In Defense of Trump Supporters and Why They're Wrong

Before I get to the Trump supporters, I must write about the petition that is attempting to stop Trump and why I signed it.  I am politically opposed to Donald Trump, and I have grown to like Hillary Clinton, to the extent that I can like a politician, that is.  But those things have nothing to do with why I signed the Change Dot Org petition.  I signed it because Donald Trump is dangerous; he is a threat to everything that makes America great.  Did you see what I did there?  I turned his motto against him.  I go girl.

The petition is asking the electors to not vote for Trump even if they're "supposed" to since the whole point of the Electoral College is to keep the people from voting for someone who is unfit for the presidency.  Since Hillary won the popular vote anyway, going "against" what the electors are "supposed" to do wouldn't actually oppose the will of the people.  I think the other point of the Electoral College is to help the smaller states be more represented, but I feel like that is less important than the popular vote and the understanding that Trump is dangerous.  I don't know if the petition will actually make a difference, but I signed it anyway, because it's something I can do.  I did hesitate before signing because of things like democracy and the peaceful transition of power, but decided to do it for the reasons I just stated.

I want to be clear regarding my reasons for signing the petition: it isn't because I disagree with Trump politically, even though I do.  This isn't about politics.  It's because he is dangerous.  I would never have signed such a petition against George W. Bush, for example, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and even though I knew (and was proven correct) that W would start wars, run the country into the ground economically, and stifle stem cell research.  Those are political things; he was not a danger to the very fabric of what America stands for. 

As I understand it, the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from becoming president.  I have to admit, I had to look up the definition of demagogue to gain a clearer and better understanding of what the eff that means.  Alarmingly, both Google's and Webster's definitions of demagogue seem to be providing frighteningly precise descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior.  The Google definition is clearer: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

And now, onto the actual purpose of this post: my defense of Trump supporters.  Before I defend them, I shall offend them.

There are many (two that I know of anyway) people who feel that many Trump supporters are some form of piece of crap, or deplorable, as Hillary more eloquently put it.  I don't think she was wrong to make that statement, since the things she was describing are unquestionably deplorable, and she was obviously not talking about all Trump supporters.  This deplorable sect of supporters seem to be racist, homophobic, white supremacists, opposed to religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.  I am quite sure that there is at least a portion of Trump supporters that fit these categories of pieces of crap, evidenced by the fact that the KKK support Trump, since the KKK is obviously composed of pieces of crap as described here.  For the record, I don't think the pieces of crap are limited to the KKK, based on things I've heard from non-KKK Trump supporters.  However, I am quite sure that these categories do not apply to all Trump supporters; in fact, I personally know at least one who is none of those deplorable things.  But even the non-deplorable among them have chosen to elect a distributor of deplorable; I saw on Myface (Facebook) a post that stated that all Trump supporters might not be racist, but racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them.  That sums it up nicely, I think.  So now that I have offended the Trump supporters, I shall, at long last, defend them.

I will not be defending the deplorable portion of Trump supporters, i.e. the racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.  I will be defending the ones who are not deplorable, for whom deplorable things about Trump were not a deal-breaker.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there are people who wanted to vote for someone who holds their political views.  Some of those people, mostly Republicans probably, only saw one political option, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.  To be honest, while I understand the political opposition to Hillary by Republicans, it strikes me as odd since she seems moderate to me, and therefore potentially appealing to both parties.  But then again, I also think the same thing of President Obama and John McCain, both of whom are opposed by the other party.  Perhaps this is reflective of people's inability to compromise on anything.  But I digress.

Those Republicans were left with one awful candidate who claims to hold their Republican views, and I think they felt like they couldn't bear to vote for someone on the Democratic side, even though she is moderate.  Oh, I guess the above paragraph wasn't actually a digression after all.  They couldn't bear to compromise their political views, even if it meant electing a dangerous demagogue.

