Did The Daily Show Get Lou Dobbs Fired?

Remember this absolutely hilarious and scathing clip embarrassing Lou Dobbs for saying that there were still questions about Barack Obama’s birth certificate after his network’s own reporters and even his own guest host had declared the issue dead?  Well now we learn what strained the relationship between Lou Dobbs and CNN this past summer:

He angered management this summer by pressing questions about President Barack Obama’s birth site after CNN reporters determined there was no issue.

Maybe they noticed this and were angered by it independent of sources like The Daily Show pointing out the discrepancy.  But maybe not.  Your Thoughts?

Lou Dobbs’s CNN Departure Is A Deporting

Acting on anonymous tips from within the Hispanic-American community, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials on Wednesday deported Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, who for the last 48 years had been living illegally in the United States under the name Lou Dobbs.

This really explains a lot.  In retrospect “Lou Dobbs” has the complete ring of an assumed name for purposes of assimilating in America.  The Onion has the full story.

Your Thoughts?

What Does Google Search Tell Us About Moral Philosophy/Moral Psychology?

Slate ran a contest called Google Suggest where they asked readers to type in a bit of text into Google’s search engine and see what suggestions the search box gave.  Since the suggestions Google offers reflect popular searches from a timeframe specified only as “recent”, the suggested ways to finish sentences that start with the phrase you gave give clues into what is on people’s minds or what their attitudes are, etc.  Slate’s contest did not just ask you to type in a phrase and see the most popular ways that people end sentences beginning with that phrase but instead took it a step further and asked for contrasting submissions that reflected “dumb” vs. “intelligent” ways of seeking the same basic information.

For example, they typed “how 2″  and got sentence completion suggestions like “how 2 kiss,” “how 2 get pregnant, ” “how 2 grow weed,” and then typed “how might one” and got sentence completion suggestions like “how might one account for the rise of andrew jackson to victory in the election of 1828″ and  ”how might one expand upon an argument.”

So the contest was to send in the best example of a contrast between the results from a “dumb” search and those from an “intelligent” one.   And among the winners, this one struck my curiosity the most:

dumb vs. intelligent searches

dumb vs. intelligent searches2
Slate’s interpretation:

It doesn’t neatly divide into “less intelligent” and “more intelligent,” but it’s the best example I received of how one word can make all the difference. Wrong involves love affairs, God, and younger men. Ethics puts us on the plane of animal research, privacy concerns, and cooking the books.

What do you think epitomizes, and then what do you think explains, the contrast between the “Is it wrong” searches and the “Is it ethical” ones? Do you think it’s a hint to something important about moral psychology and moral intuitions?

Your Thoughts?

What Did Bill Murray Whisper To Scarlet Johansson? What Happened To Tony Soprano?

Matt And Kim In Times Square

There’s gotta be some story behind how they made this video…

Your Thoughts?

The Perils Of Unrequited Love

Richard Wade’s new column is typically sage, this time  as he soberly and accurately advises someone who is unrequitedly in love with a friend:

When a friend learns that their friend loves them romantically, but they don’t have that kind of love to return, they often feel a tension because of an odd quirk in our culture.

The healthiest response for the friend would be to feel sad about their love-struck friend, knowing that they are frustrated in their love. Unfortunately, in our culture people often take upon themselves the responsibility for other people’s feelings, thinking that they are supposed to somehow do something about or fix the other’s feelings. They confuse caring about someone’s feelings with taking care of someone’s feelings. So, being unable to return their friend’s romantic love, they might feel guilty. It is not rational or fair to themselves to take on that responsibility and the resultant guilt, but unfortunately it is all too common.

Also unfortunately, guilt is almost always accompanied by resentment. They don’t want this responsibility, but they don’t realize that it isn’t really theirs to take on. So they gradually begin to resent the source of their guilt. They think, “Oh why did my friend have to fall in love with me, making my life so complicated? Now I have to do something about it.” They cannot imagine themselves saying to their smitten friend, “I care about you, and I’m sad that you’re so frustrated, but there’s nothing I can do about it. My feelings are just not the same as yours. I hope that you can resolve your feelings.” They might consider such a response to be cold and uncaring, but it is not. It is the healthy, reasonable response of a caring friend who can only care, but who cannot be the manager of someone else’s emotions.

