Here's another so-called thought: Is it also ironic/tragic that the only official justifications for the War on Drugs and criminalization of drugs in general are that drugs damage society and that they constitute a national security risk and that the war on drugs/criminalization damages society far more than the drugs ever did or will do and that there is now a much more serious national security risk generated by the war on drugs than the drugs themselves ever posed?

Is it ironic/tragic that official pronouncements never even touch on these areas, even though they are the only way to justify the prohibition/war on drugs? Is it ironic/tragic that when the government tries to justify its insane policy, they switch the debate and discuss their statistics on how many people are getting high, as if the government should be in the business of making people stay sober?

Is it ironic or "classically tragic" that anti imperialist thirdworldists define their so-called struggle by their opposition to Israel/Zionism/War on Terror and ignore the imperialist "meddling" going on in Latin America under the rubric of the War on Drugs?

Where does ironic/tragic end and simple stupidity begin?

I'm glad you noticed the link between the drug war and immigration. That shows you read more or less carefully. I'm very grateful for your attention and time. On the other hand, you did ask me a question. That's risky since I tend to give the long answer whenever I can:

would it be a fair statement to say that the US will never significantly curb illegal immigration until it ends the War on Drugs, or is this overstating things too much?

Yes, it would; no, it isn't.

For a lot of people illegal immigration is just a way to survive. There's no way they would take such risks if Mexico offered them opportunities for growth. The only "solution" for the illegal immigration problem is that Mexicans want to stay in Mexico to take advantage of the opportunities they already have. This means improving the Mexican economy. Everything else is just politics: wedge issues chosen specifically to divide and conquer the population and win elections. The economy cannot be improved under such conditions as the drug war generates.

To explain: First, you should consider that Mexico has been rising (or falling...) on failed-states indexes

there is a consensus for analytic and operational purposes that some countries' policies, institutions, and governance can be defined as exceptionally weak when judged against the criterion of poverty reduction, especially with respect to the management of economic policy, delivery of social services, and efficacy of government. World Bank

The WB analyzes stability of states based on six criteria: voice and accountability; political stability; government effectiveness; regulatory quality; rule of law; control of corruption. As the pro-business party, one would expect the PAN to at least improve the rubrics of government effectiveness and regulatory quality but they have remained more or less where they were under the PRI. On all other indicators, Mexico has been falling since Democracy took hold here and the [Christian-Democratic] PAN got power over the state. They have presided over unprecedented chaos and destruction here.

Here are two WB charts to illustrate this: Mexico governance; US governance I put the US chart in there for comparison.

May I quote a Mexican analyst here? Thank you:

Si el conjunto de los temores de la población pudiera reunirse en un indicador macroeconómico, el gobierno de Felipe Calderón podría exhibir urbi et orbi su gran logro –el único en tres años– en foros internacionales, spots televisivos y anuncios espectaculares: la multiplicación del miedo.
En las zonas del país que han tenido la desgracia de ser seleccionadas por el régimen espurio para exhibir músculo y determinación, la gente vive aterrorizada por el poderío de los càrteles, pero también por un “estado de derecho” que se expresa en cateos, arrestos, torturas y hechos peores, perpetrados sin orden judicial alguna, las más de las veces, en retenes y “controles” en los que no es fácil distinguir si el enemigo a vencer es el narco o la población civil, en un aparato policial y militar que actúa libre de escrúpulos legales y humanitarios. Pedro Miguel, Navegaciones

[If the set of the nation's fears could be gathered in one macroeconomic indicator, Calderón's government could show urbi et orbi its great accomplishment—the only one in three years—in international conferences, in TV ads, and on billboards: the multiplication of fear.
In the areas of the nation that have had the bad luck to be chosen by the spurious government to show its muscle and determination, the people live in fear of the power of the carteles, but also of the "rule of law" expressed in searches, arrests, torture and worse, perpetrated under no legal warrant, mostly in military roadblocks and "controls" where it isn't easy to tell if the enemy is the narco or the civilian population, in a military and political apparatus that acts free from legal and humanitarian scruples.]

With this way-too-long introduction, then, the answer to your question lies in the link between good governance and economic progress. One can't expect much progress to happen under such a "set of fears" as is presided over by the PAN-Calderón government.

