Wales2004

I absolutely love this song:

Well... as far lyrics, I do understand what you are saying here. and believe you me, there was crap in other decades as well. But what I was referring to is not lyrics, but the melody structure of the song. To me, lyrics can be silly or stupid or not make sense and that's ok, the production, the singer, and the melody is what I think is the most important. Christina A. DOES have a voice, and if she'd just change the way she sings, dare I say it, she'd actually be GOOD. The reason I bitch so much about singers today (and believe me, I bitch about this EVERYWHERE, not just here) is that unless the listening public makes their voice heard on public forums, we never get anything of better quality. Honestly I think Kylie Minogue kind of started this ball rolling of style over substance, but at least her SAW tunes were listenable and infectious, and dare I say it, HAPPY. That's another thing that's kind of missing on the charts is JOY, It seems a far larger percentage of songs all come from a dark place, anger.. resentment... violence. And I LOVE a tear jerkin song, but maybe it's just that music seems to take itself too seriously, even when it's meant to be light pop.

It's all subjective isn't it? I think CA sounds good. Extra--I can do without. I can say the same for Patti LaBelle when she goes overboard simply because she can and I can do without overboard. Neither is alone in that category with Michael Bolton being a great offender whenever he seemingly feels challenged (he and Patti Labelle had some near scream off once).

Style over substance is another subjective matter. Motown artists were stylized though probably all pretty talented. When it comes to The Supremes and Diana Ross, I guess it's debatable which ones were the best singers.

Maybe Kylie Minogue took it to another level but Madonna probably rewrote the book. Nowadays you have more of a focus sex appeal than focus on singing talent.

I don't watch Bones so I don't know the impact pairing and now marrying the two leads has on that show. Abby and Ichabod are great together but taking it in a romantic direction would alter that dynamic and not necessarily in a good way.....it depends on the writing. I think their mission would make romance too much of a distraction.

If relationships were the focal point of the show then it would be inevitable.

Parenthood has an interracial marriage with children between characters played by Dax Shepherd and Joy Bryant. It's on opposite Scandal.

I honestly gave this a shot and listened to the whole thing. I think there are two things that bother me about her. First, this song seems very repetitive to me, no real structure with verses and chorus, etc. At least it has a bridge, but it's an unremarkable one. And her voice sounds far too similar to Christina Aguilera, except with less melisma and less richness of tone. Once again, this is the same problem with most all singers on the charts today, lack of uniqueness and an instantly recognizeable sound. I appreciate her need to be creative, but there is also a fine line between artistic genius and freak show. I'm wondering if from a songwriting standpoint, her well has run dry early. I just don't picture seeing her being a songwriter in the long term turning out stuff on the level of Elton John, etc. Her voice also seems electronically enhanced, which sucks all the raw emotion out of a song, and is very over-produced.

Both of the songs I like are used in commercials and are infectious as pop should be.

If you don't like Christina Aguilera's voice then I can see how you would not like anyone's voice who sounds like her. I don't think she sounds like her though and overdone melisma is annoying but it still doesn't take away from CA's generally great voice.

I don't take pop stars too seriously.....I leave that to them and their critics.

The problem you find with today's pop existed in other decades too. Who would believe that the writer of something such as "Mickey's Monkey" could be a capable lyricist? Trite pop is at the core of some of the most fun songs ever. The 80s is full of it and probably the decade with the most fun music, imo.

Now I haven't paid much attention to the "Applause" lyrics (maybe they're on the level of "Vogue"), but "Do What U Want" does say something over whatever you find repetitive. I read that she thinks the song is R&B. While there is a thin line imo between the two, I don't think R. Kelly's appearance on a song makes it R&B. I still think this song is pop but his collaboration with Justin Beiber qualifies as R&B, if that's even worth anything these days.

I'm not a fan of either but R. Kelly still has a great voice and this song is stuck in my head (I blame Best Buy):

 

I agree with the points that you are making, Wales, especially with the fact that Obama was once a liberal idealist. But even if I were a progressive, I would have been reluctant to support Obama in 2008 because of his terrible inexperience. Changing Washington is so difficult for anyone, especially for somebody who has only spent one term in the Senate.

McCain/Palin probably didn't seem to be much of an alternative to some so the timing was perfect for him and his inexperience. That's on the Republicans for not running "better" candidates.

