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.