Although many men do not want to admit it, American Idol is a guilty pleasure of many. I am comfortable enough with my masculinity to freely admit that not only do I watch American Idol, I haven't missed an episode (thanks TiVo!) of the show since it first aired in 2002.

With that said, I have several rants and raves to make about this whole phenomenon.

Beside the obvious one that Simon constantly has to remind the American public about every year, this is a "singing contest". Why is it that the public keeps people on board because of their looks (Antoinette Barba and that other chick with the mole and beautiful legs) and their personality (Senjaya Malakar) and ignores others who are obviously better singers? This happens every year - does anyone remember Bo Bice? I am not going to get into whether or not he is actually a better singer than Carrie Underwood or not, as she has a great voice and a huge following, she just isn't my preferred style. What I would like to get into is how the record producers completely disregard the roots of the singers they produce and make them into what they want them to be.

Bo Bice has a great voice, with a style reminiscent of late 60's to mid 70's classic rock bands. For weeks, Bo sang songs like "Vehicle" from "Ides of March" and "Spinning Wheel" from "Blood, Sweat and Tears", so I have to ask what the producers were thinking when they put together his debut album? Bo has no "edge" and his voice is relatively smootheawa in comparison to the gravely sound he worked very well with.

Another example is what they did with Clay Aiken's debut album. Clay has such a great voice with a wide range that I presumed he'd go on to a great career that could rival that of Elton John. However, "Measure of a Man" is so overly produced that it takes a real die-hard to sit through the album in repeat mode. I'll admit that some of the songs finally did grow on me, but in my opinion, a great album is great from the first listen. An example of this would be Chris Daughtry's debut album "Daughtry". Sure, it seems like he's still trying to find his niche, but his range of style makes for some very smart choices, especially when trying to determine what your audience wants in the hopefully long-term span of your career.

Kelly Clarkson has a fantastic voice, but her first album was somewhat of a let-down. She knew it, too, even though she won awards for being best new artist and her album won a Grammy. She knew that she needed more, and that the producers were more interested in their "formulas" rather than her long-term success. Therefore, she ditched them for her second effort entitled "Break Away" and really showed what she was worth. Two and a half years after buying that album, I can still listen to it and enjoy it as opposed to feeling that it has gone stale.  Of course, her third album was a complete change and she lost many of the fans that made her famous by trying to become more of a rocker.

Since I am on the subject of American Idol, I want to kvetch a bit about the "American Idol Gives Back" fund raiser. Although I think it is fantastic that they were able to raise over $70 Million for charity, I continually have to question certain things.

Although it is great that half of this money will go towards helping the unfortunate in the United States, why are we using half of it in Africa? It isn't that I am against Africans, but shouldn't that be funded by "African Idol"? There are many rich people in the southern part of Africa, why not appeal to them for helping their fellow countrymen?

Plus, why not look at things with less of a short-sighted position? I understand that some of the money is going to be used to purchase mosquito netting for the poor. Instead of providing this semi-effective netting that works for those inside of tents but does little for those outside of their tents, why not invest in wiping out malaria? It can't be that difficult to do since you rarely hear about someone in the United States contracting it, and when they do, it is usually because they were visiting someplace outside of the United States. Why not wipe out the mosquito population with a pesticide? Sure, those have their own negative effects, but I highly doubt that they create the mortality rate that Africa sees due to Malaria. Hunger? Why give them grains such as wheat and rice when they don't have enough clean water to properly utilize it? Instead, build waterlines and water treatment facilities that would benefit them in the long term.

In a time when our government is wasting (okay, they want to call it 'spending') billions on a war that isn't a war (well, the war on terrorism is a war, apparently, but the war in Iraq supposedly ended four years ago), we obviously cannot count on the tax dollars of the American public to be spent on the American public. So, why shouldn't we be putting 100% of that money towards helping our own? And why limit the charities to those who are poor or had the misfortune of something catastrophic such as Katrina? Feeding and clothing the homeless is a noble idea, but why not provide psychiatric help and job assistance to these people? In a time when immigration is a heated issue and those who say that the illegals should be allowed to stay because they do jobs that Americans don't want should rethink things from the perspective that perhaps these homeless people would be much better off if they were given the work of these illegals and that their self-worth might go up and they may be able to be better integrated back into society rather than forgotten about by the majority and only recognized by those at the missions and soup kitchens?

Okay, so I went off track a bit... but that tends to happen when you're ranting, doesn't it?