Without economic progress immigration will continue as it has been, only worse. To achieve economic progress, the government needs to reform vast swaths of the regulatory structure here. Under the conditions produced by the drug war—the "set of fears"—the government lacks the power that derives from legitimacy therefore it lacks the power to reform the economy. A good example is the new oil law passed last year. It was effectively gutted of all effectiveness by opposition politicians who fought their political battles on the street instead of in the congress and so intimidated the government into backing down. The government simply lacks the bandwidth to deploy the military throughout the Mexican mountains and border cities in the drug war and at the same time take care of opposition politicians with their street gangs. Without reform of the nation's oil industry, the government will be impoverished and therefore unable to provide social-net services. You can see how this will lead to more chaos—and more illegal immigration.

But the point is that from the point of view of US national security, a failed state on our southern border, with an authoritarian leftist caudillo in charge and allied with Hugo Chávez/Russia/Iran is a nightmare. The drug war is leading us right there.

The only rational plan is for the US to call off the drug war. Just say no. Then apologize for the wanton destruction of their societies we have presided over. Then announce a reconstruction plan for Latin America, funded by the US, similar to the Marshal Plan—LA nations get the funds if they cooperate on how to use them. This would be a "Bolivarian Dream" that Hugo Chávez could stick up his a**. Then the US would gain true allies instead of allies extorted into cooperating. If Obama did this, he'd be a hero all over the continent. People would have his picture next to the Virgin in their home altars and be praying for his safety until he dies.

I looked at the articles. Mostly they seem OK so far as the information goes. They're a bit long on the "human" side—too many words about a reporter from Chihuahua for example. The writer has a good grasp of Mexico.

By the way, I got three questions wrong on the quiz. Somehow I can't believe that a third of Mexico's arable land is devoted to drug cultivation. I don't know where they got that statistic.

But this brings up another point:

Now some 45,000 soldiers, nearly 25 percent of the Army, are marauding all over the country, escalating the mayhem that consumes Mexico. [from the MJ articles]

These soldiers are not marauding all over the country. They are marauding in mostly remote and mountainous regions, where the drug cultivation happens and where the drug gangs are the law, such as it is. These areas have never been integrated into the nation. And I mean never—neither the Aztecs, the Spanish, Porfirio Díaz, nor the PRI ever established a presence in most of these places. It's tradition that these areas are abandoned to their traditional poverty and customs. They traditionally generate most of the illegal immigration to the States. They traditionally are ruled by local strong men (called caciques here in Mexico). Today these caciques are the narcos. They operate a lot like insurgencies like Hezbollah and Hamas by providing services to the people that the government cannot provide. But they do not aspire to power over the state like other insurgencies. They prefer the reigning chaos because that is their most secure business environment. In any case, since they're paying good money to campesinos—and especially to the female remnants of the families the migrant workers leave behind—and providing services, the most important of which is public safety, they are probably the best government that the people in these areas have ever known since the dawn of time.

These are the areas where the Mexican Army "marauds." Therefore, one can see the risks involved here, which go way beyond the claptrap and hogwash usually associated with the War on Drugs. The Mexican state is essentially invading itself and attacking an insurgency. But there is no COIN strategy beyond simple search and destroy missions, which constitute a direct attack on the livelihoods of the nation's poorest and most forgotten citizens. The drug crops may be destroyed, but along with them so are the livelihoods of the area's citizens. They will not recoup their losses easily. For an impoverished campesino to lose his property is a catastrophe way beyond our ability to imagine. There is no insurance, no support from anyone, no way to rebuild anything... no nothin'. It will take another generation to rebuild and even then they're only rebuilding what we think of as absolute poverty.