I had trouble empathizing with these voters, until I really imagined myself in their position (I'm normally better at empathy than that, I think).  I imagined a scenario in which an alleged Democratic version of Trump (so Trump from a few years ago then) but with the current state of crazies would run against a Republican whom I find vile as a person (because it seems there are people who hate Hillary as a person as well as a politician) and whose political views are contrary to mine.  So Ted Cruz.  I imagined a Democratic but still just as dangerous version of Trump running against Ted Cruz.  What would I do?  I disagree with Cruz on probably everything, and I don't like anything about him at all.  But he's not a danger to our beloved country the way Trump is.  Cruz wouldn't start a nuclear war because someone hurt his feelings on Twitter.  He wouldn't scapegoat entire races of people the way Hitler did.  He wouldn't attack journalistic freedom.  I would like to believe that I would be able to look past the politics, since this really isn't about politics, and vote for the person who is least evil and least dangerous for our country and its people.  I think I would be able to do that, as hard as it would be to vote for Ted Cruz, because ever since I was little, I understood that politics is always a choice of bad and worse, and we must vote for the lesser of the evils.  In my scenario, Ted Cruz is clearly the lesser of evils when compared to Trump.  While I believe I would ultimately make the right choice and cast the sane vote for Ted Cruz, it would be an incredibly hard decision to make and it would hurt my soul to cast that vote.  So I understand the non-deplorable Trump supporters; it probably would have been too hard for them to vote for Hillary.

And now, I shall get to the part about why the Trump supporters I just defended are wrong.  I do understand how hard their decision was, but they made the wrong one.  They should have been stronger; they should have made the difficult decision to vote against their views that are merely political, and vote for the person who is not a danger to our beloved country and beautiful Earth.  They made the wrong decision.  Now we must all suffer the consequences.  This isn't about politics.

Idol Joy

SPOILER ALERT: American Idol Season 12 Top 4 results are mentioned below.

On March 9, 2013, I added the following to the end of an update at the end of this blog posting about the 2012 season of American Idol:

"If you're interested in my Idol thoughts regarding the 2013 batch, there are currently only four of the Top 10 who I really like, in the following order: Kree Harrison, Lazaro Arbos, Angie Miller, and Devin Velez.  While he is not in the Top 10, I also really like Charlie Askew, who has a wonderfully apt last name that appears to be real.  I hope he finds success and happiness.  Aside from talk of her last name or whether she is pleasantly askew, the same could be said of Aubrey Cleland."

Today, I almost added another update to that blog posting, but then realized this should be a whole new blog posting.  The following is that new blosting (I didn't want to say "blog posing" again...Oops):

Sometime since the 2013 Top Ten were revealed, I grew to also love Candice Glover.  I am now thrilled with the Top 3 such that I would be equally happy with any one of them winning.  Off the top of my head, I cannot recall another Top 3 that I have loved so very much and so very equally.  I want there to be a three way tie.

Regarding my other two (non-Top-3) favorites, my love for them dwindled a bit since both of them took some time off from being great.  Devin never redeemed himself until his Save Me song (or whatever Idol calls it) and I was therefore not sad to see him get voted out.  Lazaro did redeem himself after a few less than wonderful performances, but by the time he was voted out, most of the other contestants were just better than him, so I wasn't heartbroken.  However, I do still love him.

Regarding a non-favorite who I did not mention previously, I do not currently nor have I ever loved Amber Holcomb, and the judges' and Jimmy Iovine's love for her has baffled me throughout this competition, which is interesting since Jimmy once said that he was baffled as to why America doesn't seem to love her like the Idol people do.  I can't speak for all of America, but from my tone-deaf perspective, Amber seems to spend about half her singing time off key.  I think she has had exactly two performances that were good, and I can't remember what they were (which might itself be another indication of why I don't love her).  Anyway, I was thrilled that she was voted out, leaving this magnificent Top 3.

Please note, my comments about all these people refer only to their singings and performances.  I love them all as TV-people, since they all seem to be good people and/or are good at being people.

More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.

Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!

One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.

Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!

