This morning prior to writing this column, I responded to an e-mail that asked me to participate in a survey. I've been a member of this group for several years. The surveys can cover a number of topics, from marketing of products to politics to rating television shows. At the end of every survey they ask you what you thought about the survey and I can honestly say that several times I have given them a low rating because of the formation of their questions. I think it reflects what goes on in public discourse.

The first question on this particular survey that demonstrated what I have concerns about had to do with issues that I feel are of high importance to our nation. There were probably 20 options and you could pick as many as you would like. One of the options asked if I was concerned that climate change would negatively affect me in my lifetime. My answer is, yes I'm somewhat concerned but I know the authors have framed the question about climate change to infer that it is man caused climate change. I'm not worried about man caused climate change, I'm worried about natural climate change. Our earth goes through cycles and I don't want to live in this area during a cycle that brings drought to our part of the world.

Another question was should a man or woman be identified by the sex assigned at birth. Absolutely but it's not assigned in the way that has become the argument in the public discourse. Some human being doesn't flip a coin and decide that male or female is what will be written on the birth certificate. God or nature creates the human being and that person's genitalia determines the gender.

After a series of questions regarding my involvement or donation to charitable organizations, the final question in that segment asked why I generally donate my time or money to charitable organizations. The last option from which I could choose was, I don't think the state does enough to help the less fortunate. Sadly, the instant results revealed that this option was one of the more popular answers among respondents. People believe the government is the one that should be responsible for helping those that are less fortunate.

Each of these examples shows that framing of the question or argument greatly affects the perception of people as to what the problem is and ultimately what the solutions should be or who should be responsible for implementing the solutions. There is very little scientific evidence that man or cow methane causes the climate to change from its natural cycle. Science defines gender, not a bunch of activists. The state does not have time to conduct the business of charitable organizations, but more importantly, the state is extremely inefficient and ineffective at providing real solutions.

However because we have allowed the people that make money or gain power by being involved in these situations to frame the argument, we find ourselves in a situation where the problems, if they exist, will never be solved. We also find ourselves being divided on issues that don't really matter to most of us. Whether you are a man or a woman does not matter to the vast majority of people on this planet. Unless you are looking for a mate or you want to have children. And probably most harmful of all, that the government is the solution to poverty, illness, inequality, etc.

We must reframe the argument to address the real issues or problems. Once we do that, most people are going to realize that what we are being told is a huge issue, really isn't. We'll also be able to correctly identify those issues that are problems and more likely than not be able to apply remedies that are effective. Most importantly, we'll go back to realizing that our differences do not define who we are as human beings. We'll also find, as we did in the Mel Brooks era, that we aren't that different at all.