Taranto did not miss the point. His larger point was that in the USA, people vote for/against the death penalty, as in Texas. In more sophisticated latitudes, like in Europe, people don't get to vote on it. Their laws are written by... the liberal elite! If they did vote on it, it's very likely that they would have the death penalty for the liberal elites to disparage as "barbaric" or whatever. In Mexico the death penalty is also banned by law. The percentage of Mexicans who want it back is maybe eighty percent by now, and climbing. A lot of the death penalty is applied today by lynch mobs against whatever criminal perpetrator they are lucky enough to catch. It's also applied by the proverbial bullet to the back of the neck by the police, before they throw the body over the cliff for the coyotes and crows to eat. In some ways this is a better system but I doubt that ED Kain would approve.

So: hypocrisy abounds on this issue. Calling the pro-death-penalty crowd on it is hypocrisy squared. Nobody can be consistent with their core values, for or against it. Maybe if we stopped calling other people out on their hypocrisy, we could then listen to one another and come to some kind of agreement. But that's way too much to ask. People, like ED Kain, love to use the issue to showcase their own impeachable moral philosophy/moral reasoning and they won't ever stop it. It really makes me puke.

How can one be anti-abortion, ie, pro-life, and favor the death penalty? Isn't there some contradiction here? Yes, there is. Either you are pro-life, in which case you appose any deliberate taking of life outside of self-defense/war situations, or you don't.

How can you be anti-death penalty and favor abortion on demand? Either you think the state has the right to sanction the deliberate taking of life, outside of self-defense/war situations, or you don't. Because to argue that abortion is not the taking of life is just silly. It is, but the state sanctions it. So it isn't really about what life-taking situations the state will sanction or not. Hardly anyone is consistent in this respect.

On the "anti" side, the only one truly consistent are Catholic believers, for example, who 0ppose both abortion and the death penalty on philosophical/teleological grounds.

On the "pro" side, the only truly consistent people are like me—although I can't say if we are left/right or whatever: we favor both abortion on demand and the death penalty. More precisely: we favor giving, by democratic means, the power to sanction such murders, to the state, under strictly regulated conditions. We don't want to turn our democratic and civic culture into anarchy, like Mexico's. We favor this because we see a preponderant interest from the state's point of view, in doing so. We see a national security interest here, in other words, which the state is obliged to assume.

"You are truly in rare, bitchy, uninformed-but-think-you-know-everything form."
I can hardly respond to such ad hominen garbage. In Mexico we have an expression, which is is appropriate here [equivalent to our "pot calling the kettle"]: el burro hablando de orejas (the Ass talking about ears.)

Anti-war activism was not a hot topic even during the 2008 campaign; this is not a new shift. Honestly, I would date the turn away from it to roughly when Bush overruled the special panel or whatever it was and instituted the surge in December of 2006.

You must have seen a different campaign than I did. Far from "turning away" from anti war ideology, Bush's response to the debacle in Iraq--the surge--brought out the absolute worst in the anti war movement--remember "General Betray-Us?". Remember the many Congressional resolutions mandating withdrawal/failure in Iraq? Remember the state of denial that anti war movement was in until the success of the surge was too obvious to ignore/deny anymore?

Why so depressed? Wasn't the partisan nature of the so-called antiwar movement clear for you at the time? You must have been in high school back in 2001-2002 to have bought the antiwar propaganda line. It's no shame. Everyone was in high school once and bought the antiwar propaganda line once. Let's make this a teachable moment for you.

One of my favorite all-time poems. Just so you know... Thanks!

No, woman's liberation was not the main justification for the invasion. This was the fact the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda. If they had given bin Laden et al up, then there would likely not have been an invasion. The fact that our invasion did liberate women was a side-effect that became a neoconservative talking-point. But that was after the fact.

You have no call to analyze my character. You just don't know how I feel about the "women of Afghanistan" or much else. You just don't know if I'm "remarkably callous" or not because I don't put my emotions on display in public forums like this one.

On the other hand, you put your high emotions out there for all to see, which I consider very tacky. To each his own...

The argument in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan was about the Taliban's collusion with al Qaeda. That's it. Up to now, that mission has been successful since al Qaeda has been denied a state sponsor. It was never about killing or capturing bin Laden—as important as that may be. It was about denying al Qaeda a state sponsor. Whether we get bin Laden or not, al Qaeda is much diminished and today incapable of mounting a strategic attack against us. That's national security policy, not killing this or that Islamic fanatic.