On another note, I just came across this:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/White-guy-wins-after-leading-voters-to-believe-hes-black-231222981.html

It's certainly true that some of Christie's brashness is just for show, but I am surprised an Obama supporter would ever want to use the phrase "all show and no substance," given that then-Senator Obama epitomized that premise better than anyone.

I think he was probably an idealist who believed he could make a difference and maybe he still does believe that in some way, but the politcal machinery is bigger and stronger than anyone who thinks he or she can change Washington or any state house. Either you play the game or walk away with your soul intact. Or maybe you find your soul again once you leave office.

iTunes free song by Tori Kelly:

It seems to me that the only person some want to bring up is Al Sharpton. The man is a advocate for everyone in this country regardless of race creed or sexual preference, yet that somehow means we who enjoy him should vilify him. On top of that, those who never have a kind word to say about the man either can't come up with anything they don't like to prove their point or that go back 35 years to the Brauwly incident.

That's why I just find those people funny. They are still being hateful for really no reason, especially to the POTUS because they can't stand the fact a black man is president.

sad really.

A few years ago I was listening to the radio in my car and I heard Al Sharpton (who was the guest on a radio show) say that there was nothing worse than preaching the funeral of an irrelevant negro.

I was put off by this because I don't happen to beleive that any person is irrelevant and is worthy of a decent burial, if that is their desire. Now had he been talking about criminals, et al,. then I would understand his point but I cannot...... But then again, Al Sharpton has never been my cup of tea so that only turned me further in the opposite direction.

Is he helpful to some people? Sure.

While Sharpton's appeal doesn't really extend beyond African Americans, one has to remember that they are the most loyal part of the Democratic base. He is so beloved by many in the black community (and to his credit, does eloquently give voice to the major black concerns, despite all his other flaws), that no white Democratic politician wants to look at his past and ignore him.

I was watching a sports talk show discussion about the Washington Redskins and it reminded me how backwards America's conversations about racial matters tend to be. Participants seem to always begin with "I'm not" black, white, Jewish, Native American.....fill in the blank. No one ever seems to believe that they might be able to understand how another human being might feel about anything at all because they can only experience things through "racial emotions" or "ethnic emotions" or whatever other label gets slapped on.

Now I suppose that many black American voters are Democrats based on that party being less hostile to black Americans than the Republican party. It makes sense that a person would affiilate would the party that seemed less offensive to that individual and the Democrats are inclusive in their platforms/agendas (at least on the surface).

I don't know where you get the impression that all the black Americans love Al Sharpton though. And to what major black concerns does he eloquently give voice? I'm not sure why he even has a show on MSNBC as he has so much trouble reading the teleprompter and his timing is terrible. He's an example of the media trying to dictate to the public what the public supposedly wants.

Think of it this way, do you believe any similarly skinned stranger on the street knows you better than you know yourself? Do you believe that you and all the similarly skinned people in the nation, the state in which you reside, or even the street on which you reside, share all of the same values, beliefs, likes/dislikes, personal goals, interests, etc.? If not, is it really that hard to believe that black people aren't some sub-humans devoid of independent thought and feelings who don't all share the same hopes, dreams, etc., other than those who simply want to be treated with respect and as if they are capable of the same type of emotions, thoughts, et al that you are?

If I lived in a high crime neighborhood, I would be pissed off if I was stopped-and-frisked. But I would also most likely accept it as a "necessary evil" if it would help police prevent crime. The fact that NYC is one of America's safest cities speaks volumes in regards to the fact that their policing tactics are working (and it wasn't always this way, as crime was out of control twenty years ago). I understand and respect differing viewpoints, but I'd far prefer to be embarrassed/humiliated/angered as a unfair target of stop-and-frisk as opposed to being a victim of the crime wave my neighborhood was experiencing. Of course, it would be nice if we could have low crime without such controversial policies, but I personally believe such a scenario is not possible.

I think it's wrong to constantly stop law abiding residents and to treat young men like criminals when they have not done anything illegal.

Bill de Blasio's son happens to be pretty big for a 15 year old and the message being sent to him and others is that they are never going to be treated with respect and dignity because they look like potential criminals and this is okay because it will make a whole lot of other people feel safer, and they should just accept it as their contribution to those who feel safer--as though this makes perfect sense.

People are focused on the policy which makes absolute sense to them but not on the application of that policy and the damage that application. The policy may sound color blind but the people enforcing it are clearly not and it's application is discriminatory in nature.

The police should try canvassing those high crime areas more frequently and focus on the known criminals instead of those who are just going to and fro.

