Philly Mayors Says Cops Were Wrong in Beating

The actions of a throng of [Philadelphia] police officers shown on a videotape kicking and punching three shooting suspects during a traffic stop were inappropriate, Mayor Michael Nutter said Thursday.

A sergeant and five officers have been removed from street duty as authorities investigated the footage. More than a dozen officers were involved, and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said investigators were having the videotape enhanced to try to identify how many were actually striking the suspects. Information will be sent to prosecutors, who will determine whether to press charges.

"It absolutely shows inappropriate behavior," Nutter said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." "There is a way to take people into custody … and there (are) not acceptable ways of taking people into custody."

More here. The police commissioner has said something similar, and it's refreshing to see authorities not working overtime to defend beserker cops.

Watch the video of the beating and decide for yourself.

And then check out Paulville.org, whose goal is to establish "gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty." (To be honest, I don't know if that means that such police beatings would be totally illegal or an everyday occurence, especially if neighborhood associations embraced the early '90s ideas of Paul advisers/ghostwriters Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell [whose takeaway from the police beating of Rodney King was fear of videocameras].)

Comments

[Jennifer]

We'll stop seeing stories about such reprehensible behavior just as soon as it becomes illegal to videotape cops without their consent. This will, of course, be sold as a pro-liberty measure.

[joe]

Philly Mayor Says Cops Were Wrong In Beating:

See dat guy? His stance is all wrong. He's not gonna get any power from his hips with his feel like dat.

And dis guy - he actually closes his eyes at one point, when he's about to connect.

Da people of Philly expect more from law enforcement professionals.

[Citizen Nothing]

re: Rockwell and extrajudicial beatings.
Oh, Nick.
Oh, Nick.
You didn't just go there, did you?
This should be fun.

[MP]

We'll stop seeing stories about such reprehensible behavior just as soon as it becomes illegal to videotape cops without their consent.

One has to wonder if the helicopter had an effective directional mike (is it possible considering the rotors?), if Philly would have confiscated the footage on wiretap grounds.

[MP]

Oh, and I didn't know that Philly had multiple mayors. 😉

[David (not that one)]

You didn't just go there, did you?

At this point he's just intentionally playing his radio really loud, waiting expectantly for the old man to come out of his house and shake his fist at him...

[T]

Wow, Nick, that last paragraph was completely gratuitous. Who pissed you off? Murray, Lew or Ron? Had to be one of them.

[Episiarch]

I don't know if that means that such police beatings would be totally illegal or an everyday occurence, especially if neighborhood associations embraced the early '90s ideas of Paul advisers/ghostwriters Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell [whose takeaway from the police beating of Rodney King was fear of videocameras].)

IF REASON HADN'T THROWN RON PAUL UNDER THE BUS HE'D BE PRESIDENT NOW bargle blarg blah arrgghhh NEWSLETTERS uhhh RACIST aaaaiiighhh

[Citizen Nothing]

"At this point he's just intentionally playing his radio really loud, waiting expectantly for the old man to come out of his house and shake his fist at him..."

I just hope the old man doesn't try to take his old Confederate rifle down off the wall...

[GinSlinger]

Cue the yokeltarian onslaught in 3, 2, 1 . . . .

[Nick M.]

"I'm horrified to see that our city cops would beat some human being like they did, like a gang-style fight," Leomia Dyches said.

Hmmm, cops being compared to gangs, where have I heard that before?

[Citizen Nothing]

I bet the War of Northern Agression reenactments in Paulville will be awesome!

[Citizen Nothing]

As long as they don't run out of Smoors schnapps.

[joe]

So, if one of the Liberty-lovers has a change of heart, will they kick him out?

Liberty through enforced political orthodoxy.

[John]

"And then check out Paulville.org, whose goal is to establish "gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty."

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that people who claim to "live by the ideals of freedom and liberty" want to have an ideological purity test for who can live in their neighborhood?

[P Brooks]

A gated community for libertarians; talk about an oxymoron. Sounds more like Republicans in drag. Will Mayor Dondero be leading mandatory 6:30 AM calisthenics on the Green?

[Numbemr 6]

We must never mention that some folks at LRC have said it is perfectly ok to beat the living shit out of suspects. We must never mention this because the LRC folks are the bearers of the Flame of True Libertarianism (TM). We know this to be true because they have said that they are the bearers of the Flame of True Libertarianism.

