuck Norris. HereÂ’s hoping that Senator Revilla administers a good ass-kicking when he gets the chance.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

I love Star Trek. Always have, always will. But having grown up in a military family, IÂ’ve always had the same sort of question as Kurt Schlichter at NewsBusters.

I just cannot get behind this Star Trek rebirth. The whole thing is just so unrealistic. Not the warp speed or phasers or beaming about the universe - those are at least remotely plausible. I am talking about the fact that the starship Enterprise is composed entirely of officers and yet it still seems to function. Where are the non-commissioned officers (NCO), the petty officers and sergeants who actually make any military organization run? No, I can suspend disbelief over Klingons and tribbles, and I actively support the notion of green alien hotties. But the idea of a functioning military unit without sergeants is just a wormhole too far.

And may I take it a step further – where the heck are all the Master Chiefs and Senior Chiefs, if we are operating on a distinctly naval model? Even as an officer’s son, I learned early that the real work of the Navy could not have been accomplished without those senior enlisted men. How do they manage it on the Starship Enterprise.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.