There is a groovy site called The Political Compass that is all about adding another dimension to the left/right paradigm in policial discourse. Their model consists of a collectivist/neo-liberalism axis based on economics and an authoritarian/anarchism axis based on governmental power. There is a quick survey you can take to see where you are on the square.

I especially like their model because it draws a distinct difference between the economic and social spheres. For example, both Stalin and Hitler were extreme on the authoritarian scale, but were almost opposite on the economic (Stalin eliminated private property altogether while Hitler encouraged businesses to run however they wanted as long as they supported the war effort).

After taking the test, I am not too convinced that their methodology is up to snuff. Or, it could be that their underlying assumptions are off. For example, it put me at the far left of the economic scale. However, I am not very communistic at all...I approve of private property, of privately owned businesses, and of the basic capitalistic system (in theory, at least). I think the flaw was that their economic questions seemed focused only on corporations, which I believe should be strongly regulated and heavily taxed. I would rather see a lot of small, privately owned businesses than gigantic mega-corporations run by stock-holders...a view that I think is more in line with the original blueprints of capitalism outlined by Adams.

Also, it put me far down towards anarchy. However, that's not quite right either. I believe that there should be an active government...the difference is in what it should do with its power. Ultimately, I think it should exist to maximize freedom for every individual, which can include war efforts (when necessary), protecting access to opportunity, and providing services such as health care, education, and protection against unexpected misfortune. You know, all that liberal shit.

I won't bore you anymore with this. Go take the test and let me know what you think...

~

I guess I am a Liberal Secular Humanist. Of course, by that, I don't mean I'm part of a "movement". That label just seems to fit me well. Thanks to this little essay (thanks solis93), my ideas about it have been nicely clarified. So, why am I a Liberal Secular Humanist?

I am a Liberal: I believe government should work to protect the rights and improve the lives of all citizens, not just those at the top. I also believe that government should be willing to try out new things (progressivism), even if they don't always work the first time, rather than just support the status quo for its own sake (conservatism).

I am a Secularist: I believe that, while religion has an important and legitimate role to play in our communities, the job of government is best accomplished through reason and our evolving knowledge via the natural and social sciences.

I am a Humanist: I believe that government programs should first and foremost deal with real issues involving real people. While values and beliefs cannot be divorced from policy, they can (and often are) divorced from reality. Policies that are based purely on ideology, religious concepts, or manipulation of data to support an agenda benefiting the few make for bad government (please note last five years as a good example of all three in action). Good government should address actual human needs, not the unknowable desires of a godform or the demands of an abstract philosophy.
~

Boy, Bill O'Reilly REEEEALY doesn't like San Francisco....

~

Here is an honest question for the libertarians about there...

ExxonMobil posted a $10,000,000,000 profit last quarter. Another four energy companies earned a combined $22,000,000,000 as well. Remember, this is just for the last three months.

At the same time, gas is still $3 or more at the pumps, and heating costs are expected to skyrocket. According to this story, job growth has become stunted because of energy prices (only 56k new jobs, a third of what is needed to keep up with population growth).

The question is this: is this good? This situation to me seems to embody the very principle of laissez faire economics: the company exists to earn profits and should be able to sell its wares at whatever cost will maximize them. The greatest public good is served by this behavior, right? What is good for these corporations is good for everyone, correct? The "free market" is the highest ideal, with little to no interference from government. Is this not the epitome of liberty?

Okay, well, now that these energy companies have little to no interference from government (hell, they are the government now), we see the result. Billions in quarterly profits with skyrocketing gas/heating costs for everyone else. Is this really the best of all possible worlds?

Please explain to me how this is good (if you could, please factor in reduced environmental controls as well. Thank you.)
~

The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these rights for themselves.

Damn-skippy!

Still, knowing the nature of the political and judicial system of this country, its inherent bias against the poor, against people of color, against dissidents, we cannot become dependent on the courts, or on our political leadership. Our culture--the media, the educational system--tries to crowd out of our political consciousness everything except who will be elected President and who will be on the Supreme Court, as if these are the most important decisions we make. They are not. They deflect us from the most important job citizens have, which is to bring democracy alive by organizing, protesting, engaging in acts of civil disobedience that shake up the system. That is why Cindy Sheehan's dramatic stand in Crawford, Texas, leading to 1,600 anti-war vigils around the country, involving 100,000 people, is more crucial to the future of American democracy than the mock hearings on Justice Roberts or the ones to come on Judge Alito.

More of this great Zinn essay...
~

Yesterday in a press conference, Bush made a major announcement:

"There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining," Bush said. "But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to."