This is why I'm so disgusted by the "courageous Calderón" speeches—the most important of which was delivered by Obama. He's not courageous. He's just temerario—reckless. He's risking the whole nation's future on a spurious drug war that nobody wants or needs. The risk isn't limited to the massive death and destruction his "war" has caused to date. It's that he's alienating the nation's poorest people forever. Along with them, he's alienating the middle class who can see no sense at all in alienating the nation's poorest people forever. And so forth. The risk here, of course, is that some so-called leftist populist like Hugo Chávez will walk away with the federal elections in three years and align Mexico with Chávez and therefore with Iran and with Russia. That sounds like a much greater security risk for the US than drugs ever were. Three years ago, the so-called leftist populist candidate lost by less than one percent of the vote, which large swaths of the nation still feel were fraudulent (against all evidence, I may add). Next time it won't be even close, if they can get their act together. The only positive note is that the leftists in Mexico are inherently disorganized and faction-ridden so they probably won't.

It seems so obvious to me that the drug war is the most egregious "meddling" the US has ever perpetrated on Latin America. Other episodes will always have "two sides" to the debate (for example, Cold War realities, etc.) But the drug war is simple imposition of US policy and values on people who want nothing to do with them. Criminalization of drugs is a US idea, brought about by temperance fanatics in the Progressive movement with the insight that somehow God wants us to be sober 24/7. The drug war was brought about by naked extortion by the Nixon government back in the '70s. Operation Intercept tied up the border crossings in needles chaos for days until the government of Mexico agreed to our intervention in their country. This intervention increases every year and the violence and even the drugs themselves get worse [see the blurb on Amezcua and meth in the MJ articles].

Where are the anti colonialist thirdworlders when we really need them? They're all tied up right now boycotting Israel or defending Islamic radicals when they have the most blatant case of US colonialism right on their doorsteps. Who gave the US the right to determine that people should value sobriety above all else in the first place? Where is the politician with the guts to stand up an say so?

This is the problem with much of modern economics – it assumes a fantasy world where resources are infinite and our species can just keep growing exponentially forever. It’s ludicrous and it’s dangerous – not to mention wrong.

You must not have read much economics. Any introductory textbook will tell you that resources are finite while wants are infinite, which gives you the eternal dialectics of "much of modern economics" in a nutshell. Resources are finite but "everything else on the Planet" isn't, obviously. For example, ideas are not finite. Orgasms are not finite either. One can go on having ideas and orgasms forever and never run out. That's why wealth can continue to be created out of finite resources--people get new ideas. That's why people can go on having orgasms even though their genitalia are limited.

Wealth is created by using resources as factors of production--again, I'm taking this from introductory economics textbooks. I really don't know if wealth creation is infinite in a strict mathematical sense but it certainly is in a practical sense. For example, there's always at least one more dollar to be made by any business, isn't there? Isn't this why we have entrepreneurs? They're always chasing the ultimate dollar profit but it doesn't exist: there's always at least one more and the entrepreneur must have that one too, etc etc.

This is why the so-called analysis by Herr Docktor Guest Author, above, is worthless. It's just teenage elucubration. Maybe if high school students, like our "guest author," took an introductory economics course along with all the other ones about America's imperialistic genocides, this kind of hogwash could be avoided.

The point is, you said that there was no "substantive difference" between excluding or including the world's poor in "wealth creation" and "redistributing" the world's wealth. You said that this lack of "substantive difference" between the two made Weigel's analysis worthless and that, in case you were wrong, i.e., in case there really is a "substantive difference" between the two, Weigel would then "have a point," according to your own words. By now I think it's obvious that there is a "substantive difference" between the two and therefore that Weigel does "have a point" after all.

Then there's this:

INCLUDING three billion poor people in the distribution–note, I said distribution, not redistribution–of the proceeds of neoliberal capitalism necessarily reduces the Return to Capital for those holding the Capital. The holders of Capital hence fiercely resist that inclusion. That’s a no-brainer for anyone who sees how the world really works rather than thinking the world looks like some model written by some twenty-something rich kid with a fellowship at the von Mises institute.

A couple of quick points:

The above is incomprehensible. It smacks of university jargon. For example, what, exactly, is "distribution, not redistribution?" If it's not just another mindless slogan, then, what on Earth does it mean? In your world are resources first distributed, according to some unfair rule, and then redistributed, again, according to some other even more unfair rule? Therefore, in your new theory and praxis, resources first must be distributed to the three billion Earthlings living below the UNDP poverty line, before they're redistributed to the bloodsucking capitalist running dogs, under the rubric of "return to Capital," where this new distribution scheme will be unsatisfactory for the "holders of Capital" because it will be much less than before, under today's unfair system? How would this work, if at all? Aren't you just refrying the old Commie beans with a lot more lard than necessary?