[P Brooks]

You can only beat the suspects you can catch.

[Ayn_Randian]

Wow, Nick, that last paragraph was completely gratuitous

No attack on Yokeltarianism is ever gratuitous.

Nick is just in the pocket of Big Bohemian Grove.

[Abdul]

joe,

Excellent Frank Rizzo impersonation. If I close my eyes, it's almost like he's alive again.

[hmmmm]

Rockwell and the rest of the LRC gang are THE MOST outspoken critics of police and their abuses. So that last paragraph -- clearly written out of spite -- was quite off base. And despite the silly ideas (my personal opinion) of the people at paulville.org, to make that connection is wrong and childish to say the least.

[Naga Sadow]

Clearly, this is the suspects' fault. They acted like they had something to lose and surrendered peaceably. Bad move.

[jkp]

This sort of crap flows from the top down.

With the example of Nutter flagrantly violating the Pennsylvania Constitution, why should we expect different behavior from the police?

[Colin]

"To be honest, I don't know if that means that such police beatings would be totally illegal or an everyday occurence."

There'd be no blacks or any other minorities there, so I don't think it would be a problem.

[Lamar]

"Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that people who claim to "live by the ideals of freedom and liberty" want to have an ideological purity test for who can live in their neighborhood?"

That's why the whole thing wreaks of some developer trying to cash in on Ron Paul's popularity and devoted following.

The link between the two stories is clear. If a libertarian commune was unhappy with the harshness of the beatings being doled out to their kellered-folk, they would simply find another police force willing to go that extra mile for customer service.

[Ayn_Randian]

Rockwell and the rest of the LRC gang are THE MOST outspoken critics of police and their abuses.

Thanks for the quantifiable and provable assertion, there...what metric or standard or evidence are you using to qualify them as "THE MOST outspoken critics", again?

Perhaps you've forgotten that Rockwell spoke approvingly of beating down LA Rioters..."an application of street justice", or some such nonsense. Rockwell was a man who looked at the LA riots and drew the lesson that video cameras should be banned.

[Naga Sadow]

Colin,

There is always a minority. Whether ideas or skin color, police will find a minority.

[Naga Sadow]

And then beat that minority senseless.

[Rimfax]

This will play well in the British press. "Nutter", to them, means "lunatic" or "madman".

[Jake Boone]

Number 6 said:

We must never mention this because the LRC folks are the bearers of the Flame of True Libertarianism (TM). We know this to be true because they have said that they are the bearers of the Flame of True Libertarianism.

Hmmmm said:

Rockwell and the rest of the LRC gang are THE MOST outspoken critics of police and their abuses.

Six, have you written a philosophical book? I would like to form a religion around its inerrant prophecies.

[andy]

actually, an ideological purity test for a gated community is a great idea for liberty lovers, as long as it is voluntary.

As long as it is minimalist, on the lines of the Non Agression Principle, it could result in a very plural and diverse community.

[matt]

Perhaps you've forgotten that Rockwell spoke approvingly of beating down LA Rioters..."an application of street justice", or some such nonsense. Rockwell was a man who looked at the LA riots and drew the lesson that video cameras should be banned.

And Reason's own Matt Welch tried to sell the Iraq War to all and sundry, too, but we don't talk about that.

Redemption apparently blooms anew each spring, just not for people from Auburn.

[Jennifer]

actually, an ideological purity test for a gated community is a great idea for liberty lovers, as long as it is voluntary.

I predict upwards of three days of utopian perfection before "liberty" comes to mean "what the majority says."

I seem to recall just a couple of weeks ago, reading something linked here to the effect of "Radley Balko and those damn libertarians hate freedom, because their opposition to blanket smoking bans take away people's right to live free of secondhand smoke." And I've sat in zoning board meetings where petty tyrants waxed poetic about how, thanks to the zoning codes, townfolk have the freedom to not live next door to a neighbor with a tacky house or too many children.

And I'm sure there are irate cops this very second who view this Philly thing as a travesty of justice. Damned camera-wielding vigilantes, taking away cops' freedom to use their best judgment to Keep The Streets Safe.

[Citizen Nothing]

I think redemption is reserved for those who admit to having sinned.

[matt]

As a Ron Paul supporter, I'll freely admit that the "village" idea is ludicrous and creepy.