This is why your friend may at first have wished that your feelings would go away, and later may start wishing that you will go away. If she’s caught to any extent in that cultural false responsibility, the discomfort of guilt and resentment will take its toll on her friendship for you.

If someone loves you and you don’t love them, you can’t soft-peddle it, you’ve just gotta dash their hopes as clearly as possible.  And if you love someone and they’ve confirmed they have no feelings in return, you’ve just got to let it go.  Even were something to change in the future, you’re far more likely to have that happen if you two are not spending time in a relationship so imbalanced in terms of feelings and (in turn) power.

Your Thoughts?

Daily Hilarity: Death’s Complaints

The really funny new Mr. Deity is below. And this time the now regular plea for donations at the end has some moments that are even funnier than the episode.  It’s all really hilariously done.

Your Thoughts?

The Old Testament Continues To Be An Inspiration

…for judging one’s enemy’s children and anyone who has broken religious commandments worthy of death:

Just weeks after the arrest of alleged Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel, a West Bank rabbi on Monday released a book giving Jews permission to kill Gentiles who threaten Israel.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book “The King’s Torah” that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.

Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.

Advertisement

“It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” he wrote, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments – because we care about the commandments – there is nothing wrong with the murder.”

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers.

So, if I understand this reasoning correctly, the reason you can kill innocents associated with your enemies is because as morally imperfect they deserve death anyway.  I guess this means that I can kill anyone who I don’t like since I’m pretty sure they’ve already committed capital crimes like using a light switch on a Saturday anyway.  I can take it upon myself to get around to that death penalty no one else was properly attending to.

I must admit that sounds like some form of wickedness or barbarism, but, alas, I’m just one of those spiritually and morally impoverished unbelievers, so I really shouldn’t presume to know how to judge such things.  I guess I just should be grateful God gave us a special word to let us know about things that unenlightened human minds left to their own defenses (like mine) wouldn’t be able to figure out.  And it’s a good thing that he also made it so clearly understandable which parts of what he wrote apply to what time and place the rules that involve slaughtering children are in effect.

(via)

Your Thoughts?

Judge This: NYC’s Anti-Fattening Drinks Ad Campaign

Saturday on the subway I was enjoying the above poster, as I have numerous times throughout the semester.  And in fact, I haven’t just been seeing it on the subways but in my mind whenever I think of sodas now.  In fact I’ve had this image in my head since before I saw the ad for myself as just hearing it described to me by one of my students, I got the point and appreciated it.

And as someone with terrible eating habits that palpably need to change, I welcome the aggressive attempt to help my mind to better correlate foods and drinks with their actual consequences.  A quick perusal of the internet response to the ad reveals some people seem suspicious and disparage it as a “shock” campaign.  But it’s reality and an attempt to counter the deception of soda’s sweet, sweet taste.  Rational as we may be on one level, on another level, we are animals bodily lured by beautiful sights and sweet flavors and this plays a serious role in undermining our more considered judgments.  If this is what it takes to help our habitually deceived subconscious correlate our food and drink with its actual consequences, then I’m all for it.  I need the visual and so I appreciate it.

But am I wrong?  Is there something I’m missing here?

Your Thoughts?

Turn That Smile Upside Down…

These and a whole bunch more can be found here.

Furry Animal Overloaded With Cuteness

I’m not even sure what he is but here you go anyway, all you cute animal junkies.

Your Thoughts?

President Obama’s Speech At Fort Hood Memorial

Your Thoughts?

A Challenge To Christians To Unqualifiedly Condemn Genocide

Christians who defend the Old Testament genocides are guilty of either relativistic authoritarianism (anything can be okay as long as God wills it and His will has simply changed from the Old Testament days to the New Testament one) or, possibly worse, theoretical agreement with all the normal justifications of genocide as long as God gives the go ahead.  ZJEmptv calls for Christians to end the wishy washiness on the subject of genocide and to unequivocally denounce it.  One would think this wouldn’t be so hard for those who adhere to the tradition that alleges itself the vanguard of moral truth and spiritual advancement. 

