My sister sent me a link to the Susan Boyle’s “I Have a Dream” performance on Britain’s Got Talent.

I am really happy for her. It would be interesting to know the backstory because people just don’t learn to sing like that in the shower.

BUT… as I watched it, I couldn’t help being bothered, and I couldn’t put my finger on it. Not bothered with Ms. Boyle or her performance. But bothered with the whole tenor of the show and the media attention she is now getting. It wasn’t until this morning that I identified what is bothering me has everything to do with this question:

Why is Susan Boyle such a sensation?

Her performance was good, and she is very talented. But it wasn’t a perfect performance and lacked in some subtle ways (emotional range, consistent vocal quality, and flat delivery in some parts). Don’t get me wrong, I thought is was great overall, especially considering the nerves she must have been feeling and the fact is was an audition.

When you cut through everything else, however, the reason she is a sensation has everything to do with the way she looks.

I’ll bet there were more than a handful of people who auditioned for Britain’s Got Talent that were every bit as good talent-wise as Ms. Boyle. The reason they are not a sensation today is because they look “normal.” There is an unspoken assumption that a weird, less-attractive person cannot have talent.

When we see somebody who is less attractive, admits she has never been kissed, and is quirky personality-wise, we assume she is untalented. Case in point, observe the judges reaction during the performance. They were stupefied. The non-Simon male judge admitted he thought she was going to suck. He said he had never been so surprised. Why would he be surprised that a person who is trying out for Britain’s Got Talent would actually be talented? Because the judge had already decided she wouldn’t be any good based solely on what she looked like and her quirky personality.

The Savior said: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:4). Moreover, the Savior further explained the principle when He said: “[S]ee that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.” (Moroni 7:18). See also “Judge Not” and Judging.

Why should we judge a person’s worth be based solely on what the person looks like? To be fair, at least the BGT judges allowed Ms. Boyle to perform. (The cynic in me doubts the altruism, however. The producers know that the embarrassment factor draws viewers like bees to honey.)

I find this all this post performance attention incredibly condescending. She is a sensation because she is a quirky, less attractive woman (who lives with cats) that just happens to be incredibly talented. Again, the assumption being who would have ever guessed that a quirky, less attractive woman (who lives with cats) could be talented?

One of the many drafts that for some reason never got published (I think because I needed to go back and find the goldfish link). I am glad the election is over, but post election thoughts still linger.

---

Today, I read yet another article on the registration of fraudulent voters. This time, the registrant was a dead goldfish in Illinois. Which begs the question, how and why did the goldfish get registered.

Originally, the only people eligible to vote in the United States were land owners. In other words, you got to vote if you could show title to a parcel of land. Then blacks got the right to vote, followed by woman’s suffrage, which are both positive societal advances.

Voting is a privilege that every citizen of our country enjoys. But why do we need groups running around registering everybody? If a person wants to vote, they ought to figure out how to get themselves registered and do it of their own volition?

Critics might argue that certain segments of the population don’t feel comfortable dealing with the government and feel they will be discriminated against. Fair enough, but I can’t alter how these people feel when dealing with the government. (Shoot, I don’t know anybody who enjoys dealing with the DMV.) Perhaps there are other similar arguments.

Nonetheless, if a person wants to vote, that person should take the initiative to get themselves registered. Period. No ACORN. No other groups reaching out to register these folks. One vote per person, and each person takes it upon themselves to vote.

Moreover, each person, in registering to vote, should have to show some sort of identification. Again, critics might argue that some people don’t have identification and don’t feel comfortable going to get it. To which I answer: then that person shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Period.

Our system must have safeguards built into it to ensure that each person get one and only one vote. So far, this election cycle shows that the absence of safeguards is fertile soil for gross abuse and voter fraud. On balance, what is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of false registrations or requiring a extremely small portion of the population, who don’t have picture identification, to get identification before they vote?

If ACORN et al. wants to be useful, I propose that rather than register people to vote, which obviously they cannot do ethically, they help these people get their picture identification and then give them detailed instructions on how to get themselves registered to vote. The so-called "disinfranchised" then get their ID’s and get to cast their ballots.

The only people who lose in this situation are Mickey Mouse, dead goldfish, and the Dallas Cowboys.

I just can’t stop reading about the response of the opponents of Prop. 8. And I find a certain amount of amusement with the picketing, white substances, and all the other stunts these opponents are pulling against the Mormons and other religions that supported Proposition 8.

Don’t these people have jobs?

From the LA Times :

Jim Key, a spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said barbs by gay marriage activists were directed at church leadership, not individual Mormons.

"We’re making a statement that no one’s religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others," he said.

My response to this comment:

1. Since when is gay marriage a fundamental right? (Which, by the way, is a semantics trick on the part of gay rights advocates to imply that gay marriages is a type of right that gets the highest form of legal scrutiny when faced with a statute that tends to restrain the right–a compelling state interest. In practice, meeting the compelling state interest standard is nearly impossible.) As of today, gay marriage isn’t even a right, let alone a fundamental right.

2. What about a person’s fundamental right to practice their religion (actually, if I remember correctly, free exercise of religion is not a fundamental right any longer thanks the the U.S. Supreme Court)? Where were the "fundamental rights" police when doctors were being threatened with revocation of their licenses because their religious beliefs don’t accommodate artificial insemination of lesbians?

Those in favor of prop. 8 should counter to stalemate: "We’re making a statement that no one’s sexual orientation should be used to deny fundamental rights to others."

Religious freedom, unlike gay marriage, is actually a right granted to the people in the Bill of Rights. How does gay marriage, which isn’t a legal right at all, therefore trump free exercise of religion?

