Is This An Unbiased Survey?

I took a survey over the weekend. The further along I got in it, the more disturbed I became by the underlying assumptions that seemed to have been made.

My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JPBHPP2

I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)

“Rich and Poor Survey”

1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?

Yes
No

Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?

2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?

Agree
Disagree

Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.

3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?

Yes
No

Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.

4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?

Yes
No

Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?

5. Does the rich give or take from society?

Give
Take

Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.


6. What is the purpose of charity?

In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.

7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?

Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.

8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?

Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.

9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?

What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.

So That's My Problem

In a March 27, 2010 opinion piece in The New York Times, Frank Rich goes to great lengths of hyperbole to take some completely gratuitous cheap shots at Karl Rove, John Boehner, and others.

Frank's Momma should have also taught him that even more important than not being a sore loser is to not be a sore winner. Grace and dignity will win you far more cosmic brownie points in the long run. Though if that is a lesson he and his ilk refuse to take to heart, I'm okay with that.

Mr. Rich did, however point out one little fact in his essay that until now I was completely unaware of. He notes, "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from."

All along I've been thinking it was the shredding of the Constitution, the Federal Government takeover of private institutions and constraint of freedoms, and the economic policies that leave us the option of experiencing bankruptcy as a nation either in either the near future or even sooner than that with which I disagreed.

Instead, it seems I'm just a garden variety Racist Sexist Homophobe (who also happens to believe in God and owns a gun, can't forget that!). So much simpler than actually having to waste cognitive effort on coming up with reasons for disagreeing with those in control.

I do have one question for you, Mr. Rich. If your thesis is accurate then why do I also feel the same way about Harry Reid and his policies as I do about Pelosi, Obama et al.? As the slam dunk winner of The Whitest Boy in America Pageant, I should be calling him up and asking if he'd like to chug a few brewskies with me at the next NASCAR event. Shouldn't I?

Email to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America

The Speaker of the House has her (his, too, when it is a man?) web site, in addition to her congressional web page. I have taken advantage of the Speaker's page to contact her, as it invites me to do. I have done so fully understanding that she is no doubt disinclined to respond in any event, but also aware of the admonition from her district web site that ". . . the rules of Congressional courtesy prevent Representative Pelosi from replying to emails if she cannot determine that you are a constituent,. . .".


Speaker,

It is no longer surprising, yet continues to be distressing, that you seem compulsively incapable of opening your mouth without uttering a misrepresentation of fact. Your complete lack of honor and integrity diminishes you as a human being and arguably disqualifies you for the office you hold. More importantly, your actions demean that office in a way that is unfair to your predecessors and those who will follow after.

One more recent example of your non-existent ethics:

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp)On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."

Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.

Who's the Joker?

One is racist hatemongering. End of Discussion.

One is patriotic dissension and an exercise of constitutionally protected free speech.

Really?

Can anyone out there provide a rational justification for this double standard? Disagreeing with a set of ideas based upon the substance of those ideas is not a function of the skin color of the mouthpiece for those ideas. Pulling out the race card every time one is challenged cheapens that defense, and will render it meaningless when it is truly deserved.

Anyone recall the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

The link in the title of this post is simply the first of many encountered, not necessarily of greater or lesser value than any others available.

This news is nothing short of the most incredible load of fertilizer imaginable. No one should be subjected to such a thing before breakfast, never mind without a first cup of coffee.

To say that the Nobel Peace Prize is diminished by this decision is an understatement. Al Gore's award was a horrid joke, receiving a "Peace" prize for junk science rather than any actual effort or accomplishment furthering the cause of peace amongst humanity. Even so, he at least made up that junk science and sold the world a bill of goods. Not to mention making a tidy personal profit through his various business ventures in the process.

Obama has not even done that. He's given some speeches. Rodney King did as much, arguably more, even, when he asked "Can we all just get along?"

Sorry, kids, but Barry O. is even less deserving than Jimmy Carter. Carter's great effort at promoting world peace would have to be the Camp David Accords - and we all know how idyllic life has been in the Middle East since 1978.

Oslo - I haven't advocated the elimination or ostracizing of any ethnic or religious group, I implore people not to kill their neighbors, and I think it would be truly swell if we could just help each other out and live harmoniously in the land of White Light and Fuzzy Bunnies. Heck, I can even write up a great piece on the impending terror of Global Cooling. That way, after all the Cap and Trade taxes have been wrung out of the world economy we can set up a whole new scheme to extract even more money to warm this place back up.

I know it's too late for 2009, but if you respond to this blog I will be happy to provide you with instructions for reaching me and awarding the 2010 Prize. Heck, I even boast Norwegian ancestry, so you can play up the fact that (a descendant of) one of your own has gone out in the world and made good.

At least give it some consideration. I'm clearly as worthy as some of your recent picks.