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

Lieberman falls in primary

So, the Democrats managed to do it. They have essentially shunned one of their own, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and for one reason only: he has expressed support for the war in Iraq. This is a man who in nearly every other situation supports his party, but on one issue decided to go against the party grain. He is still ideologically a Democrat, just a Democrat who happens to support an ongoing war.

This was apparently too great a sin for the Democratic party and the Democratic voters in Connecticut, and it appears to me that they are not satisfied with the already prevalent divisiveness of the war. They are still working hard to undermine the war effort.

Colbert II

I found something tonight that confirmed my thoughts in an earlier entry.

Of the 221 comments placed on this YouTube video, easily 200+ either regarded Colbert's performance with awe and admiration or insulted Tucker Carlson for daring to consider Colbert's act unfunny. This is just additional proof to me regarding Mr. Gnade's key statement that Colbert "did not speak truth to power; he spoke satirically solely to secure his fan base." It's a shame that many of Colbert's fans have had the joke played on them.

Affirmative Action

Do you support affirmative action? Have you ever thought that it sends a message that minorities need the help of white people to succeed?

The Colbert Flak

Many people, especially my fellow bloggers, know what Stephen Colbert did at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. What a lot don't realize is that it really was not anything spectacular.

This man here has it exactly right.

I am not going to go over what he said; you can read the article, as it's right there. I just want it to be known that I agree with this person completely.

Jon Stewart Newsflash

The guy actually made a funny joke yesterday! Odd, when he deviates from his usual standard fare (Bush), the jokes become better.

Anyway, the joke was about the illegal immigration demonstrators singing the United States national anthem in Spanish. Stewart continued to point out that in fact there are 3 more verses that are not sung, and then began to quote from them.

In the middle, he suddenly stopped, and said that it would sound better in Spanish.

Then the funny line came,

"Because the immigrants are willing to sing the verses that other Americans are not willing to sing," which was a nice satire.

----------

Surprised that I put in a new entry? Sorry about the lack of updates. Exams are going on right now (I've got one in 2-1/2 hours) and it's been a busy time. Come summer (tomorrow perhaps!), I'll have more time to write more substantial entries.

So in sum: No, I have not fallen off the face of the earth.

The Election of 1860, the Constitution, and Southern Secession

I attend a small university deep in the south of Virginia. That means that my friends down here who read this may villify me. But as I tell them, I can't help it.

The election of 1860 indirectly triggered one of the biggest disasters in United States history. Out of four major candidates, Abraham Lincoln was elected president with 39% of the popular vote in the nation, and 0% of the popular vote in the South. Realizing that they no longer had power to elect a president, and fearing that, because he was a Republican, Lincoln would try to end slavery, the South seceded. James Buchanan's indifference did not help either.

I will now digress for a moment. The Electoral College was created to form a buffer between the voters and the most powerful office in the nation. Since votes were counted by states, not by individual, the main result is that states elect the president, not the people. It is my impression that because, as states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, and Texas, would be ruled by a president they did not elect, they seceded.

Well, guess what. The other states did elect the president, and thus the states as a whole elected the president. Lincoln got a majority of the electoral vote, after all. Just because the Southern ones did not vote for the winner does not mean they could secede. Secession was, in part, the South throwing a fit that they could not have a say in the election of the president. If Lincoln had not been elected, but, say, Breckenridge had, the South would not have seceded.

I derived this analysis one day last month, because I thought I needed a good reason why secession was ridiculous. I still wanted to share it because I had never seen it before.

However, I found a better explanation today, while researching for this piece, and it needs to be mentioned. The Constitution explicitly prevents secession.

In full, here is Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

----------

What is important here? It is the third paragraph. Read that and try to tell me that secession is provided for in the Constitution. Basically, all members of all 3 branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial - "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." By seceding, the Southern states were clearly removing their support for the Constitution that their elected and appointed officials had promised to support.

It would be easier if I just showed you where I found this reasoning. The logic in this piece here is crystal clear, makes perfect sense, and can not be denied. It was part of a research project by secondary school students in Wisconsin, but that does not take away its reasoning - after all, they got it straight from our Constitution.

The only way to support secession is through the Declaration of Independence, but guess what - that's not the law of the land.

