Left-Wing Extremist Meme

Hey folks, I know I've been falling down on the job recently. There are a bunch of essays in the queue that I've been either too overwhelmed or too lazy to finish, and they're coming. In the meantime, I'm taking this from Milligan. Not sure if he intended it as a meme, but it seems like fun. The basic tenet of it is that Time Magazine's blogger Joe Klein has defined left-wing extremism as being composed of the following attributes. You answer each as best you can to determine if you are a left-wing extremist.

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:
•believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.
At this point in time, I would say that the United States is much more a negative force in the world than positive, which is to say that the work we're doing which I'd consider "good" (obviously a reductive term) is more Band-Aid work than the "bad" work we're doing, which has more power to "fundamentally" change the structure of world politics, living conditions and the like.
•believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.
I like Milligan's answer here: No, it's one of three main causes, alongside Israeli imperialism and oppressive Middle Eastern governments.
•believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.
A little of column A, a little of column B. Certainly the Project for a New American Century can't be ignored when analyzing the causes. And by their report this ain't an isolated incident.
•tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.
Given that we just this side of abandoned the campaign in Afghanistan for the one in Iraq, I'd say we played a role in that problem. And I wouldn't mind pulling the lens a little further back, too. Klein seems to think that every action exists without much relation to the actions that came before it.
•doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.
No, no, I don't. Mostly because I think capitalism is in the end incapable of remaining carefully regulated and progressively taxed, but this one's a larger thought that I have to continue working on. Either way, there are far better liberal ideas (define that, while you're at it) in human history. Equality and equal access to education being foremost on my mind.
•believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).
American principles are not fundamentally unfair, looking to the Constitution and whathaveyou. Supposed attempts to act upon these principles have been fundamentally unfair since before the founding of the nation.
•believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.
Again, I'll take Milligan's: Given that some of our contemporary societies have achieved much lower crime and poverty rates, we might consider that we're doing something wrong here.
•believes that America isn’t really a democracy.
As did the Founding Fathers, because we're all right: it's a republic. This nation is waaaaay to big to be a democracy. Whether we can make it a representative democratic republic is another question.
•believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.
Okay, yeah, even I'm getting sick of the word "fundamentally" here, and I'm the Adverb Goddess. Anyway, to the point: something legally defined as a person but very much insulated from both the moral and legal reckonings to which individuals are prone/beholden cannot but be a little evil. No, I don't like the word "evil." How about: cannot but be amoral, and overly controlling, and possess far more power and influence than any individual whatever his/her level of political clout.
•believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.
It's not a conspiracy; it's right out there in the open. But I fail to see how, under current circumstances, corporations could fail to control the world.
•is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.
Examples, please.
•dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
I admit to having done this, particularly when I was in high school but it's spread upwards a bit, and I'm not comfortable with it. Growing up an agnostic New York Jew will do that to you. These days I'm too conscious of the power of faith, to whatever end, to dismiss it, though I see no reason not to mock on occasion. As to opponents of abortion and gay marriage, I certainly take them seriously because they have a lot of power. But while I understand distaste for dismissive mocking, I have to say parody's one of the best ways of approaching political thought.
•regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.
Vulgar: yes, not publically. Harsh: sort of, but I cannot hold a candle to Ann Coulter. Intolerant: see "harsh." I certainly do my damnedest to see and understand my opponents' thoughts and points.

By Klein's definition I'm probably 13 for 13. Oh well.