I'd rather live in Columbus, Ohio than move to such a place.

[Citizen Nothing]

Touche', matt. Touche'.

[matt]

I think redemption is reserved for those who admit to having sinned.

Have you heard what Lew Rockwell has had to say about police and law enforcement recently?

Let's just say that it doesn't fit the narrative presented on this page...

[ckk]

WTF is wrong with the Illadelph?

Mumia, MOVE, Municipally-funded beatdown squads?

(sorry, I was looking for some sweet-ass alliteration. Sue me!

[Citizen Nothing]

So Rockwell (or whoever), has offered a mea cupla on the non-judicial beating stuff? If so, I'm sorry to have maligned the penitents and shall pray they remain on the straight and narrow path.

[hmmmm]

"Thanks for the quantifiable and provable assertion, there...what metric or standard or evidence are you using to qualify them as "THE MOST outspoken critics", again?"

it's called my opinion. read the LRC blog sometime...it's hard to argue otherwise. their distrust and animosity toward all forms of authority sometimes make me cringe, though i tend to agree most of the time.

[PC]

Does anybody know what has escalated the Reason/Rockwell slapfight? Neither ever really talk about their real reasons when they do this thing. It's kind of like when a girlfriend/cup goes ballistic on you when you leave an empty cup on the table, you know its about something else. Except in this case the cup seems to be racialist writings and an establishment stench.

[Ayn_Randian]

matt,

there's a point where it gets to be too much:

- Lauding Samuel Frances
- Hanging around with Gary North
- Letting Raimondo write spittle-flecked nonsense about how great Vladimir Putin is week after week...

Have you heard what Lew Rockwell has had to say about police and law enforcement recently?

Nope, but I'd love to read some of it...and also see the mea culpa for the whole "street justice" thing.

Oh yeah, and would someone on that side man up and take credit for the newsletters already?

[J sub D]

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said investigators were having the videotape enhanced to try to identify how many were actually striking the suspects.

Let's pretend there was no videotape. No unimpeahable witness to this unwarranted, nay criminal, beating of these sociopathic assholes. How many of the police officers present would have reported this police brutality by their "Brother in Blue"?

The police commissioner has said something similar, and it's refreshing to see authorities not working overtime to defend beserker cops.

It is little comfort to me that when confronted with unambiguous proof of police thuggery, the mayor and police chief denounce it.

[Ayn_Randian]

it's called my opinion. read the LRC blog sometime...it's hard to argue otherwise.

well, yeah, I guess it would be hard to argue an opinion, wouldn't it?

Radley Balko does police-state criticism better than the entire roster of Rockwellians, alive or dead.

[ANM]

PC, from my PoV, it was when Raimondo started writing his long, meandering pieces about Reason sucking because of this or that. The LRC crew would subsequently fawn over them as exemplars of rational argument-making, without actually reading them critically. That would lead to legions heading over here to scold regular Reason commenters.

If I had to guess, I'd say the H&R crew doesn't mind the traffic boost, and thus continues to jab the yokeltarians whenever it's convenient (and sometimes when it's not).

[matt]

Randian,

Association is not endorsement. North and Francis say (said) awful things, but all of the things from them that LRC and co. published were a damned sight less inflammatory than this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

Yes, that really is a link from a reason interview calling for the extermination of one of the world's religions, up to and including military extermination.

Hard to find stuff like that on LRC. If Gary North wants to stone homosexuals, at least he keeps it to himself or submits to censorship on the issue. Reason, on the other hand, lets stuff like the link I posted go into print.

[Er?k Boston, Pre-Esq.]

The first step is admitting that you have a problem....

[J sub D]

Due to Nick's final cooment in the post and subsequent comments, I googled lew rockwell video police, and this, from a reporter I respect, came up. I guess ol' Lew didn't camouflage his police state leanings very well back in the day.

A confession - I'm looking forward to a Lew Rockwell vs Reason flame war. I should be ashamed of myself.

[Aresen]

A sergeant and five officers have been removed from street duty as authorities investigated the footage.

IOW, they are still on the payroll.

[Citizen Nothing]

Jabbing yokeltarians is fun, like punching your little brother. You still love him, but he's just too inviting a target sometimes.

