OK Cupid Test Part VI

Page 6 of the OK Cupid political test.
Part V
Part IV
Part III
Part II
Part I

Question: A person has the right to claim the Holocaust never happened, if that's what he believes.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: That person is an idiot who accomplishes nothing, so why not let him spew his idiocy?

Question: Books with potentially deadly knowledge (like instructions for making awesome bombs) should be regulated.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: A bad question. Learning how to fire a gun is "potentially deadly," but a book about that need not be regulated. The parenthetical statement makes this a very leading question.

Question: Being poor and black is an advantage in getting into college.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Another poorly worded question. I will suppose this is an affirmative action question, but it could be read differently. I basically read this question as asking whether affirmative action is a significant tool used to overcome poor circumstances, but it is still too concise of a question.

Question: Eventually, a computer will write the best novel ever written.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I don't think we could ever program a machine to produce quality writing on the scale of Twain, Faulkner, or Steinbeck.

Question: I should be able to sell my vote for cash if I feel like it.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: Talk about compromising the system.

Question: America isn't as free as it thinks it is.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I've heard too much crap to do anything but "strongly disagree" here.

Ok Cupid Test Part V

You've seen I-IV, here is V.
Part IV
Part III
Part II
Part I

A slight adjustment too: the test is actually 7 pages, so my tomorrow has become Part VI in the morning and part VII in the evening, as Part VII will come with the final results.

Question: Since parents can't be trusted to monitor what their children watch, TV content needs to be more regulated.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: Parents can't be trusted to do this, but it's still their job and not the government's.

Question: If a company invents a pill that cures cancer, they should be allowed to charge whatever they want for it.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Here's one idea my libertarian friend has gotten me to agree to; if the company charges too much, they won't profit because people just won't buy the pill. Basically, market forces compel any company which wishes to profit to charge a reasonable fee.

Question: The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but unavoidable.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Well, do they mean internationally or domestically? The poor wording prevents a "strongly agree" response, but it is a true statement in its broadest sense.

Question: It bothers me that many American companies have moved jobs overseas.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Who does support outsourcing nowadays? Although, sometimes the jobs could be moved because American workers won't take them.

Question: It's wrong when environmental regulation puts people out of work, like when limits on logging make it harder for loggers to log logs.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: People need their jobs!

Question: Most people are too stupid to know what's best for them.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: You would too if you've known the people I've known.

Two more to go, both tomorrow.

Ok Cupid Test Part IV

Here is the fourth page of the political quiz at OK Cupid.
Part III
Part II
Part I

Question: The separation of church and state has demoralized our society.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: A touchy but somewhat poor question; seperation of church and state more so coincides with the demoralization of society. There is no such clause in our Constitution; the first amendment has merely been interpreted, somewhat incorrectly, that way.

Question: The 'Word of God' exists only as human beings interpret it.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Another weird question, but the only way that it makes sense, which means it's also a bad question. If you haven't noticed, the poor questions I tend to not have a "strong" opinion on.

Question: Blind patriotism is a very bad thing.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: A terrible, politically charged question. They can't remove the word "blind" though; that would be charged the other way. Again, a poor question which means I won't "strongly agree."

Question: We need stronger laws protecting the environment.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: This is becoming an increasingly important question. I'm not thoroughly convinced that global warming is our fault, but it would be too drastic to strongly disagree here.

Question: I would feel better if there were video cameras on most street corners, to prevent crime.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: This wouldn't act as enough of a deterrant to compensate for the fact that I'm being watched too.

Question: It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel and fight a Death Match.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: Let them at it! So long as they keep it to themselves.

OK Cupid Test Part III

Why not do Part III this evening?
Part II
Part I

Question: Tradition is a reliable guide in deciding what's right.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: Sometimes the answer is no, but for the most part, traditional ideas were there for a reason.

Question: When I'm talking to someone and I find out they've served in a war, I respect them more.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: They've seen horrors we never will.

Question: If I'm dating someone I like to know where they are and what they're up to at all times.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: Not at all times. That's not even practical.

Question: It bugs me when somebody names their child something like 'Sunshine' or 'Charm'.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: They can do it, I guess, but it does bug me.