Next, what is "return to capital?" Is that like investment return, or the money one gets by lending money at a discount? Like I lend you ten bucks today but you promise to pay me twelve back in three years, etc etc.

So if somehow "three billion poor people" are "included in the distribution" of the world's resources, how on Earth would this hurt the interests of the "holders of Capital?" You're not talking about taking anything away from the "holders of Capital" so one assumes that they will continue to enjoy the resources that already have been "distributed" to them. Just having another three billion people in there, with resources to use, according to you, won't diminish the resources already at the disposition of the world's "holders of Capital." In fact, one can imagine that in this scenario the "holders of Capital" would begin to realize even better or more "return to Capital" than before: the addition of three billion more people to the marketplace will only benefit people with stuff to sell them, for example the "holders of Capital," who will want to sell these three billion ex poor people the Capital they need to do whatever the hell they want, etc etc.

To have this make any sense at all, you must be be working with a so-called Mercantalist economic world view, where wealth is a finite quantity to be "distributed" all over society. Under this world view, someone's having a certain amount of wealth implies that someone else, somewhere, will lack that certain amount, so that in the end the tally comes out at zero.

Your remark about the twenty-something kid's "model" at the Van Mises Institute went over my head. I guess you had to be there.

The Rerum Novarum was about capitalism. The "new things" of the title referred to political consequences of the capitalist industrial revolution: urbanization, new class sysem (workers/owners,) women's issues etc etc. The Pope was trying to restrict capitalism to make it accord with Catholic dogma and thereby "solve" these political issues within Catholic dogma. His proposal was a critique of lassiez-faire capitalism. The Church has its own take on these issues which will be hard for you to understand if you continue to force it into your preconceived left/right template.

Victor Hugo's rumination, as you please to call it, is not the point--although it does have a lot of impact amongst adolescents. The point is that you say there is no "substantive difference" between freedom and equality. On this basis, you dispute what Weigel has to say: you say,

If there were a substantive difference between excluding the poor from wealth creation and redistribution of wealth he might have a point.

The difference is between equality of opportunity and equality of result. The dialectics is between freedom and equality. Since there plainly is a "substantive difference," you're bound to admit that Weigel has a point.

If there were a substantive difference between excluding the poor from wealth creation and redistribution of wealth he might have a point.

The difference is between equality of opportunity and equality of result. The dialectics is between freedom and equality. So of course there is a "substantive" difference between the two. So much so that most of political philosophy is written so as to resolve the contradiction.

Surprise! The Pope is still Catholic! The Pope wants "a regime of global capital controls" according to you--although I can't see how you can derive this from the quote you put up. What else is Novarum? The Pope wants "global capital controls" just like he wants "global controls" on just about everything else, including how people choose to use and abuse their own genitalia. The Pope is a control freak. That's why he's Pope.

You quote a 1891 text that lays out the Church's so-called social teachings and then call it a "new teaching" that today's so-called right wing "can't get their minds around." Somehow I think there's a lot you need to "get your mind around" as well if something that happened in 1891 is still "new" for you--and that's not even considering that in 1891, Capitalism was hardly a "new" thing at all--it had existed for over two centuries by that time. One thing that's clear is that the Pope and/or the Catholic Church can hardly be analyzed according to your used-up left/right dichotomy.

The Rerum Novarum / New Things is capitalism. The Church/Pope will always be against it since it means people will have the freedom to choose, and will have to think for themselves, which are against Church dogma/teaching. Capitalism is decentralized, which is against hieracharcal Catholic attitudes towards the use of power. The Capitalist/Industrial Revolution was against the Church more than against the entrenched nobility, etc etc.

the point is that Zelaya’s ideology is significantly affecting the opinions of both sides.

