February 23, 2007
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1 - Power: Which would you rather have: The power to make all the decisions, or the ability to veto them?
Q2 - Religion: Earlier this week, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was heckled by a man during a speech at a retirement community in Florida. "And you sir....you're a pretender...you do not know the lord...you're a Mormon," the heckler shouted. Romney answered back saying, "I'm convinced that the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country." Do you agree with Romney? Do we need a President who believes in organized religion? Said differently, do you think a presidential candidate's religion or lack there of should play a factor in his or her run for office?
Q3 - Personal Safety: A friend of mine--a young woman around 19 or 20-years-old--was recently offered an opportunity (via an online matching service) to be a nanny for an east coast family. After emailing and talking with the husband and wife a few times by phone, the couple--who never even conducted a background check on my friend--offered to purchase her a plane ticket to fly from her home in Utah to theirs in New Jersey for an interview and multi-night stay. Based on that information alone, would you encourage my friend to make the trip, or would you caution her to the potential dangers associated with hopping on a plane to visit people she doesn't know in a part of the country she has never been to?
Q4 - Hours in a Day: If you could, would you add or subtract the number of hours in a day, and how would your decision impact your daily life?
Posted by Mikal at February 23, 2007 7:39 AM
| TrackBack
1. I would rather have the power to make all the decisions, although I'd most likely delegate most of them, so I'd have free time to enjoy my life.
2. I think it's time in our nation's collective history to return to a time of Presidents of minimal observance of religious faith and traditions. I personally disagree with the social, moral, and philosophic positions of most of America's organized religion, so, naturally, I don't think it prudent to elect someone from that stripe. However, years of tracking polls do show that voters consider the faith and practice of candidates for political office.
3. First, how do we know that a background check hasn't been done? Anyone can do a public records search (usually online) or pay a service, anywhere from about $10 to several hundreds, to do basic background checks. I'd ask them for references, personally, and arrange to meet in a public place first - and do an online background search of the family.
4. Neither. I'd keep it the day and its structure the way it is.
Q1. Power - I would choose the power that involves making the decisions. The power of veto is usually uninformed and biased. I'd rather be a part of the decision-making process. You listen and learn more that way.
Q2: Religion - While tons of evidence demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely, I strongly believe that religion--organized or otherwise--has no place in the White House (or in any other form of government for that matter). Unfortunately, a candidate's religious beliefs are a reflection of a moral compass that way too many voters base their decisions on. If candidates and their speechwriters were smart, they'd leave the word "God" entirely out of their messaging.
Q3: Personal Safety - There's no way in you-know-what that I'd let me my friend enter in this type of situation without first taking her own personal safety into consideration. Even with the $10.00 background check Lee mentioned, more needs to be done (checks against the couple's criminal background need to be run, references from former nannies need to be sought, and basic due diligence needs to be conducted before I'd even consider getting on a plane myself in this sort of scenario). It's not like she's driving across town for an interview. She's hopping on a plane, meeting strangers at the airport, getting into their car, and allowing them to control her movements from there.
Q4: Hours in the Day - I would add eight additional hours to each day, and keep the number of days in the week the same. Unfortunately, I would have to adopt military (which I do not like) to keep everyone on the same page, but I think it'd be worth it. Sure, our life expectancy would go down (in terms of how we calculate age based on years) but eight additional hours in the day would be a real joy. I'd spend more time exercising, writing to friends, and enjoying my surroundings.
1. The power to make the decisions. The power to veto would be tempting, but that sort of negative power does not ensure that any positive decisions would ever be made.
2. Certainly not. Faith (or lack thereof) should have as much bearing on a candidate as his or her hair color. Unfortunately, faith has been a litmus test since long before Kennedy broke the "Catholic barrier." It's the political equivalent of the plumbers painters and mechanics who put Jesus Fish on their vans and trucks; a cynical attempt to gain business (voters) by equating themselves with a mythical standard that they may or may not ever have an intention of meeting. Unfortunately, as with the Jesus Fish roofer, quite a few people take it on face value without considering the person behind the symbolism and get burned in the process.
3. I've done things such as that in the past. In hindsight, I was incredibly, mind numbingly stupid and even more icredibly, mind-numbingly lucky that things turned out okay and that was with me holding a few more cards than your friend, such as having my own vehicle with me. Lee's background check idea has serious merit, and they can be quite thorough, but they only work if someone has been caught. Look how long it took for Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy to show up on the radar. Regardless of whether she goes or not, she should be cautioned about the dangers involved, but if she does go, at the minimum she should hold out for a rental car and should carry a cellphone and plan on making calls at random, prearranged intervals using innocuous codes for "Hi, everything's fine" to "Something doesn't feel right," as well as some other small, concealable GPS device. As an added benefit, if the prospective employers are legitimate, that sort of healthy skepticism about ensuring her safety should reassure them that she'd more than likely use those same talents to protect their children.
4. I'd keep it the same. For me, adding more hours would start with good intentions to do this or that, but sooner or later I'd probably wind up frittering it away rather than doing anything productive. Likewise, I doubt that taking time away would make me any more efficient in my budgeting of hours.