Reagan, the Soviets, and the End of the Cold War

Many conservatives regard Ronald Wilson Reagan as a hero for bringing about the end of the Cold War. Many liberals believe that the U.S.S.R. would have fallen without any aggressive action by the United States, and that Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev's admission of this was the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Communism as it was practiced by the Soviets was untenable. They could not endlessly support both their military prowess and their impoverished people, and at some point the collapse would be inevitable. Many think that by recognizing this, Gorbachev, and his policies of glasnost and perestroika, brought about the end of the Soviet Union.

So what was Reagan's role, then, if it was Gorbachev who initiated the reforms inside his own country and brought about the window needed to bring down the Soviet Union?

Reagan became president of the United States on January 20, 1981. Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party on March 11, 1985. For over four years, Reagan battled not Gorbachev, but Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Andropov, and Leonid Brezhnev.

Upon entering office, Reagan decided that the best way to end the Soviet Union was to build up an "arms race" to the point where the Soviets could not carry on without starving their own people. This was a new approach, as beforehand emphasis had been on controlling the buildup of nuclear weaponry with a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. This policy, however, could not guarantee that the American and Soviet governments would limit their weaponry, and provided room for one side to take advantage of the other. Reagan changed U.S. policy to a buildup which would hopefully bankrupt the U.S.S.R.

The likes of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko perceived Reagan's build up as a threat, and in response, they built up their arms. This was exactly the plan: before long, the Soviets would be compromising the well being of their people merely to keep up with the United States.

Reagan's other idea, the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by critics), would ideally protect the United States from a nuclear strike if the Soviets sent one. The Soviets regarded this, too, as a threat - the U.S. could stop a Soviet strike and then send a devastating one over to the U.S.S.R. in response to the initial strike.

The Soviets were at their breaking point when Gorbachev took over, and began looking to negotiate with Reagan, as well as initiate reforms within his country. Reagan decided that now was the time to negotiate.

So if the Soviet Union would have ended anyway because the system did not work, and because eventually a Soviet leader would realize this, why does Reagan deserve any praise?

The answer: Reagan accelerated the end of the Cold War. He recognized that the Soviet leaders in the first term of his presidency would not easily allow the United States an upper hand in military arms, even if it meant abandoning the people of the U.S.S.R. Had Reagan continued the policies of the presidents before him, it would have taken much longer for the Soviets to reach that point where they could not maintain their military and their people. In that case, who knows how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted? Who knows how many more people the Soviet regime would eliminate? Who knows how much longer the people of both the United States and the Soviet Union would have lived in uncertainty?

Reagan most definitely deserves praise for accelerating the demise of the Soviet Union. It is absurd to disregard his role in the end of the Cold War when looking back at, and analyzing, his presidency.

Additional Reading:

Wallace, Chris. Character: Profiles in Presidential Courage. New York: Rugged Land, 2004.

Chapter 11, "The Zero Option: Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union," pp. 206-232 is about this topic.

Failure: Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Great Depression

Many history textbooks condemn Herbert Hoover for twiddling his thumbs while the United States suffered from a Great Depression. Then, a hero emerges: suddenly, behind the strong leadership, active approach, and brilliance of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States began to slowly but surely bring itself out of the depression. Some books will admit that the depression did not end until World War II, but almost always he is given credit for alleviating it with his new approach.

History textbooks will not tell you the truth. Both Hoover and FDR took an active approach to ending the depression, and both of them failed.

It's a well known story. On October 24, 1929, people began to sell their stocks in large numbers. On October 29, 1929, the bottom fell out: people were only interested in selling stock, not buying, and prices tumbled. The Great Depression was under way.

Most people realize that Hoover did not start the depression. It's a misconception, however, that he did nothing to try and help it. Rather, he signed a lot of legislation in an attempt to alleviate the situation. He signed the first Federal unemployment assistance in history into law with the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. According to Wikipedia, he "[established] the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home." Wikipedia also states that he "increased public works spending." He signed the Agricultural Marketing Act and the Reconstruction Finance Act. This all occurred over the course of four years. Unfortunately for Hoover, the depression continued to worsen. By 1933, about one out of four Americans were without a job. This can probably be attributed to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a bill signed ("reluctantly" says Wikipedia) by Hoover in 1930. This was Hoover's huge mistake, one not made by Roosevelt. Clearly, however, it is absurd to suggest that Hoover sat by idly during his presidency while the nation suffered.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to replace Hoover. During the campaign he had promised a very vague "new deal." It became clear soon after the election what he meant. It is pointless to go through every act FDR created: everyone knows he was active in trying out his plan to help the economy. What is important is the details. (For Hoover, it was important to state the multitude of legislation he passed; for FDR, it's well known he signed a multitude of legislation.)

