To Host Or Not to Host
I know some folks are applauding Dick Clark's appearance on his Rockin' New Year's Eve show Saturday night, but I guess I have a contrary take on the whole thing. As others have said, it seems that he appeared because he wanted to - that he certainly didn't need to, for financial or other reasons, and that it doesn't seem likely that ABC insisted upon it. And, to me, it was just a bad decision, and it read on New Year's Eve not as a brave, defiant, inspiring choice, one that spoke of resilience in the face of tragedy, but of a much more simple hubris - as if Dick Clark was convinced that we needed him back, and that "New Year's Eve wouldn't be the same without him." I saw an ego convinced of its own importance, and wish he would have just passed the baton on.
I'm all for doing things as long as you can do them well - that Ricky Henderson, for example, continues to play baseball because he loves it and is good at it, even if he's no longer great by pro standards, is inspiring to me. But to do something you can't do well anymore, just to show off in a way (and Clark's job as host is, basically, to talk--which he obviously can not do well), is to me, well, kind of sad.