I see your point but I don't agree a hundred percent. I see those arguing in favor of the coup and against Zelaya as marshaling a lot of different arguments and not all are based on ideology, for example, your own arguments based on the Honduran constitution. On the other hand, those arguing in favor of Zelaya are only repeating the points that he was elected democratically, that he was only planning a referendum on term limits, and so forth. As the example of James shows on your blog entry, these people fail to engage the constitutional arguments and fall back on name-calling and other ad hominem ruses. As the example of Katherine shows (above), these people are not averse to coups, as long as the right side is operating them. This has been true since Lenin's October coup.

I can't imagine how ideology could not be a factor in any political analysis. Ideology is part of politics one way or another. But, for example, if Zelaya was a liberal politician who was deposed in similar circumstances and not a thirdworldist Chavista, I'm certain I would have the same opinion I have now. The problem is that a liberal politician would not try to overrun the constitution like Zelaya did.

The search for easy heroes and villains in Honduras might be harder than anyone wants to believe.

This is what most people can't accept. People want heroes (Zelaya, for "resisting" a military coup) and villains (the gorilas who operated the coup). Some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity, or something, and this is supposed to be a characteristic of the so-called authoritarian personality [Adorno, et al] (or one with a propensity to fascism). In this case, then, commenters who insist on the black-and-white reading of Zelaya=democracy; military=fascism are only displaying their own fascist propensities while those who argue for a more nuanced interpretation of events are the true liberals here.

I don't understand why you assume that conservatives would naturally want to disregard "Constitutional provisions." Conservative opposition to Roe is not about disregarding the Constitution but about amending it. I just can't see why you would expect conservatives to side with Zelaya if he's violating the constitution on the one hand and on the other he's operating populist policies in line with Chávez, which conservatives will despise regardless of the constitution.

In the case of liberals, it's plain that they are simply basing their opinions on the group the find "most politically agreeable." As Katherine illustrates, they find it unobjectionable to demand the removal of Bush, even by military coup, for what they determine are constitutional violations, while at the same time demanding the reinstatement of Zelaya, in defiance of the constitution. This attitude cannot be explained by any reference to political philosophy, only to political expediency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "violating the Constitution" is not grounds for either removing the President or for impeaching him. That is based on his committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." The idea that Bush was "violating the constitution" is a leftist/thirdworldist meme that is not supported by the facts. For any so-called violation, there are many reasons to argue that it is not, in fact, a violation. That's why there are appeals lawyers and appeals courts: "violating the constitution" is not as straightforward as "violating" what some leftisty/thirdworldist group says it is.

Hey, not so fast! You were supposed to refute the following "presumptions," in your words, if I gave you "evidence," like I have done, above. That was the deal you proposed.

I say that Javier’s opinions are worth considering because they resonate with a lot of people in Latin America, although these people are not so-called intellectuals and in fact spurn so-called intellectuals as a bane of existence. I say they’re worth considering because they focus on the contradiction inherent in Obama’s support for Zelaya: he panders to the intellectual class in Latin America while ignoring the rest. At least 46 percent of Venezuelans are in this last group, so if Obama’s objective was better public diplomacy, like Mark wants to imagine it is, he’s alienating most people in the continent. He will get points with the intellectuals, but they’re an even “tinier” minority than Javier’s. He’s not only losing points with Javier’s minority, he’s losing their trust entirely. Not very good “public diplomacy” is it?

Not everyone who voted against the constitutional amendment was anti-Chavez.

OK, I'll bite: what percentage of Venezuelans are "anti-Chávez" according to your polls and elections?
You're talking about people learning to read and write and I'm talking about people being indoctrinated with hatred. So we're both right! How does that make you feel?

As part of your reply, please show me why the mayor of Caracas is lying (or whatever) when he says that Chávez has usurped his powers, i.e., has locked him out of politics. Show me why this is a "wild claim."

Here's a source on Chávez's militias. Don't bother to say that this BBC report is a lie and so forth. It's enough at this point that I've given you a source. Now it's your turn to comply with the deal you proposed.

[Roque] Without refering to the Feb referendum, then how would you measure the opposition to Chávez?

[James] Polls, elections…

The Feb referendum was a poll, of course. So? That has to be a measurement according to you. Therefore, Javier is not in a "tiny minority" at all—again, according to you. He's in a really large minority.

[Roque] Chávez expands the entitlements of the poor. His education is indoctrination, not education.