Yes! It's about time. Man, this is going to suck if he's just getting my hopes up...
~

A great essay by Hunter over at DailyKos this morning, The Criminalization of Politics. Some snippits:

There's something beyond mere politics in all of this. Politics, one would hope, is not sufficient reason to damage the country. This is different. This is the cult of power, and of corruption, that is not just defended, but celebrated by pundits, by journalists, and by politicians alike.
- - - -
Because, apparently, it is absolutely impossible to sustain so-called conservative reform without committing crimes. That's the lesson I've been getting from DeLay, Frist, Abramoff, Franklin, Tobin, Safavian, Rove, Libby, etc, that have state prosecutors, the FBI, the SEC, and/or other federal officials buying new filing cabinets by the truckfull in a futile effort to keep track of it all.
- - - -
What's particularly galling is while Kristol and Bell bemoan the criminalization of "conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives", few of the people at the heart of the various Republican scandals represent much in the way of true conservatism at all. Is Abramoff a "conservative", or simply the main driveshaft of a Republican money machine? What about DeLay? Does his deficit-busting, spend-money-like-a-drunken-pirate agenda really square with "conservative" principles, or does "conservative" these days simply mean whatever principles Kristol deems convenient during this particular twenty minute span of time, to be revised as needed by the latest RNC-faxed talking points?
- - - -
Honestly, do these people have a bone of responsibility or self-accountability in their thick, Clinton-addled skulls? Is their brand of so-called "conservatism" nothing more than the economic and national security version of Intelligent Design, in which it'll all just work out fine if you draw a picture of Noah carrying everyone's 401K plans onto the Ark?
- - - -
Conservatism, whatever it may be, is hopefully not this. You don't have far to look, in the Republican Party, to find true conservatives. I may not like the political stances of a John McCain or an Arlen Specter, but nor do I fear for the nation if they come to lead the Republican party. Men of integrity can disagree on the principles of government; men whose sole moral compass is directed by what they can technically get away with, however, aren't political men. They're just crooks.
- - - -
Only a jackass of the caliber of a Fox News pundit could write an entire column in response to the scandal after scandal after scandal dogging every significant figure in the Republican leadership, and come to the conclusion that the problem was that Democrats were finding too many scandals and should just shut up.
~

From a wonderful essay by Barack Obama on DailyKos:

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job.

Read the whole piece...recommended for my friends on the Left.
~

The Republicans are fond of saying that 9/11 changed everything. In a way, they are right, of course, although their use of that change has been despicable. That tragedy has been used by them to cower a national press, frighten people into giving up their civil liberties, and justify terrible laws that benefit the few.

But now progressives can say with equal truth, sincerity, and passion that---almost four years to the day since 9/11---Katrina has changed everything again. Our enemy is no longer "over there", but in Washington as embodied in the GOP (who controls all three branches). Katrina has showed us that our new enemies are greed, incompetence, and apathy, and that the damage done by these enemies are not only economic, civil, and psychological, they are now very much physical, resulting in far more unnecessary (i.e. preventable) destruction and death than we saw on 9/11.

Tax breaks for the rich in the midst of a deficit budget?
No can do---Katrina changed everything.

Reduction of funding for necessary civic projects?
Not possible in the Post-Katrina world.

Expend our troops and money in needless wars?
Sorry, that is pre-Katrina thinking.


The ultimate change is, of course, that the entire Republican Party is now "Pre-Katrina". Now that Katrina has changed everything, it's time to use practical progressivism for our governmental model, which fights against greed, incompetence, and apathy. Katrina has simply given us no other choice.

The Republicans are on the ropes now that Americans are finally seeing through the lies and the spin. But Democrats can't leave it at that...it isn't over until the GOP are on the mat and can't get up. Is Katrina the knock out blow? If so, it's up to the Democrats to swing it.

~

George Lakoff has posted a brilliant essay : "The Post-Katrina Era"

[Note: hard-righters might want to skip this one...]

An excerpt:

The moral of Katrina is mostly being missed. It is not just a failure of execution (William Kristol), or that bad things just happen (Laura Bush). It was not just indifference by the President, or a lack of accountability, or a failure of federal-state communication, or corrupt appointments in FEMA, or the cutting of budgets for fixing levees, or the inexcusable absence of the National Guard off in Iraq. It was all of these and more, but they are the effects, not the cause.

The cause was political through and through — a matter of values and principles. The progressive-liberal values are America’s values, and we need to go back to them.

The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government.

The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.

It’s the difference between We’re-all-in-this-together and You’re-on-your-own-buddy.

It’s the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You’re only entitled to what you can afford.

Much more here...
~

From DailyKos: This post is a humorous list illustrating "how fundamentalist Islam has more in common with the radical religious right, the American Taliban, than it does with the American Left." With the current bluster from Rove et al. about how liberals want to seek understanding and therapy for terrorists, this list is quite timely.

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

( More below the fold... )
~

In several national polls, Bush's approval ratings are hitting the low 40s: 42 percent by CBS News/New York Times and Pew Research Center and 43% by Ipsos-AP. (Here are the breakdowns...)

So, here is the challenge. Do you think he will sink into the 30s and when?

~

From DailyKos...

From the press gaggle this morning...this is really funny (in a tragic kind of way)...
________________

Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?

McCLELLAN [White House spokesman]: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward....

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve....

.