I stumbled upon a very interesting website called the Political Compass, which uses a 2-dimensional Cartesian system for rating political leanings, with social policy along the y-axis and economic tendency along the x-axis. The site also gave a couple example graphs, showing the results of an analysis of what historical figures' ratings would be...
My rating on the test fell slight-left/centrist on the economic axis, and solidly libertarian, at the coordinates:
(Keep in mind that the ratings range from -10 to 10 on the x and y axes.)

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26





Which, as you can see from the graphs, lies right in the neighborhood of (though slightly right of) Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and most probably a number of other Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Not bad company. Also interesting to note are the following:
My political beliefs are further removed from all listed dictators than any listed global leader.
George Bush's ranking falls approximately 2 times closer to that of Hitler than mine.
Israeli leader Ariel Sharon (a close ally of the US) lies closest to Hitler of all listed world leaders.

My only surprise was that I ranked even slightly left economically, although 2.38 out of 10 does not indicate a serious tendency towards economic liberalism. But for the most part, taking the quiz simply reinforced my self-image as a "compassionate" libertarian-centrist in the company of Nobel laureates.
Another aspect of my political tastes that was explained by the test was how my initial support of Bush (in 2000) was slowly transformed into a rather strong dislike. Upon being elected, in my opinion Bush seemed to fall into the 2nd quadrant (the libertarian-right quadrant), however his foreign and domestic policies since 9/11 have shown him to be as solidly authoritarian as I am libertarian. Because of this, his views are now very close to being diametrically opposed to my own. Furthermore, my personal tastes count y-axis (social) deviations as more important than x-axis (economic) differences because I believe there is a large degree of uncertainty as to the relative effectiveness of economically liberal and conservative approaches to government. On the other hand, I do not believe there to be any uncertainty in comparing authoritarian and libertarian systems. In short, a free society is made by its social policies, and a prosperous society is made by its economic policies. I believe that freedom is significantly more important than prosperity.
Note that our nation was founded as a strongly right-libertarian (2nd quadrant) nation, and hundreds of years of government have slowly eroded our freedoms to the point where our nation scarcely resembles the free America intended by our Constitution. Assuming the general standing of the nation is characterized by that of the president, my unhappiness with the current situation of our nation can generally be explained as (and estimated by) the distance between the point (0,-7), which I believe to be ideal for the leader of our nation, and George Bush's rating at approximately (8,5.5).
This distance is currently 14.84, on a scale from 0 to 28.28 (28.28 being the maximum distance between ideologies on the scale). Standardizing this measure as a percentage indicates that I am currently 52.47% dissatisfied with the state of our nation. Using my personal rating of (-2.38,-4.26) as a reference point, I would be 50.38% dissatisfied with President Bush and our nation. Using this optimistic scale, I am disgusted by about 1/2 of everything our nation's leaders do.
My tendency to care more about y-axis discrepancies can be modelled by the fact that I am roughly twice as concerned with preservation of freedom than with economic policy. Factoring this in, I am 58.69% dissatisfied, meaning nearly 3/5 of everything President Bush does makes me want to vomit.
I hope this was helpful in explaining my political angst and constant need to be sarcastic and hateful when discussing political matters. Until next time...

The Failure of Foreign Policy and Dangers for the 21st Century

After one year of US occupation in Iraq, a disturbing new trend is developing. A subtle yet powerful dynamic of escalation, triggered by the killing and mutilation of 4 American contractors in Iraq, has begun to grow out of control. Coalition retaliation in Fallujah and elsewhere throughout central and southern Iraq has resulted in steadily increasing anti-American sentiment, even among those Iraqis thankful for the removal of Saddam. The Sunni minority, the traditional supporters of Saddam, are reported to be joining ranks with the Shiite majority under the direction of Shiite cleric Sadr. A recent US missile attack on a mosque in Baghdad has underscored the sensitivity of the situation, and the failure of US military leaders to understand and respect that sensitivity. The mosque, which was being used as a center of operations for attacks against US soldiers, was a legitimate target, and violated no international law, however the Arab media and the Iraq people have responded with outrage to what they view as an attack on their faith. Combined with the inevitable collateral damage suffered by the Iraqi people as US troops attempt to destroy insurgents, the Iraqi people are starting to feel the pressure of occupation, and are losing patience with the continued presence of coalition forces.
The diplomatic strains caused by the continued US presence in Iraq are starting to show, as Muslims in nations surrounding Iraq protest the US occupation and call for their governments to condemn US presence. The Arab world has begun a process of unification against American interests in the Middle East, uniting under the banner of the unlikely leader Moqtada al-Sadr, a young Shiite cleric. Mr. Sadr, the formal leader of the insurgent Madhi Army, is a student of Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, and seeks to establish a strict Islamic theocracy in Iraq similar to the current Iranian government. Whereas Mr. Sadr has traditionally had the support of the poor and illiterate in Iraq, he is quickly gaining clout among middle class Iraqis, as well as Arabs is surrounding nations. While the majority of Iraqis do not actively support Mr. Sadr, opposition numbers are growing.
Due to the unchallengeable force of the US military, Iraqi insurgents have developed various means of fighting the occupation, most importantly recognizing that US citizens have very little, if anything, to gain from continuation of the occupation. The exploitation of this American apathy has led insurgents to launch small, token attacks against US troops, inflicting casualties so as to wear down the will of the American people. The war in Iraq will not be won by overwhelming military force. In fact, America's military might has been turned into a liability as America is portrayed throughout the world as the bullying occupier. In the most important battle in this war, the fight for hearts and minds, coalition forces are losing terribly.
It is becoming increasingly clear that our "Coalition of the Willing" is not so willing. So many nations who granted their support to the war (in the form of tiny troop commitments) are questioning their commitments to the effort. Most recently the kidnapping of 4 Japanese citizens has severely strained Japan's commitment to Iraq, as massive protests erupted throughout the country demanding removal of Japanese troops. As Spanish troops prepare to withdraw from Iraq, America's greatest ally, Britain, stands (with the exception of the Prime Minister) strongly against the occupation.
Apparently the American people have grown so used to point-and-click warfare that any shred of tolerance for American casualties has been eradicated, and President Bush is quickly losing support for his policies in Iraq. It seems the majority of the American population did not consider the real, deadly implications of dedicating our nation to war, and is now unwilling to pay the price. Hawkish pundits such as Bill O'Reilly, as well as some Republican congressmen, have recoiled in horror at the realization that nation-building and occupation are not quick-and-easy endeavors.
A year into the great Iraq experiment, we are being awakened to the harsh realities that exist outside our world of affluence and cozy entertainment. We are being confronted with the very real possibility of a dangerously escalating war, and we must consider what price we will pay for the 'freedom' of the Iraqi people. We have been confronted with the fact that there are no WMD's, we have been forced into the realization that it takes more than 'Shock and Awe' to defeat and rebuild a nation. We must now face the real threat presented by growing and potentially explosive anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. We must act against the growing power of al Qaeda throughout the world. President Bush claimed that the UN was in danger of becoming irrelevant. However, Iraq has not attacked the US, and Saddam, without WMD's or any formidable army, did not pose a threat to our nation. In the war to protect the American people, and in the war against terror, it is Iraq that is irrelevant. We must refocus this War on Terror away from the irrelevant and concentrate on the threat of terrorists. We must work to weaken the real threats to our nation like al Qaeda. The one thing that is unquestionably clear is that the leaders and citizens of our great nation need to thoroughly assess how far we are willing to go, and what we are willing to give for this dream we call Iraq.