Mona:

I have myriad issues with Lew Rockwell, and have had for decades. Which is why I was so disgusted when, early in UT history, someone snarked at me that I should go over to Lewrockwell.com where I "belong."

Gary North is simply the most stark example of how extreme that enclave is, and what they will put up with in terms of approving associations.

Cato and Reason libertarians are the sane, mainstream and pragmatic variety who are respected by many. The LAT hired Matt Welch, a former Reason editor. I cannot imagine their doing that with a Rockwell staffer.

You have issues dating back decades? Decades?

Ah, it is clear now. You have issues with Rothbard and his famous split with big-government libertarian types at the establishment institutes you mention as well as the infamous split with the Randians. It has been amusing to watch others yell about this fellow or that fellow, when the real issue has always been Rothbard. Ah well, so it goes.

The guy who runs anti-war.com Justin Raimondo wrote a biography of Rothbard called An Enemy of the State (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000). Anti-war.com is the nations most valuable net resource bar none. (sorry Salon and Glenn --- but you are in the top 10) Lew Rockwell gives a review here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rothbard.html

I can not support any pro-war group, and all Anarco-Capitalists will think in like manner. War is not the answer; Republican wars or Democratic wars.

Now, a few comments by other "scary types":

Karen DeCoster:

People ask me "why do you always pick on the Beltway libertarians?" Well golly, the fact that Cato and the rest of the Beltway "libertarians" are a part of the pro-war, pro-Bush, statist establishment is surely no reason to single them out for criticism.

One of those wild and dangerous public accountants.

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/

James Ostrowski:

Brink Lindsey, of the Cato Institute, has published a long “blog” attacking “anti-war libertarians.” (Isn’t “anti-war libertarian” a redundancy?) ...

Lindsey’s stated purpose in the attack is to get these wacky libertarians in line with the establishment libertarian agenda of tinkering with the welfare state with welfarite school vouchers and private socialist security accounts. Lindsey does not say why he wants these misguided libertarians messing around with these banal issues. If they are wrong about the major issue of our time – war and peace – why trust them with any other issue? Pardon me if I am skeptical. It is standard operating procedure in politics to ignore your opponents unless and until they are beginning to win substantial support. Could it be that the anti-war libertarians are beginning to draw blood, metaphorically speaking, of course? ...

Another sin of anti-war libertarians was inviting Gore Vidal to speak at a conference. He is the “King of All America Haters.” Gee, I thought the King of All America Haters was H. L. Mencken, the most vicious critic of America who ever lived, and after whom Cato named one of their fellowships. I don’t recall reading much where Gore Vidal attacks America; mostly he attacks the second branch of a supposedly limited federal government. Unless one equates America with the President of the federal government, that indictment must fail. Cato’s hero Mencken hated the President (which one? all of them), the Congress, and the Supreme Court, but he also took direct aim at the American people, “Boobus Americanus,” the culture, and the predominant religion. ...

He is another New York lawyer, activist, and book writer. His personal blog:

http://blog.jimostrowski.com/

Let us just say that you may highlight the differences between the big-government libertarians and those that are mini-government (or no-government) libertarians all day. I'll join in if you want, but it does not really matter: positions on real issues matter.

How could anyone other than the hard right attack Gore Vidal? Attack Vidal? I'll be damned, will Howard Zinn be next?

Reason:

Slaughterhouse Jive or, Why Kurt Vonnegut Is a Fool

In the November issue of Indianapolis Monthly, the 80-year-old Vonnegut reminds the world why he's a has-been.

"There's so much talk about 9/11," observes the novelist best known for Slaughterhouse Five, a book inspired in part by his experience surviving the firebombing of Dresden, "but what the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations have done to us has been more destructive."

At the very least, the major corporations that published Galapagos, Deadeye Dick, and Timequake have some explaining to do.

Yes, Reason Magazine hits Kurt Vonnegut for being right, but way too soon. How many now would call the man a "fool" for claiming that the Republicans talk too much 9-11? Reason can always be depended upon to uphold war if their cooperate masters tell them to do so.

Perhaps, but I did 2x2 and got the same fact --- but a different conclusion. They are both protecting the President.

What did the President know? When did he know it?