Question: Only literate people should be allowed to vote.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: To truly know what's going on, you need to be literate (first defined as the ability to read and write). And to vote, you should truly know what's going on. I won't strongly agree only because the definitions of literate after the first are too harsh for standards.

Question: People raising children have a responsibility to live up to society's standards.
Answer: Strongly agree
Rationale: If you are going to have children, don't teach them to be disruptive.

Parts IV and V at different points tomorrow, and Part VI with the results to come on Thursday.

OK Cupid Test Part II

Here is the second page of this politics test: the question, my answer and rationale. Page one can be found here.

Question: I feel guilty when I shop at a large national chain.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I'll get my stuff whatever way necessary. If that means a trip to Wal-Mart, so be it.

Question: Social justice should be the foundation of any economic system.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I fail to see any reason why these two completely different things should be correlated. An economic system is not the place to enforce social justice.

Question: People shouldn't be allowed to have children they can't provide for.
Answer: Agree
Rationale: This is a tough one. There's no practical way to enforce this, but in theory, it seems sensible. It can't be too accurate a statement though because of personal freedom. Lean agree for the children's sake, but if their was a "pass" here I would take it.

Question: I would defend my property with lethal force.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: Although he'd get away, my life is really the only thing I'd defend with lethal force. I won't strongly disagree, because it is my stuff and he has no right to it.

Question: The world would be better if there were no huge corporations, just small businesses.
Answer: Disagree
Rationale: I see what they're getting at, so I won't strongly disagree, but corporations are an integral part of the economy--and they provide far more services than small businesses.

Question: Professional athletes are paid too much money.
Answer: Strongly disagree
Rationale: I could write a bunch about this, but the simple answer is market forces.

Tomorrow will cover page 3.

My Ranking of the Presidents

A long, long time ago, I had a blog. The purpose of this blog was to survey people and achieve a ranking of the presidents. That fell by the wayside, at least in the rather inefficient method of a blog. I achieved my goal in other ways, but I will postpone the publishing of that. Here are the rankings I developed by first grading each, then ranking them all within the grades. Only the rankings appear here.

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Ronald Reagan
5. James Polk
6. Dwight Eisenhower
7. Harry Truman
8. James Monroe
9. Thomas Jefferson
10. Andrew Jackson
11. Franklin Roosevelt
12. John Adams
13. Chester Arthur
14. William McKinley
15. Calvin Coolidge
16. Grover Cleveland
17. William Taft
18. George H. W. Bush
19. John Q. Adams
20. Rutherford Hayes
21. John Kennedy
22. James Madison
23. Richard Nixon
24. Zachary Taylor
25. John Tyler
26. Woodrow Wilson
27. Lyndon Johnson
28. Gerald Ford
29. Benjamin Harrison
30. Herbert Hoover
31. Andrew Johnson
32. George W. Bush
33. Bill Clinton
34. Ulysses Grant
35. Martin Van Buren
36. Millard Fillmore
37. Warren Harding
38. Jimmy Carter
39. James Buchanan
40. Franklin Pierce

Halo 2

Perhaps the funniest game in the annals of Halo 2 just now occurred. The players were Phormio, Tennille, Heimdall, and myself. Well I kind of played. He spent most of the time goofing off. All he did until the very last few minutes was drive around in vehicles, occasionally ragging on teammates. The game was Juggernaut. If you have experience with Halo 2, it is highly likely that you know the rules. Basically there's a juggernaut that you need to be to get points. The other players are supposed to kill the jauggernaut, and whoever does becomes the juggernaut. Yes, you are only teammates until someone else becomes the juggernaut.

So all I did was drive vehicles, honking the horn on the Warthog, and occasionally ramming into other vehicles that were, you know, actually trying to play. In fact, this pissed off Phormio so much he quit in the middle of the game. I had a great time, but it was upsetting everybody, until the end.

I randomly decided to pick up a rocket launcher. I locked on and knocked Tennille out of the Banshee, becoming the juggernaut for the first time all game. This was all well and good with the other guys. Until they remembered an added twist. The conversation went as such:

Spectator (doing something else): Doesn't this thing run out of bullets?
Heimdall: I hope it does.
Myself (laughing): Oh wait, it doesn't.