Between 1933 and 1940, Franklin Roosevelt tripled taxes - all types of taxes - when people needed money. He also demanded that crops and farm animals destroyed and killed - when people needed products to sell. The Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, asks ten "Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal" in this article. And in this article, the New Deal is revealed to have harmed the poorest Americans. A few things here are quite amusing. FDR raised taxes on almost everything, among them tires ("including tires on wheelchairs"), electricity, and radios. FDR had polio, which confined him to a wheelchair, yet he taxed tires on wheelchairs. And those famed Fireside Chats? As the article points out, "Yes, to hear FDR's 'Fireside Chats,' one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!"

Read the two articles above carefully. FDR's economic policies did far more harm than good.

Why then, you might ask, is FDR renowned for his responses to the Depression, while Hoover is condemned? The answer is simple: political skill. Herbert Hoover was best known as a Stanford engineer. He was not a politician. The only political office that he ever held prior to being president was Secretary of Commerce, a position to which one gets appointed. Franklin Roosevelt, however, served as Governor of New York prior to becoming president. His political skill was recognized as early as 1920, when he was the Democratic vice president nominee. He never won a presidential election by less than 333 electoral votes. Roosevelt was also a far better speaker. Fireside Chats, inaugural speeches, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," "a day that will live in infamy." Hoover has, well, nothing. FDR skillfully used his abilities to make people think that his programs were working. Hoover was not able to do so. But if you read the work and numbers provided by Cato, it's clear that FDR harmed more people than he helped. But they thought they were doing better thanks to FDR.

Many people admire FDR today for the same reasons. They learn from their parents and grandparents. Students learn from history textbooks, written by professors who, for the most part, are liberal and admire another legacy FDR left: that of a government that tries to use its power to help its citizens. Of course, this legacy would not have been possible without his political skill. They use FDR and his high status to support their liberal views of today.

Hoover and FDR both took an active approach to government in order to get the U.S. out of the depression, and both failed.

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 . . .

Response to a Comment

The following is a response to a comment made about the earlier article, "The Government Perpetrated 9/11 Attacks? BS". My inability to edit comments has led me to creating a separate post regarding the issue.

The pages provided to support my claims comes from the site of the magazine Popular Mechanics. This is a magazine owned by the privately owned Hearst Corporation, and thus has no ostensible connections to the U.S. government.

In addition, a look at the sources used by the magazine shows that the government was indeed rarely asked for explanations--thus issues of whether or not the government can be trusted are not really appropriate to use when trying to argue with this site. For example, issues such as the manner of the collapse of the Twin Towers and the question of what hit the Pentagon were not resolved by the article through the government, but rather independent organizations.

There is plenty of other arguments countering conspiracies ignored by the still overwhelming information provided in the article: if indeed there was a massive cover-up, it's almost ridiculous to believe that every one of thousands of people would cooperate and not say a word. Someone's conscience would have been activated by now. But the article uses evidence, not conjecture, and thus still overwhelms any conspiracy theorist's ideas.

And again, personal insults against those who may be sympathetic to conspiracy theorists, or may be such theorists themselves, were driven by those who expressed obvious ignorance on an Internet forum. These were people who merely posted a link to someone else's reasoning and then insulted those who disagreed.

Government Perpetrated 9/11 Attacks? BS

Lots of people who think they are important, but really aren't (see, I don't think I'm important, so I don't apply), seem to think that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were caused by the government.

That's bull shit and there's no reason to buy into it unless you specialize in paranoia.

So why do I bring up a supposedly worthless viewpoint that should not be recognized? Well, I have noticed many people believe this, and I discovered (through a message board) a great webpage which, if you read all 9 pages, thoroughly proves that anyone in the crazed anti-government camp is wrong. Any possible claim to "prove" that the government committed the crimes on 9/11 is debunked.

So if you're a conspiracy theorist, consider this one dead.