No Alternative to the Hunger Games

***SPOILER ALERT: The Hunger Games trilogy (novels, not the movie) is discussed below.***

WARNING: Please do not steal my words or thoughts without crediting/citing me. Thank you.

After reading The Hunger Games trilogy and discussing the end of it with a friend, I thought I might attempt to write an alternate ending. This friend was deeply disappointed with the actual ending, feeling that the tone of the trilogy had shifted, causing our strong and heroic Katniss Everdeen to wither into a sobbing, weak, and pathetic not-so-hero. While I felt this ending was fitting to the trilogy, I thought an alternate ending could fix the problem that my friend was having with it. However, I have come to the conclusion that the trilogy ended as it should have, and that it therefore should not be tampered with.

During my young adulthood, I disliked happy endings in fiction, for they rarely reflect reality and render otherwise moving tales stagnant. However, now in my old age (early 30’s), I have found myself craving happy endings, for fiction is an escape from harsh and painful reality. But the fact is, happy endings don’t have the effect of tragic ones; they don’t stay with you – they don’t forever change you as tragic endings can. “They lived happily ever after” is idealistic, optimistic, hopeful, happy, and unattainable. “They died tragically” and “They tragically fell from grace and heroism” can motivate human brains/minds to think, change, grow, and flourish.

The Hunger Games trilogy does not have a purely happy ending, nor does it have a purely tragic one. It is bittersweet – simultaneously deeply and painfully tragic, and deeply and genuinely blissful. Katniss lost so much throughout the books, yet she appeared to be unbreakable. However, with each struggle, she cracked, until the ultimate destruction of her spirit and fire, fueled by the murder of her little sister Prim, Prim was the source of her fire, the source of her Mockingjay wings, and the source of her drive to fight and to live. Without Prim, she could never be the Katniss that she had been – her flame was gone. However, her ability to survive and love remained, kindled by Peeta, "the boy with the bread." The rebellion was successful; because of Katniss, who had the good judgment (because this is fiction) to kill the evil President Coin, the country of Panem could live up to its name and nourish its people with the metaphoric bread of freedom. Katniss, Peeta, and their children could live happily ever after, with her tragically extinguished but happily though more weakly rekindled flame.

President Snow was never able to extinguish Katniss, "the girl that was on fire." When President Coin was introduced, her eyes were described as the color of slush, which led me to believe she was a watered down version of Snow. However, in the end it became clear that she was in fact, the waterlogged version of Snow – Snow made heavier with water, finally able to extinguish the girl that was on fire by extinguishing Prim, the source of Katniss’s flame. Snow attempted to destroy Katniss by hijacking Peeta, her biggest fan, and turning him into a weapon programmed to kill her, but Coin took this concept further. Not only did she (unsuccessfully) attempt to use the hijacked Peeta to kill Katniss once she was no longer useful to Coin, but she used Katniss’s best friend Gale’s idea in her murder of Prim, and she thus used two of the most important people in Katniss’s life as weapons against her. Where Snow’s evil plans failed, Coin’s psychopathically evil plan succeeded to the extent that she destroyed the fiery essence of Katniss. Unfortunately for Coin, however, Katniss remained intact long enough to rightfully kill Coin.

