Folks it’s Friday

[John Simkin]

My results are:

Economic Left/Right: -9.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

[Gary Buell]

Fun test. My score: Economic left/right -4.00 Social libertarian/authoritarian -6.62

[Norman T. Field]

My employers network won't let me reach the site, but everything in my house leans left, even the cat.

[Tim Gratz]

While I am a clearly a civil libertarian, in the interests of national security given the present crisis, I believe anyone whose combined score is -5.00 or below should be imprisoned until the war on terror is over.

[James Richards]

Interesting.

Economic left/right: -6.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

Like George, I landed next to Ghandi on the graph.

James

[Tim Carroll]

Interesting.

Economic left/right: -6.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

It must be a function of the language and conditioning to some degree. According to the test, I'm more socially libertarian than James, but more conservative economically. I'm definitely inclined toward socialism, and consider myself an extreme leftist generally. So I must have been answering more conservatively than I intended. Either that or I really am a moderate compared to all the pinkos on this forum.

T.C.

[John Dolva]

As most of us are clustered around a little old man wearing a blanket wowen from yarn spun by himself, it might be worthwhile to pause and consider the real Ghandi.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/bio5000/introduction.htm

(a)..lesson of his life which should be of universal interest is that he was not born a genius and did not exhibit in early life any extraordinary faculty that is not shared by the common run of men. He was no inspired bard like Rabindranath Tagore, he had no mystic visions like Ramakrishna Paramhansa, he was no child prodigy like Shankara or Vivekananda. He was just an ordinary child like most of us. If there was anything extraordinary about him as a child, it was his shyness, a handicap from which he suffered for a long time. No doubt, something very extraordinary must have been latent in his spirit which later developed into an iron will and combined with a moral sensibility made him what he became, but there was little evidence of it in his childhood. We may therefore derive courage and inspiration from the knowledge that if he made himself what he was, there is no visible reason why we should not be able to do the same.

His genius, so to speak, was an infinite capacity for taking pains in fulfillment of a restless moral urge. His life was one continuous striving, an unremitting sadhana, a relentless search for truth, not abstract or metaphysical truth, but such truth as can be realized in human relations. He climbed step by step, each step no bigger than a man's, till when we saw him at the height he seemed more than a man. "Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe", wrote Einstein, "that such a one as this, ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." If at the end he seemed like no other man, it is good to remember that when he began he was like any other man.

Such is the great lesson of his life. Fortunately, he has himself recorded for us the main incidents of his life till 1921 and described with scrupulous veracity the evolution of his moral and intellectual consciousness. Had he not done so, there would have been in India no dearth of devout chroniclers who would have invented divine portents at his birth and invested him with a halo from his childhood."

So, as I understand it, a methodical man, free from superstition and with a strong moral consciance, who, step by step, learned and lived the lessons of his life.

________________________

there is a silliness about this test in that it asks for absolutes where no absolutes can exist and then presents the result as both a loose field definition plus an exact number. I think it's a measure of ones conscience. Which would not necessarily have all that much to do with the day to day persona. Which is what one would expect. Ordinary humans...

[John Simkin]

While I am a clearly a civil libertarian, in the interests of national security given the present crisis, I believe anyone whose combined score is -5.00 or below should be imprisoned until the war on terror is over.

I suppose this could be another one of your silly jokes but it deserves an answer. You might like to see yourself as a civil libertarian but you clearly are not. The test of a libertarian concerns their attitude towards their enemies, not their friends. These comments are in line with your expressed views on subjects like McCarthyism, Guatemala in 1954, Batista’s Cuba, the crimes of Reagan and Bush, and abortion in the 21st century. You are only in favour of people’s human rights when they share your extremist right-wing ideology.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

You are only in favour of people’s human rights when they share your extremist right-wing ideology.

Totally unsupported. I favor human rights in all countries. You, however, seem to be tolerant of the well-documented human rights abuses in Cuba.

I also note you allowed Steve Gaal to post a comment claiming my employer's company might be based on drug profits. I challenged Gaal to prove he even knows the name of my employer, which I seriously doubt he does.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

I don't know what I was thinking when I answered the questions. This evening my wife, who is far more conservative than I, came up with scores of -7 and -6. I think part of it is that political discourse in America has so successfully demonized liberalism, and framed socialism as the little brother of communism, that I moderated my answers.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim, an interesting exercise would be to take it over again and see what the new results are.

I suspect my results were moderated because I normally checked "agree" rather than "strongly agree". I answered truthfully to allow for nuances and limitations.

[Guest]

I favor human rights in all countries.

Doesn't quite marry with.......

I believe anyone whose combined score is -5.00 or below should be imprisoned.

[Tim Gratz]

Andy, even John knew I was making a "silly joke".

Sometimes I think a leftist often lacks a sense of humour. In part perhaps because of his world view.

[Guest]

Sometimes I think a leftist often lacks a sense of humour. In part perhaps because of his world view.

I wonder if many germans in the 1920s made "silly jokes" about locking up jews. The problem of having imbecile right wingers ruling is that their silly jokes can quickly become horrible reality.

[Tim Gratz]

GB is no imbecile. Sad how leftists have to use personal attacks to substitute for rational debate.