Tom, thanks! Yes, incrementalism is exactly the word I was looking for...

Tom, thanks. And I generally agree with your post, the harms you've laid out, etc. However I'm still not convinced that we need to legalize all drugs, and feel that the wiser thing to do would be to begin with an end to marijuana prohibition and then take it from there.

Small steps can often help avoid one stepping over the brink...

Larison has some thoughts on the issue (and provides one of the first links to this site...).

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR–each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used...

Very true, Mark. Overall the series portrayed Adams as principled to a fault, however. Stubborn and prickly--his great strength and fatal flaw.

At least you can admit it, Freddie.... ;-)

Mark, one problem with "expressly stated" is not all motives, even obvious ones, are stated. There is a certain amount of reading between the lines, or studying of patterns, requisite in attributing motive I think...

I should add, that after watching this scene I donated all my Samuel Adams t-shirts to Goodwill.

The HBO series "John Adams" actually had one or two pretty good scenes that cast Samuel in a none-too-favorable light. There was one tar-and-feathering in particular that was quite brutal to watch.

De nada, Freddie. Good post. I think it strikes again on that subject of genuine debate vs. verbal fisticuffs. I'd say there is a reason why one can read Larison or the C11 crew and maybe disagree but with a great deal of respect, and it's not anyone's lack of conviction. It's not simply tonal, either, but rather some level of mutual respect even when at odds politically. This is not to say everyone need play nice at all times, but respect does not always mean one need be nice or timid. But it does require honesty, and intelligence. And those have been meted out in very short order over the last eight years...

I fixed the video size on this Freddie...in html editor changing videos to 400 x 300 will generally keep them inside the borders...

What Freddie said.

And Kyle, really good piece. Got the proverbial cogs turning, in any case...

Actually, Paul, while the acting and dialogue and all that was quite good in The Sopranos, I felt that the overall plot--the multi-season plot--was rather flimsy. Not as flimsy as Lost, though. Lost may have had some over-plot that I'm just missing, but to me it seemed that the writers were impatient, introducing us to the Others much too soon and then floundering, uncertain what to do next. In an effort to create dynamic characters, they have instead created a cast of haphazard, inconsistent characters who rarely act out of consistent motive or even sensible self-motivation. I was quite enamored of the first season, but after that the show has lost me, no pun intended.

I think what I left out of the above post is the inability of writers these days to exercise patience. A good plot should be sustained to the breaking point. Take the Office for instance. Season Two was much too soon for Pam and Jim to kiss. I think of an earlier show, Northern Exposure, which exercised far, far more restraint and kept that sexual tension running between its two leads much, much longer.

Freddie,

I think I figured out what has rubbed me wrong about Max's call to write policy. I think the entire purpose of the thoughtful blog is to wax theoretical--to opine, of course, but in a somewhat detached, philosophical manner. To write policy suggestions is to leave this theoretical world, where one can at least be useful in spurring on conversation, and enter into the realm of the concrete.

Not only that, but policy suggestions are essentially futile. Policy makers could care less. One has a better chance arguing moral or philosophical points than they do laying out a policy approach. It is time better spent, which is why after my response to Max I felt as though I hadn't really said much, or had somehow wasted my time, but couldn't quite understand why...

Kyle, at the bottom of the post editor is the "Series" selection. When you start a new series you can just add a topic and that way others can respond within that topic...

Thanks, Max. I knew you were in Israel and made the logical (if misguided) leap.

That's a rather vague "offer" though, Roque. Israel offered to do something...what? What did they actually do? What have they done since? Probably the greatest half-measure in their history: leaving Gaza. What a foolish thing to do while remaining in the West Bank. It brought them no closer to achieving two states.

Now I am not one to accuse Israel of war crimes as I sincerely believe that will do nothing to further the debate. But I am one to accuse them of consistent stupidity in their policy decisions. I have a great deal of hope for the vision of Israel, and I am well aware that there many feet at which to lay the blame, both Israelis and Arabs are at fault here.

But the Israeli's cannot offer to "do something" about the settlements. They just have to do it.

One quick caveat--though proportionality may be meaningless in determining how to wage these fights, or at least not the most important qualifier--it is still important to judge whether they are worth the fight, worth the fallout, or essentially effective in the long term. Then, too, there is the moral question of civilian death which must be addressed. To me, if Israel is intent on carrying out this sort of mission, they should be as focused or more so on doing something about the settlements which are a huge impediment to peace, or at least to a Two State solution.

So, in conclusion, your sanctimonious even-handedness and constant reminders of your enlightened liberal morality are only playing into the hands of the enemies of this very enlightened liberal morality.

Roque, we're working on a comment policy for the site, but in short, we expect our writers and our commenters to be respectful and act with some level of common courtesy. You are free to disagree and make your point, but do all you can to please refrain from ad hominem, name-calling, etc. Your perspective is appreciated, but your tone is not.

Roque--

I have to wonder whether you are commenting on this piece or on the article you link to.

I think Hamas must be dealt with diplomatically in part to expose them, let their views be heard and challenged in the global theatre. If they don't moderate those views, approaches, etc. then world sympathy will not lie with them, and the Palestinians will have more of a reason to chuck them entirely.

And yes, there is a major distinction between jihadists waging war for a global caliphate and nationalists like Hams, even if Hamas borrows extensively from the others' rhetoric and recruiting tactics.

Bob, Dreher's "crunchy con" theme is sort of granola-conservatives--think socially conservative hippies. I think my take is slightly more practical than Rod's because he advocates such a move toward pre-modernism, whereas Scott and myself and others advocate more of a balanced approach.

Keith, I think marijuana would no longer be a gateway drug simply due to the elimination of the dealer from the sale. The dealer is often a purveyor of more than merely weed--often offering harder drugs, or knowing of connections to other dealers who might be able to provide those other drugs. This is essentially why alcohol is not really a gateway drug. If it were illegal, however, the booze pusher might very well also push coke, LSD, or worse...

Chris--excellent post. I hadn't even considered the rise of a state-cartel, but it's an interesting notion to be sure...