Coin did not hunger for freedom for all; she only hungered for power, as her monetary name suggests, since money is power. Her decision to have another Hunger Games with Capitol children as revenge demonstrates that she and Snow are two sides of the same coin, and clearly elucidates that she would perpetuate Snow’s tyranny, rendering the revolution utterly pointless since they would undoubtedly revert to their old, oppressive ways. Katniss agreed to this Hunger Games proposal, allegedly for Prim’s sake, but that didn’t make any sense, since Prim would certainly never want such a thing. I’m still somewhat unsure of whether Coin or Snow killed Prim and the Capitol children, but either way, killing more children simply couldn’t improve the situation. This was blind revenge gone too far. Katniss’s obsession with seeking vengeance on Snow had bloomed like Snow's rancid rose into something horrible. Driven by revenge, revenge on the innocent children of what might be the wrong people, Katniss had become her own enemy, the Capitol. She no longer saw who the real enemy was. Katniss came to her senses when she killed Coin, which is of course ironic since she was exonerated via insanity. She killed Coin partially as revenge for Prim’s murder since Coin was the most likely culprit; however since the culprit remains unclear, her true motivation was to defeat the real enemy: the oppressive Capitol that Coin presided over. Katniss realized that it didn’t matter who killed Prim, for revenge on her murderer would not provide a purpose to her death or all the others who died for the rebellion, but ending oppression and allowing for a true revolution would. Coin’s death marked the end of oppression, and the end of the Hunger Games. Obviously, Snow also had to die, even though his death alone would not have ended the oppressive era as Coin’s death did. Regardless of whether Snow killed Prim or not, he oppressed, killed, and pimped so many people for so long. He allowed the Hunger Games to go on. I’m glad he died, but I wish there had been a way for Katniss to do the honors. Come to think of it, perhaps she did cause his death. He died after Katniss killed Coin, either by choking on his bloody laughter or by the ensuing mob, both of which were caused by her assassination of Coin. Therefore, Katniss did kill Snow, albeit indirectly. Woohoo.

Regarding my uncertainty about who killed Prim via the two part exploding silver parachutes deployed from the Capitol hovercraft, I am leaning toward Coin and the rebels. I remain unsure, though, because if it really was Plutarch and Coin, one would think that rebel medics wouldn't go to help the injured children, and Capitol medics would, however, the reverse is true. I imagine Coin could have been willing to sacrifice some medics, particularly since Prim was among them, to make Snow look even more horrible, in case recklessly killing Capitol children wasn’t enough to drive a wedge between the Capitol citizens and Snow, and thus quickly ending the war. Snow claimed that he could not be behind the silver parachute murders because there would be no purpose for him to kill those children, however, if the real target was Katniss the Mockingjay, symbolic leader of the rebellion, there would certainly be sufficient purpose from his evil perspective, because Snow killing Katniss could have quickly ended the rebellion with the Capitol as victor, and he wanted to kill her anyway. Since the compassionate people who went to help the children injured by the first set of explosions were part of the target, and since Katniss and Prim are compassionate, Katniss (or Katniss via Prim) is clearly the intended target of the exploding silver parachutes, and therefore both Snow and Coin could be culpable since they both wanted Katniss dead or destroyed. The fact that the trap utilized the concept that Gale described suggests that it was Coin and the rebels, however, Gale thinks like the enemy to create his traps, which suggests that it could have been Snow. Snow’s amusement at Katniss’s assassination of Coin suggests that he was not the perpetrator, amused by the fair and just assassination of his enemy; however, it could also indicate his joy at successfully manipulating Katniss to wrongly believe that Coin was the culprit. The latter seems more in line with Snow’s character, particularly Snow’s hijacking of Peeta, and if that is the case, then the joke is on Snow, since Katniss killed Coin for the sake of the revolution and not (as much) for revenge. Despite all of my confusion and evidence on both sides, I think the book (or I suppose its author) expects us to believe that Coin killed Prim.

Getting back to the trilogy’s ending, Katniss’s “happily ever after” could only happen with Peeta. I don’t believe she was ever in love with Gale, though she obviously loved him dearly. Throughout the trilogy, she fell in love with Peeta while growing apart from Gale. Perhaps the shared experiences with Peeta and lack thereof with Gale contributed to this, as people sometimes do grow together and apart with shared and unshared life-changing experiences such as three Hunger Games, or three wars, but of which happened, since the Hunger Games are partially controlled wars. Gale’s unintentional hand in killing Prim sealed his separation from Katniss, because aside from the obvious (that Katniss always cared more about Prim than herself), it crystallized the fact that Gale lacks compassion, as demonstrated by his concept that was behind the trap that killed Prim, which takes advantage of human compassion. Peeta, on the other hand, is the essence of compassion. Through two Hunger Games and a revolutionary war, he managed to avoid intentionally killing anyone (unless I’m remembering wrong). Furthermore, Peeta brought Katniss back to life twice: after her father died and after Prim died. He gave her the bread that gave her the hope and therefore the ability to survive and he planted the primrose bushes to give her hope once again, that she could survive. Thus, Gale’s bomb concept killed Prim, whereas Peeta salvaged Prim’s spirit when he planted the primrose bushes for Katniss. Gale still had an essential role in her life, since he salvaged her family’s past and her bow and arrows. Peeta’s primrose bushes and Gale’s bow saving are what revived and rekindled Katniss and returned her to herself, at least to the extent that was possible.