3. A person’s religious beliefs forms part of their value set, which they have every right to voice in a democratic process. Just like the anti-religious values gay rights advocates vote for. What makes their values better than my values? Why should only their values be voiced in the democratic process?

Because gay rights advocates don’t agree with religion?

This is yet another example of elitism at its finest. The "dumb" people shouldn’t be allowed to vote (i.e., they shouldn’t cast a vote reflecting their religious values). Yet again the attitude of "you’re too stupid to vote" rears its ugly head. Even worse, stupid is defined by whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Key’s point of view.

I was initially surprised that nobody in the gay community seemed concerned about judges overturning the voice of the people. But as I have watched the campaign unfold, I see now that gay rights activists have no interest in democracy, which is why they continue to protest and act like buffoons.

They are for an autocracy, where they are in charge. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they are all for court intervention once again, even now that the people have spoken twice.

I noticed that I have 9 drafts half completed spanning months. And in a nutshell, that about sums up my life.

Definition of modern elitism: expecting the government to pony up $85,000,000,000 in tax dollars to bail out your company due to your mismanagement, then spending $440,000 on a retreat to a posh resort for your top executives days later.

Why do these people think that they are entitle to wine and dine themselves at our expense? Perhaps the average American who is paying taxes would like to use some of their tax money for a massage. Perhaps these sorts of expenditures are what made the bailout necessary.

In every socialist regime the world has ever seen, a select group of important people used the collective’s money to fund their own luxurious lifestyles. We call those people elitists — the rules don’t apply to them. They say all the right things, but what the do and how they live conveys a different message.

Just like the executives at AIG, who think our tax dollars should be spent on them for pillow mints and massages.

Gosh, I wonder who these sorts of executives support politically? Perhaps other elitists who think middle America clings to guns and religion…

(Uses without permission, but as a fair use, from The Homa Files)

[UPDATE...] To be fair, I wanted to see to whom the greatest percentage of AIG’s contributions went to. Because the title listed on campaignmoney.com is fuzzy, I am unable to drill down on the executives. According to campaignmoney.com, 62% of the AIG employees donated to the Democrats (many had multiple donations, but each was counted only once).

Caveat: No casual relationship can be gleaned from the above stats. All that can be said about the data is (1) those who have the means to donate are more likely to be executives; and (2) approximately 2/3 of those who donated lean liberal. However, all of this is conjecture from shoddy data that doesn’t give rise to much more than casual inferences that I would be hesitant to rely on (unless you are a global warming scientist).

The majority of AIG donations went to the American International Group Inc. Employee Political Action Committee (AIG PAC). Listed below is where the $$ goes. Notice that none of the money goes to Obama or McCain. 15 of 77 donations are to Republicans, which means 81% of these donations went to Democrats.

(more…)

Walmart updated its DRM policies in response to user outcry. Good call, although not sustainable indefinitely.

Here is the letter that came via email last night:

NOTE: This is a follow-up to our email titled "Important Information
About Your Digital Music Purchases" from 9/26/08.

Based on feedback from our customers, we have decided to maintain our
digital rights management (DRM) servers for the present time.  What this
means to you is that our existing service continues and there is no
action required on your part.  Our customer service team will continue
to assist with DRM issues for protected windows media audio (WMA) files
purchased from Walmart.com.

While our customer support team is available to assist you with any
issues, we continue to recommend that you back up your songs by burning
them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you insure
access to them from any personal computer at any time in the future.

We appreciate your support and patience as we work to provide the best
service possible to you.  As we move forward with our 100% MP3 store,
we’ll continue to update you with key decisions regarding our service
and your account via email.

Thank you for using Walmart MP3 Music Downloads.

The Walmart Digital Music Team

The day after I posted my original entry on Walmart’s DRM decision , I was contacted by a lawyer who wanted me to sue Walmart. Obviously, he hadn’t closely read my post because I was merely arguing was that DRM isn’t a platform that can survive in the long term.

This attorney was out to make himself a quick buck at Walmart’s expense. I really detest this type of lawyering. Actually, he should probably be reported to the California Bar because contacting me directly because he wanted me to sue Walmart is likely unethical .

Here is the email chain:

(more…)

Schwarzenegger to U.S.: State may need $7-billion loan

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.

California’s liberal assembly has literally spent this state into the ground. Why should the Federal government have to foot the bill and bail out these irresponsible legislators that use the state’s money like it is toilet paper?

Although I live in California, I have an idea: let the market sort it out. Let the California assembly decide what are the most important priorities and make some spending cuts so that we don’t need to borrow to stay afloat.

I don’t understand how people generally can be so flippant about living beyond their means. Credit is great insofar as it is used as a convenience or to purchase necessities that are outside the range of cash purchases, such as homes and cars. Really troubling is when a government and the elected officials adopt the same attitude and live beyond the state’s means. This is California in a nutshell. (To be fair, this is the United States too thanks to the liberal Congress and free spending President Bush.)

In a way, I hope the Federal government says no to California and every other state in similar circumstances. It will suck for a lot of people, but apparently the only way to instill a sense of financial discipline is to force the perps who have spent out of control to accept the fact that there isn’t enough money to give every baby a lollipop.

If the Federal government agrees to bail them out, there better be some strings attached that require spending to but cut. As the old saying goes, hope springs eternal.

This sums up modern Liberalism by her royal highness Nancy Pelosi:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” [Nancy Pelosi] says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by [the Republicans] excuse for their failed policy.”

Translation: The average American is too much of an idiot to keep this planet going, therefore I must step in and make the decisions for them.

She continues:

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Sounds like she is more in it for the power than the planet.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: