House of Eratosthenes

Ah, props to the radio guys, or whoever picks out their “best of” cuts for the weekend. I turned on the bathroom radio not knowing for sure what I was gonna get…maybe an infommercial about some wonder herb that would flush out my colon and make my dick bigger, maybe financial advice about adjustable rate mortgages, I swear I saw a UFO back in ’53, pesticides to beat all pesticides. Well something went right, I got information I could actually use: The back-story behind what they were talking about Wednesday morning.

Might as well start there: Jack got kicked off a jury. It must be exquisitely frustrating. (I wouldn’t know, the one time I burned up an entire day on the entrance exam, I was selected as an alternate, and then the primary got kicked off, so my wasted day was a prelude to a wasted week.) He got kicked off by ONE question: That one question is #21 on the list, below, that I built up around it. He said “choices,” and the defense attorney didn’t like his answer so out he went.

I approve of the question but I disapprove of how it was used. I think it should be asked of everyone in the courtroom, regardless of what’s being heard whether it’s criminal or civil. And then the judge should kick outta there anyone who answers the opposite way. Lawyers should lose their licenses over it. And blow right on through there, every last man, right down to the bailiff.

My “D’Jever Notice?” moment has to do with all of the twenty-five questions. They, outside of #21, are my own creation…I had been doing some thinking about this after Wednesday’s show, which was quite thought provoking. My Dry Cleaning lady had heard it as well and we had quite the talk about it.

Anyway, I have learned this over a number of years about people. If you find me a complete stranger, and tell me how he answered to one of these questions, I can predict with amazing accuracy how he will respond to another of the questions. And with that prediction confirmed, I can pretty much guarantee how he will reply to the other twenty-three.

1. Should we use the tax code to punish people?
2. Should our leaders be representatives of what the rest of us are, or should they be better than the rest of us?
3. Should anyone in our country work under a salary cap? Should we perhaps have a universal salary cap?
4. Do borders matter?
5. Clarity or agreement?
6. Does the minority opinion count?
7. If “there’s just something about him” that impresses you in a positive way, do you want to figure out why before he earns your support?
8. Does the wealth gap matter?
9. Security or prosperity?
10. Can we end poverty and famine? What about war, can we get rid of that someday?
11. Does the inner decency of a people, or lack thereof, show through in the laws passed by their governments?
12. Is a right really a right, if it costs someone else something?
13. If your kids grow up never learning how to do what you had to do because technology has made it unnecessary — that’s harmless, right?
14. Is it alright to major in a discipline that is highly unlikely to get you a job?
15. Should it matter how many men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, straights, gays, handicapped are seated in Congress or the Supreme Court?
16. Is empathy important in a judge?
17. Is it alright with you that your daughter picked her current boyfriend because “he makes me laugh”?
18. Are businesses more likely than government agencies to screw people over?
19. Is Europe all that & a bag of chips?
20. Is a real man in touch with his feelings?
21. What got you where you are today, be it up or down: circumstances, or your decisions?
22. Should we let illegal immigrants in, and leave them them to continue doing the jobs Americans won’t do?
23. Should we worry at all about screwing up the economy by means of our various social-services safety nets, or are they inherently harmless?
24. Would you feel comfortable leaving your house, or your car, or your pets, or your kids in the care of the politicians who have most often received your support?
25. As we learn more about evolution, will it ultimately explain everything about every living thing?

This is an awesome list. Matter of fact, I think it’s better at defining character traits than most personality tests. 🙂 Bravo!
- DarcsFalcon | 05/15/2010 @ 14:53
Purely on a whim, my answers:

1. We already do; criminal fines are a form of tax.
2. Representative. The problem with any system designed to pick out the best among us is that it will eventually be exploited by the worst among us.
3. Yes–our elected officials. Otherwise, no.
4. Yes.
5. False choice. Real agreement requires clarity; if you’re not agreeing honestly you’re not really agreeing, only submitting.
6. Yes. (What “counts” means depends on circumstance.)
7. *I* would, but then I usually know why people impress or don’t impress me.
8. If it’s the result of dishonest or unjust laws, it can. But just because you’re on the wrong side of the wealth gap doesn’t mean it’s unjust or dishonest in your case.
9. Again, false choice. Real security requires prosperity and vice versa.
10. “End” as in reduce to absolute zero? No. “End” as in get them down to an absolute worldwide minimum? Maybe. War, though… no. Even if one generation achieves true interdependent world peace, a successor generation will be ungrateful because they didn’t earn it, call it tyranny, and overthrow it.
11. No, but the inner decency of the particular small group of lawmakers, at crisis points in history, can.
12. Everything costs something, so yes.
13. Depends on how likely their technological support network is to crash.
14. As long as you have other skills that *can* get you a job, yes. (Degree in English: worthless. The skills in composition, typing and organization that I picked up while acquiring it: Priceless.)
15. How many, no. Which ones, yes.
16. If by “empathy” you mean “the ability to take unique circumstances into account when determining appropriate sentence”, yes. If by “empathy” you mean “reflexive mitigation of sentence for politically correct defendants”, no.
17. As long as he has other good qualities and doesn’t have a few dealkiller bad ones, sure.
18. Depends on the size of the business and the detachment of its decision-makers.
19. No; but I still want to go someday.
20. Of course he is. He just doesn’t force everyone around him to be as well.
21. Combination of both. The progressive thinks if we pass the right laws we can create good circumstances; the conservative thinks if we teach the right virtues we can encourage good decisions. Both have been disastrously wrong on enough occasions that their opponents will never concede.
22. No.
23. Depends how much they cost and whether they’re being used right (i.e. as temporary aids, not permanent supports).
24. House, car, or pets? Actually, yeah. Not my kid, but that has nothing to do with them being politicians.
25. Unless it can explain why I wasted so much time on this, I doubt it.
- Stephen J. | 05/15/2010 @ 15:08
[…] this morning I posted a list of twenty-five questions that reveal…something. Something about the individuals that answer those questions in one way or another. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/15/2010 @ 19:32
Here are mine, and they’re simpler than Stephen’s….but then, I’m generally pretty black and white about most things:

1. No. As you said, taxes are to be used to raise money that is needed for things, period.
2. Representative. There is no “better.” No way to define that which we can all agree on.
3. No.
4. Yes, but we seem to be the only country which doesn’t think so.
5. Clarity. I think what you’re driving at is that one side emphasize communication, the other, consensus. I happen to think this actually is an either-or, not a false choice. It’s more important that ideas be understood than that they’re agreed-on. Face it, we’re not all going to agree on anything, but there’s no excuse for not understanding what is being discussed.
6. Yeah, but not in this state. The Democrats running the show in the state Legislature (and their constituents in the major coastal cities) don’t give a shit what us in the hinterlands think. They keep writing bad laws and our pathetic handful of reps can’t even slow them down as they pass through the Legislature. Our proposals never even make it out of committee. Exhibit A – the proposal to transform California to a “shall issue” state on concealed carry.
7. I suppose, but I’ve never had that perception about anyone. I don’t get to that point in the first place without something concrete.
8. Not if a “yes” answer leads you to say, “Oh, so that means you’re in favor of punitive taxation.”
9. You’re driving at the old Ben Franklin quote about liberty and security, aren’t you? No, I don’t think the question is a false choice; rather the option appears to be between a “prosperous” capitalist system, and a “secure” communist one which regulates the hell out of everything. I will take the former and pee on the latter.
10. No, a flat out “no”…and a kick in the ass for anyone who says anything other than “no” to either question.
11. No, and I’m not particularly interested in showcasing decency. I’m much more interested in freedom and impartiality.
12. No.
13. No. Kids should understand what it took to get where we are and what their grandparents had to contend with.
14. No.
15. No.
16. No.
17. No.
18. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes…and a kick in the ass to anyone who thinks otherwise. As I used to say in the 90s, I wish people would worry less about Bill Gates’s antics, and more about Bill Clinton’s.
19. No. What kind of stupid question is that? Before they were the continent of socialism and immorality, they were the continent of tyranny and petty grievances among one another. Our forebears came here to get away from all of the nonsense going on there.
20. I suppose, but he understands that there is a time and place for showing them.
21. My decisions. To argue the alternative, is to argue for the existence of some kind of economic pre-destination. It would take self responsibility completely out of the equation.
22. No.
23. Yes, and “harmless” is hardly the word I’d choose.
24. No, and the question is absurd. Why would you trust any stranger with those?
25. No, no, no. I don’t think it explains jack, frankly…especially if you’re attempting to demonstrate that one species transforms over time into a completely different one. The fossil record is completely devoid of transitory forms, and 150 years’ worth of digging and study should have put the lie to Darwin’s asinine theories by now.
- cylarz | 05/17/2010 @ 01:01
[…] Cylarz is unequivocal: No. What kind of stupid question is that? Before they were the continent of socialism and immorality, they were the continent of tyranny and petty grievances among one another. Our forebears came here to get away from all of the nonsense going on there. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/18/2010 @ 17:59

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

D’JEver Notice? LVISaturday, May 15th, 2010

D’JEver Notice? LVI
Saturday, May 15th, 2010