Alan K. Henderson's Weblog
|HOME | BLOGGER PROFILE | BLOGROLL MAP | HENDERSON PRIZE | EMAIL|
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues
|Your Political Profile:|
|Overall: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal|
|Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal|
|Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal|
|Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal|
|Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal|
|Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal|
My answer to this question is more nuanced. I generally favor the first alternative, but special circumstances call for special temporary measures. The massive flight from Mexico to the US is not normal activity. As I've stated before, Mexico's lack of economic liberty is at the root of the problem on the southern border. As long as that nation makes Canada look like a libertarian paradise, we have to take stronger measures on that border.
Public education could be improved by
The first choice is an improvement, but not improvement enough. Schools must be completely privatized. Educational food stamps are a stepping stone, not a solution.
Some people have less luck than others
The folks at It Comes in Pints (see comments) found the inclusion of this question odd. I offered this:
The luck question makes perfect sense to me. What is this question relevant to? Success, financial or otherwise. What's the opposite of luck? Conspiracy.
Underrepresentation of X demographic in Y profession? It's a plot to keep X down. Levee breaks in N'Awlins? It's a plot to kill Democratic voters. Three hurricanes hit Florida? It's a plot to protect oil company profits at the cost of safety from global warming - and perhaps also a plot using the HAARP array to send major storms in an attempt to rub out the Florida Supreme Court.
Actually there is another opposite to luck, which better explains the luck question's relevance to enviro policy: neglect. People who don't believe in luck believe we have the ability to end global warming or poverty or other phenomena that humans in reality can't eradicate.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
It depends on how you define "social responsibility." Abstaining from the three basic crimes - theft, assault and murder - are social responsibilities. But people who use that term tend to want companies to be responsible for a lot more than just that. And they also tend to pervert the meaning of "assault," to include sales of SUVs and fatty foods in its definition.
All authority, by its nature, should be questioned
It's called "checks and balances."
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
A lot of what passes for international law isn't justified.
Update: There goes that theory. I retook the quiz and changed by answer to the "luck" question, and my scores shifted toward conservatism. I was thinking of luck in terms of chance events that we cannot control. The quizmaster is thinking of luck in terms of its role in individual success, which, barring a freak tornado or getting that bug job at the WTC at the wrong time, is minimal. Skill, not life's lottery, is the prime determinant of personal achievement.
The updated scores are posted. Originally I scored 75% overall and 50/50 in the "Personal Responsibility" category.