The 2015 Grammy Awards: Best & Worst Of The Night

Oh, those Grammys! What a night of yuk yuks! Here are the top 10 most notable moments, according to your humble music journo... Ready or not!

* Best Perf: Annie Lennox performing w/Hozier. Damn! I was actually clapping at the TV. Those pipes, that roar, baby! And she was having a blast.

* Worst Perf: Madonna’s camel toe. Enough with the vag, Madge.

* Worst Perf II: Kanye West. Still thinks he’s a musician, huh? Grandpappy McCartney & Rihanna added nothing to the biggest zero “event” of the night.

* Put some big boy pants on: AC/DC, Pharrell Williams. And what’s up with the bellhop hat, kiddo? 

* Best dressed: Taylor Swift’s stunning swan-like turquoise gown.

* Buzz factor: Sam Smith’s ubiquitous “Stay with Me,” at last "awakened." Thank you, Mary J. Blige!

* LOL: Why is Tom Jones orange? Somebody wrote on FB that he looked like Fred Sanford. Heee. Prince’s afro was right frightful, too.

* Surprise!: Beyonce’s immaculate gospel reading of “Take My Hand Precious Lord.” Wow, my ears didn't bleed!

* Oops: Katy Perry, honey, stick to the pop schmaltz. Your “serious” performance was way too "precious."

* Those we lost: Seeing my hero Casey Kasem as one of 2014's dearly departed got me misty. I owe my career to his impact on me as a kid.

* Zzzzz: Adam Levine & Gwen Stefani were as engaging as beige. Yawn... And boy, she struggled with those notes... "The Voice"? Not so much.

* Swoon: Ariana Grande, showing again that she's a gifted vocalist. Lovely, restrained performance of "Just A Little Bit of My Heart." Love my Ari.

* Swoon II: Tony Bennett & Gaga, singing beautifully & having fun together as pals. She sabotaged her pop career w/too many gimmicks, but Ga sure can swagger.

* WTF: Another inexplicable Album of the Year win... Beck. Obviously a voting split between Smith (shoulda) & Beyonce left us with a lame duck (Just like 2011's Arcade Fire win). Not just an upset, but upsetting for those of us who take pride as NARAS voters.

* WTF2: Obama lambasting the occasion with a grave downer message about domestic violence. Relevant, but here? Really?

At (Long) Last: Celine Dion Releases Video Clip For Neo Duet 'Incredible'

I'll never understand why it took six months to release a music video for Celine Dion's duet "Incredible" (with Neo) from album "Love Me Back To Life." For god's sake, word broke in January that the pair was filming the clip. And astonishly, even after it made its long-awaited debut on ABC's "Good Morning America," it's still not on YouTube. Grrrrr!

In fact, at this point, it appears that all momentum has been sapped from the project... at least in the States. Shame, shame, shame on Sony. THIS should have been the second single, following the title track... instead of the tepid "Somebody Loves Somebody."

The video itself is vaguely amusing, with waaaaay too much superfluous footage from secondary players. Aside from Celine and Neo giving it their all on an NYC rooftop, about the only intriguing footage is of a giraffe walking down city streets. Really? This is the best we got after six months?

I was truly hoping that this would be the track to restore Celine to the mainstream Top 40, with Neo's assistance. It's a mighty fine track and a should-be single. Fortunately, views on social media now count toward the Billboard Hot 100... so if Sony doesn't have the gumption to make a proper push, maybe... just maybe... the public's might will make a difference.

And yet here we are in 2014... as the latest, greatest non-talent Iggy Azalea rules the Hot 100 with the decidedly low-octane "Fancy." Oh, mercy, what a world, what a world!

UPDATE... At last, posted publicly...

Nanny State: NYC Mayor Bloomberg's Sugar Soda Ban Sails Through His Self-Appointed Dept. Of Health, Despite Massive Public Opposition

As if there were ever any doubt... The New York City Board of Health has approved a ban on the sale of sugar sodas in containers larger than 16 ounces at the city's restaurants, fast food joints, delis, arenas, movie theaters and even street food carts. The new law, which takes effect March 12, 2013, was championed by Nanny Michael Bloomberg, whose obsession as NYC's billionaire Mayor is stamping out civil rights and insuring that legislation supplants adults' rights to make their own choices.

