Let’s Put the “Teresa’s a Hippie” Talk to Bed Now

Andy’s always on and on about how I say I’m a conservative, but secretly I’m a hippie. I’d like to put that to rest here and now with the results of the “How Liberal or Conservative Are You?” test:

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 35% Conservative, 65% Liberal Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

And according to the PoliticalCompass.org political orientation test, I’m a slightly right-wing Libertarian:

I am, however, still not a Republican.

In your face Flanders Andy!

Where do you guys score?

Since When am I a Republican?

It’s obvious that I’m pretty proud of MTV’s coverage of TeresaCentric last week. And I’m really excited that the video has been a featured story on ChooseOrLose.com. But I’m not so darned excited about the fact that they’re misrepresenting me as a Republican.

I’m not a Republican. I’m an independent with a particular take on conservatism. Technically I was a Democrat until a few weeks ago when Obama clinched the nomination and I reverted to Independent status. I’ve been a member of the Republican party, but I hate political parties and participate in them only when great leaders like Senator Obama, or Senator McCain eight years ago come along.

So my challenge to MTV is: get it right. I’m not a Republican. I’m a conservative, kay?

The Pentagon’s Web of Lies, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Drive for Endless War

I was absolutely appalled to read the results of The New York Times’ investigative report into the Pentagon’s use of a group of retired military officers — most of whom have ties to military contractors with a vested interest in retaining close connections with the Defense Department — as part of a propaganda machine whose intent was to keep up public support for the war in Iraq.

The Times has discovered that these officers — whom the Pentagon referred to as “message force multipliers” — were appearing regularly on all the major television news networks as supposedly objective military analysts, even while they repeated administration talking points as if they were their own opinions.

As if this weren’t outrage enough in and of itself, the transcript of a private meeting between then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and these so-called analysts reads more like a meeting of a team of public relations professionals on behalf of a client than a briefing of military analysts by the Pentagon. It reveals a desire on the part of the whole group to encourage the American public to accept an endless war. As one of the retired military officers said during the meeting:

Mr. Secretary, one of the things that’s stuck with the American people is the long war. I don’t think you realize how effective that was…when you said “long war,” you changed the psyche of the American people to expect that this is going to be a generational event…if you could just play on that theme a little more…so something like Iraq becomes a milepost or a signpost along the continuum of the long war. If you paint it that way, then people won’t look for terminal events.

Keep in mind that this so-called “analyst” was, at that very time, posing as an objective military expert on one of our national media channels.

What we have here is the collusion of military contractors and the Defense Department to dupe the American people into war without end. This represents what Dwight Eisenhower meant to warn against when he said in his farewell address to the American people:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Unless we want to witness — in our lifetimes — the complete disintegration of the American moral compass, we must stand up and deplore this outrageous abuse of the public trust. When you combine it with illegal wiretapping, torture, and the willful mismanagement of the war in Iraq, you have a recipe for a special prosecutor and a full investigation.

I wonder which one of the current presidential candidates might have the strength of character to make that happen.

Rice to CIA on Torture: “This is your baby, go do it”

This administration’s disgusting regime of torture has duped so many of us — including, at times, myself — into accepting a morally reprehensible practice as a practical necessity for protecting national security. In our mindlessness, our disengagement and our fear, we have allowed fascism to stagnate in our nation.

I sincerely hope that every member of President Bush’s cabinet spends a good chunk of the remainder of their lives in prison for war crimes.

Obama Takes Maine

Barack Obama racked up another victory today, increasing his momentum. As with his victories yesterday, it was a convincing one: with half the vote in, Obama leads 58% to 41%.

Hillary Clinton fired her campaign manager today. It appears her strategy of conceding small states waiting to fight hard in Ohio and Texas is not working. I thought Mark put it best when he compared Hillary Clinton’s current situation to that of Rudy Guiliani’s.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee just gave a speech saying that we don’t need any laws other than the Ten Commandments. I know people are saying he is going to be the VP nominee. This guy is f*cking nuts. He’s funny, and if he had a talk show I would watch it. If he was a pastor in my neighborhood, I would probably attend his church occasionally. But this is not a guy who is a realistic candidate for President or Vice-President if he is put under any serious scrutiny.

Obama CRUSHES Clinton

I really don’t see how the Clinton camp can spin this. Obama is currently ahead by margins of more than 2-to-1 in the Nebraska and Washington Caususes. With 30 percent reporting in Washington, Obama leads with 67 percent. With 70 percent reporting in Nebraska, Obama leads with 69 percent of the vote.

A new tide is rising in the Democratic party.

Seattle Goes Crazy For Obama

Hillary Clinton was in town today. So was John McCain. You wouldn’t know it though. Clinton’s rally yesterday, in the evening when people were off work, drew 5,000 supporter. McCain’s rally today, scheduled for late afternoon when people were getting off work, drew several hundred supporters.