[James] I.e. he helps the poor out using oil cash which used to go to a pack of plutocrats.

I.e., he expands entitlements. Obviously this is the same as "helping" to you, but... it's still expanding entitlements—according to your own words. As for the indoctrination masquerading as education, well... Nothing to say? Even when you brought it up? If you want <i>evidence</i>, look at Javier's posts (above).

Evidence for Chávez’s locking the opposition out of politics? Evidence for the intimidation of his armed followers? I don’t have time right now to dig up references for you, but your question only shows your ignorance.

Would the most recent news from Venezuela count as evidence for you? Somehow I doubt it, but here goes... The mayor of Caracas has called off a hunger strike he staged to protest against Chávez taking control of the capital in what he called a "coup." The mayor goes on that Insulza\OAS must treat his case with as much seriousness as they treat the "coup" against Zelaya. What chutzpa, right? This is one mayor who needs to learn his place... But at least it shows a specific and timely example of how Chávez locks the opposition out of the political process.

As for the intimidation wielded by Chávez's armed militias, I think that this needs no further "evidence." Armed bands of feckless youth running around under some spurious government mandate to enforce the party line is inherently intimidating. Do I really need to expand on this for you to accept the "evidence?"

We’ll make a deal: you get me some of the aforementioned facts & I’ll begin.

So begin, already!

Without refering to the Feb referendum, then how would you measure the opposition to Chávez?

Chávez expands the entitlements of the poor. His education is indoctrination, not education.

Evidence for Chávez's locking the opposition out of politics? Evidence for the intimidation of his armed followers? I don't have time right now to dig up references for you, but your question only shows your ignorance.

You don't know "where to begin" in attacking my "presumption?" Give it a try! Begin somewhere!

By using the word, "serfdom," one is slavishly repeating Hayek? And then Hayek was a "fuckwit?"

One may not agree with Hayek on some level--although it would take a much more knowlegeable and aware person than James is to refute him--but... a fuckwit? James should be ashamed of himself for using such language about Hayek and for thereby avoiding the points that ED laid out for him.

If we take the Feb referendum as a guide, then Javier is in a minority of 46 percent. Hardly "tiny."

Chávez "helps the poor." So that's why he's so goddamn popular! Aside from problem of distinguising between expanding entitlements and "helping," you should consider that Chávez has locked the opposition out of the political process and that his followers are "led by" well-armed militias.

I say that Javier's opinions are worth considering because they resonate with a lot of people in Latin America, although these people are not so-called intellectuals and in fact spurn so-called intellectuals as a bane of existence. I say they're worth considering because they focus on the contradiction inherent in Obama's support for Zelaya: he panders to the intellectual class in Latin America while ignoring the rest. At least 46 percent of Venezuelans are in this last group, so if Obama's objective was better public diplomacy, like Mark wants to imagine it is, he's alienating most people in the continent. He will get points with the intellectuals, but they're an even "tinier" minority than Javier's. He's not only losing points with Javier's minority, he's losing their trust entirely. Not very good "public diplomacy" is it?

I think that this is what happens when one lacks convictions to begin with. By trying to favor one group, the intellectual thirdworldists in Latin America and in the the US/Europe, he's spurning another. That's what happens when government tries to favor some party of society over another. That's what happens when government lacks convictions that anyone can understand.

Well ... the post of a single commenter with an obvious bias is better to me than the post of a "dictionary definition" with an obvious bias, if he's honest about it.

Since when are "dictionary definitions" any guide for publicists? Besides, you fail to consider the fact that constitutional rule has continued in Honduras. There is no ruling junta or other gorila-like anti democratic government there. This doesn't much fit the dictionary definition you say you prize so much, does it?

You can see from Javier's comments that "improving our image" is not as straightforward as some people would like it to be. By supporting Zelaya, Obama has alienated wide swaths of Venezuelans (if Javier is correct), not to mention wide swaths of Hondurans and other Latin Americans who don't take communion at the same thirdworldist church that Obama does. These are the vast majority. The vast majority of so-called intellectuals are thirdworldists, which is why it may be confusing for people like Katherine to understand. The intellectuals do not speak for the people. Obama is currying favor with LA intellectuals and alienating the continent's majorities.