1. Power: My dream is to instigate a worldwide tyranical society known as "The New Stuart Order." I will of course be at the head. So I would say I prefer the power to make the decisions.
2. Religion: Do we need a president that believes in organized religion? No. Do I think a presidential candidate's religion or lack there of should play a factor in his or her run for office? If it matters to the individual voter, yes. Otherwise no. For me, yes it plays a factor. For example, I would likely not consider voting for an atheist. To me atheism means life has no purpose, and if our president doesn't believe life has any purpose, then I don't want him/her up there. However, I have yet to meet an atheist that thinks life is pointless (probably because true atheists (my definition of one) has killed themselves before I got to meet them). That being the case, I'm more concerned with their policies and beliefs on how the country should be run being in agreement with my own. They can be a self-proclaimed atheist (or member of any other faith.. ok, maybe not a satan worshipper) and their faith has zero bearing on whether I choose to vote for them or not.
3. That whole situation is a bit freaky. Chances are things are good to go, but better safe than sorry.
4. Well, my body is kind of used to being awake for 16 hours and asleep for 8, so any changes in the length of a day would seriously mess me up. However, I certainly wouldn't mind needing less, or even no, sleep. I'd sure get more done that way.
1) Veto.
2) Only agnostics need apply. About time for some leaders to admit they don't have all the answers. The past several decades have been a parade of smugness from both parties.
3) No.
4) I'd leave it alone. We'd all die since we didn't evolve that way.
1. I canít imagine ever being able to bring about positive change with the veto power. Give me the power to make all the decisions please.
2. I donít believe that a candidateís persuasion to or affiliation with a specific organized religion should play factor; however, I personally favor candidates who claim AND display faith in God. I think that belief in a supreme being adds an element of moral responsibility to oneís character. After all, if you believe that there is someone higher and more powerful than you that you will ultimately have to answer to for the way you lived you lifeóthat can have a major impact on the way you live, or in this case, the way you lead a country. ìIn God we trust.î and ìÖ one nation under God.î are principles I think are very important for this country and its government.
3. I would encourage her not to take the trip, but if I, myself were in her situation I probably wouldnít take my own advice. I know that one of my weaknesses (or perhaps strengths depending on how you want to look at it) is that I am very trusting of others. I always assume that everyone I meet or associate with is inherently good until they prove me wrong. In this case, being proved wrong could be a very bad thing.
4. Although some of the other comments got me thinking about my own shortcomings in time management, I would still add to the number of hours in the dayóprobably at least 8 more hours. I would divide the extra time between my hobbies (specifically writing, amateur film making, and sports), spending time with my wife, reading good books, and working for Doba, oh and Iíd probably need a little more sleep somewhere to keep me going.
Q1 - Power: I don't see the difference. If I veto every idea except the one I want, I have the power to make the decision.
Q2 - Religion: Besides giving the voter one more factor to consider in choosing which candidate to support, I think religion doesn't necessarily make a difference. I believe that the founding fathers were primarily deists, who did not believe that the creator actually interfered in what humans did, so religion in that case was pretty harmless. Organized religions with political agendas should not gain undue influence over how our country is run.
Q3 - Personal Safety: Depends on your friend's level of aversion to risk. It is risky, but you can't go through life mistrusting everyone and living in fear. As long as your friend tells someone where she's going and what she'll be doing, keeps in contact with a friend or family member, and has an emergency action plan in place, I don't see this as an acceptable risk.
Q4 - Hours in a Day: I would veto any decision to add or subtract hours. Time is relative, anyway. If you want to add hours to your day, do more. Want to subtract, sleep more. Everyone can have it they way they want it without making some goofy decision that everyone must adjust to.
Correction: For Q3, I meant that I see this as an acceptable risk... or I don't see this as an unacceptable risk. Sorry
Q1 - Power: I would rather have the power to veto decisions. I think that a lot of the things that most people would try to pass, I would view as idiotic, or completely unecessary.
Q2 - Religion: Although I don't think that a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliations should be a factor in his or her campaign, I agree with Jay, that an agnostic would be the best candidate for our country at this point. I would greatly admire a politician who is strong enough to admit to himself and others that he doesn't have all the answers. Also, I believe that an agnostic president would trim a lot of the political fat that comes about because of so many politicians' insistance that religion (particularly their own) be a major factor in the law-making in this country. In response to Clark's comment about "One nation under God"; that phrase was added to the already 70 year-old Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War as a clever tactic to show, unnecessarily, America's "fundamental Christianity" in opposition to the atheistic Soviet Union. It was added in fear, to inspire nationalism and fear and hatred for the "Godless" Soviets.
Q3 - Personal Safety: I agree with Clark on this one, I believe that people are inherently good, but this situation could turn out to disprove that belief, which would be horrible. I would also jump at the opportunity to visit a new part of the country, or any other place that I had never had the chance to visit and explore.
Q4 - Hours in a Day : My days are screwed up enough as it is, I'd leave them the way they are.
1) Definitely veto power. My wife has veto power, and it sure has worked for her.