Barack Obama’s rally at the Key Arena, with doors opening at 11AM, and closing at 11:30 AM, an hour and a half before he went on stage at 1PM, drew a full capacity of 18,000. A crowd estimated between 5,000 and 10,000 who were turned away at the door listened to his speech on loudspeakers outside the Arena, in the rain. I strongly suggest watching it.

How Does Your Moral Perspective Orient You Politically?

My favorite conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote today about the University of Virginia Moral Foundations Questionnaire:

Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity…

They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity…

Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to the moral systems that protect the group. Because conservatives do give some weight to individual protections, they often have a better understanding of liberal views than liberals do of conservative attitudes, in his view.

Andy and I took the same test. How we all stack up after the jump:
Read more

Principles over Fealty: The Changing Relationship Between Congressional Republicans and the White House

The money quote comes from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.):

To be candid, Republicans think less in terms of fealty to the president than loyalty to principle.

I remember when the Republican majority in Congress marched in perfect lock step with the President, refusing to stand up to his overreaching executive privilege and abuses of power.

Our democracy may be under fire, but it’s not dead yet. Approval ratings still mean something in Washington and the GOP minority can’t ignore the voices of the American people.

Today’s Intelligent Design: “Sneaky Deep” Conversion Strategy of the Christian Right

There’s something you don’t know about me. When I was in high school, I was taught…intelligent design. But this wasn’t anything like the pseudo-scientific flim flam being passed off today in courts and school districts around the country. It was a decent, honest attempt to reconcile science with belief in God.

Mrs. DuPen, our beloved biology teacher at Holy Names, had a banner posted above the white board of our freshman biology classroom. It read, “The likelihood that the universe was created by accident is equal to the likelihood that the Oxford English Dictionary was created by an explosion in a print shop.”

We weren’t taught that evolution contradicted the idea of God as creator. Rather, we were encouraged to investigate empirical matters scientifically while allowing ourselves private beliefs where matters of faith were concerned. It was a wonderful way to teach science while respecting religion, and I do understand evolution very well. My own personal reconciliation of evolution and faith–one that I shared with many of my classmates–was that God set evolution in motion because God was wise and knew that this was the best way to create vibrant, healthy, thriving species.

If we are to allow for the possibility of God in American science classrooms, I would suggest Mrs. DuPen’s method as the way to do it. But the current intelligent design movement isn’t about allowing for the possibility of God. It’s about converting a generation of American children to Christianity.

If Evangelical Christians were really only concerned with the idea of intelligent design, then they would adhere to the 1987 Supreme Court decision that creationism could not be taught alongside evolution because it disobeyed the Constitution by promoting a specific faith in public schools. They would simply fight for the allowance of the possibility of God and leave the matters of specific faith or non-belief up to individual children and their families.

Instead, they are continually working against their own political interests by trying to advance a “sneaky deep” message about the rightness of only one religion: theirs. This is all part of the larger goal of converting the entire world to their particular way of believing.

I’ve been thinking and reading a great deal about doctrinal fundamentalism–both religious and social–lately. I have come to the conclusion that it is one of the biggest threats to the future of humanity. Any ideology which leaves no room for doubt, variation or individual conscience cannot be allowed to impose itself on a democratic system of governance. Such an eventuality would be an assault upon human dignity and liberty.

The Seattle Ferry Controversy: Was the PI Right Not to Publish the Photos?

I’m pretty ambivalent about the recent controversy over the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s decision not to run the photos of two men who have been seen “acting suspiciously” aboard Washington State ferries in the past few months.

A ferry employee snapped this photo of the two men:

The FBI took the unusual step Monday of releasing the photos in the hopes that someone who knows the two men would come forward. They are not accusing the men of terrorism, but they do want to know why they showed unusual interest in the ship’s systems.

The PI elected not to publish the photo, despite the FBI’s request. They said that the image was not newsworthy given that neither man was suspected formally of any crime. Their concern was for the rights of the individual.

This is a pretty classic example of the upheaval in our society surrounding security vs. individual liberties. And it makes me pretty ambivalent.

I completely understand the need for vigilance. I agree with Michelle Malkin that political correctness should be thrown out the window when we are concerned for our immediate safety or the well-being of others. In this post 9/11 world, do we have the luxury to give anyone who acts suspiciously the benefit of the doubt? And how much damage does a false positive really cause to the person who has been identified as suspicious?

I also relish the freedoms that I have as an American. I understand that widespread surveillance — with neighbors reporting on neighbors to the government — can be harbingers of fascism. I believe that President Bush is a wannabe fascist who, fortunately for us, is the leader of a nation whose Constitution and culture will not permit a permanent police state. And so when I see trends that point to past police states, I cringe. I respect the PI’s aversion to violating individual rights and privacy.

I’m curious what you think. Can we draw a clear line between the two extremes of surveillance and freedom? Are there mechanisms we can put in place to ensure that people feel free to come forward with information, knowing that we can effectively and swiftly exonerate those who do not have any involvement in terrorist conspiracies? Or in the absence of a perfect system, must we error on one side or the other?

