Looks like we've found out who really handles Uncle Sam's budget, lol...

This crap over that mosque in Najaf & Sadr's band of screwballs is well beyond tedious now....

Iraqi interior ministry: "we've seized control over the mosque"
Iraqi cops: "uh...no we haven't"

Is this a f@$&ing joke?


And while we're at it, here's a real head-scratching comment, via an AP article:

Allawi's government wants al-Sadr and his followers incorporated into the political process, Iraqi National Security adviser Mouaffaq al-Rubaie said. He told CNN that al-Sadr was not a terrorist and did not pose a strategic threat to Iraq like al-Qaida and other extremists did.

"The political process and democracy in Iraq is so accommodating that it can and will accommodate even the most extremist group, including Muqtada al-Sadr," he said.

So lemme get this straight. A group that openly advocates and practices the use of violence to fulfill its goals, clearly doesnt believe that anyone has a right to act outside of some nutso interpretation of religious doctrine, and has given no indication that they tolerate any form of pluralism at all, can supposedly be accepted into an emerging Iraqi democracy? "not a threat"?

Garbage. This would be like if in the US one of those fundamentalist groups holed up in Montana were to start bumping people off and the response were "let's not rush to judgement". They need to drop the kid gloves and quick.

I guess this is what passes for logic around here...

Along with my extensive use of the internet to get news, I also happen to pick up the Atlanta-Journal-Constitution -- Georgia's "big" paper -- on a semi-regular basis. Anyone familiar with it wouldn't be surprised to know that I spot cringe-worthy items in there at least once a week, but what the heck, at least they aren't into NY Times territory far as I can tell (besides, there's always the comics...). The latest AAAARGH moment though, came in the letters section, when someone replying to a David Boaz column criticizing the two "major" parties spewed this:

"Here's hoping that Libertarians stay off the interstates, taking the backroads instead, lest they want to be called hypocrites for benefiting from the fruits of big government."

Try to let that one sink in for a moment...

This grated at me enough to prompt a response letter, reproduced below:

I noticed in the Letters section in response to David Boaz's recent column a snide comment calling any Libertarian who doesn't avoid using interstate highways a hypocrite. How, when we paid for those roads like everyone else did, and there's now many places that simply cannot be reached through back roads anyway? By Sidney's logic, a pacifist living in the US would be a hypocrite for every moment that our military continued to exist. The underlying suggestion here seems to require absolutism of everyone -- either get your way 100% or opt out. As crazy as this person probably thinks Libertarians are, that sounds like a familiar arguement for Anarchy; since everyone can't win the "game" should be completely scrapped.

Why do these strawmen still persist? It seems like weird mischaracterization of the Libertarian movement pop up everyday. Tell me, do you see libertarians calling for the interstate system to be dismantled now that it exists? I haven't. This is no different than the outlandish leap accusation that rears its head frequently that since we have a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment we somehow should be advocating people stockpile explosives; the grounding of tactics like this isn't reality but a smug dismissal of an opposing viewpoint simply because it's an opposing view -- can't risk a serious discussion? No problem, just paint your opponent to be a nutjob!

If someone wants to know what Libertarians think about a specific issue, how about asking us?