Are you down with OPW?

My cousin’s post quotes John Ray as saying Lew Rockwell suggests that the libertarians cozy up to the liberals. Shame on my cousin for not checking John Ray’s sources, but I’ll only pick on Kurt a little.

Now in Lew Rockwell’s own words, this is what he says:

“What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a
clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also
requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by
extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.” – Lew H.
Rockwell, Jr. 12-31-04

Now I don’t think rhetorical tolerance and cozy up to are the same thing at least not in the American version of the English or should I say Spanglish language nowadays. Let me demonstrate in the form of a sentence.

“ I have Rhetorical tolerance for Ellen Degerneres, Rosanne Barr, and Margaret
Cho but I would much prefer to cozy up to Eliza Dushku, Lucy Liu, or even
Ellen’s current honey Portia Di Rossi.” – Cousin Don 1-5-05

Get it? I hope so because, for my dedication to this blog and the sake of that example, I will be sharing the dog crate with my mutt for the next week. No come to think of it, I will probably have the dog crate to myself while the cat, dog, and baby fight over my half of the queen size mattress.

I also think John John Ray (Do you mind if I call you John John?), anyway John John while being exceptionally loquacious and erudite sounding on his blog (by the way, I needed spell check to help me with those multi-syllable words) appear to have little patience for “Other-People’s-Writings” before leaping to impossibly silly conclusions.

“Are you down with OPW? Yeah, you know me!” Now just what the hell am I talking about. HMMMMM…..

Oh, yeah! John John and his inability to read to the end of an article. For if he had read the Lew H. Rockwell, Jr. article in its entirety, he surely would have read the quote at the end from Murray N. Rothbard, which says:

The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary
left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders,
eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a
consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the
rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty
must transcend the confines of contemporary political
shibboleths.

There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need
for the party of liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and
established institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of
government, and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way
that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all
true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises
in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that impulse
toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse is there,
tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power doesn’t stand
a chance.

I must admit I have no idea what shibboleths are, but it surely doesn’t sound to me like Murry and Lew are suggesting Libertarians start kissing the rather ample derriere of one Mrs. (Or is it actually Ms., nowadays? I guess probably depends if you’re wearing a stained dark blue Gap skirt or not.) Hillary Rodham-Clinton. BTW free unused cigar with “It’s a boy” on the wrapper to any ex-frat brother of mine, who can tell me what the hell a shibboleth is?