Katniss never wanted children because she didn’t want them to fallow in her footsteps in the Hunger Games, but the Hunger Games no longer existed, so her children could play in the meadow of freedom and safety as the lullaby she sang to a dying Rue promised, and that was all Katniss ever wanted. Even this is marred with tragedy, in that the happy meadow lies above the mass grave of the fallen citizens of Katniss’s home, a place where I think a memorial garden might have been a nice gesture. In the end, Katniss is as happy as she could be, amidst the tragic circumstances.

If I were to write an alternate ending, Prim would have to not die, for without Prim, Katniss has to be transformed as she is at the end of the trilogy. But if Prim hadn’t died, Katniss would not have had the fuel to kill Coin, so perhaps in my alternate ending, Katniss could be fueled with the desire to make Prim’s death meaningful beyond Coin’s assassination and the successful end of the rebellion. I had incorrectly predicted while reading the trilogy that Katniss Everdeen, as her last name suggests (Everdeen = ever + dean = always leads), would become the leader of the new, post-rebellion country. (Apparently, I was only correct to the extent that she was the leader of the rebellion as the Mockingjay). Therefore, in my alternate ending that I’m not writing, Katniss would become the democratically elected president of Panem, where she would ensure that oppression would become a thing of the past. Of course, this does happen in the trilogy, except with President Paylor rather than President Everdeen, so my ending would simply maintain Katniss as the still-unbreakable hero.

My alternate ending would still be bittersweet. Even though I would still have Katniss and Peeta together with their kids, Katniss could never be happy as President. Presidents live in the spotlight, they perform for the camera, and some are puppets of other political leaders or movements. Her marriage to Peeta would be in the spotlight too, and even after her time as president ends, for the rest of her life, she and her family would remain highlighted in the public eye, always performing for the cameras. She would never feel that her love or her life were real, because there would always be an element of performance, of fakeness. In the real ending, there are no cameras, and there is no spotlight – there is no reality show. There is only reality. She believes her life is how it would have been if there had been no Hunger Games, and if she were president, she could never have that luxury. And that is why the end cannot be altered. It is perfect, because Katniss is happy, even if relatively flameless, weak, and irreversibly broken. Furthermore, she did give Prim’s death meaning beyond the end of oppression in that she lived a happy and free life; her life is not only free from oppression, but it is free of the puppet strings wielded by people in power.

As I wrote this blog posting, the true meaning of Katniss Everdeen’s last name materialized in my brain. Aside from indicating her role as leader of the rebellion, it also signifies the role her father played throughout her life, since her last name came from her father, as last names often do. Her father, in his life and after his death, has educated and guided her through every struggle she has faced. He would always be with her.

This strengthens my belief that the book ended as it should, given that we make a few assumptions about Katniss’s family’s future. In the end, Katniss states that she does still have her fire, fueled now by the hope that Peeta brings and by the desire to give meaning and purpose to the deaths of Prim and all the others who died for the freedom of Panem. Their is evidence for Katniss's new fire; she returned to her hunting ways and I choose to assume that she is proud of her part in history, though she is plagued by PTSD. I incorrectly predicted sometime during the first book that what we are reading is Katniss telling her children about her experiences long after the successful rebellion. I was correct in my predictions that there would be a rebellion, that it would be successful, and that she would have children since the only reason she insisted that she didn’t want children was because of the Hunger Games. It is still possible that Katniss could tell her children of her experiences and the crucial part she and their father played in the revolution that gave them freedom, since the trilogy ends with the children still rather young. Thus, I choose to believe in a post-epilogue where she will tell her children, and that the books are that history lesson. I also choose to believe that she teaches her children to hunt as well, so her father’s teachings will be passed from generation to generation, forever guiding, forever educating, and forever leading.

