You have chosen to report the following comment as abusive, offensive, or inappropriate.
Try not to mistake popularity or talent for intelligence. Michael Jackson was not particularly intelligent, and his talent is a matter of opinion. Talent and popularity may sometimes *correlate* with intelligence, but are not *caused* by intelligence.<br> <br> If you determine “genius” by the number of records sold (say, over 100 million?), then we should conclude that “genius” also applies to the Beetles (yes, even Ringo), Elvis, Bing Crosby, Cher, Dolly Parton, and the Back Street Boys … just to name a few.<br> <br> If you measure “genius” by the talent within performers, then we should include talented figures such as Brett Favre, David Copperfield, Michael Jordan, and Placido Domingo.<br> <br> If you gauge “genius” by popularity, then we should include Pam Anderson, Tom Cruise, Charlie Chaplin, Steven King, John Wayne, and The Three Stooges.<br> <br> If you assess “genius” by earnings, then you might actually find some degree of causation. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump are considered pretty smart, and they became wealthy because of their intelligence (and hard work). However, earning your fortune through software development or business is quite different than earning money by grabbing your crotch on stage.<br> <br> Just because McDonald’s serves billions and billions of burgers, that doesn’t mean Big Macs are the finest cuisine in the world. Quantity does not always equate with quality.<br> <br> Don’t misunderstand … I think it is just fine to appreciate talented performers … your favorite sports team, movie start, musical group, etc. I feel the same way about Rachmaninoff that some people feel about Michael Jackson … except Rachmaninoff actually was a genius. :-) By James
Search Boortz.com
