I Don't Know What Not To Like

I'm not quite sure why I'm going to take this time to talk about Newt Gingrich because he will never be President. But it does seem like he might be positioning himself for a run at something, so I thought that I'd just get my dislike of him out of the way.

While I know that intellectually, a candidate's personal life shouldn't factor into whether or not the position that they're running for can be performed, I have a hard time getting to that point emotionally. Newt's a cheater. No one likes a cheater. And he didn't just cheat on one of his wives. He cheated on both of them. No one likes a serial cheater. Not even a little bit. Does his being a cheater impact how he would do his job if elected? Intellectually, I wouldn't think that it would. Emotionally? It seems like whatever he said would not be able to be trusted. Especially when he gives lame excuses for why he cheated.

Let's go over to New York Magazine for an explanation of his cheating. "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate." That's right. He was passionate about 'Merika, so that's why he cheated. Intellectually, should that matter? Considering that it's a dumbass excuse and is not very intellectual? Maybe it should!

Then there's the latest dust up that he's answering for. According to Politico, he had "...a “revolving charge account” at Tiffany and Company" with a liability somewhere in between $250,001 and $500,000. At freaking Tiffany's. Tiffany's, known equally for their breakfast as well as their jewelry, is about as uppity as you can get. Now, it could be that he has this account because he buys his wedding rings in bulk. But regardless, does anyone really need over $250 grand in jewelry? I don't think that they do! Should that disqualify someone from being a legitimate candidate for office? I want to say yes, but why does that feel wrong?!

He kind of made a good point on Sunday when he said that "...the spending was his "private decision." He does have a point. He can do whatever he wants with his money, no matter how idiotic I think it may be. (Or no matter how idiotic it just is. And come on! Who needs $250,000 in jewelry? No one! There are SO many other things that one could purchase with that kind of cash! So many BETTER things!) He also claims to be debt free. Should it make a difference if he is able to manage his money to where he incurs a debt and then pays it off? That's sort of the point of having good credit, isn't it? I'm so confused!

Let's review: I can't decide if people who are despicable individuals should be automatically discounted from running for or fulfilling a public office. Emotionally, I say screw 'em. Intellectually, I say it maybe shouldn't matter. Why is emotional me winning?! Why isn't intellectual me dominating this issue?! What is wrong with me? Am I missing something?

Sphere: Related Content

The Mark of a Liar

If anyone out there is shocked, simply shocked, that Mark McGwire took steroids when he broke all of the home runs records, then I'd like to direct your attention toward the Brooklyn Bridge which I am currently offering for sale. If there's anything to be shocked at, it's probably just that he finally admitted it. For some reason, being hired as a hitting coach for a major league baseball team warrants owning up to what everyone already knew that you did.

I've said for a long time that if you have done something that is so incredibly obvious to everyone, it doesn't matter what you say or what you don't say because everyone knows the truth. No one is being fooled. (We all know that OJ did it, regardless as to what he says. We all know that Richard Heene knew his kid wasn't in the balloon, regardless as to what he says. We know these things to be self evident.) No one is misled. The only thing missing from the equation is having it down in print somewhere. That's it. Just because Mark McGwire had never said (up until a couple of days ago) that he took steroids doesn't mean that we all had a looming question in our minds as to whether he did or not.

I'm sure that it says something about us (the collective "us", "us" as a people) that we didn't question how abnormally freaking large McGwire was during his fake run at the home run record. I totally remember watching him hit the record breaking home run. (I remember it because I remember what I was doing at the time and it's nothing that can be repeated here of all places.) And I also totally remember watching him stand there at the plate and thinking to myself, "My God. His biceps are the size of my thighs." Behold!

Yeah, that's not normal. I guess we thought that it was possibly something that was normal back then, but now that we know that there was steroid use involved (and even before we knew, but after we had heard rumors of), we think it's absolutely ludicrous that someone could look like that normally. Let's look at Mark McGwire when he was a rookie. Behold!