A Sad Idol Day

**SPOILER ALERT AI-11 Top 7 parts 1 and 2 results are discussed below.***

I am heartbroken and shocked that Colton Dixon was voted off American Idol. He should have won. I couldn’t even vote for him because I couldn’t get through, which is normally an indication that a contestant will not be eliminated. Therefore, this is obviously a big conspiracy.

Colton could have at least been the traditional “shocking” Top 4 elimination, as Chris Daughtry was so many successful years ago. Colton certainly should not have been voted out at the Top 7 level. Last week, the judges were absolutely correct to use their save for Jessica Sanchez, because she and her massive talent also don’t deserve to be voted out this early. Since Colton was removed, I now believe that Jessica should win, with Joshua Ledet as the runner up, and Hollie Cavanagh in the Top 3 (since she has improved so much). Regarding Skylar Laine and Phillip Phillips, I do think they are quite talented; however, I’m simply not the biggest fan of either. I am a bit of a fan of Elise Testone, but I don’t think she is as talented as the rest of the Top 7.

Someone on the TV suggested that Colton was voted out because of his performance of Lady Gaga’s "Bad Romance," however, I loved that performance – I love what he did with what is probably Gaga’s best song ever. My guess is that the red blob he added to his newly blond hair might have had something to do with his removal. However, as I stated previously, his talent is so phenomenal that what he does to his hair is rendered less significant. Anyway, regardless of why he was (wrongly) voted out, it shouldn’t have happened, and I know that he will be successful. I very much look forward to buying his CD when it is released, for there is no doubt that there will be one to begin his (knock on wood) long and successful career, and that it will be amazing.

The dimly bright side to Colton’s elimination is that I can now go ahead and buy all of his things on iTunes. You see, I am not a fan of iTunes (I love Amazon MP3), so I was waiting until the season was over to go and purchase all the American Idol contestants' songs that I want, and thusly minimize my exposure to the dreadful iTunes. Since Colton’s are the only songs that I absolutely need to own, I will go ahead and buy his songs now. Perhaps I will make another journey to the iTunes hellscape at the end of the season for some of the other songs of the other contestants, but such a treacherous venture might not happen. I wish these things were not exclusive to iTunes, for Amazon MP3 is so much better.

UPDATE April 24, 2012

I saw Colton on the TV, and he has removed the red blob from his hair, so he obviously read my blog and took my implied advice! There is no other possible explanation! Woohoo! Unfortunately, however, his hair remains blond.

I was listening to one of Chris Daughtry’s Idol performances (his best one ever), and I realized that I love Colton the way I love Daughtry. They both have the kind of voice, emotion, and talent that reaches deep within my soul and brain, captivating me and causing me to mutter with admiration, “OMG, I love him so much.” While Daughtry’s effect is stronger than Colton’s, Colton’s effect is still undeniable. This provides further certainty that Colton will be tremendously successful.

UPDATE March 9, 2013
SPOILER ALERT: American Idol Season 12 Top 10 results are mentioned below.

It seems that my hopes and predictions were wrong, in that Jessica Sanchez did not win, but rather was runner up to Phillip Phillips.  I did end up venturing back into the iTunes hellscape to purchase some of Jessica's Idol songs, and I will likely buy her debut album when it is released this Spring.  Moments ago, I purchased Colton Dixon's album A Messenger, which is wonderful as expected.

If you're interested in my Idol thoughts regarding the 2013 batch, there are currently only four of the Top 10 who I really like, in the following order: Kree Harrison, Lazaro Arbos, Angie Miller, and Devin Velez.  While he is not in the Top 10, I also really like Charlie Askew, who has a wonderfully apt last name that appears to be real.  I hope he finds success and happiness.  Aside from talk of her last name or whether she is pleasantly askew, the same could be said of Aubrey Cleland.

