i brought you in the back just to have a conversation, really think you need some ventilation

My Potentially Controversial Opinions on Various Topics:

If you don't care, stop reading now.

Rihanna:
Look, I don't demand much from a pop star. The lyrics can get lazy (I still love you old-school Black Eyed Peas). You don't have to sell out stadiums (Amerie forever holds a place in my heart). You don't even have to be that great of a singer (Britneyyyyy). But I do want a pop star to have something, that quote-unquote "It factor". CHARISMA. This is why I can't stand Rihanna.
Don't get me wrong. I love her song "S.O.S." and that will likely never stop. However, it's not as though no one else could have made that song great. In fact, it would have been massively improved without her dull, intoning voice. That song's greatness is the production and the sampling. That Rihanna is the singer is pure chance.
What I strongly dislike about her ("hate" is such a strong word) is that she has no personality whatsoever. Is that just me? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
Does nobody else on this planet notice that her eyes are like an emotionless void. She just seems so dead all the time. And I think her new "bad girl" image is painfully contrived.
She seems like the kind of girl who just does what she's told and it pisses me off how she's becoming a symbol of strength. This ain't Tina Turner, guys.
Though, clearly, I'm the one who is missing something here, because she is wildly successful. And you know what? I'm wrong. It's because of her distinct lack of genuine personality that she has thrived so. She is the "perfect" pop star because she can be whoever suits the record label's interests best.
That won't build you a nice warm nesting in the inviting place that is my heart, RiRi.

Roman Motherfucking Polanski:
Now, I am a big fan of Roman Polanski's work, and I adored his autobiography, but I'm not simply blindly defending him when I say let him go! My two main reasons for this:
1. He is clearly not a continued threat. Since the situation in the 70's, there has been no further complaints. He has settled down and married.
2. This is the more important one, in my opinion. His "victim" has repeatedly begged the court to not pursue the case.
What is the reason sex offenders are prosecuted? To prevent further incidents and to avenge the victim. If he isn't a threat and the victim desperately wants the case dropped, what purpose are we serving?

Am I saying celebrities should be exempt from the law? Not necessarily. But I do think high-profile artists like Roman Polanski should not be treated like your average neighborhood pervert. And that's just my opinion.

T-Pain:
People find this surprising but I love. T-Pain. And yes, you have to pause after that "love" to get the proper emphasis. No, I don't like everybody and their step-third-cousin using AutoTune, but everything in moderation, people, and T-Pain owns that shit. I've raved about his genius ("And let me assure you: I use that word often" - Tracy Jordan) before. I had a lot to say on the subject but it was simply the same themes over and over: subversive yadda yadda, statement on the depth of human emotion yadda yadda, really sweet dance moves yadda yadda, P-Funk-esque top hat...
I also have a playlist on my iPod called "I'm T-Pain, you know me"

Family Circus:
People who know me well know a few things: I have a deep, semi-unexplained love for Scatman Crothers (mostly based on the awesomeness of his name), I cannot sleep with a TV or light on and I will get huffy until that is remedied and I have a blind rage for Family Circus that I can rant about for minutes. I'd say hours, but, really, let's be reasonable.
I believe Family Circus is the devil disguised in an "innocent" family comic strip. Why? Because it defies all logic. It is a comic strip that is never funny. I am not exaggerating. It is literally never funny. And it's not even amusing in a so-bad-its-good way. More often than not, I can't even see anything that remotely resembles a joke. Sometimes its like, "alright, nice try, Family Circus, but that joke wasn't funny". But usually it's like, "That is just a sentence. I cannot even detect an attempt at a joke."
Oftentimes, I like to play a game with myself where I read the comics and judge what percentage of times that a comic strip is entertaining. For example, Doonesbury is funny 95% of the time, Dilbert is funny 80% of the time, Hagar is funny 10% of the time...Family Circus is the only one that scores 0%.

My theory: the author's idea of funny is getting paid for this bullshit.
A rudimentary understanding of the concept of infinite doesn't automatically translate to "funny", guy.