Yep, I was right. That's not normal. One more time....rookie year....

And in comparison to the 'roided up years...


Again, so not normal.

Here's the thing: Mark McGwire admitted he did steroids...and he should have just left it at that. At least then we could have gone about our ways thinking (if we actually cared to think about this loser ever again) that he had finally owned up to what we had all figured out. (I mean, seriously....after he was testifying before Congress back in 2005 and was essentially asked about his steroid use and he replied that he wasn't there to "talk about the past", was there any question after that point? I don't think that there was. And if I'm wrong and there was, please see my earlier reference to that bridge I'm currently offering for sale.) But then he went off and talked to Bob Costas.

Over there at MLB.com is an interview that McGwire did with Bob Costas, seemingly immediately just making the steroid admission. Let me just say right now that he should have quit when he was ahead. Rather than just letting it lie (he seems good at lying) he had to "explain" and "elaborate". He had to blather on and on about how he just took steroids "...for health purposes" and that "...At that time I was using steroids thinking it was going to help me. It was brought to my attention that it was going to help me heal faster, make my body feel back to normal." Really?

Tell me something, sir...when your body was "healing faster" and you started hitting home runs like crazy, moreso than you did before, did you really think that was "normal"? Really? Because we're not stupid here. (Well, those folks lined up to buy my bridge aren't exactly geniuses, I'll give you that. But I'm talking about the rest of us. Do we look that stupid?) And once your body was "healed", it's my understanding that you continued to take the miraculous, all healing steroids, is that correct? Of course it is. Oh, but you were just taking them because you were healing faster. Right. So, if you were all healed, what were you taking them for? Oh, that's right. Because you were a cheater.

Here's my favorite part of his tearful and crying interview with the revered Mr. Costas. (Yes. Crying. I thought there was no crying in baseball!) Bob (I call him Bob) "Asked repeatedly...if he believed that his statistics and records were legitimate in light of the disclosure" and when he did "...McGwire did not budge." Wait. What now?

That's right. He had the audacity to say "Absolutely. I truly believe so. I was given this gift by the man upstairs." And sooooo....because you were given that....(gift, was it?) that gift and instead of accepting the gift, you decided to do steroids because the gift wasn't good enough? Am I understanding you correctly? Am I also understanding that you're really going to try and drag God into all of this? Puh-lease. Please just spare us any references to God, got it? It doesn't help. It only makes you look like more of an ass than you already do.

He also said that "The steroids that I did were on a very, very low dosage. I didn't want to take a lot of that. I didn't want to look like an Arnold Schwarzenegger or Lou Ferrigno...I took very, very low dosages just because I wanted my body to feel normal." Huh. He wanted it to feel normal. He apparently wasn't too worried about it looking normal, though. Clearly, he did not look normal. He looked massive. And while I find that statement semi- interesting, I'm still left with the feeling of "whatever". See, at this point, it doesn't matter what you're claiming the doses were because we don't care. So just please stop talking. Please stop talking now.

Mark McGwire is a liar and he wasted everyone's time by having us all interested in whether or not he was going to be able to do something that no one (since Roger Maris in 1961) else had been able to do. And by being a liar and a cheater, he opened the door to other a-holes to do the same thing. (Hello? Barry Bonds? Hell-ooooo?) And I guess he didn't realize that by admitting that he did steroids, that people would suddenly realize (as if we didn't before now) he really didn't hit all of those home runs on his own merit and that they would subsequently discredit him for what he had appeared to do (the record breaking and all). So it must have been at that point that he decided to throw in all of the obvious crap about how he knows, he knows he would have been able to do everything he did even without the steroids. Uh-huh. Pipe down, Mark. We're done with you.