So, how about it, my Christian friends, can you say here and now that you condemn genocide in all its forms and for all justifications whatsoever or do you reserve the moral right of genocide for God either in the present or at least in the past?  Where do you stand on this most basic of moral questions?   Is denouncing genocide unequivocally less important to you than preserving the already shaky logical consistency of your admittedly unjustified  faith claims to the divine truth of the Old Testament writings and their general accuracy in communicating the mind and character of God?  And if your opposition to genocide can be so compromised, what does that say about your morality?

(via Dwindling in Unbelief, a fellow Planet Atheism blog)

Your Thoughts?

The Belief In God Doesn’t Cause Violence, Only Particular Beliefs About God Do

In discussing the response to Nidal Malik Hasan, Alonzo Fyfe draws the distinctions just right when he accuses atheists who leap from the act of one kind of theist to associate theism in general with violence as an instance of “The Bigot’s Fallacy”:

Many of the people who embrace the Bigot’s Fallacy in this case are quick to argue that nobody has ever done any harm in the name of atheism. The argument (the version that makes the most sense) begins with the premise that atheism is a belief that the proposition that “at least one God exists” is certainly or almost certainly false. This belief alone doesn’t tell anybody to go establish a dictatorship and slaughter millions of fellow citizens. Therefore, it makes no sense to blame these atrocities on atheism.

The anti-religious bigot simply ignores the fact that the same argument applies to theists. The parallel argument begins with the premise that a theist is one who believes that the proposition that “at least one God exists” is certainly or almost certainly true. This belief alone doesn’t tell anybody go fly airplanes into civilian sky scrapers or to murder people in a processing center at an army base. Therefore, it makes no sense to blame these atrocities on theism.

The problem, in the latter case, is a set of specific beliefs that one attaches to the belief that at least one God certainly or almost certainly exists. It has to do with beliefs about what that God wants. However, there are also belief sets that include the proposition that no God exists that are just as capable of motivating a person to establish dictatorships and promote mass murder. So, still, the two arguments are parallel.

Among the various atheist philosophies there are a few that put a premium on reason and evidence. Among members of that subgroup of atheists, there should be some way to introduce a moral objection to the Bigot’s Fallacy and similar breeches of reason. These options are to be shunned – not because it is politically useful to be nice to theists, but because good people condemn the use of fallacious inferences in themselves and others.

Having said this, the Texas shooting does provide good reason, not to go after ‘theism’, but to go after any specific religious teachings that seemed to support the shooting, and any person who speaks for a specific religion who praises the shooting.

Your Thoughts?

Maggie Gallagher Gloats About Maine

Here’s what she said and below it there’s the scathing, harsh satire of it that expresses what what she stands for really means to the lives of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.  I found I needed a strong stomach for both videos but for opposite reasons.  The truth in the satire, as incendiarily nasty as it is, deserves to be heard.  Hang on to your stomachs:

(via)

Your Thoughts?

Can You Believe Slayer Is Back?

And with a kick ass title track for their album World Painted Blood?

You can sample the whole album via YouTube.

Lego

Lego

xkcd, of course.

Your Thoughts?

Stunning Sand Animation

This real-time Ukrainian sand animator, Kseniya Simonva has to be seen to be believed. I’ve never seen anything like it.  She essentially tells us a story by drawing each step of its progression at a time in real time transforming the same sand into the next portion of the story.  It’s truly, truly extraordinary:

Once you’ve taken it in its own right without explanations, here is the run down of what it’s all supposed to mean:

  • 0:00-1:30: A peaceful evening somewhere in the eastern USSR (whether Ukraine, Russia or Belorussia, it’s not clear from the picture). He and she are sitting in the city park, a large Christian Orthodox church can be seen in the distance.
  • 1:30-2:00: Radio announces German invasion into the USSR (June 22nd, 1941), German bombers appear in the air. She’s scared and crying. A patriotic song calling all citizens to arms is played, and her mate obvuiosly heads out to protect the Motherland.
  • 2:00-2:20: Troops are marching out of town, boarding trains and heading out to the frontlines.
  • 2:20-3:05: The kid is born and she takes care of him during the long nights; her tears disappear, replaced with a loving smile.
  • 3:35-3:40: Not quite clear. Could either mean that she and her kid end up under German air raid facing the scary turnmoil, but escape alive. Or, it could represent him battling with the enemies (in the wartime propaganda pictures, German Nazi were often depicted with those ugly pointy noses).
  • 3:40-4:10: She receives a letter from the frontlines. Could it be from him? She’s hopeful.
  • 4:10-4:40: The letter announces that he’s dead. The harsh news turn the beautiful girl into a sorrowful old lady.
  • 4:50-5:05: His grave. Some people in the comments claimed that it’s a Monument to Unknown Soldier. The confusion is understandable, given that these monuments were made to resemble the soldier graves (only scaled up). In other countries, it is common to mark their fallen by crosses; in the USSR, it used to be a wooden or metal pyramid (obelisk) crowned by a star. I am unable to find a photo of one from 1940’s, but here’s a more recent one to give you a general idea. See also this and this (frames from a movie).
  • 5:05-5:30: We can see an old lady mourning him; I would assume it’s his mother. Soon she’s joined by our girl and their little son.
  • 5:30-6:40: A citi razed to the ground by the war is slowly rebuilt.
  • 6:40-7:10: She oftentimes looks out of the window, still hoping that was a mistake and he is not actually dead and will one day return…
  • 7:10-7:40: She sees his image in the glass… In that image, he wears the Russian sailor’s uniform so we can conclude he was a sailor.
  • 7:40-8:10: Their little son joins his mom in looking out of the window… he also wears the kid version of sailor’s uniform, so he’ll obviosly go in his father’s footsteps…
  • 8:10-END: Conclusion of the… movie? “You are forever beside us. 1945.”

And here’s another one she made that won her the entire “Ukraine’s Got Talent” contest:

More.

Thanks to Liz and Rosie for the heads up.

2 Musicians Play One Guitar

This is the most amazingly worthwhile gimmick ever.  Who knew that four hands on one guitar could make such great music?

The details from the youtube information bar:

The 2009 Brazilian Music Institute in Gainesville, Florida featuring CECILIA SIQUEIRA (Uruguay) and FERNANDO LIMA (Brasil) – Duo Siqueira Lima -http://www.duosiqueiralima.com.br/eng… performing Tico Tico no Fuba (Zequinha de Abreu). The Institute has been active since 2001 and is organized by musician and professor WELSON TREMURA. Please, check some of our previous events and concerts by typing “Brazilian Music Institute” at the search engine. This particular performance took place at Santa Fe Community College, May 8 – 2009 which also involved Institute participants.

Thanks to Mark Bowers for the heads up.

Your Thoughts?

David Vitter Confronted By Rape Victim About His Vote Against Rape Victims’ Rights To Sue Haliburton

A month ago we highlighted the unconscionable decision of 30 Republican senators to vote against Al Franken’s bill which would assure that those who were raped in connection with their employment at Haliburton’s would have rights to sue Haliburton.  In this tense exchange, a rape victim confronts one of those senators, David Vitter.

A transcript of the exchange and an explanation of Obama’s position (which is more nuanced than Vitter indicates) can be found here.  The bit on Obama:

While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment, the White House itself said it supported “the intent” and was working to make sure it was “enforceable.”

Thanks to the Queen of Links for the heads up (as usual).

Your Thoughts?

Do You Believe In Satan?

The theologians at The View weighed in on this question last March…

I’d like to ask my Christian readers especially—do you believe in Satan?  And if so, what do you think Satan is like exactly?  And why do you think what you think?

Your Thoughts?

Let’s Hear It For New York!

Oh how I love this glorious city.  I would live here my whole life if I could.  Below is a beautifully shot video and achingly catchy anthem from two real New Yorkers.  Several times in the last week I’ve watched it over and over consecutively.  My favorite thing about it is how authentically New York Alicia’s vocals are.  It’s rare you really hear a New York accent sung but she does it in a way that just gives me chills here.  Especially on the word “inspire.”  And how passionate is her piano playing without sitting.  It’s the first time I’ve really gotten her talent and can understand how she inspired Bob Dylan.


Put simply, this song is going to stick around a long, long time as a worthy tribute to the greatest city on Earth.

Your Thoughts?