Who cares about the city's 10% unemployment rate, folks' homes being repossessed or the fact that one in six New York state residents live in poverty... when there are fat people in the city?

The Board of Health's members are all appointed personally by the Mayor... with the vote a telling 8-0. Eliot Hoff with New Yorkers for Beverage Choices noted, "By imposing this ban, the board has shown no regard for public opinion or consequences to businesses." And once more, Bloomberg has created legislation attacking a 100% legal activity/choice. Any business that goes against the Nanny State will be fined $200.

U.S. News & World Report commented: "America has tried the experiment with prohibition before. It didn't work. That lesson seems to be lost on Bloomberg. Where will it end? The food police seem more intent on growing state authority than anything else. Depriving us of the right to make choices is the order of the day, in a sort of Orwellian fashion."

Meanwhile, a poll last week revealed 60% of New Yorkers believe the plan is crap.

This, of course, is Bloomberg's latest public policy destined to turn New York City into the land of the suppressed. Previous Nanny meddling includes: blocking sugar sodas from vending machines in schools and city-owned buildings (the NYC school chancellor vetoed that absurd referendum); a ban on smoking in city parks—uh, outdoors (which ludicrously includes Times Square); calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, and eradication of trans-fats in city restaurants.

While the latter two are perhaps constructive, let's remember the legislation the Mayor attempted to steamroll through City Council that failed: massive tolls on the Brooklyn Bridge; his "National Salt Reduction Initiative," which attempted to mandate less sodium in restaurant receipes; and vulgar ads appearing on subways with images showing fat being poured from a soda can (they were banned by the city, along with Bloomie's call for foul visuals on cigarette packs showing amputated appendages and black lungs).

Unfortunately, there's more in store. Giddy with his latest success, Bloomie is twiddling his thumbs over the next invasion into personal privacy: He's pushing public hospitals to hide baby formula behind locked doors so that new mothers will breast feed. When will it end? Easy answer: The day this meddling bombastically egotistical man's third term comes to an end, in November 2013. I am counting the days. *

Editor's note: It's relevant to share that I have not had sugar soda in more than 25 years. This is about individual choices being legislated by a bored billionaire with too much power.

Nanny Bloomberg's Soda Ban Hearing Fosters Plenty Of Opposition

Hundreds packed a NYC Board of Health hearing Tuesday to protest Mayor Nanny Bloomberg's civil rights-stomping plan to ban sugar sodas larger than 16 oz. in movie theaters, sports arenas, food carts, restaurants and delis.

The proposal is so absurd that it has gained national attention. USA Today called it a "misguided effort to curb obesity," pointing out that the day after Bloomerg announced his latest political whim on May 31, the closet queen had no issues celebrating National Donut Day.

The July 24 public hearing gave proponents and detractors a single opportunity to express their views before the 11-member Board of Health—all of whom were personally appointed by Bloomberg—rubber stamps the legislation in September. Mind you, during the hearing, not a $ingle of the Board member$ uttered a word. God forbid they $tand up again$t their lucrative appointment by New York's emperor.

The ban, which would be the first of its kind in the United States, drew such a crowd in Long Island City that an overflow room was needed. On the one hand, Kelly Brownell, a food policy expert at Yale University, te$tfied on behalf of the Bloomberg admini$tration: "Larger portions lead to overconsumption. This is established in science."

Daniel Halloran, a member of the city council representing Queens said, "When they came for the cigarettes, I didn't say anything, I didn't smoke. When they came for the MSG, I really didn't care because I didn't order it very often. I'm not a big salt eater, so I didn't mind when you guys regulated salt. But what will the government be telling me next?"

Saying he is "ashamed" by how the city is using its money and time, Halloran insisted the city should be addressing cultural changes, including nutrition & exercise, not intruding on people’s decisions. "What is the government going to tell me next? What time to go to bed? How big my steaks should be?"