Does this count as "improving our image?" Maybe newspaper columnists will refrain from calling Obama dirty names for now, but consider what Javier has to say, "We (venezuelan opposition) cant help feel betray. and its sad that the other side of this country that didnt hate america already, are getting big reasons to strt doing so."

I wish I could answer your questions clearly. Then I could write a book and make some real money. I can only refer you to the thirdworldist world-view. It's like a religion for these people--impossible to question. Once Zelaya began to push the thirdworldist buttons, and ally himself with Chávez, he guaranteed himself support from the congregation. Of course nobody in this country would tolerate a politician like Zelaya or Chávez. People here love their freedoms. But that doesn't mean that they won't support autocrats who spout thirdworlist gobbedlygook. I really don't know why. In a normal world, if one is part of the world's most powerful nation--a world empire, according to the thirdworldists--this would be reason for overwhelming pride, not shame and apology. Can one imagine a Roman citizen apologizing to the Germanic tribes for their conquest or for imposing centuries of peace on the Mediterrean world and thereby centuries of material progress?

Since you asked, the translation you cite is accurate.

As for the answer to your "WTF" question, I just want to second Javier (above). It's about Obama's popularity, not about democracy, the consent of the governed, human rights, a "realist" foreign policy, smartough diplomacy etc etc.:

But i think this is the perfect example venezuelan democratic opposition can take to finnaly realize that the united states has never been our true friend, and that obama is as sympathetic to chavez as anyother of the left wing robin hood wanna-be all around the world.
Its really sad this possition taken by obamas administration, going all around theworld apologizing for americas crime, taking sides in conflicts, interving in other countries, doing exactly what he acussed Bush of doing, but doing it supporting the other side, the side that hates america by the way.
in the end everything the far right said about obama seems to be true… he only cares about making people like america, no matter any moral standing or democratic freedong or the respect for human rights… if it help him become more popular, hes more than willing to turn the other way and never look back.
We (venezuelan opposition) cant help feel betray. and its sad that the other side of this country that didnt hate america already, are getting big reasons to strt doing so.

It amazes me how people like Katherine can pick up her leftist talking-points so quickly and repeat them with such apparent authority. I've been reading so many nearly identical comments to hers that I'd even suspect plagarism. But this small episode does confirm my hypothesis that her ideology is a degraded form of thirdworldism gone rancid, which is the position from which she constantly questions Israel's right to exist. This leftist position is based on the idea that Zelaya was only planning a referendum--and what could be possibly be more democratic than that? However, democracy is not important here. Defending Zelaya/Chávez is. That's because they, like Katherine/James, et al, are rancid thirdworldists. Thirdworldism is true democracy, in case you don't know. True democracy is not related to votes, constitutional rule etc etc. These things are simply smoke screens for the thirdworldist. True democracy means empathy for the poor--although it also means the destruction of any policy with the least chance of helping people defead the poverty of their own lives, i.e., capitalism. Anyone who tries to consider the situation beyond the referendum-propaganda is shouted down in true Leninist style (see James, above.

This guy has it right:

What If It Happened Here?

Suppose, from a purely hypothetical standpoint, the crisis in Honduras was mimicked in the United States? A fictional American president, lacking the votes in Congress and the judicial nod from the Supreme Court, circumvents the constitutional process and holds an illegal national referendum to repeal the 22nd Amendment -- thus infinitely extending his potential for reelection.

The obvious legislative differences between the United States and Honduras aside, reactions would be nearly identical. Members of the Armed Forces take a solemn oath to "support and defend the Constitution," not to a specific individual. The oath further specifies an obligation to defend the Constitution and the Republic against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." This was a revolutionary concept back in the 18th century, when most of the dominant European armies mandated an oath of loyalty to their respective monarch, though it's wholly in line with the clear Platonist distinction between an organized, functional republic and the chaos of pure democracy. An American military coup in a similar Honduran scenario, against the tyranny of the majority, wouldn't just be likely -- it would be the obligation of every serviceman who swore to uphold the rule of law.