Daily Hilarity: Taylor Swift’s Saturday Night Live Monologue Song: “Monologue (lalalala)”

So on Saturday night, Taylor Swift went on SNL and performed this funny song.  I was really impressed with her comic delivery in numerous respects.   She really squeezes all the comedic juice out of a fairly by-the-numbers bit of writing:

I love the great little touch at the end where she says they’re going to have a great show and Kanye West is not there, exactly where the tradition is to mention that a musical guest is there.  They got that just right.

Fun Camels With Hammers fact, my post on the Kanye West interruption of Taylor Swift’s speech currently ranks as the fourth most viewed post in the website’s short history and it marked a watershed point in our traffic which essentially tripled its daily rate after that post and has maintained that level ever since.  How’s that for unpredictable?

And one last curiosity: is it just me or does anyone else wonder why the creepy guy at the party in Lost Highway is sitting behind Taylor Swift at the drum set?  In case you don’t remember him, below is that scene from that film—compare it with the footage of Swift’s performance above.

Your Thoughts?

Brain Powering

via Daniel Florien comes this fascinating account of the human brain and the energy required to run it:

According to Kwabena Boahen, a computer scientist at Stanford University, a robot with a processor as smart as the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate. That’s the amount of energy produced by a small hydroelectric plant. But a small group of computer scientists may have hit on a new neural supercomputer that could someday emulate the human brain’s low energy requirements of just 20 watts–barely enough to run a dim light bulb….

[The new idea] trades the extreme precision of digital transistors for the brain’s chaos of many neurons firing, with misfires 30 percent to 90 percent of the time. Yet the brain works with this messy system by relying on crowds of neurons to shout over the noise of misfires and competing signals.

That willingness to give up precision for chaos could lead to a new era of creative computing that simulates the unpredictable patterns of brain activity. It could also represent a far more energy-efficient era — the Neurogrid fits in a briefcase and runs on what amounts to a few D batteries, or less than a watt. Rather than transistors, it uses capacitors that get the same voltage of neurons.

Much more here.

A Statement Of My Teaching Philosophy

I believe that the best teachers are both rigorous and kind.  In terms of rigor, my syllabi are usually demanding in terms of the quantity of philosophers and major topics they cover and the quality of readings that they assign.  I give comprehensive exams, demand their writing shows signs of philosophical talent for an A, and grade class participation in a way that demands of every student both high frequency and high quality participation.  But the pressures of challenging course material should be the only source of stress students endure—extra anxieties stemming from the students’ interpersonal dealings with their instructor are simply counterproductive.  Teachers should create as encouraging and helpful relationships with their students as possible to ease the strains of an uncompromisingly ambitious workload, rather than exacerbating them through apathy, carelessness, or discouragement.  To build rapport with my students, I make a point of learning all my students’ names the first day of class before we start covering any material, show up 15 minutes before class whenever possible to take advantage of the opportunity to chat informally with them, accept late work without penalties, and make myself as available to them as I can through office hours and online social media.

Kindness towards the students also involves being sensitive to the lack of a sense of separation many students have from their ideas.  Especially in the case of novices to philosophy, many students are inclined to feel personally criticized when their ideas are rejected.  I put a lot of care into fostering active class participation by making students’ forays into expressing their ideas as stress-free and productive as possible.  This often begins with moving closer in the room to students when I call on them and then making eye contact with them so that they focus on me and not on their peers.  Then restating their ideas approvingly often validates them by showing them that I understand them and that they make sense.  Often at this point, it means amplifying students’ ideas to show them that I see they have more good implications to their thought than they had even communicated right away.  Within this context, constructively and sympathetically challenging their thoughts is far more productive because the students already feel validated and successful as contributors.  My students almost invariably seem to take my criticisms and philosophical challenges as collaborative rather than combative.

