Good Riddance Karl, king of republican chicken-hawk hypocrisy. Hear ye, Hear ye; Lock your doors because Rove will be out prowling the streets of America rather than the bowels of the White House underground bunker soon. It’s like a rat leaving a sinking ship. He couldn’t do any more damage to his party or country if he tried so why not leave before it all comes falling down. Bin Laden still at large; the largest deficit in history; lost both houses of Congress; treating the Constitution as toilet paper; making Christian republican’s ignore what Jesus taught when it came time for politics; President’s popularity lower than Nixon’s and his party in shambles. Mission accomplished I’d say. Much more of this and “w” couldn’t run for mayor of Crawford, Texas. This man along with Cheney, trumped the tragedy of 911 by convincing “w” to politicize and divide America rather than bring us together. He is finally cutting and running out on his failed dream of right-wing dictatorial utopia. So much for the “I’m a uniter not a divider” theme; He claimed that democrats were the enemy of America because they believed in the Constitution rather than Rove’s perverted view of unchallenged one-party rule. Only a degenerate could plot such a wicked political strategy as using a pre-emptive war against a nation that did nothing to us, for partisan purposes. After all war always works to stifle critics of a “wartime president” doesn’t it? Sulfuric acid can not wash the blood of countless Iraqis and Americans from their hands. Rove has narrowly avoided jail numerous times but I’m not worried. Even if he is indicted by a Grand Jury and convicted by his peers “w” will pardon him just as he did his other amoral enabler, Libby. The only question I have is since he is out of a job does this mean he will lose his health insurance?

We interrupt today's edition of "As the Markets Fall" to savor a meditation on libertarianism by Harvard economist Dani Rodrik.

Since his debut as a blogger in April, Rodrik has established himself as one of true stars of the econoblogosphere: thoughtful, consistent and dogged in his determination to explain how he sees the world. But his belief that government can successfully intervene in an economy to assist development has made him a popular target for the libertarians who have long dominated Internet-mediated economic discourse.


So what are the deeper lessons? First, I am not as unconventional as I sometimes think I am. The real revolutionaries here are the libertarians. They envisage a real good world out there that looks like nothing we have now (or have ever had), and they want us to get there. Second, there are really deep philosophical differences here that have nothing to do with economics per se. Most importantly, I believe government can be a force for good; they do not. But third, libertarians hold on to their priors so strongly that they seem impervious to evidence. They shrug off the fact that there is more freedom and more wealth in those parts of the world where the government is stronger, not weaker. With respect to industrial policy proper, they refuse to engage with the fact that every nation that has grown rapidly has made use of it.


In this spirit, I would like to pose a question to any libertarians who are reading this. The big economic news so far this morning is that the Federal Reserve has announced it stands ready to inject as much "liquidity" into the banking system as necessary to keep markets from complete paralysis. The European Central Bank has been behaving similarly, as is Japan. What do libertarians think of central bank interventions of such a sort? The markets made their bed with risk. Shouldn't they pay the consequences?

-- Andrew Leonard

Recently three right-wing evangelicals started shouting down guest Hindu Chaplain Rajan Zed, as he began his opening Congressional prayer in the U. S. Capital. Religious figures from various Christian faiths have said the prayer in the past. Barry Lynn, executive director of religious watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest showed the intolerance of the "religious right." They only want religious liberty and political favoritism for their particular beliefs. Our Constitution guarantees religious freedom for "all" religions but some right-wing groups don't actually believe this. They think Christianity is the only religion that qualifies under our Constitution. Religious prayers of any kind should not be given in our secular government but as long as one religion is allowed then all should be allowed. This is the reason the concept of separation of Church and state was created. The government should not be in the business of promoting any particular religion because it causes prejudice and anger between one religion and another. Could there be a better example than this? Tolerance is fundamental to our form of government. All people and their various religions are equal in the eyes of our constitution. When that principal falls so does our freedom.