My hero, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, an opponent, offered a rare bit of comic relief during the hearing, saying he is overweight not because of soda, but too much pasta, cheesecake and red velvet cake: "If someone has the right DNA, they can drink an entire two-liter bottle of soda and not gain a pound. If I do that, I’d be twice as big as I am today."

Meanwhile, The New York Times weighs in: "It is hard to think of a better way to turn soda into a symbol for intrusive, meddlesome, government than to have a humorless billionaire poking his finger of disapproval into one’s daily life and arbitrarily saying 'your cup shall not runneth over 16 ounces.' Bloomberg might as well have replaced Lady Liberty’s torch with a Big Gulp. He is a walking advertisement for libertarianism.

Indeed, no matter how bombastic such a move craps on individual's freedom of legal choice, we all know how Bloomberg works: Two months from now, his whim will be law. And New York will again be the laughing stock of the free world. *

As Athletics Overshadow The Law, Penn State Gets What It Deserves

So many lessons... Penn State's shameful child-sexual-abuse scandal involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky exposes how athletics at the university level are accustomed to living above the law. 

Athletes slide through four years without passing the same academic muster as other students; they are awarded gargantuan scholarships for being able to throw a ball instead of use their brains; and, worst of all, college officials typically turn the other way when it comes to behavior that would be deemed unacceptable in any other forum (except, perhaps, the scandal-ridden Catholic church).

Looking at the faces of the Penn State University students who are aghast that the college was forced to pay for its sins pretty much says it all. Media reports say some actually wept out of disappointment! (These are the same students who held a demonstration when shamed Coach Joe Paterno was fired.)

On Monday, the NCAA took an unprecedented step in punishing the school for letting Sandusky slide for decades, just so its athletics program might continue to excel. The school was fined $60 million, banned from bowl games for four years and had a share of athletic scholarships stripped away. And perhaps best of all, every one of Penn State's wins from 1998 to 2011 has been stricken from the record. "The Penn State case has provoked in all of us a deeply emotional response and shaken our confidence in many ways," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. The sanctions were intended to help Penn State "rebuild a culture that went terribly awry."

Emmert added that a "grave danger" of university sports programs is that they "can become too big to fail, indeed too big to even challenge."

The $60 million will be used to create an endowment to help prevent child sexual abuse. It equates one year's revenue for the football team, Emmert said. Being deemed ineligible for Big Ten championship games for four years will cost the university its $13 million share of bowl game revenues.

The moves follow a report this month from former FBI Director Louis that proved longtime Head Football Coach Joe Paterno and other university officials didn't act on allegations of sexual abuse involving Sandusky. He was convicted in June on 45 counts related to abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period, starting in 1994.

On Sunday, Penn State also removed a seven-foot statue of the late Paterno outside the school's Beaver Stadium. The 900-pound bronze artwork was an "obstacle to healing," the university said. *

The Republican Duh-genda: Paul Begala In 'Newsweek'

This is the smartest piece of political journalism I've read in weeks. Paul Begala's weekly column in Newsweek/The Daily Beast talks good sense about the Republican duh-genda (hey, I think I just coined a new phrase!). I've streamline it here, and recommend taking a look at the entire piece. Scary smart stuff. *

I have read several state-party [political] platforms so you won’t have to. They offer a road map to heaven or hell, depending on your party preference. I started in Texas—the most Republican big state in America. Every single statewide elected official is a Republican. Of the 150 members of the Texas House of Representatives, 101 are Republicans—and they’re hunting the other 49 down with dogs.

Texas Republicans hate the heavy hand of government. And so they oppose mandatory preschool and kindergarten, mandatory immunizations. It’s one thing to be anti-government. It’s another to be pro-stupid. Yet the Texas GOP actually opposes thinking. Seriously, their platform proudly declares: "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical-thinking skills, and similar programs." As Texas populist Jim Hightower likes to say, if ignorance is bliss, these are the happiest people on earth.