[David (not that one)]

The schism-induced neologisms here never cease to delight me, viz.: cosmotarian / yokeltarian.

BTW, Schism-induced Neologisms WBAGNFARB?

[Bingo]

Yeah a community with a 90:10 male-to-female ratio. No thanks, I'll pass.

[MP]

Yes, that really is a link from a reason interview calling for the extermination of one of the world's religions, up to and including military extermination.

Oh my. The unmitigated gall of reason publishing an interview with a best-selling author regarding a topical issue. I mean, why didn't they simply shoot her after she expressed her viewpoint?

GMAFB

[Ayn_Randian]

Yes, that really is a link from a reason interview calling for the extermination of one of the world's religions, up to and including military extermination.

There really is no depth to the dishonesty of Rockwell's pimps, is there?

That's an interview, without endorsement of content.

Whereas North was prominently and proudly featured on the front page.

matt, how low can you go, brother? If reason had a chance to interview GWB, they shouldn't take it?

[Episiarch]

We need more neologisms. For instance, Aresen is a hockeypuckatarian, or an "eh"-atarian. Jennifer is a stripatarian. A_R is a dorkatarian, and NutraSweet is a jerkatarian.

I, of course, an am awsomeatarian.

[hmmmm]

"Radley Balko does police-state criticism better than the entire roster of Rockwellians, alive or dead."

what metric or standard or evidence are you using to qualify him for that?

I never said they did it well...i just said their distaste for authority seems -- IN MY OPINION, for those who can't discern objective from subjective statements -- greater than that of anyone else i've observed. geeez! lighten up.

[Episiarch]

Oh, and Rhywun is a fruitatarian.

[Citizen Nothing]

Bingo, about that ratio: Maybe the Paulvillites could embrase the Fundamentalist LDS doctrine.

[joe]

Yes, that really is a link from a reason interview calling for the extermination of one of the world's religions, up to and including military extermination.

No, it's not.

[PC]

ANM | May 8, 2008, 11:20am | #

Yeah I remember that Welch wrote his first editorial as editor and it was a slam on Lew and Co. Then Justin came back with some Welch piece but I thought that little scuffle died down a bit. Guess I have to read Raimondo's blog to find out. This is interesting because Raimondo's blog, at least from time to time, has been picked up by The American Conservative, so they might end up in the fray as well.

[matt]

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world's 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, "defeat Islam"?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, "This is a warning. We won't accept this anymore." There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Maybe all of that means something other than what it means once the sharks/jets thing gets going, but it's pretty objectively clear what's being advocated, isn't it?

[Episiarch]

Jesus matt, you're twisting so hard I'm surprised you haven't pulled anything.

I guess you're a bullshitarian.

[joe]

Yes, matt, it's pretty clear what's being advocated.

It's also clear to everybody except you who is going the advocating, and who keeps saying, "Huh? You didn't just actually say...?"

[GinSlinger]

but it's pretty objectively clear what's being advocated, isn't it?

Do you mean advocated by reason?

Because if so, then no, there is no clearly advocated message on the part of reason.

Now, there is for Ali, but then again, reason reports a number of things that it is clear they are not advocating.

When Balko quotes a LEO on no-knock raids are you suggesting that Radley is objectively advocating no-knock raids?

You best get back to the rest of the yokeltarians, you're out on your own here.

[matt]

Does the comment above make you a strawgrasparian?

Because I'm pretty sure you'd have rather refuted than namecalled if both were options on the table for you.

[Ayn_Randian]

Rockwell and the rest of the LRC gang are THE MOST outspoken critics of police and their abuses. So that last paragraph -- clearly written out of spite -- was quite off base.

hmmm, that is what you originally wrote. You were making an assertion of fact (to whit, that the paragraph was baseless). You got called on it and backpedaled to it "just being an opinion".

Don't act so outraged and fling about accusations if you want to keep it light, killer.

it's pretty objectively clear what's being advocated, isn't it?

How dare they not censor the interviewee!

Yes, but doesn't mean an endorsement of that viewpoint. Letting North and Frances run full reign on LRC is an entirely different story.

[Token Female]

Yeah a community with a 90:10 male-to-female ratio.

Utopia.

[PC]

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/attack_of_the_reasonoids/

I guess the Weigel piece is what spurred this on.

[The Atomic Fruitbat]

Oh, and Rhywun is a fruitatarian.