Because the juggernaut is camoflouged, has unlimited ammunition, and in this case, had a rocket launcher, the situation seemed hopeless. Starting from -3 (yes, negative), I got up to 2 before Heimdall and Tennille came up with an ingenious plan. They each took a Banshee and brought it to the other side of the map. So the scenario was as such: me with a rocket launcher and two Banshees coming straight at me. The scene in my window was hilarious, as two Banshees hung around ominously in the distance. They evaded all my rockets, and eventually Tennille killed me and immediately ran over Heimdall for the victory.

I guess you had to be there, but it was a great time.

Sorry for lack of activity

I have been having trouble trying to come up with things to talk about. Please check back often, as there is bound to be more to come.

I just discovered a funny show.

Yesterday, for the first time ever, I watched The Colbert Report (pronounce reh-pore). That show is funny.

It comes on at 11:30 PM on weekdays here, immediately following The Daily Show. When you compare Stephen Colbert to Jon Stewart, you get, in my opinion, a far funnier person. Stewart is quite predictable nowadays--take a couple shots at Bush, interview someone (usually incorporating a shot at Bush), have someone else do a segment, and then hand it off to Colbert. You can throw in a 3rd shot at Bush for good measure.

According to Wikipedia, Colbert's show was pitched in the following manner: "Stephen Colbert parodies The O'Reilly Factor." This manifests itself most clearly in "The Word" which is clearly based on O'Reilly's "Talking Points." This is by far the funniest segment of the show, as Colbert makes ridiculous (and ridiculously funny) statements with even funnier statements shown at the side.

As it may be clear to you if you look at the bottom of the screen, I am conservative. Both Colbert and Stewart mock conservatives far more often than liberals, and both are Democrats. But I like Colbert; I don't like Stewart. Colbert's mockery comes mostly with his style. Stewart's comes with what he is actually saying. Thus it is far easier to swallow Colbert's humor. Plus I have no problem with someone mocking Bill O'Reilly.

If it came on a bit earlier, I might become a devoted follower of The Colbert Report. As it is, I'll catch it when I can.

My Politics

I have taken a multitude of political quizzes recently. The results follow.

The first is from politicalbrew.com. I rated as a strong conservative (91 of 100) on fiscal issues and a moderate conservative (71 of 100) on non-fiscal issues. This was a very comprehensive test and I feel the results were accurate.

The second is from theadvocates.org. I rated as a libertarian: 90% on personal issues and 100% on economic issues. I think this test is inaccurate because it is too small, and its questions are too specific with too few possible answers.

The third is from 3pc.net. I matched up most with the Libertarian Party (78% agreement), followed by the Constitution Party (70% agreement) followed by the Republican Party (61% agreement). These were the 3 parties I agreed with on over half the issues. This is a comprehensive quiz, but again, only being able to select 1 of 3 answers impacts this quiz negatively.

The fourth was first seen in USA Weekend but is provided by madrabbit.net. I scored a 36 of 40 - just to the right of Bob Dole, but left of Ronald Reagan. This quiz allows you to contradict yourself, but if you know what you are doing, it can be accurate. We begin to see a pattern with this quiz, however: limited options when answering the questions posed.

The fifth was interesting, courtesy of politopia.com. I "live" in Centerville, but lean towards more personal freedoms and free markets. Your options in answering questions are good (you get 5 answers for most questions) and it is fairly comphrensive.

The sixth is derived from http://www.politicalcompass.org/. A positive number means right-leaning and a negative number means left-leaning: I finished 3.25 economically and 2.97 socially. This test was very comprehensive but also quite unfair. I felt there were too many leading questions.

The seventh comes from idealog.org. I fell into the conservative quadrant, having departed from freedom 7 times in the name of order and once in the name of equality. Only two options per question here, but this was very solid, regarding pressing issues of today.

The lesson is that there are many types of tests out there. They can't all be right, because they all have a different nature that will lead to variations in the final results. They merely serve as ways to guide you to your views.

Go ahead and take a few, and comment about your results! Where you stand, how it varies by test, if you were surprised . . .

Hello

Welcome to one of my two blogs, History of the World Part III.