Long Overdue Idol Thoughts

I’ve been meaning to make a few statements regarding American Idol this season, but I haven’t been very bloggy lately.

At the time of the Top 24 revelation, I erupted in “Woohoo!”s when Colton Dixon made it though. The judges had redeemed themselves from last year’s terrible lapse in judgment. When he made it through this year, I knew immediately that he would surely win!

When the Top 13 was revealed, I was happy with the contestants. I felt they were all good enough to be there, even if I didn’t love all of them. I was still sure that Colton will win, and it was clear then that the runner up would be Jessica Sanchez. In the following weeks, I concluded that Joshua Ledet would be in the Top 3. Thusly, my predictions were established.

I had become a big fan of Heejun Han, both for his funny and cute personality and his lovely singing; however, I sensed that he wouldn’t win. At the time of Heejun’s Billy Joel Week performance, I knew his Idol time was short. Jimmy Iovine had complained that Heejun was not taking the competition seriously, however, I believe he was; he took the singing very seriously, it seemed, but maintained a healthy sense of humor regarding the non-sing-y portions of the program. This changed with his Billy Joel performance, when his singing became a bit of a joke. The following week, he regained his singing genuineness; I was once again captivated by him as he sang beautifully. However, his humor was dampened, and I believe that is what led to his being voted out. I believe he could have lasted at least one or two more weeks if he had simply maintained the balance of serious singing and funny personality-ing.

I liked all the rest of the Top 13 contestants, with the exception of Deandre Brackensick. I don’t like his hair, and I am not moved by his singing at all. In the weeks following the Top 13, I found that his arrogance and something about the way he moves prevents me from liking him. His mediocre singing is, of course, also a factor in my disliking. Currently I am hoping that tonight will be the time of his out-voting, for regardless of my personal thoughts about his arrogance and distasteful hair, his talent is no longer up to the par of the other seven remaining contestants.

UPDATE April 6, 2012


***SPOILER ALERT*** Top 8 results are mentioned below.

Woohoo! Deandre’s hair was voted out last night! And Deandre's mediocre talent was voted out with it! I would take credit for this wonderful elimination, however, I posted this blog posting moments before the results show began, so obviously all the voting had long since ended. But I can still take credit for thinking and hoping that he would be voted out, and thus telepathically influencing the universe! Woohoo! I go girl! (Notice that I didn’t actually vote this time, so I can’t take credit that way).

I would like to take a moment to address another hairy issue: Colton’s hair. I love Colton’s hair, for it contributes to his rock-starriness. However, I’m not a big fan of the blondification of his hair. While he does still look (and sing) like rock star, and I still love him and want him to win, I simply prefer the previous state of his hair. I must emphasize, however, that I don’t hate it, and even if I did, his talent and voice are so amazing and beautiful that the other stuff is rendered far less significant. To conclude, I love Colton.

House of Disappearing Actresses

**SPOILER ALERTS: The following might refer to things that have happened on House M.D., Lost, Person of Interest, Once Upon a Time, and Grimm up to the date of this blog posting. Any reference to the future is my own speculation, and therefore is extremely likely to come true, for I was right about at least one thing on Lost.**

Before I begin my digression-full meandering discussion of House, I must tell you that while searching my blog for the posting where I elatedly realized I was right about something important on Lost, I noticed that as of right now, I have written 23 blog posts with the Lost label! 23! 23 was one of the numbers! Holy crap! I absolutely didn’t do that intentionally, and I didn’t even notice until now (if I did, I don’t remember)! Jacob’s numbers invaded my brain and blog! I told you there might be spoilers, so please stop complaining, 3 people who still haven’t watched the Lost finale yet. You know who you are.

Onto the actual purpose of this blog…

Before this evening’s rerun of House where Thirteen made her final appearance, I thought about my previous blog postings where I wondered and googled about Thirteen’s and Cameron’s at-the-time potential impending departures from House, and I realized that I never addressed their apparent actual departures. So I’m doing that now, since the TV admitted that it read my mind by airing that particular episode hours after I had those particular thoughts.