Good for Rhywun!

[matt]

Uh, isn't it at least vaguely relevant that they don't let Francis say anything racist (or North homophobic) on their site?

It looks like we're working towards a new definition of "running wild".

[GinSlinger]

Since this seems directed at me: Does the comment above make you a strawgrasparian?

Because I'm pretty sure you'd have rather refuted than namecalled if both were options on the table for you.

Allow me to respond with, "Huh?"

WTH are you trying to say here?

[matt]

I was making some reference to your visible grasping at straws, but ultimately, it's unimportant.

[Jennifer]

Matt, your interpretation of Reason's interview with Ms. Hirsi Ali is fascinating. Do you also condemn The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for promoting slavery and white supremacy?

[Ayn_Randian]

matt, your lame "argument" has already been so thoroughly refuted that continuing to demonstrate it to you would be like teaching a retarded child calculus: a waste of effort.

[GinSlinger]

What straw?

It is you that wish to put words into other peoples' mouths.

[Episiarch]

matt once read a book about Hitler, which makes him a Nazi.

This is fun!

(yesssss, Godwin!)

[hmmmm]

"hmmm, that is what you originally wrote. You were making an assertion of fact (to whit, that the paragraph was baseless). You got called on it and backpedaled to it "just being an opinion"."

there was no backpedaling. you did the same thing in your previous comment. you stated your opinion as a fact because it's subjectivity is clearly implied in the nature of the statement itself. that's why i pointed out your hypocrisy with sarcasm...real mature huh? oh well.

[matt]

matt once read a book about Hitler, which makes him a Nazi.

This is fun!

(yesssss, Godwin!)

I'm a Lew Rockwell reader, so of course I read scads of books about Hitler and talk about him constantly. I give him all the free publicity I can. Of course, I'm not endorsing him, though. How dreadful of you to even suggest that!

[Ayn_Randian]

matt, you are seriously dumber than mayonnaise, my friend.

I have no idea what you were going for in your 12:05 comment, but it didn't work.

[Number 6]

there was no backpedaling. you did the same thing in your previous comment.
Tu quoque.

As for the interview with Hirsan Ali: She is an important thinker putting forth challenging (if wrong) ideas. A magazine of ideas, which is aimed at thinking people, can publish an interview with her because she is interesting and because her ideas are informing policy debates without endorsing her views. In fact, the interviewer was anything but blindly accepting of her statements.

If, however, Matt Welch published an article suggesting that blacks are inferior and that it's ok for cops to beat them, one could logically infer that the magazine and its readership are at least somewhat sympathetic to those ideas.

See the difference?

[joe]

I theory, I support atomic fruitbats, but the issue of guano disposal requires more research before we can utilize them on a large scale.

[matt]

I'm less than stunned that you didn't see my point, given your usual confirmation bias and other limitations.

Continue as you were...

[R C Dean]

The actions of a throng of [Philadelphia] police officers shown on a videotape kicking and punching three shooting suspects during a traffic stop were inappropriate.

I don't think that word means what he thinks it means. Farting during a dinner party is inappropriate. Viciously beating people is criminal.

[Gabe Harris]

I think Dondero was more likely to have written the "cameras are bad" stuff. I do think the paleos were too authoritarian 18 years ago so it is possible they did it.

At least the LRC crowd has been consistently anti-war and anti-police state for the last 10 years. While Reason was helping promote war. The pro iraq war propaganda coming out of Reason is more offensive IMO.

The admission by Reason that a strictly anti-Iraq war, anti-interventionist position is not possible for Reason due to the financial backers of the reason foundation(Exxon, Koch) is far more damning than actual errors in judgement it appears some(although we aren't sure who) LRC folks had about 20 years ago.

The admission that Reason's opinion are controlled on critical issues is pretty much the end of the story, they are shills they admit it. Why do you think Michael Young works there? you think it his great libertarian intuition about how our foreign policy has been designed to spread freedom? seriously?

While Balko is good on police brutality and should be editor in chief, Alex Jones covers the same stories more indepth. Palfrey was kileld by the police state...it is clear to any critical thinker yet we here nothing from Balko.

[Jake Boone]

Pay attention, AR! matt's point was perfectly clear: that giving publicity to an idea -- even negative publicity -- means you endorse it. Just like how Ralph Nader endorsed the Corvair by publishing "Unsafe at Any Speed."

