I invite e-mail responses to the questions I present below.
are generally below the radar of mainstream polling and opinion sampling, but I consider the
"opinion on the street"
regarding them to be important indicators of America's core values.
(The cyber-street, in this case.)
If space and my time permit, your response will be posted anonymously. And, I am naturally
interested in knowing something about you. Thus, I request, but do not require as a condition
for posting your response, some background information:
1. Anonymous moniker to accompany your response, unless permission is given to use your real name.
4. Political party affiliation/how long?
5. Veteran? (yes: what war?)
6. Business/occupation (if retired, from what business or occupation)
7. Other information you care to provide
None of the personal information you might provide will accompany your response. I will not
publish your e-mail address, store it in
any form or on any medium, or pass it along to any individual or organization. In fact,
immediately upon copying
the body of the response to my file for posting and further analysis, I will consign your e-mail
to oblivion. You will have to trust me on this, just as I will trust you to be honest with me
as to your real
opinion(s) on the issue(s) to which you respond. I will correct obvious typographic errors as
much as possible.
For the moment, almost anything goes for responses to the questions below. The only kind of
responses I will not
post will be those which advocate physical harm to any sector of the American or global
population, or generalized hate speech. Thus, the sender of such an opinion as "I think
we should bomb
them back to the Stone Age,"
should not expect to see his or her words on these pages. Even such understandably angry
responses such as
"I think all terrorists should [fill in your own grisly punishment here]" will not be posted,
contribute nothing to the discussion.
I reserve the right to use your response(s), again anonymously,
for my own purposes in different venues. (Essays, letters-to-the-editor, etc.)
I have yet to figure out the format for posting responses, but I will be spurred to action upon
receipt of your opinions on the question(s) I ask below.
Who makes you madder:
- Welfare moms who cheat on their food stamps, or
- The Enron executives, whose greed brought down the
company and led to the loss of millions of retirement dollars and thousands
Should laws defining corporate crime be stricter than, equally strict, or less strict than
laws defining welfare fraud?
Should the punishment for convicted corporate criminals be more severe than, equal to,
or less severe than, the punishment for those found guilty of welfare fraud?
(Here, the shibboleth "let the punishment fit the crime" will be considered non-responsive.)