If you haven't heard this week is the final week for American Idol.
I think I have American Idol figured out. Despite his popularity with the judges, Adam Lambert will not win. Here's why. First, most voters have already made up their mind about Lambert vs. Kris. Those who are undecided are the Danny Gokey fans. I think it's more likely that Gokey fans will vote for Kris than Adam. Their styles are much more similar. Second, you either love or hate Lambert and by this point if you love him you are already voting for him. Third, Simon knows how to play the system. Last year he after the last competition Simon declared Archuletta the winner. That sent a signal to all the David Cook fans that they should not assume he would get enough votes. This year, he actually reminded voters to not assume Lambert would win, in other words, please vote for Lambert. Fourth, when Lambert went back to San Diego they staged him singing in front of the American Flag to war veterans. It seems like this to show that Lmabert is a good old American boy and not the wierdo that he is. The judges now where the votes are coming from and the margins, Simon has huge vested interest in the winner and will do what he can to get the guy he wants. He's had enough losers as winners in the past.
On another Idol note, 88 million votes were cast last week. To put this into perspective, about 129 million people voted in the presidential election. Yes, a TV show gets roughly 2/3 the votes as our presidential election. I would not be surprised if one day it surpassed the election totals. Pop culture can be more important to some. Of course, these are votes and not voters. On American Idol you can vote more than once. Despite this fact, it's still shocking.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Party politics
The republican national committee chairman, Michael Steele, recently stated that Mitt Romney lost the GOP primary stating that "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism." (article) It's sad that an intelligent and capable leader (with an ample dose of conservative policies) did not win the primary because of his religion, especially when he likely would have fared better against Obama than McCain did. His grasp of economic issues alone would have been a boost for the GOP party. Being a moderate (AKA a democrat in republican clothing or republocrate?) I'm not as annoyed with how the primary turned out as I am with two things:
Second, primary voting often elevates the candidate that has paid their party dues rather than the candidate that can beat the other side. This is not just a GOP issue. Look at John Kerry, for example, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and then when Bush was being assailed for his actions, Kerry comes along and gets spanked by a less popular Bushy. McCain, whom I greatly respect for his gumption, moderation, and values, could not and did not match up with the youthful, intelligent and charismatic Obama. I don't see why parties can't figure out the candidate that has the best chance of winning the election over a party favorite? Wouldn't it be better for conservatives to have a less beloved conservative in the White House than a democrate? And vice versa, wouldn't it be better for liberals to do the same. I think democrates got it right with Obama, Hillary had too much bagagge (she was a woman and more importantly she is/was Bill Clinton's woman) to woo voters from the right or the middle like Obama did.
Here are some follow up comments.
- that Steele felt he had to issue an apology, and
- that primary elections often don't promote winnable candidates.
Second, primary voting often elevates the candidate that has paid their party dues rather than the candidate that can beat the other side. This is not just a GOP issue. Look at John Kerry, for example, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and then when Bush was being assailed for his actions, Kerry comes along and gets spanked by a less popular Bushy. McCain, whom I greatly respect for his gumption, moderation, and values, could not and did not match up with the youthful, intelligent and charismatic Obama. I don't see why parties can't figure out the candidate that has the best chance of winning the election over a party favorite? Wouldn't it be better for conservatives to have a less beloved conservative in the White House than a democrate? And vice versa, wouldn't it be better for liberals to do the same. I think democrates got it right with Obama, Hillary had too much bagagge (she was a woman and more importantly she is/was Bill Clinton's woman) to woo voters from the right or the middle like Obama did.
Here are some follow up comments.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Public prayers and such
The other day I read this interesting article by Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune called Prayers, lies and public spectacles. I've always been curious as to why so many Mormons team up politically with the same fundamentalists that end up bashing us from the pulpit. Focus on the family is great example. They team up with us Mormons on a number of political and moral issues, yet they pull an interview from their website with Glenn Beck (Mormon), because it appears to "legitimizing Mormonism" (article). Some of these groups consider us a cult. I frankly don't get it.
I also find it interesting that many Mormons favor a government that favors religious practices such as prayers, despite that fact that Mormons are constantly being left out of such religious practices as noted in Rolly's article.
There was an interesting supreme court case that stopped the use of prayers being said over the PA system at a high school football game (article). I think many Mormons would support such a prayer. Indeed, until recently I would have. However, in this particular case one of the kids who filed suit was Mormon and not only felt left out, he was quite uncomfortable with the practice. His mom actually testified that she teaches religion at home and the school should focus on teaching her kids about the world. Amen! The kid received threats and intimidation from school officials during the court proceedings. Yes, while we may favor a state that is imbued with our religion, we must remember that elsewhere it is not. Our history should teach us what it was like to be a religious minority and we should strive to not inflict that on others.