My Republican family and friends back home will say they just flat don’t want gubmint gettin’ all in your grill. Unless, of course, you’re gay. Or a woman seeking to choose to have an abortion. Then the government will not only be in your grill, it will be controlling your carburetor. For those keeping score at home, mandating a polio vaccine: tyranny. Mandating invasive ultrasound: freedom.

Predictably, Texas Republicans want a land without Social Security, without the United Nations, and without President Obama. But the 23-page platform has some truly random gems, like opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was negotiated and adopted under the presidencies of those dangerous radicals, Reagan and Bush.

On the economy, Texans proudly quote at great length from the GOP’s national platform—from 1932. I kid you not. These folks pine for the policies of Herbert Hoover. They want to repeal the minimum wage, abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard.

Lest you think this is just a Texas thing, let us check in with the progressive people of Minnesota. Their Republicans love our Constitution, but want to add an amendment declaring that life begins at conception and allowing men who impregnate women to have an equal say in what happens to the fetus. The platform is silent as to whether rapists would be so empowered.
 
The Minnesota GOP also supports teaching of "creation science" and opposes any teaching about sex—except abstinence. So how do you explain to Minneapolis high schoolers what then-GOP senator Larry Craig was doing in their airport men’s room? Like Texas, the Minnesota GOP wants to reinstate the ban on gays in the military. It will be a lot easier to root them out now that we’ve let them come out of the closet. Fiendishly clever, my Republican friends.

But aren’t the Democratic crazies just as crazy? No, actually. I reviewed the Democratic platforms of Vermont (which has a socialist senator), Massachusetts and Hawaii. None of them is as far left as some of the Republicans are right. No one is calling for the proletariat to own the means of production. No Democrat wants to nationalize the oil companies. They mostly repeat the standard center-left calls for gay rights and women’s rights, more health care and better schools.

I must admit I found the GOP platforms more entertaining. But then again I like Stephen King novels, too. The difference is Mr. King doesn’t try to enact his fevered fantasies into law.

NYC Rally Against Nanny Bloomberg's Latest Personal Affront

Hundreds gathered near New York's City Hall on Monday to protest Nanny Bloomberg's latest attack on city dwellers' right to make personal decisions. The "Million Big Gulp March" took a bold stance against the meddlesome mayor's latest whim: to make it illegal for movie theaters, sports arenas, food carts, restaurants and delis from selling sodas and other sugary drinks in servings larger than 16 ounces.

Nanny's reasoning: Folks are fat... so, as usual, legislate. Opponents—myself included—believe the city is overstepping its authority and infringing on personal freedom. "Hands off my Bladder" read a sign hoisted by Dominic Inferrera, a singer and actor in his 30s. But City Council Member Dan Halloran, a Republican from Queens, said Bloomberg's stance on soda size is anything but funny, challenging "the principles on which our country was founded.

"This is not the way a democracy works," he said. "When do we say enough control is enough? It's a slippery slope." He cited the mayor's previous legislation linked to calories, trans fat, cigarettes and table salt. "We have more important things to do. This city has a 9.7% unemployment rate; we need to worry about getting people back to work."

Organizer Zach Huff with NYC Liberty HQ added that the rally is more than just about the soda ban, but protest against the idea that the government is dictating how people should live. "The government was instituted to protect the rights of everyone and prevent crime, and now it's cracking down the rights of everyone," Huff told CBS News. "It's astonishing we have a mayor who is pro-choice when it comes to what a woman can do with her body but isn't pro-choice with simple choices, like soda container sizes."

Bloomberg, in his typically queeny arrogant way, scoffed at the critics: "We're not taking anything away. If government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." Uh, bullshit, Mr. Mayor.

A recent NY1 poll found that 53% of New Yorkers are against the ban, while only 42% agree with the proposal. Public hearings begin July 24, with a final vote scheduled on Sept. 13. If approved, regulations will go into effect on March 31. Of course, given that all voting members were per$onally appointed by Bloomberg, I think we all know how this is going to turn out.

Mind you, I haven't had sugar soda in decades, so this certainly has nothing to do with wanting to slurp down sugar. Simply, enough is enough of Bloomberg slicing away personal freedoms, one after the other after the other... *

Civil Servant: My Day Of Serving Jury Duty

On Wednesday, I was called to offer due diligence as a civil servant of Kings County, N.Y.—for jury duty. This marks the third time I've been beckoned for the joyful task... once in the 1990s in Manhattan when I lived in Tribeca, and six or so years ago here in Brooklyn. In both cases, I was never so much as interviewed to be on a jury.

But this time was a little different. I came within a hyena's hair of being selected for a litigation trial that begins July 10. (Fortunately), it appears my big mouth and tendency to have an opinion about any & all likely kept me from duty.

I arrived at the Kings County Courthouse on Adams Street in Brooklyn Heights at 8:30 a.m., and joined at least 400 others in a large auditorium, which was actually quite modern, offering free wireless access and comfortable seating. After watching the requisite film about how important jury duty is blah blah, a gentleman explained the lay of the day. We were expected to sit until 5 p.m., waiting to be called for potential jury service by any number of trial attorneys.

If our name was called and we weren't present, we were punished by returning to the jury pool again. If we left before 5 p.m. or were late returning from lunch, shit outta luck.

I sat from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and scratched my butt, as dozens & dozens were called out... Finally, around 3:30 p.m., my name was called and I joined about 25 others in "Room 5." We sat in the sterile gray square box, as two attorneys representing opposing sides explained that they were involved in a litigation trial for personal injuries. Attorney 1 represented Plaintiff X, who had been "injured." Attorney 2 represented Port Authority, which oversees transportation between New York and New Jersey.

The case, which has been treading water for 4-1/2 years, would now go to trial to decide if the woman deserves a big-ass cash settlement from Port Authority, or whether she had either lied or exaggerated the extent of her injuries, and would thus receive nada.

All of us filled out one-sheet questionnaires, asking about education, the neighborhood you live in, where you were born, career, hobbies and whether you've been the victim of a crime, been convicted, served on a trial previously, work as a doctor, lawyer or in the insurance biz...

First, among the 25 or so of us, about 6 or 7 alleged they'd be on vacation and out of town when the trial is scheduled in July. While they thought they were clever enough to dodge duty, the attorneys then let them know they'd probably go back in the pool and their Wednesday duty wouldn't count on the books (oh, har har!).

From there, six of us were called to the front row to be grilled for 30+ minutes about our opinions regarding litigation cases. Yup, I was among them. One of the questions: "Do you feel like we are an over-litigated society?" That's when my gums started flapping. I said that I believe many New Yorkers actually hope they might trip on a sidewalk crack so they can sue the city: "People stump their toe and start sniffing for money." I also noted that every morning I hear ads on the radio for lawyers fishing for folks that have been injured, promising lucrative settlements.

The grilling continued, asking whether we had prejudice against folks with foreign accents, knowledge of the McDonald's hot coffee-granny case, whether we read the news media... on and on... We then took a break, returned and the attorneys informed us that the 15 or so who (were not taking vacation during the trial and) had been sitting quietly behind the in the front row were all dismissed... And that among we six that had been interviewed, four had been selected to be on the jury (among what will ultimately be a total of six jurors and two alternates).

The first name called was a barely audible painfully shy guy of Asian descent... Second was a barely audible shy young white American woman. Then a very intelligent, college-educated former Wall Street black woman from Barbados... And then (deep breath)... a well-spoken black 20-something American guy. The two omitted: ME and a woman who worked for the criminal justice system and had served as a witness in several trials.

With that, my duty was done and I returned to the auditorium to wait another 15-20 minutes until we were  released at 4:30 p.m. As I walked into the beautiful sunny late afternoon with my "Juror's Proof of Service Certification," good for eight years, I felt pretty invigorated. I soaked up an experience that is certainly far from any ordinary day. And I had done my duty, come out clean on the other side and now don't have to give this another thought until 2020.

I figure by then I'll be twice as opinionated... or barely capable of remembering my name or how to tie my shoes and zip my britches... so that no attorney would give me a second glance. Right? *