Unabashed Disdain for Whitney Houston Temporarily Replaced by Faux-Reverence

By Gerald Holgerson

DALLAS- Whitney Houston, long regarded as one of the most talented but troubled musicians of the last half-century, experienced an unprecedented and unexpected spike in her popularity over the weekend. Industry experts, while shocked, were happy to see the diva getting her due, but this reporter remains skeptical as to why the world suddenly decided to sweep her drug problems under the rug to shower her with adoration.

Houston’s resurgence was especially prominent in social media, where the usual mocking and ridicule gave way to plaudits about her wonderful career. In recent weeks, data tracking services indicated that over 93% of references to Whitney Houston were either links to articles about her drug addiction or usage of her name in a metaphorical sense (ex: “The price of these blueberries is higher than Whitney Houston. LOL”). Over the weekend, these references were crowded out almost exclusively by plaudits about her wonderful voice and her positive influence on her fans’ lives. She was also mentioned as a “motivation” more than 400,000 times in 2 days on Facebook, presumably meaning something other than motivation to become a crack head.

[RIGHT: I don't care what anyone says, Whitney. This is how I choose to always remember you.]

Without releasing any new music or performing at any events, Houston also saw her popularity rise in individuals’ rankings of their favorite musicians. While many pop music fans had rated her as one of their five or ten favorites from the 80s and early 90s, Houston seized the number one spot on innumerable lists over the weekend. For example, Carrie Steenen of Kenosha, Wisconsin tweeted “Whitney I luv U. U were my 1st tape as a kid. U R my Fav!!” In the past three weeks, Steenen had also listed Bruno Mars, Madonna, and Jennifer Hudson as her favorite musician, but had made no reference to Houston.

Even the producers of the Grammys worked Houston into their show on Sunday night. The producers had to be especially careful to plan around the Houston powder keg in the wake of the Super Bowl Halftime Show fiasco in which M.I.A. offended no one by pointlessly flipping off the camera. As such, the Grammys producers agreed to respond to the popular outcry in favor of Houston by including several references and tributes to her throughout the show, but they did so only after receiving assurances that she would not personally be in attendance. The producers made this move because they feared that if Houston was shown briefly on camera, there was at least a 50/50 chance that she would be snorting or free basing cocaine, which would earn the network a hefty fine.

Possibly the most startling development in the nation’s sudden love affair with Whitney Houston has been the kid-glove treatment given by morning radio hosts. These hosts, who are normally known for being slightly zany and for gently pushing the boundaries of the PG ratings, have spoken in reverential tones about Houston. Few have even made the obvious jokes about her drug addiction, and if there is one thing radio morning hosts are known for, it is making obvious jokes. More on this story as it develops.

UPDATE: This just in- apparently, Whitney Houston is dead. That sort of explains why everyone was gushing over her for the last three days. I take full responsibility for printing this article not knowing that she was dead, although that still doesn’t explain why everyone is suddenly in love with her. If people had been this nice to her when she was alive instead of harassing her and rumor-mongering about her, maybe she would not have become addicted to drugs and died.

Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood: Who Should I Support?

A public fight has broken out over the last week between Susan G. Komen, a charity dedicated to preventing and curing breast cancer, and Planned Parenthood, a nationwide family planning organization. The throwdown between two popular charities has left many supporters conflicted over which organization they should support. Today, I will help provide some guidance through the complex ins and outs of the feud so you can better decide for yourself.

First, men are lucky that they do not need to have an opinion on the subject. Since Susan G. Komen is dedicated to curing breast cancer and Planned Parenthood gives abortions, men can simply shrug and say that they do not care whenever the topic is brought up. In all likelihood, women will indignantly insist that these issues affect men, too, and that such indifference is insulting and sexist. Obviously, they are wrong and are probably either on their period or suffering from a bout of hysteria. Men: you can stop reading right now, unless you ever want to get laid again.

[RIGHT: What I imagine a fight between employees at Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood may well look like.]

For those of you who want to get to know the issues, it is important to understand why Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood are fighting. The story starts with a few rich donors to Susan G. Komen who paid a Congressman to open an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood failed to report cases of possible sexual abuse against minors for whom its doctors were caring. If you are thinking that it sounds illegal to pay a Congressman to open a Congressional investigation for self-serving purposes, then apparently you have never heard of a little Supreme Court case called Citizens United that makes it illegal to tell rich people not to do things. Anyway, when Planned Parenthood objected to the investigation as unwarranted and discriminatory, Susan G. Komen’s rich pro-life backers pressured the organization to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.

At least that’s the public story. Don’t rule out the possibility that this controversy was manufactured to get more sympathetic press for Planned Parenthood. They have certainly received much more money in private donations in the last week than they lost in the withheld grant from Susan G. Komen. If the pro-life donors really wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, it probably would have been wiser to do so in a way that did not massively increase donations to the organization.

If the public façade of the conflict is to be believed, then it might be constructive to consider what both of these organizations do for society. Susan G. Komen raises millions of dollars every year to cure breast cancer. To achieve that goal, the organization has also trademarked the color pink and the “Race for the Cure” name, and has paid high-level executives exorbitant salaries. While these aggressive business practices may sound de rigueur for a successful business, Susan G. Komen is not actually successful. Contrary to popular belief, they have NOT cured cancer and have in fact succeeded only in making themselves rich. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has cured all sorts of varied diseases, from gonorrhea to chlamydia to syphilis. They have even had some success preventing down syndrome through early detection and aggressive treatment protocols.

Some of Susan G. Komen’s most ardent supporters have pointed out that the organization remains committed to helping the American economy stay vibrant. While they say that Planned Parenthood stifles the growth of the American workforce, Susan G. Komen provides financial support for job creators, particularly those in the straightened-out wire hanger manufacturing industry.

The most important difference between the two organizations may not be operational, but relational. It has become increasingly clear over the last week that Susan G. Komen, for all of the unblinking goodwill it has accumulated over decades, is a slow moving behemoth, a relic institution of a bygone age. In other words, the organization is less viable because it does not have the ability to manipulate social media to support its actions. Clearly, the greatest sin had nothing to do with reallocating grant money, and everything to do with hiring a PR firm that could not convey dogmatic bits of social control in 140 characters.

In conclusion, the safest way to go is to post a link to an article condemning Susan G. Komen on Facebook with a snarky comment about how they bend to the whims of rich donors. Anything less risks social ostracization, so steer clear.