Furthermore, the Savior has instructed us to enter into our closet when we pray, and shut the door and pray to our Father in secret. He also warns about the man who prays in public to be seen of men. I don't see how these kind of prayers can be seen in secret nor do I see that they are said to be seen of men.
I strongly favor separation of church and state. Not for the states benefit, but for the benefit of the church.
I also find it interesting that many Mormons favor a government that favors religious practices such as prayers, despite that fact that Mormons are constantly being left out of such religious practices as noted in Rolly's article.
There was an interesting supreme court case that stopped the use of prayers being said over the PA system at a high school football game (article). I think many Mormons would support such a prayer. Indeed, until recently I would have. However, in this particular case one of the kids who filed suit was Mormon and not only felt left out, he was quite uncomfortable with the practice. His mom actually testified that she teaches religion at home and the school should focus on teaching her kids about the world. Amen! The kid received threats and intimidation from school officials during the court proceedings. Yes, while we may favor a state that is imbued with our religion, we must remember that elsewhere it is not. Our history should teach us what it was like to be a religious minority and we should strive to not inflict that on others.
Furthermore, the Savior has instructed us to enter into our closet when we pray, and shut the door and pray to our Father in secret. He also warns about the man who prays in public to be seen of men. I don't see how these kind of prayers can be seen in secret nor do I see that they are said to be seen of men.
I strongly favor separation of church and state. Not for the states benefit, but for the benefit of the church.
Bankruptcy and studen loans
I read an interesting article this morning about bankruptcy and student loans. It's odd to me that we allow people to file bankruptcy to discharge debt for flat screen TVs and other toys, yet not for things that matter like student loans. Why is this? What is inherently different about student loans that make them less forgivable in bankruptcy? Shouldn't we be more willing to forgive such debt over stupid consumer spending? After all a student loan can provide education that can be used for productive purposes. Not so with a flat screen TV.
However, I can also see the point that easy discharge through bankruptcy increases the risk to student loan providers and thereby increasing the costs and requirements to get a student loan. We should be motivated to keep the costs and risks low so people can pursue their education. After all thanks to cheap and easy student loans I made it law school and can now bring home the bacon. However, prior to the current economic crisis, even credit for flat screen TVs was relatively cheap and easy. I used to receive letters and solicitations for cheap and easy credit all the time, and anticipate more when we pull ourselves out of this slump.
So why then are student loans unforgivable when flat screen TVs are?
I can only guess that we dislike the following scenario. Let's say a lawyer (or doctor or other professional) in a down market is laid off and he goes through bankruptcy. His student loans are forgiven. As the market picks up, he gets a fabulous job and goes about earning the big bucks but does not have to repay his loans. It seems patently unfair for him to reap the benefits of his loans when he did have to pay for them. However, he is working. It's not like he is getting a free ride. He has put in his 8-10 hours a day to get his paycheck. With a flat screen TV, after bankruptcy you can sit on your rear end and reap the benefits of the TV without having to pay for the TV. All the while you are not being a productive member of society.
Frankly it all seems so silly to me that we make such distinctions. The take away point is to buy that nice TV before you go bankrupt, but do it on credit.
However, I can also see the point that easy discharge through bankruptcy increases the risk to student loan providers and thereby increasing the costs and requirements to get a student loan. We should be motivated to keep the costs and risks low so people can pursue their education. After all thanks to cheap and easy student loans I made it law school and can now bring home the bacon. However, prior to the current economic crisis, even credit for flat screen TVs was relatively cheap and easy. I used to receive letters and solicitations for cheap and easy credit all the time, and anticipate more when we pull ourselves out of this slump.
So why then are student loans unforgivable when flat screen TVs are?
I can only guess that we dislike the following scenario. Let's say a lawyer (or doctor or other professional) in a down market is laid off and he goes through bankruptcy. His student loans are forgiven. As the market picks up, he gets a fabulous job and goes about earning the big bucks but does not have to repay his loans. It seems patently unfair for him to reap the benefits of his loans when he did have to pay for them. However, he is working. It's not like he is getting a free ride. He has put in his 8-10 hours a day to get his paycheck. With a flat screen TV, after bankruptcy you can sit on your rear end and reap the benefits of the TV without having to pay for the TV. All the while you are not being a productive member of society.
Frankly it all seems so silly to me that we make such distinctions. The take away point is to buy that nice TV before you go bankrupt, but do it on credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