See, whether it's true or not, you cheating liar, we're never going to know. There's no way for us to know and you know what that means, you cheating liar? That means that there is no way for you to know. I find it hard to believe that if you felt that you could have hit all of those home runs without using steroids that you would not have done so. If you honestly believed that you could have done it without the steroids, then you must be dumber than a box of hair to have gone ahead with the steroid use even after you were "healed" and continued to use them. Any respect that you might have garnered from your long overdue admission is completely gone. You're never getting into the Hall of Fame, which seems rather appropriate considering you haven't done anything legitimate in order to get there. Your name will be asterisked whenever and wherever your stats appear. You haven't done anything in your professional career other than cheat and lie. And you're now nothing more than a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, and that seems about right. Good luck with that. Oh, and please stop talking about this. You're making yourself look worse now than when you were testifying before Congress. And that is a feat that I would have thought to have been difficult to top.

Sphere: Related Content

No, You Lie!

Listen, if you're going to lie to me, at least do it in a way that it doesn't seem like you think that I am completely stupid, all right? I mean, no one wants to be lied to (yet it happens incessantly at times), but the times when you know that the other person is lying? Don't you want them to at least put forth the effort to make it a good lie? Don't you want them to at least try to lie in a way that sounds sort of believable? Because if they don't, if they just give you some completely implausible story and do so with a straight face as if you're just expected to believe it no matter how unlikely it may be, doesn't it just make you feel like the other person thinks that you're so dumb that you'll believe anything? That's why I prefer a lie with a little substance. Don't get me wrong, I'll still think that you're a sneaky weasel whether your lie is creative or not, but as long as there's some substance to the story you're weaving, I'll at least know you know that I'm paying attention.

I don't like to think the stereotype that all politicians lie is a reality. I'd rather not believe and/or think that all politicians or even the majority of politicians lie. But the more attention I pay to these sorts of things, the more I realize that, sadly, the majority of them are just disingenuous, two faced, self-serving a-holes. A-holes who really think highly of their own act, might I add. And if they're caught in a compromising situation, whether it be physically or simply immorally or unethically, that's when the stretching of the truth (if there is even any to be found) really gets cranked up a notch. Rod Blagojevich is one of those kind of guys. Mike Duvall is definitely another one of those kind of guys.

Mike Duvall, a freshly resigned Republican Assemblyman has just recently popped up on the lying, self-centered A-hole radar. This guy is a piece of work. You want to talk about someone who is pleased with himself, this is the guy. He's so pleased that he feels the need to brag about his sexual conquests to his fellow lawmakers during some committee hearing back in July. And by "brag" I mean "give lurid and graphic details to your co-workers about every physical aspect of the bodily functions during pre- and post- coital activities." Ugh. Oh, yeah, and he's married. That's right. Married. So he's Married-Guy-Who-Cheats-On-His-Wife-And-Tells-Everyone-All-About-The-Sex Guy. We, as a society in general, find that type of guy loathsome. That's the kind of guy who will brag to anyone that they can back into a corner (because no one really wants to listen). In this particular instance though, the thing was that he thought that he was bragging just to his constituents, but at that particular hearing he happened to be in front of a live microphone. Awkward.

And while I don't think that I could or would ever claim this to be a family values blog here, even I can draw a line in the sand, not necessarily to distinguish between what is appropriate and what isn't, but moreso to acknowledge that there are legitimate instances which can really make folks uncomfortable. The sort of things that Mike Duvall was saying to the guy next to him (who, oddly, just sat there quietly throughout his boastful tale of prowess; whereas I would have called the guy a perv and told him (albeit nicely) to kindly shut the hell up) were just crude and disgusting. They rate far beyond a PG-13 rating. They're not even tame enough for an R rating. His comments could be rated N-O, as in NO ONE wants to hear that. Thus, I'm linking to the sordid part of his yarns over at TPM. You want disgusting and vile sex talk, you click. Otherwise you'll just have to put up with my paraphrasing the tamer parts. Onward!

The following are some of the highlights of the revelations from the sexcapades which Mike Duvall was sharing with the guy next to him during that ill fated hearing. Well, sharing with him and with the live mike. And with the rest of the world (at this point). It's now assumed, if not known, that the female in reference (again, allegedly) is "...a lobbyist who does business before his chief committee", according to the AP. They frown upon that sort of thing in the Capital. But more on her in a minute. Other things they frown on would be things like....:

...."So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'"

...."She wears little eye-patch underwear."

...."So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot...."

OK, I think that's enough. You see what kind of a guy he is, right? (Eye-patch underwear?? Is she a pirate? Argh! Those are some might nice undergarments ye are sportin' are yer booty! Argh!)Yeah. He's that guy. And I will guarantee you that he thinks that he's a completely different kind of that guy. He thinks that he's Mr. Cool-I-Cheat-On-My-Wife-And-Everyone-Knows-Because-I'm-So-Cool Guy. In reality, he's Mr. God-That-Guy's-An-A-Hole Guy. How do I know I'm right and he's wrong? Here's how:

Here's him:

Here's her:

Now, she's allegedly a lobbyist for an energy firm. Are you telling me that she just finds him attractive? That her and him have some sort of "special" connection? That he's her soulmate? I don't think you're telling me that. (If you are? Helmet. Now!) Come on! She sleeps with him, he votes the way she wants him to! He's older, he's fat, likely pasty white, probably sweats profusely, and just has that creepy guy look to him. Who is going to voluntarily and with no ulterior motives or unsaid agreements get beneath that while he (that) sweats on top of them for two minutes? Just because she likes him? Fat chance (pun totally intended).

Yo, Mr. Duvall! Think back for a moment. Think about all of the times when the two of you would hook up in Sacramento. Tell me, was there ever a time when she did not drink? How about a time when she did not drink herself into oblivion? How many drinks did it take her on the average in order for her to be able to just let you do whatever it is that you do? I'm guessing quite a few. If she was ever sober with you, I'd be surprised. Not as surprised as she would have been, but surprised none the less. My point? You're far from as cool as you think you are.

Which brings me to his blatant, blatant lie. Mr. Duvall ended up resigning the next day. The resignation was true. He did resign. His reasons for resigning are lies. Total lies. And I think he expects the stupid, stupid public (some so stupid that they voted for him) to believe him when he says these things. According to his website, the heading reads: "Assemblyman Duvall Denies Reports that he Had Affair" (That's exactly how it appears over there, by the way. Was he saving that capital letter 'T' and capital letter 'H' for something else? I guess he won't be getting a new job as a copy editor.)

And drum roll please.....: "I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state." Um, what now?

You didn't have an affair?!!? I'm pretty sure that you did! So you're going to resign from your cushy lawmaker job because you didn't have an affair? I don't think you are! And please! You wanted to allow your colleagues to return to the business of the state? Wow. He's quite the gentleman isn't he? NO!! NO!! Have you been paying attention? California is a steaming pile of excrement these days! They're not paying attention to the business of the state! Perhaps instead of engaging in your 'creative storytelling' there, Aesop, maybe you should have been paying attention in those meetings so that you could see that the "business of the state" is screwed!

But look at how he worded his carefully worded statement. He says that it is "in no way an admission", but he doesn't say that it is a denial! He's not saying he did it, but he's not saying that he did NOT do it, either! Just because you don't give an "admission" of guilt does not automatically mean that you are giving a denial! If he didn't have an affair, wouldn't he have just SAID so?! Of course he would have! But he didn't because he DID! But we're supposed to believe...what?! What are we supposed to believe?! That he's the sort of guy who just makes up sexual exploits and shares these encounters with anyone who will give him the time of day or breathe in the same airspace as he does? That he's so proud of his erotic story telling and his ability to craft a raunchy yarn at any given moment that he even engages in such behaviors at work?!? No ONE makes up crap with the details that he put in there! NO ONE! And if they do, they should be immediately placed into a vehicle and whisked off to the closest mental institution for indefinite treatment.

It makes me wonder, how stupid is your wife, sir? What about your grown children? Are they stupid? Even if your answer is 'maybe' or 'a little', they're still going to see right through this one! Everyone can! And yet you still said it! Way to go, you disgusting, perverted coward.

Sphere: Related Content

You Lie! No, YOU Lie! No, you DO!

Oh, man. So close! SO CLOSE!! I've been waiting for the US Congress to just completely succumb to the Jerry-Springer-Show-like antics of the recent town hall meetings. You know, people shouting out crazy things, fingers getting bitten off, folks stripping down to the waist and engaging in brazen fisticuffs with their opponents, stuff like that. That would be the best. To have some sort of a brawl akin to those of the Taiwanese Legislature where it's just a full mob riot, where almost all of the lawmakers are just flat out swinging at each other and there are just a few pages or bellhops or whatever they are trying to hold them back by their ties, that would be awesome. And we came really close to that last night during President Barry's speech to Congress about health care.

It would seem that the summer heat over there in Washington has gone to the heads of some of our Representatives and caused at least one of them to welcome the Silly Season with open arms. And an open mouth. Meet the Representative from South Carolina who forgot that he was a member of Congress who was listening to the President of the United States give a speech and who instead behaved like one of the town hall hecklers shouting down anyone who said something that he didn't like...Rep. Joe Wilson! Give him a hand! Behold!

I'll start by saying that there seemed to be a lot more in-audience mumbling and a lot more vocal (yet mostly muted) reactions to various points that President Barry covered. Maybe that's how it is every time the President addresses Congress, but I guess I don't remember it that way. To me, it has always seemed like the President talked, Congress listened and clapped at every pause or at the end of every sentence, and then everyone went home. Not so with the health care speech. Not so. It definitely had that "town halls of summer" feel to it. Just as Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-TX. Behold!

What the hell? Is that his way of relating to the people that he is supposed to represent and serve? By going to this speech with a handmade sign that reads, "What Bill?" I get the feeling that a lot of money could have been made by selling expired produce (suitable for hurling along with the insults) in the Congressional parking lot. He's from where? Texas? Yo, Texas! Don't vote for that guy again. He may be a member of Congress, but showing up to listen to the President address a joint session of Congress whilst holding a homemade heckling sign justifies ranking him just a small step above (just barely above) this guy. Behold!:

Heh-heh. Still funny. Anyway, back to the sophomoric antics of our elected officials. So about halfway through President Barry's speech about health care reform and why we need it, he starts in on debunking some of the ridiculous rumors that are flying around out there. (Thanks a lot mainstream media, for doing your job so incredibly poorly and so incredibly ineptly so that many, many people just believe these ridiculous lies out there because they're not being spelled out why they're not true.) And then he gets to the illegal immigrant topic and things start to get a little heated.

After throwing a bucket of tepid water on the "death panel" assertion, dared mention the words "illegal immigrants" in public. See, with an estimated 12 million illegal occupants of this country (all of whom are eligible for services that this fine nation willingly provides for them), that makes up a large portion of people who are uninsured. And the problem is what to do about it. A lot of people are quite angry at the thought that, if there is a government option, that it would be extended to those who have strayed off the path and wandered aimlessly into this fine land and never left. So to try and diffuse the notion that those who are not even supposed to be in this country would be covered by a government insurance plan, President Barry had this to say: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

And that's when Joe Wilson had this to say : "You lie!" And he had it to say loudly. Video is below. Behold!

You lie. Yep. That's what he shouted. (Since when are joint sessions of Congress so shout-y?) Immediately a collective gasp could be heard through the room as uttered by folks who hadn't been that surprised since they watched The Crying Game and found out that chick was a man. Nancy Pelosi would have looked absolutely shocked if she could actually move the muscles in her face. Joe Biden looked like he wanted to kick someone's ass, but only because the gasp woke him up from his nap I think he was enjoying. This would have been the perfect time for a brawl to break out. Come on, Biden! Rip off your shirt and go kick that guy's arse! (Preferably with fake karate chop moves even though you don't know karate!)

