"There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them."

--David Friedman

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/

Most of the anarcho-capitalists are cartoonish, Mona. It's

been called "vulgar libertarianism" by both liberals and conservatives.

To one critic, Olbermann's actual performance at the debate and in similar situations was less important than the message sent by his presence.

In that one sentence, AP’s David Bauder gives away the game and exposes the double standard that "conservatives" want to apply: for them, it is not acceptable for anyone who has expressed “liberal” views (or openly challenged “conservative” positions) to question Presidential candidates during debates. However, that rule does not apply to those who have expressed “conservative” views.

Hume, who openly admits and expresses his conservative views, insists that he should be judged “upon his performance.” Yet, that is exactly what “conservatives” are trying to deny Keith Olbermann. They object to his very existence; his performance is irrelevant.

What conservatives want in the debates, and the criteria they want applied to the questioners, is the very same standard that Bradley Schlozman applied in the Bush Justice Department: “Is he one of us?”

That is their goal. And there is absolutely nothing “fair” about that at all.

I don't actually think anybody actually said Brit Hume was a Libertarian, and if they did, they may want to revise and extend their remarks, but that's beside the point. Brit Hume ought to be irrelevant, not solely because of his reactionary political views (you'll find a lot of that in the trade he plies) but because he is a con-man, a flim-flam artist, like those he flacks for on Fox News Sunday, and the Nation is mightily tired of the con-game that's been played on them lo these many years.

Brit Hume ought to be irrelevant, but he's not. He's got the biggest head on the tube, and his phlegmatic cynicism and contempt for all things "Democrat" is a leading indicator for the rest of his miserable crony-ites. Brit hawks up a hairball and they all run with it. He's not a partisan? Ha! On stilts.

Idiots.

But over the weekend, I read a remarkable piece about Condoleeezzzaaa which claimed that she's essentially in the game for one thing and one thing only, P-O-W-E-R (which I thought was supposed to be Hillary's Big Thing, ask Brit), and she was characterized as a Marxist by her "leftist" political science professor. Cause she thought that's where the Power could be found, by sucking up. Or so it seems.

Anyway, the piece is in Foreign Policy magazine by Marcus Mabry. You have to subscribe to read the whole thing. But here's the link:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3781

It is a surprisingly lauditory piece -- for something that basically condemns her as a craven tool and a not very bright ladder climber. Something Brit should have taken her to task for again and again, but he was too busy exposing Barak's madrassa upbringing, and berating Hillary for her many, many crimes and misdemeanors.

Priorities.

And on a final note, can anyone tell me what Keith Olbermann's "ideology" is?

Thank you.

Hey Glenn,

Thanks for the clarification/update regarding the Aravosis transcript. I had not seen the actual footage myself, and was basing my earlier comment on the now apparently erroneous transcript.

That being said, I am not entirely surprised by John's statement that he thinks Kurtz is "fair". Unfortunately, I think his main weakness as a political analyst is a tendency to give too much benefit of the doubt to people he perceives as nice people (i.e., he lets personality issues cloud his political judgment).

Keep up the awesome work Glenn!

If I were better versed on this subject, I'd jump in to help but alas....

"They [free markets] are very useful and conducive to human progress, and they are an aspect of liberty."

In theory you could make such a sweeping claim. In practice the so called "free market" economy is conducive to those who control it, and detrimental to general human progress, even diametrically opposed to the general good.

Our current/past practical use, that is the way we implement the theory, of market driven economies is an aspect of control not of liberty. It pits each citizen against others, and self, in favor of the market entity, not the citizens/stock holder.

I don't think that misperception has a bit to do with being a Libertarian.

Your yes, but seems perfectly reasonable to me. (And I'd certainly want you to do what your training as a medical professional, and your instincts as a human being tell you to if I was the potential subject of your intervention.)

Some things just shouldn't attract the interest of the state. The Schiavo case, abortion, etc. On the other hand, as I weighed in on here long ago, the Christian scientists with a sick child, the man from Syria living in Detroit who's decided that his 17 year-old daughter has dishonored the family by kissing one of her classmates in public...well....

Decisions, decisions.... That's why we prize democracy, if in fact we do. Not to absolve us of our responsibilities, but to make them manifest, and to allow us to discharge them as a free people.

Get A Grip!

Your a smart guy and I respect your opinion but I'm afraid you're knee-jerk liberalism is interfering with your reading comprehension.

First off, I made no claims, that my own experience was universal and that everyone should share my beliefs as a result. I would never be that presumptuous (unlike some other particapants here.)

Second off, my description of men with blue uniforms with guns is not a fantasy but simply a description of what it is to be arrested.

The way we as a society enforce our desires is by writing legislation. The legislation usually includes a description of the penalties invoked for failure to abide by the law in question. The tools used to enforce these penalties include guns, handcuffs, jail cells, courtrooms and prisons.

There's nothing magical about the process - it happens every day!