Here are some other points in the conversation:

• Michelle Malkin, yesterday
• The Seattle PI “Big Blog” yesterday
• The Seattle PI this morning
• Michelle Malkin today
• The Seattle PI “Big Blog” today

Andrew Sullivan’s Hillary Problem is My Hillary Problem, Too

Unlike Andrew Sullivan, I found myself moved by Senator Clinton’s most recent campaign ad:

It’s true that ordinary people — and extraordinary people, like our veterans — are invisible to this administration. But like Sullivan, I have a hard time believing that Senator Clinton means half the things that come out of her mouth:

The answer, I think, is about character. It’s not so much about policy any more. I’m resigned to the fact that conservatism has entered a wilderness for a while. Bush and Rove killed it, and it will take a period out of power to restore it. And if you’re going to have a big government philosophy you might as well have the government run by people who believe in it, rather than by those who think it’s just a useful vehicle to get their second cousin a job. And Hillary isn’t that left-wing.

This election really is all about character. President Bush has none. His character is so weak that he can’t listen to anyone who says things he doesn’t want to hear. The result: a mess in Iraq, a half-assed job in Afghanistan, and a tarnished America in the eyes of the international community. I don’t doubt for a second that Bush is a true believer. He honestly believes every word of what he says because his character is too weak to allow him to ever question himself. I doubt he’s ever found himself at fault for anything in his entire life.

Hillary Clinton is a different animal. She’s the opposite of a true believer. She listens to every perspective and does what is most likely to keep her in power. But is that really a bad thing after so much divisiveness? Maybe what we need is a highly political animal with wonkish tendencies. She may be able to steer us out of Iraq.

She doesn’t have my support yet, but after some of the incredibly naïve things I’ve heard come out of Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, she’s my top overall candidate.

Is the Modern USA a Proto-Fascist State?

I Stumbled Upon a video today that lists the 14 major characteristics of a fascist state and purports to show that America today is headed in the same direction as such fascist regimes as Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy.

Let’s watch the video and dissect its claims point by point after the jump:
Read more

My Question for Republican Candidates

Here’s the question I submitted to the Republican Candidates for their debate on September 17:

Incidentally, I thought this was the best question posed to the Democratic candidates tonight:

President Bush is an Arrogant Son of a Bitch

I let Andy do the Bush Pardons Libby post yesterday because I was too hopping mad to think straight. I figured I’d just launch into a rant rather than discussing the facts.

It’s been more than 12 hours and I’m still hopping mad, but I’m posting anyway. Just who the hell does President Bush think he is? More than 200 years of American history and this guy thinks he’s King George IV. As Andy said to me yesterday, he believes that no loyal member of his administration is accountable for his actions.

I keep asking myself just how much more Congress is actually going to let Bush get away with. Every time he does somthing like this, he wastes what little political capital he has left. His approval rating is in the toilet. The American people would likely support an initiative to censure him. The whole reason Congress exists is to enforce the system of checks and balances our forefathers put in place to prevent tyranny. But so far, they’ve done nothing.

Censure him. Open impeachment proceedings. Call for a vote of no confidence. Somebody with some political credibility needs to do something STAT!

Just How Much More Arrogance are We Going to Put Up With from this White House?

Today, the White House sent a letter to Congress invoking the increasingly broad concept of “executive privilege” to explain why they wouldn’t share important documents regarding the firings of several U.S. attorneys.

President Bush has shown a consistent, flagrant, arrogant disregard for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law. His main concern in all of this is partisan politics and he refuses to reach out and seek compromise. His behavior while in office the antithesis of everything our nation’s founders envisioned when they designed the executive branch.

It’s time Congress started playing hardball with this White House. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that he would consider pursuing contempt citations for those who fail to reply to Congressional subpoenas. I certainly hope Congress is prepared to follow through on that, because I’m sick of watching them back down to a White House that has absolutely not respect for their role as the voice of the American people.

Campaign Finance Needs Hardcore Reform

When historians look back on America in the early 21st century, I speculate that they will see a society marked by declining critical thinking skills and ballooning intellectual passivity. And when they look at the politics of our era, they will see the rise of money power and corruption.

As the fundraising for the 2008 presidential election takes off, the question of campaign finance reform once again comes to the fore. I once heard someone say that politics is the only business in the world where you must take money from strangers and then pretend you owe them nothing. Indeed, our national legislative priorities are for sale to the highest bidder.

It would be wonderful if we could cut right to the source of all this corruption: the lobbyists. An all-out ban on lobbying of any kind would cut to the heart of the dangerous alliance between money and political power. Unfortunately, most congressmen are so beholden to lobbyists for campaign funds that they would never throw down that most necessary of gauntlets.

So, in the absence of a ban on the real villains of politics, what is our solution?

It’s simple really, no campaign finance at all. All political campaigns should receive the same amount of Federal dollars. Campaigns will have to be short and to the point. Candidates will have to rely on good, well-articulated ideas than showmanship and manipulation.

Until we see effective campaign finance reform, there can be no free and fair elections in this country. Indeed, what we have now is a mere mockery of democracy.

Next Page »