Now, look...here's the thing: I understand that the guy is frustrated. I think that everyone is frustrated. Congress. The people. Even Bo. But regardless as to how frustrated you are, that is the President of the United States speaking and he deserves your respect. Period. You don't shout out "You lie!" You don't shout out anything! You don't show up carrying signs. (Seriously, what's next? Pithy sayings on sandwich boards worn by Representatives ringing large bells?) You know what you do? You listen. You moron.

If he had been the only one behaving like a member of the Taiwanese Legislature, I'd be a little more appalled, but he wasn't. No, pretty much a large number of Reps. were completely clueless as to what it means to be respectful when someone is speaking. Clearly the behaviors seen at some of the town hall meetings seemed like a good idea to some of those elected officials! After all, it's that sort of behavior that got sooooooo much accomplished. Whatever. Who else? Well.....

According to a one Ryan Grim over there at The Huffington Post, after the "You lie!" outburst, someone shouted, "Shame on you!" I don't know when the "shame on you" became the hot catch phrase of political disagreements, but I think we're all over it at this point and do respectfully request that you find a different way in which to voice your fake outrage. "Throw him out!" was also shouted by someone else. "First Lady Michelle Obama, seated behind and above Wilson, seemed to mouth a drawn-out "damn" at the scene unfolding before her." Michelle Obama. Look to her for great arms and look to her for an honest an appropriate reaction. Nice job, Michelle.

More summertime town hall influenced behaviors included "...a Republican member (saying) loudly enough to be heard in the press gallery, "Read the bill!" " Also, when President Barry said he had "no interest in putting insurance companies out of business," a Republican member responded with a loud, "Ha!" " What are you? Five?

Now, I'm not sure when it was that Joe Wilson realized that he had not behaved in the most appropriate manner, but I'm pretty sure it was before the end of the speech. He sure did high tail it out of there. (It was probably because Rahm Emanuel was headed his way. Hey, I'd high tail it if Rahm Emanuel was on the other side of the street from me. That dude can get a little bit intense at times.) And it didn't take too long before he had crafted a short apology and kind of apologized. Sort of. He said, “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

So if he still disagrees, who is right? While I don't think President Barry was lying, I think I can guess where Joe Wilson was coming from. And if I'm wrong, then it's where I'm coming from. I understand what is meant when President Barry says "...the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." I totally get that and it makes partial sense. The part that doesn't make sense is that those who are here illegally don't have health insurance as it is. Does that stop them from being treated? No. Does it stop them from using the emergency room as their personal physician? No. Does it make them want to get health insurance? No. Do they have any incentive at all to get health insurance? No. So to say that the reforms would not apply to illegal immigrants, that's true. Unfortunately it's true. If you assume that the reforms don't apply to them, then can you also assume that they will continue doing things the way that they've been doing them and that won't change? I think you can assume that.

I think Joe Wilson's point was that just because you're going to reform health care, it doesn't mean that you're going to address the issue of what to do with almost 12 million people who are here illegally and who will likely need medical services at some point during their uninvited stay. Whatever programs, if any, end up in place, if you don't specifically address that issue, then you are automatically consenting to allow them to be treated regardless as to whether or not they're insured or if they can pay. THAT allowance does apply if the issue isn't taken care of. And I'd imagine it would be difficult to explain to millions of US citizens why they will have to pay for health insurance to get certain services, but those who are NOT US citizens will NOT have to pay for health insurance and WILL get those services. Yep, sounds tricky.

Really, I'm a little concerned that this health care thing is one of those issues like abortion or gay marriage. You either fundamentally believe that health care is a right or you don't and you're not likely to change your mind any time soon. And I don't know if we can get past Joe Wilson acting like a total arse and instead look at what it was that made him so angry. I'm guessing we can't. Sorry, Joe. Bad approach.

