the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER'S SURVEY

The day before yesterday, I received in the mail
a survey mailed out by Senator Frist. Normally, I
don't do surveys. If you really read the questions,
rarely do they ask questions properly, or a least
the way I would like them to be asked.

For instance; Question No. 3-
"Should we ban human cloning for experimental purposes
even if there might be some promise for future
treatments?"
[Answers available to all questions on the survey:
Yes, No, Undecided.]

What a can of worms this question is.
First, if you answer NO-don't ban the experiments, then
your answer can be construed to be for human cloning AND
future treatments.
If you answer YES (for banning), then you are obviously
against future treatments also!

Question No. 4-
"Should Congress continue to pursue a Constitutional
amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man
and a woman?"

I love this one! But, what's the point of asking this
question?
The question clearly states that Congress is 'already
pursuing' an amendment regardless of how I answer the
question! And, it then says that if I answer NO, then
I am against "protecting" future marriages of
heterosexuals. How could anyone be against marriages,
although there is an argument for that scenario? And
what has Congress ever "PROTECTED?" If the government
wants your land for a highway and you don't want to
sell, is Congress going to let you keep your land?
How many litigations do you need to sift through before
you get the idea?

Here's another one: Question NO. 5.-
"Should the United States increase spending to protect
its borders and coastlines?"

So, this tells us that CONGRESS is already spending
money to protect our borders and coastlines.
(note how the question shifts from Congresses' to
The United States' responsibility? That's because the
question involves spending money and
this question distances Congress from the act of spending
money!)
Exactly 'from what' the question doesn't say. Are there
invading armies lined up at our borders?
Except for 9/11, I haven't read of anyone attacking us
from across our borders. And, as for 9/11, whatever we
were already spending didn't seem to be enough, did it?
The kind of attack that ocurred on that day will
never see enough money to prevent it from happening again.
Yet, ironically, they didn't ask us in a survey if we
should spend lots of money for us to attack another
country across our borders (and on the other side of the
world), but then, protecting our borders really isn't as
important as getting re-elected, or the next photo-op,
is it?

Here's a tricky one: Question NO. 41.-
"Do you favor increasing federal spending on research into
renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar energy
and hydrogen fuel cells?"

First of all, I'm not so sure that it is the governments
place to spend our money on any research that the government
will not then give the results, in a tangible way, back to
the people that funded that research, us. When the government
spends money on researching... anything, it is the
entreprenuers that benefit, not the people. If the
entreprenuers are going to benefit, let the entreprenuers
pay for the research. They will pay for the research if
there is sufficient demand for whatever it is they are
considering. That's called 'supply and demand.' Or, if the
government is going to do the research, sell the results
to the entreprenuers... at a profit!

So, the questions I have presented really don't deserve an
answer from me.
But, for question 2, my answer is YES ban human cloning. The
"promise of future treatments" will not be diminished by
stopping cloning. Other treatments will be forthcoming.
The question should not be an 'either/or' question.

Question NO. 4? I am really saddened by this question.
I don't think it is congresses' place to legislate the joining
of anyone in marriage. At first, the "official congressional"
response was to let the states take care of this question.
Now, congress seems intent on coming down on one side or the
other. What brought on this change?
I'm sort of like Gore Vidal when essentially the same question
was put to him. Two people, man/woman or woman/woman or man/man
want to get married. So? What's that to me? I don't care! It
doesn't affect me! It doesn't affect me anymore than when my
mom asked me whether I would object to her remarrying,
15 years after my father had passed away. I told her that if
she thought this man, whom I had not met, could make her happy,
Go For It! She's the one who would have to live with him, not me!
I would tell two women or two men the same thing.
The first racially mixed couple I saw walking down a street
in Nashville Tennessee about 30 years ago didn't bother me as
far as they were a black man and a white woman. I was
concerned about their safety in being so bold as to walk down
the street holding hands, in this part of the country. But, they
appeared to be very happy. Good. I went about my own business.

Try rephrasing that question for better accuracy. Try 'Should
Congress pursue a Constitutional amendment to DEFINE marriage
as the union of only a man and a woman?'
Rephrase Question No. 3 to read 'Should we ban human cloning
for experimental pruposes?'
Rephrase Question No. 5 to read 'Should Congress increase spending
on border patrols?'

And here's an interesting note, in the Instructions is the request
to "...return your completed Survey in the next 7 days to ensure
accurate and controlled sample results for your voting district."

H-m-m-m-m. "Controlled sample results." What is that? Obviously
my answers will be a sample of my opinions, so that leaves
'controlled results.' "Controlled" by whom? "Controlled" how?
If my answers are disagreable, does that mean that my answers will
find their way to the round file? Is that how they will be "controlled?"

I just don't like surveys. The questions are rarely straight-
forward. Generally, they are slanted to get a positive response
to questions already decided but need a head count of those
who agree.

Term Limits is still looking better and better.