America's Got Stories and Producers Looking for Them

Recently I've been giving up my valuable homework time to watching America's Got Talent. What a joke. (Note: I'm much meaner in writing than person--keep this in mind while reading.)

I hate to be so critical, but the show has absolutely nothing to do with talent in my mind. It's an opportunity for producers to find people who actually have heart-wrenching stories and life journeys to be splashed on national television, tissue in hand of course, to be shared in front of Hasselhoff and the gang of crazy audience members to laugh and cheer or boo off stage.

And while the 5 second response of the audience is enough for television viewers to keep the Kleenix box a little closer, producers are gleeming at the viewership piling over because people's stories are just another marketing campaign to keep people watching every week.

This isn't new information, but I wish people would think before wasting their time voting for the next big star when in reality, most stories are winning--not talent. Stories replace talent as a reason to hand over a million dollars (wouldn't want to be that person since millionaires are Obama's newest targets, according to his last televised conference) to a person, who yes, is decent in whatever talent their displaying, but is too clueless and oblivious to realize it's their experience that's won over producers, therefore placing them on the show--than their actual talent.

Now some people might not care about that, but from someone who wants to be known for winning a talent competition because of talent, not name, must not have much pride. Or maybe that half a million dollars (after taxes) is too tempting.

Who's to say I would feel differently if I were in that position?

But then again, I'm not abnormal enough and I don't have a killer story or look to land me on the show. So until that big, bright day comes for me to unleash my killer abnormality on some producer-hand-picked-gimmic known as America's Got Talent (and yes, I will continue watching it, because I am no enemy of media's latest marketing schemes or darn good entertainment), I'll strive to eventually make it into that field, and hypocritically find marketing jewels all over the planet, milking them for every penny they're in debt for.

We'll see.

"Everything Must Go," Including Legality

Politicians are like liars in front of bars. They probably commit worse crimes than some of those 2-5 year sentencers.

But it's not like the government isn't corrupt.

So unlike all good and decent bloggers, I'm not going to ramble about Letterman's screw-up over Palin's daughter or the Housewives of Orange County making their appearance on Oprah.

People literally worship the ground the first black--although he's genetically more white than black!--president. They applaud his promise to make things change, but here's my question: Yes, we can what? Change, right? Change what--change our taxes from going down? Spill all middle class homeowners' money into the 8% of people who can't pay the bills? Borrow all the taxpayers' money for pork projects? Or more recently, and as of now, my personal favorite--literally screw over Chrysler.

Now normally, I'm not the smartest person, and I wouldn't be wisest on the subject. However . . . being the daugher of a man who's been in the car business practically his whole life . . . hmm, think that gives me a little leeway.

The most important cases go to the Supreme Court, correct? Well, this one did. And it stayed there for the grand total of one day! They dropped the case. The government owns the majority percentile of the company now, while Fiat is literally handed 20% of it! Now why would an Italian company now be in charge of American land-based car company? It's amazing how many people met up with or even passed bankruptcy to get our now newly-elected official in office. And now that he's there, taxes have gone up, and Chrysler is just the beginning of government/foreign-owned companies. Eight hundred people are out of jobs. The co-president's "probably going to retire," according to an article in automotor.org.

I'm not your usual soap-box speaker, but honestly, the way this was handled was illegal, and the man in the White House was largely responsible. I guess Chrysler's motto wasn't so far from the truth after all.

Sex Selection and My Sister's Keeper

So I've been pumped recently to go see My Sister's Keeper, coming out in theaters within a week or two. The previews look awesome, and I can't wait to go see it.

I was talking to one of my friends and telling her how excited I was to see this, but she didn't have the typical reaction I expected. She had no desire to see the movie--she had read the book and wasn't a fan.

Well, that's weird, speaking of New York Times bestselling author of the book, Jodi Picoult. So I decided to do my own digging to make my own opinion of it. According to Wikipedia (great source, I know), the second daughter, Anna, is genetically engineered through invitro fertilization. Normally, I would read over that and go, "oh, okay . . . ," but after doing a few reports on sex selection and invitro fertilization in high school and college, I was amazed at the originality of the subject. Obviously Picoult was writing a story for modern times, seeing how popular invitro fertilization has grown among parents within the past five years.

If you read the summary further (don't read it if you don't want the movie spoiled for you), you'll realize the parents had good intentions. It wasn't like they were trying to just "get" what they wanted because they were discontent. But it does press the thought of what people consider ethical today. Many agree the most dangerous aspect of sex selection is its ability to harm people on an individual level as well as a national level. The individuals who are most deeply affected by sex selection are the embryos being produced, not the parents spending thousands of dollars on a non-guarantee process. President-elect of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Dr. James Grifo, disapproves of sex selection and claims it to be unethical. He believes through large exposure to the general public, society will pick embryos only with desirable traits and then later discard the remaining.

And it's not like anyone doesn't know the meaning of discard.

OK, I could go on and on and on. But I won't. And I won't NOT see My Sister's Keeper. It still looks great, even if a child on the movie is conceived via genetic engineering.

All I'm waiting for now are the new purple storks dropping the pre-made children with the "It's a Robot!" signs attached.