Being the most liberal candidate on stop-and-frisk is also very smart politics, but those who think critically about the issue know that it is not black-and-white (pardon the pun). The fact of the matter is that such a policy is employed more in minority neighborhoods simply because that is where a disproportionate amount of crime takes place; the dramatic crime drop caused by Giuliani/Bloomberg benefits minorities the most. Unfortunately, such nuanced ways of thinking don't seem to come naturally to people who adore Al Sharpton.

This probably sounds perfectly logical and proactive to those who will never be affected by such policies. What gets overlooked is that all the people who are subject to being stopped and frisk are not criminals. Next, what's a little inconvenience if it's going to keep the neighborhood safe? It's more than a little inconvenience to treat law abiding citizens like criminals..

If stats showed that 20 year old guys who wear blue jeans are most likely to commit crimes, would the public applaud the police stopping all the guys that fit that description? It sounds pretty generic and so many guys would probably fit that description, so what makes "black or Hispanic male" any less generic? Nothing but bias.

The phrase "racial profiling" is tossed around as though it's something that can be fixed by legislation or policies. There's no federal law that says it's okay to discriminate on the basis of race but it happens. Why? People have biases of which they are sometimes aware and sometimes not. It's quite possible that some of those liberals who annoy you heard Barack Obama speak and thought to themselves that he's exceptional for "his kind." He's articulate. He's "clean" according to Joe Biden. And he is able to communicate in the "negro dialect," according to Harry Reid.

Try to imagine how you'd feel if your neighborhood experienced a crime wave and the police decided to stop every male "to keep the neighborhood safe" and as a result, you ended up being stopped and frisked three times in less than a month. Would the approach seems as logical to you then?

Coming November 2013 (first single)

I guess it's too much to expect announcers to call matches and skip the psychoanalysis, mind reading, and projecting. The first set was all about how tired Djokovic was and how he wasn't on his game presumably Wawrinka's fault. Then they switched to how he was made to go five matches because of his endurance training. They were pleased that "this guy" was waking up and "this guy" was possibly tightening up. I stopped watching for a set and a half and turned back on in time for the final set. I don't remember all of that noise when Djokovic failed to show up against Andy Murray.

And how stupid is their graphic of a "big four?" Andy Murray doesn't belong in a big anything unless it's a list of ugly players. Roger Federer may have fallen off but are they seriously comparing his career winners to Andy Murray? This is all Djokovic's fault for not dispatching Andy Murray twice.

Good for Nadal.

Yay!!!! Andy Murray's been dispatched!!!!!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9u7hGkL57N8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sx9kLb9un0U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ig8PypGO3XY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7eIypUyLvaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lots of HAIM

I turned it off during the middle of the fourth set because I was getting annoyed. I figured if JMDP somehow won, he'd be too winded to give it a good go on Sunday. When I turned the tv back on, ND was just about to win. I might have enjoyed watching more had I considered muting the volume and forgotten about my disdain for Andy Murray. Those pop psychologists wore on me. Sometimes I just want to hear games called and not the opinion of the announcers--especially not their mind-reading skills. It just makes me hate ESPN since they have such a monopoly on sports. I think Patrick McEnroe does a better job than John McEnroe. And at least all of them are infinitely more tolerable than ESPN's NBA, MLB and NFL crews. I detest their NBA pre-game/half-time panel the most.

While I'm on a roll....I was forced to turn the tv off again by Andy Murray's recurring dream....may it turn into a complete nightmare.

Here's my rant for the day....

For some reason I can't seem to explain, Andy Murray irks me in the worst way. He looks awful and I knew when he won the third set that FV was done. I love FV's hair. I can't recall ever watching tennis and loving anyone's hair so this is a first for me.

As for those phony people in the crowd...I can't imagine that the ones rooting for him as though it were the Olympics (waving the Union Jack around), actually think much of him. The moment they get a competitive player out of England, they'll stop pretending.

Now I am compelled to root for Jerzy Janowicz to step his game up and shock ugly right out. But I'm just not that lucky.

Serena hasn't beaten Pova for the past 9 years, no need to stop now!

Did you mean this the other way around? She beat her last month in Madrid.

Sloane Stephens won the third round and will face Maria Sharapova next. She needs to mature and hopefully she will....sooner rather than later. For now, I'm just going to view what she did as the silliness of youth since I think she was only 19 then and 20 as of March. I hope she continues to do well and soaks in all of the life lessons she's bound to learn.