The most pivotal next step is to subtly mediate the students’ vigorous philosophical challenges to each other’s by having each student address their ideas to me, rather than directly to each other.  I will go around the room discussing the ideas at hand one on one with each student and moderating a larger debate, with each student feeling validated by my display of confidence in them.  This approach usually leads to more and more participants who bring a wider range of fruitful perspectives and a lively debate since everyone feels comfortable to speak up and personal acrimony or tensions are defused through my mediation.  Of course sometimes a student’s suggestion indicates a clear misunderstanding.  In those cases, it is crucial not to be so kind as to affirm a confused idea and mislead both the student and the rest of the class.  But even in those cases there are ways to be encouraging rather than discouraging to the student whose idea you need to reject.  You can explain to them how you see they made the mistake they did, affirm their reasoning process, and then explain to them what they overlooked or did not quite understand yet.  This art of sensitivity on one’s feet can make all the difference between whether or not the student tries to speak again.

The final indispensable sensitivity when dealing with students is to remember to focus on their freedom to develop their own intuitions, even where these manifestly differ from your own.  The art is to help students formulate their own ideas as well as they can be formed and then to engage them with challenges that come out of their ideas.  You do no favor to a student with whom you agree when you do not challenge him or her with another perspective and you do no favor to a student with whom you disagree when you put the advancement of your personal opinions ahead of their abilities to develop their own ideas.  Students should never feel afraid to disagree with you or an incentive to curry favor with you by telling you what they know you want to hear.  In most semesters, I have coyly guarded my own fundamental views in order to keep students from lazily relying on me as an authority, shamelessly pandering to my prejudices, or fearing my hostility to their contrary intuitions.  Other semesters I have let my students know my stances on a given issue when bringing in a guest philosopher to debate me and be a representative for those students who disagree with me, or simply have demonstrated a daily concern for their development as thinkers over the creation of converts.  Regardless of whether I have hidden my views from the students or have been nonchalantly frank about them when asked, as long as I have maintained a student-centric attitude that was concerned ultimately with their cultivation and rarely with my own soap box, students have never shown any signs of feeling encumbered in expressing their opinions in their writing or speaking in my classes.

All of this effort in getting students to speak comfortably is crucial to my teaching style since I teach through conversation.  I usually spend the first fifteen to twenty minutes of a lecture explaining the motivation behind the major question we are covering that day and then the broad outline of the answer that our assigned reading proposes.  It is crucial to highlight what the question is before giving them an answer to it, so that they can understand why it is important.  By the end of those fifteen minutes or so the students are either asking questions and challenging the ideas already or I am soliciting such responses from them.  The rest of the period is usually driven by their questions.  Different from the Socratic method, in which one coaxes desired answers from students through careful (often leading) questions to them, I see my goal as cultivating their questions so that when I give them a philosopher’s answer it is something they were motivated to care about.  When the students’ questions lead us to the ideas we were going to cover anyway, they feel like I am responding to their thoughts and concerns, rather than that I am just dumping information on them.  The art of guiding a class discussion for me is one of stimulating them to ask the questions the philosophers are asking so that the material I am teaching is something they want to be learning and so that they are better equipped to challenge the ideas I am presenting.  When people have asked a question for themselves, they are more likely to be able to recognize a flaw in the answer given, since as questioners, they understand to a significant extent what is at stake in a satisfying answer.

My lectures are dynamic and free-flowing, given this style of teaching.  In each lecture, the presentation of the ideas follows the stream of the class’s thought, rather than a pre-fabricated outline, except in those cases where a given idea or system does not admit of such loosely structured presentation for clarity.  For the most part, coherent sets of ideas can be presented in a range of orders and with varying emphases and I find it endlessly exciting to see the various ways to weave the threads of the same philosophy together when presenting it to a different class.  Some ideas covered are frequently the same, but the fresh derivation of them through the interaction with unique students each time is an extremely satisfying, creative activity.  Then when test time comes, I hand out a complete set of my notes for the students to study from so that they do not have to spend their studying energy on hunting and pecking through the texts or their notes but can concentrate on the central themes, explained in detail as though they had come to see me or written me with questions.  Such study guides help supplement their notes and so free them to focus during each lecture on keeping up with the ebbs and flows of the class discussion, rather than stressing over their abilities to reduce it all to testable information for regurgitation on an exam.  Separating the process of actively deriving and developing the ideas together as a class from the later need to have a valuable, orderly set of notes to help with committing to long-term memory, helps students to both think vigorously and then memorize well through techniques distinctly tailored to each goal.

Your Thoughts?