This is a little attempt at humor, but remember, when I joke, I’m serious. Published summer 2013 in the Leavenworth Times.
This is totally unscientific, just a theory of mine, but here goes: each of us has a value in American society. You can have a positive effect, you can be worthless, or you can have a negative effect on society. How can we evaluate ourselves and others? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a scientific system to discover our worth, and the worth of others? I submit this one for your consideration.
Caution: if you have low self-esteem, your self-evaluation may be depressing, so you probably shouldn’t read further – I don’t want to generate a rash of suicides (fortunately, I don’t have a lot of readers anyway.) This is for adults only.
Let’s look at the good factors first, and let’s use a point system. This is my take. You might list other factors, add or subtract factors to what I’ve listed, or assign different point values. It’s just an example of what we could do.
You hold a regular job: 25 points. At your job, you work conscientiously, and don’t goof off: 25; You pay your bills on time: 30; You are good to your family 15; You have many friends: 3; You don’t do drugs: 4; You aren’t an alcoholic, 4; You are informed on national issues: 4; You are informed on local issues, 3;
You are a serviceman, defending your country in a war zone: 500; You have won a Nobel or a Pulitzer prize: 400; You are a major philanthropist: 600; You do volunteer work, 250; You’re a part-time caregiver: 100; You’re a full-time caregiver: 200.
Now let’s consider negative characteristics.
You are supported by the government: –10; You draw Social Security, –10; You are on Medicaid, –10; You are on food stamps, –10; You have babies outside of marriage, –50; You’re on disability, but are faking it: –100; You never vote: –10; Your car has huge boom box speakers, and shakes your surroundings: –25; You’re late on your bills, –30; You have no intention of repaying your bills: –60; You’re over 21 but still living with your parents: –30; You’re uninformed on national issues, –30; You’re uninformed on local issues: –10; You’re a porn addict, –50; You’re addicted to gambling, –100; You smoke regularly, –30; You smoke marijuana, –50; You are obese, –25 points per fifty pounds over ideal weight.
You’ve committed a felony: –200 per instance; You’re a registered sex offender, –300; You’re addicted to hard drugs, –1000; You’re a member of a gang: –200; You’re an Islamic Jihadist: –1000; You’re psychotic but aren’t staying on your medication, –500; You’re an illegal alien, -300.
I have scrupulously avoided listing political items: for example, you’re a U.S. Senator, –500; You’re liberal, –200; You’re conservative, 250. You voted for Obama: –500. We won’t use these. If we did, I’ve have a much higher score.
Also, no evaluation for religious affiliation or sexual practices, although I suspect being a Catholic or a Muslim should bring some negative points.
Now, to evaluate yourself or someone else, add up the positive points, add up the negatives, and subtract the negatives from the positives. Divide by 100 to make it look more scientific. My score is 0.12, (barely above worthless) — what’s yours?
An interesting question is, should we automatically kill anyone with a negative score of –5.00 or more? (More minus, that is.) Likewise, should people with a score greater than 5.00 be canonized (made a saint, not shot out of a cannon.)
Another question is, are you satisfied with this system? Would you apply different point values or add parameters to be evaluated?
If your score is bad, what can you do to improve it?
I hope you’ll vote for candidates who support this, the ACRAPP System. (Annual Comprehensive Rating of Applicable Personal Parameters.)