How is all of this going to turn out for ol' Joe Wilson? Well, as I type this, it's not even 12 hours after President Barry finished with his speech. In that time, Rob Miller, who is Joe Wilson's opponent in the upcoming election, has raised over $41,000 on a website called Act Blue, a fundraising website for Democrat party candidates. It would seem that donations just came pouring into the site just after "You lie!" came pouring out of Joe Wilson's mouth. Anyone got a fork? He's done.

Sphere: Related Content

The List of Non Performing Performers

Just in case you've been waiting with baited breath for the announcement of who will be headlining or even just performing at the latest Michael Jackson tribute concert, you can breathe once again. The day of the announcement is finally here! Well, most of the announcement is finally here. Sort of. A little. Hey, he got up there and shouted out names, what more do you want?!

The oft procreating Jermaine Jackson had announced that he was organizing a tribute concert for his newly deceased brother (a la ingesting enough tranquilizers to sedate an elephant), Michael Jackson. He decided to hold the concert in Vienna (yes, that Vienna! The one that is NOT in the US.) at the Schoenbrunn Palace because, according to Jermaine, "Michael loved castles." Now, I don't necessarily know if when most people hear the name "Michael Jackson" that they automatically think of his love of castles. Unless "castles" is some sort of euphemism, in which case, Oh! Castles! I gotcha!

My theory on having Vienna for the location of the concert is that it will be more difficult to track down and trace all of the money pocketed from the fraud that Jermaine is about to perpetuate. Now I'm not saying there isn't going to be a concert. Granted, I have my doubts, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when one of the "important charities and worthy causes" that will directly benefit from this concert just happens to be "Jermaine’s own EARTH CARE FOUNDATION whose goal is to ease, as well as hopefully eliminate, the suffering of children around the world." The problem with that is the mere existence of the Earth Care Foundation is questionable at best. There doesn't seem to be any documentation of its existence other than in Jermaine's head. But apparently if you stick the name "Michael Jackson" on any product or service, people just go completely ape dung over it and rush to get in line for whatever it is. That's why Jermaine has been getting away with promoting this concert under a premise that I don't believe I can recall having been used before.

I'm calling the premise the "Wait and See Method". Also known as "Stalling". Commonly referred to by the person utilizing the method as "I hope I can pull this off and not get killed by the angry mob." When this concert was announced back in June (I don't even think that Jacko was cold yet before Jermaine was off to foreign lands, touring prospective castle venues), there wasn't even a lineup to announce along with the announcement. Then in August, a few details were leaked out. I use the term "details" extremely loosely, as it was still all a "maybe they will, maybe they won't" format when trying to nail down who would be performing at this thing other than Jermaine!

According to Entertainment Daily, Georg Kindel of World Awards Media GmbH was quoted in August as saying that "...Jermaine is assembling the lineup of about 10 “of the biggest artists of our time.” Uh-huh. When "Austrian media reported that Madonna, U2, Lionel Richie and Whitney Houston might be among the artists performing" and Kindel was asked to confirm that, he replied, "I don’t even know myself who will take the stage." Um, aren't you the promoter? Shouldn't you know things like that? I'm thinking you should!

But for the benefit of the doubt, let's say he's telling the truth (and he could very well be) and it's Jermaine who is doing all of the booking and negotiating or whatever it is that they do to organize these things. Tell me, since when has Jermaine Jackson had such pull with the "10 biggest artists of our time"? Just curious. I must have missed that part or something because I haven't heard the name "Jermaine Jackson" 10 times in the last ten years. Now suddenly everyone who is anyone in the music business is his BFF? I don't think they are!

When Madonna's people were asked to confirm that she would be performing, her people said that she was touring and would not be appearing at the castle. Whitney Houston's people said something similar, only without the touring part. Thus, they said "no" also. So why would anyone be planning a huge concert and then start announcing names of performers who they haven't even talked to, let alone booked?! Because they can. It says so right on the tribute website: "This website does not intend to convey the impression that the artists and personalities depicted here within have agreed to participate in the said event in any way, shape or form. " Wait. What now?