Based on what I have heard from various sources such as the TV and my mom (who read a magazine article), it would seem that Olivia Wilde (Thirteen), Jennifer Morrison (Cameron), and Lisa Edelstein (Cuddy) have left House M.D. This is not new news, of course, and all their characters have had closure on the program, but as I said, I felt that I should address (or at least mention) their departures here, so that my blog can have closure regarding these characters as well.

All three actresses have already moved on to other things such as movies and other programs on the TV. I don’t know where Lisa Edelstein went, but Olivia Wilde made some movies whose commercials I’ve seen. Jennifer Morrison is now the star of another show called Once Upon a Time.

I discovered Once Upon a Time last week when ABC had a marathon of it. I read in the Wikipedia that it was created by a couple of Lost writers, with Damon Lindelof (Lost co-creator) as a consultant, so it’s not surprising that it easily drew me in. It’s a show about fairy tale characters, and is thusly similar to another new show about fairy tale characters that also drew me in called Grimm. Together (with an emphasis on Grimm), these two programs have caused me to get the original translation of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales (free on Kindle!), which are more violent than Disney would have us believe. Some of the Amazon reviewers explain that the Grimm brothers were just jotting down the folk tales of oral tradition, and therefore their stories might not have been intended for young children. At some point in my adulthood, I did notice some excessive violence, even in the childproofed versions of these tales that we were all told.

Anyway, getting back to Jennifer Morrison, her character on Once Upon a Time is really quite different from Cameron, in that the former is far more bad-ass than the latter. Perhaps because of this bad-assed-ness, I find that I like this character a lot better than Cameron, who was probably removed from House because the writers ran out of ways to keep the most moral character from being annoying. That is not to say that morals are annoying – I rather enjoy morals – but it is to say the character had been falling down an annoying spiral since she married Chase, perhaps because she was probably still in love with her dead husband.

Emma Swan, Jennifer Morrison’s Once Upon a Time character, maintains Cameron’s morals while exhibiting a satisfying though small degree of bad-assed-ness. Cameron was nearly one-dimensional, while Emma already has depth after only a few episodes. Both Cameron and Emma are good, but Once Upon a Time seems to have the same theme that Lost had – that nothing is purely good or purely evil, and everything and everyone possess both good and evil facets. Thus, Cameron was simply good with non-evil flaws, while Emma is predominantly good. There is the sense that Emma is capable of evil, as all humans are, but she chooses good, as clearly explicated in yesterday’s episode, where she made it clear that she wanted good to win over evil, for the sake of her biological son.

It’s unfortunate that Cameron, Cuddy, and Thirteen were written out of House M.D. for one reason or another, particularly since House hasn’t been as good as it was since their departures, but I’m glad that the three actresses are doing other things. I believe Olivia Wilde and Lisa Edelstein chose to leave House, and I know that Jennifer Morrison did not, so I’m particularly happy that she found employment on this new program that, at the time of this blog posting, is better than recent House episodes.

Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time and Grimm might end up getting cancelled, because that seems to be the fate of most shows that I watch from the beginning, such as Flash Forward and Free Agents. Let us hope that the only curse on Once Upon a Time (and Grimm, and New Girl (the other new show I watch)) is the fictional one on the non-parenthetical program. Oh, I also occasionally watch Person of Interest, because it contains Ben from Lost (Michael Emerson, not the character) and because it’s a good show, but that program should be safe from my inadvertent curse since I don’t watch it regularly. I should mention that The Simpsons is the only exception to my inadvertent curse that I can think of at the moment.

Before this blog posting ends, I must digress once more, and in so doing, I shall create a fun Lost numbers bookend (blogend?) for this posting.  I thought it was rather cute and fun that in the pilot episode of Person of Interest, Michael Emerson’s character had a mysterious and cryptic list of names and numbers!  Hahahahaha, yes, I thoroughly enjoyed that Lost allusion!