2) While I don't think that the President necessarily needs to be a person of faith, I strongly believe that people of faith make excellent candidates for the presidency. Most systems of faith instill virtues that make for strong leadership skills, virtues like moral couage, selflessness, honesty, and integrity. That, of course, doesn't mean that an atheist couldn't develop the same virtues and thus make a constituent of me. However, in my experience, faith tends to encourage solid character growth that is difficult to come by any other way. For example, I shudder to think what kind of person I'd be today with my active involvement in the Mormon church.
Incidentally, following MY faith would NEVER preclude me from voting for a person of another faith. Whether they're Jewish, Amish, Islamic, Baptist, or Buddist, what matters to me is the candidate's integrity, platform, and leadership characteristics, NOT their religion. I hope Mitt Romney's heckler takes that to heart when he steps to the polls, especially since he's basing his prejudice on a completely incorrect belief about Mormons. (The last time I checked, I'm an avid follower and worshipper of Jesus Christ.)
3) I honestly feel that MOST people on earth are still basically good people; however, the Internet also lends itself to deception, just because it's so easy to do. I think she should go, but with both eyes wide open.
4) I would add more hours and spend a LOT more time with my family, and on my memoirs (I MUST keep my public happy).
Q1 - I generally am lazy, and hence prefer the veto. Ultimately I still control the outcome, but I don't have to work at anything. I may veto nearly everything before any good ideas come up, but I believe that the people around me are creative enough to come up with worthwhile options I wouldn't have thought of.
Q2 - In a political candidate, I really want someone whose actions reflect his/her beliefs. Even as a religious person, I'd rather have an agnostic who does what he says than a Catholic who doesn't even know what the tenets of the faith are. It basically does not matter what religious stance a candidate takes, I just hate hearing the false claims of faith designed to improve public opinion.
Q3 - I would never want to be completely dependant on strangers if at all avoidable. I'd have to make some alternate arrangements for ground transportation and lodging before I'd call it a go.
Q4 - I'd really like another hour of sleep and another hour with my family, but what I'd really like even better is to be independently wealthy so that I can spend my day however I see fit.
1. Veto power.
2. I think we need a president who supports and respects organized religion as a concept, but not necessarily one who belongs to a specific religion. The one thing, in retrospect, that I like about Reagan is that he rarely played the "Christianity" card during his presidency. I wish more Republicans would have followed his lead.
3. Interesting that the fact that no background check was done on her is mentioned. Has she done a background check on THEM?? It works both ways. If she has, and they look good, I'd go...with cell phone in hand. And having left lots of details behind with trustworthy people in case something weird happens.
I wonder how we'd all answer if this involved a 19-year-old guy.... I know my answer wouldn't change.
4. Realistically, no. I'd just end up working longer. I'd mostly like to be able to telescope each day individually: some days need to be shorter, and others much longer!
1. I want the power to make all decisions and then veto the ones I don't like. In any case, I already do have the power to make all the decisions when it comes to my own life.
2. I think religion needs to stay out of politics. It's fine if someone is religious, but the politicians shouldn't be basing laws on their spiritual beliefs or religion. We already know what that is like. A politician can believe whatever she/he wants, just as long as it doesn't interfere with a cure for cancer or AIDS.
3. She should do a background check on them before she even agrees to go. Would you get in a car with a stranger? No. Maybe she should take a friend or parent with her just to be on the safe side. Then she can check out the situation and if it's legit, fine, if not she can get back on the plane and fly home for free. Just need to use caution and common sense.
4. Well, the work day is long enough as it is, but I could use some extra hours of sleep. Eh, I guess I'd just keep it as is.
1. I'd rather make the decisions.
2. No, religion should play no part in running for office. Spouting out about what you believe doesn't necessarily reflect a person's actions. And I don't think people should use religion as a moral indicator either--they're not the same things.
3. I would second the suggestions above. If she decides to go, she needs to be very cautious.
4. I'd keep my hours as it is. Unless I could get extra hours that no one else knew about.
Q1 - The power to make all the decisions. Wait a minute - I have that now and it hasn't helped my marriage. LMAO Seriously, I think it depends in what you are talking about making decisions for. If it's in government, then the power to make decisions. In personal, I'd really like to share that. lol
Q2 - I don't think a person's religious preference should have a place in politics, but sadly it does. People seem to forget that just because someone is affiliated with a house of prayer (church, temple, etc) they live in a moral way. Unfortunately, there are many people who talk a good game about being religious people, but when you look at how they live their lives, they do not practice what they preach. This is actually one of my pet peeves.
Q3 - I don't think I would want to see a friend of mine in this situation, either. Perhaps if she was determined to go, she could insist that she was put up in a hotel and she would rent her own car, and meet the people in public. However, she should do some sort of background check at a minimum.
Q4 - I can't say I would change the number of hours in our days. Ideally, I'd love to add hours and spend more time with my kids, both playing and helping them learn, add to my workout time, spend more time outside, relax more and spend time working on my hobbies which relax me (knitting - except these dang socks I'm trying to start which are just frustrating me!) and reading more. However, I also know realistically that I would most likely end up either working more or piddling more time away on the computer, etc.
Post a Comment:
|