[Ayn_Randian]

Gabe, do you have some kind of link to these admissions on the part of reason, or are you just making things up as you go?

[Citizen Nothing]

"The admission by Reason that a strictly anti-Iraq war, anti-interventionist position is not possible for Reason due to the financial backers of the reason foundation(Exxon, Koch)"

Yeah. I think that's in the masthead.

[Jake Boone]

The admission by Reason that a strictly anti-Iraq war, anti-interventionist position is not possible for Reason due to the financial backers of the reason foundation(Exxon, Koch)

I knew Bailey's "full disclosures" would come back to haunt him!

[Citizen Nothing]

But wouldn't "Kochtopussy" be a much better name for the new Bond flick than "Quantum of Solace"?

[Citizen Nothing]

"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mr. Raimondo, I expect you to die," BWAHAHAHA!

[Number 6]

Gabe- The Reason writers have different ideas about some subjects, including the Iraq war. They may even publish articles that are not stridently ant-war (along with many that are.) Can you figure out why? Here's a hint:

Thinking people often come to different conclusions, and people who take ideas seriously study and engage arguments they don't agree with. They do not live in echo chambers, nor do they carefully select reading material that only supports their ideas-they leave that to the jingoists and true believers.

[Citizen Nothing]

Or am I mixing my Bond flicks?

[Jake Boone]

"Quantum of Solace" sounds like a Yanni album, not a sex-and-explosions Bond film.

[Aresen]

R C Dean | May 8, 2008, 12:22pm | #

The actions of a throng of [Philadelphia] police officers shown on a videotape kicking and punching three shooting suspects during a traffic stop were inappropriate.

I don't think that word means what he thinks it means. Farting during a dinner party is inappropriate. Viciously beating people is criminal.

For ordinary mortals, yes. For Our Guardians of Law and Order apparently it only makes it to the "inappropriate" level. And even that only if it is caught on videotape that they weren't able to confiscate.

[joe]

Where does "Kochtopuss" come from?

Ed Koch?

How am I doing?

[Citizen Nothing]

almost got it, joe, you wannabeatarian.

[Rick Barton]

The point is what R C Dean said, which was:

Viciously beating people is criminal.

[John C Jackson]

Gabe I think you are confusing the ROn Paul Newsletters and an actual editorial by Lew Rockwell. There is no question who wrote the "cameras are bad" stuff. Lew Rockwell actually put his name to that one and was also kind enough to make sure he noted he was a libertarian ( as in libertarians support guns and a level of police brutality fitting the "type" of suspect involved)

[joe]

Jim Koch, the Sam Adams guy?

[dhex]

While Balko is good on police brutality and should be editor in chief, Alex Jones covers the same stories more indepth.

i really must disagree on this point, unless you mean "indepth" as "goes the extra yard to be crazy," in which case i would agree.

maybe i've listened to too much alex jones lately but he's about as nuanced as a sledgehammer covered in crazypants.

[dhex]

then again, he also satisfies the urge for a universal theme, and a unified, coherent narrative to explain an incoherent world, so...different strokes and whatnot.

[Happy Jack]

But wouldn't "Kochtopussy" be a much better name for the new Bond flick than "Quantum of Solace"?

Only if they had registered it first.

[Andy Craig]

Lew Rockwell has certainly done some good work with the Mises Institute, and it's undeniable that Rothbard was one of the intellectual luminaries of libertarianism, but both had a major flaw in never being willing to admit a mistake, even a glaringly obvious one. Rockwell in particular tends to lean more towards childish outbursts rather than anything resembling adult conversation when someone questions anything he or anyone he counts as on "his side" (Paul, Rothbard) has done. Moreover, he's the epitome of that angry/paranoid/irrational/social-conservative wing of the pro-freedom movement that undid Ron Paul's campaign by coming to be seen as the public face of it. You know, the people who respond with angry incredulity when they find out they're talking to someone not thoroughly steeped in the principles of Austrian economics. Which just happens to coincide with the ~95% of people they were totally unable to reach with the Ron Paul campaign.

I'm one step short of an anarcho-capitalist myself, but it's time to admit that the future of libertarianism is in the rationalism and broad coalition-building gradualism that flows (no doubt imperfectly) from the pages of reason.