The Honduran military coup -- if it even fits that definition -- has separated itself from its South and Central American cousins in that it’s one of those rare occasions when the military stands to deny, not support, the aspirations of a dictator-in-waiting. No junta has or will be formed, and a new election is forthcoming. Not only was Honduras' action legal, it stands as a model for how a republic steels itself against internal subjugation. When you theoretically transplant that very same scenario to the United States, it’s nothing less than shameful that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the very same standards to which its own troops are bound.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/

Hola Javier,
Me disculpas por escribirte en español. No se trata de menospreciar tu inglés, que es totalmente adecuado e inclusive mejor que muchos de los que escriben acá. No más quiero que sepas de mi solidaridad contigo y el español me parece mejor.

Escribes desde la oposición a Chávez y criticas a Obama. Dos pecados acá en gringolandia. Chávez tiene que ser el avatar de la verdadera democracia y Obama--ni se diga--tiene que ser el infalible Lightworker. La gente acá no puede procesar tus antecedentes. No sabe cómo es vivir bajo una autocracia como la de Chávez. Inventan historias para que se sientan de lo más hip posible y esto se ve en el buen James, quien tiene la audacia de decirte tus verdades sobre tu propio país. Igual el Master Teólogo Dierkies (más abajo). Estuvo en Nicaragua un mes y ya sabe todo de América Latina.

Confieso que me haces sentir una pena horrible con lo que dices la traición de este país a la oposición venezolana. No puedo discutirlo y sentiría igual en tu lugar. Pero no creo que el show Obama|Chávez (por ejemplo, el regalo de Las Venas Abiertas de América Latina como si se indentificaran con esa reliquia del tercermundismo vencido y rancio) represente el sentir del pueblo americano. La gente acá no lee blogs pretenciosos como este porque... tienen que trabajar. Pero te aseguro que sienten la misma pena que yo. Cuando mencionas la indoctrinación al odio anti Americano que opera Chávez y luego que la traición que tú dices hacen que la otra mitad de la población también nos odien... da ganas de gritar de frustración e impotencia.

De cualquier manera, hang in there.

Are you saying that black people will continue to demand affirmative action programs forever because they are, in fact, inferior, and will always be inferior? This can't be your position...

First: I second the commenters who insist that "decades of affirmative action" certainly have done a lot to fix the problem of permanent black poverty.

However, just so Freddie knows I'm not here just to cause him problems, I agree with the main thrust of his piece: we needed and continue to need affirmative action programs in this country as an exceptional case to our "color blind" constitutional order.

It's impossible to understand the situation of the "black underclass" as Freddie calls them, without understanding centuries of black slavery and especially a century of an apartheid-like legal regime complete with legalized lynchings that was armed against them following the Civil War. Apart from the issue of slavery, as bad as that is, the hundred years of legalized discrimination against blacks constitutes an historical crime against black people. This is always the background to any discussion of the "black underclass."

Once the damage has been done, nothing can take it away. Black people have been damaged by the white majority and nothing will ever change that. But the white majority can at the very least try and make it up with programs like affirmative action.

These programs cannot last forever under our constitution. They are exceptions to our collective judicial philosophy, which is based on protecting individual rights from state control.

I agree with Freddie that these programs must continue until they are no longer necessary. That is, when everyone recognizes that they're no longer necessary. That time is still at least a generation away.

So far, I've learned that Kirchick is, indeed, homosexual--and that homosexuals are, indeed, gay--but, even looking past the tortured syntax, indeed, I can't find anything to call "batty"--especially in the piece cited by Will here. Indeed, there could have been a lot to disagree with back in 2007 (when the piece was written) but nothing I can see that's "batty." Indeed, most of it seems like just common sense to me.

Just out of curiosity: could you take a crack at a "more substantive criticism" of the piece by Kirchik you link to? I couldn't see anything I can imagine anyone would describe as "batty." He's just defending Joe Lieberman's national security philosophy by placing it in the leftist internationalist tradition. I can imagine how someone might disagree with Kirchik's analysis of Lieberman but I just can't see how this is "batty" (outside reality). Kirchik isn't the only one to have thought that the original liberal/leftist "interventionist" drive to overthrow the monarchies/dictatorships/tyrannies has been appropriated by the right.

Fawn much?