It's a website promoting the tribute concert for Michael Jackson. Who else, other than either Michael Jackson OR people who are going to perform at the tribute concert, would be depicted?? It's not like it's Wikipedia with a little of something for everyone. No, it's a tribute concert website where it should be showing you who is going to be doing all of the tribute-ing! That's why they would be depicted at all in the first place! And that's probably the reason why Jermaine has continued along the lines of announcing a lineup whose participants have absolutely no idea, and in a lot of cases, no intention of performing in Vienna.

So yesterday, Jermaine announced the lineup. Here we go. Here are the participants which we were led to believe would be the 10 biggest artists of our time. Ready.....?

• Akon
• Angela Bassett
• Chris Brown
• Mary J. Blige
• Natalie Cole
• Sister Sledge
• US5 (German boy band)
  

Wait a minute. What happened to the lineup for the tribute concert? Those can't be the headliners. Those are just a bunch of names. I have yet to see a top ten artist in there. (What's with the German boy band? US5? Never heard of them. Are they German or are the from the US? Make up your mind!) What now? What do you mean that's them?!?! Angela Bassett?? She doesn't sing! Oh, sure, she played Tina Turner in that one movie, but that was a movie! She isn't really Tina Turner!

And good idea to have a guy who beats up women in there as well. Chris Brown. What a loser. Good idea, put him on a stage thousands of miles away from people who would like nothing better than to give him just a little bit of what he gave Rihanna.

And Sister Sledge? Really? Have they had a hit since 1979's "We Are Family"? When Jermaine mentioned the "top ten artists" did he mean from the current decade? I guess I assumed he did. Apparently, I was wrong. Wow.

That lineup, while not, um, horrible? While not horrible, it is hardly what I would have expected given the hype of it all. Thus, I think that the lineup is absolutely terrible considering that (wait for it) Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige say that they are not performing in the show. Wait. What now?

Correct. Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige and not performing. Yes, yes, I know the Jermaine just said that they were performing. But they're the performers and they say that they're not performing. But don't worry! According to the AP, after obvious displeasure and disappointment was heard from members of the press covering the announcement of anyone whose name Jermaine felt like throwing out there, Jermaine told the reporters, "We're very excited — the list is growing more and more (with)....many major Bollywood names and artists from the Middle East also would be involved." WTH?

Bollywood? The Middle East? That excites you, Jermaine? Bollywood? What would be a "major name" from the Middle East? Saddam Hussein? That's all I've got. Are you kidding me? Where are the real artists, like Madonna and U2? According to a defensive Georg Kindel, "This is not the final lineup — maybe some of the names you mentioned you will hear within the next couple of days." Yes, but will we hear those names in association with them playing at the tribute? Of course not. Because this is the biggest scam ever. And what's killing me is that people are buying the whole deal.

Why are there not more questions about this thing? Why isn't someone in the media looking into Jermaine's "foundation" (which will likely prove to be about as authentic as George Costanza's "Human Fund" and their slogan "Money for People") and what they've accomplished? They should! Because they will learn that it's just a scam. That it doesn't exist. That Jermaine is going to pocket millions of dollars for a concert whose main performers might very well end up being Dr. Teeth and the Electric Band!

But if someone were to investigate it, I would highly doubt that it would be the AP. And even if it was the AP, I don't know that they are capable of putting together that sort of a story. I base that assumption on this sentence from the article cited above: "Over the course of the evening, Jermaine will sing a duet with his late brother, probably with video of Michael to be projected onto nearby walls." ::::blink ::::: :::: blink :::::

Probably? Probably?! Really?! You think that in order for Jermaine to sing a duet with his late brother, that they will probably use video of Michael?! Really?! They're not going to exhume his ol' bones and have him strung up like some sort of a marionette?! Video? Really? Way to go, AP. Way to go.

Sphere: Related Content