To be clear, recall that you introduced the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan/the Holy Warriors/etc etc. as a "snark" against Reagan/neoconservatives. I just showed why that "snark" is misplaced.

So you're using sarcasm to defend yourself against my sarcasm? Is this meta-sarcasm, then? Is this the new sarcasm for the new millennium? I admit that you're way hipper-than-thou. I stopped being hip in the the late '90s, like you said. So, congratulate yourself on that one again.

I can’t recall that, actually

This is why I said your analysis was "ahistorical."

So now you're talking about "Islamist social policy?" Who knew? And, again, who cares about Islamist social policy? Certainly not the neoconservatives since this has no effect on our national security position.

You predicted that al Qaeda/Taliban would turn on us once the USSR was defeated? Why are you writing blogs? The government should sign you up—or at the very least you should be writing books, learned articles and giving seminars on your geopolitical framework, which allows you to predict such events years in the future.

I agree that we have no interests to protect in Afghanistan apart from denying al Qaeda a safe haven there—which we have already done. They can have a Taliban government or the king of the lollipops, as far as I care.

On the other hand, if anyone's analysis is "ahistorial," it's yours. No so-called neoconservative has ever denied the depredations of the the USSR back in the '80s. In fact, this was a key talking-point back in 2001—our invasion couldn't destroy the country because the USSR plus the Taliban had already done so.

As for what they "like to talk about much," they're quite willing to discuss Reagan's—and the Congress's—support for the Mujahaden. They wouldn't be ashamed of it either. No one could have predicted that al Qaeda/the Mujahaden/Taliban would have turned on us after we got rid of the USSR. ["We"=the US; Saudi Arabia; Pakistan; the Mujahaden; etc. etc.] If anything, this episode (among many others) gives the lie to the leftist/al Qaeda claim that the US has some special animus against Arabs/Muslims. Therefore, neoconservatives will discuss this as much as you want to.

This is not something that Reagan/neoconservatives have to answer for. What does "besmirch" their reputation is Reagan's illegal support for Iran. However, again, neoconservatives love to bring this up in the context of their critique of Obama's blind "engagement" policy with Iran. It shows that no amount of "engagement" (i.e. appeasement, "carrots" etc etc) will ever contain Iranian ambitions to impose Islamic law on the world by terror—or by nuclear weaponry.

You're very lucky. I'm quite jealous since I'm nowhere near NYC and museums. You have my permission to rub it in as much as you want to—give me a big rundown etc etc.

I suppose we also have an obligation to help Mexico weather its own bout of internal conflict. That’s why I’m in favor of reforming our drug policy. [...] Attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of our mission in Afghanistan by comparing it to the plight of our southern neighbor is a non-sequitur – Mexico is not a failed state, and the same prescriptions that apply to a wild and lawless country in Asia have little relevance south of the border.

Sure...by all means, "help" Mexico.

Here's what Jorge G. Casteneda has to say about the drug war:

American drug policy has been a central component of U.S.–Mexican relations, and of Mexican drug policy, at least since 1969, when Richard Nixon unleashed Operation Intercept at the San Ysidro-Tijuana border, inspecting every vehicle that crossed the border with the hope, not of finding any drugs, but of pressuring the government of then-President Gustavo Díaz Ordáz to expand Mexican drug enforcement.

That was a nice way referring to Nixon's gangster-like extortion of the government of Mexico. Either the government of Mexico agreed to "expanded Mexican drug enforcement" or Nixon—following the advice of G. Gordon Liddy, by the way—would continue to tie-up the border at immense cost to Mexicans. This "expanded Mexican drug enforcement" has been expanding ever since in response to the same so-called pressure. Of course it means at a minimum the deployment of armed US federal officers (DEA, etc) on Mexican soil in violation of their sovereignty.

But Casteneda does not go far enough back into history for a reader to understand the extent of US interventionism in Mexico. Earlier, of course, there was the criminalization of drugs. This happened in the US as a result of the "progressive" movement (in the early twentieth century) and their fanatical temperance religious beliefs. These beliefs are completely foreign to Mexico. And yet, Mexico was forced to criminalize drugs as well.

Who ever said that 24/7 sobriety was the be-all and end-all of public morality?

So, to summarize, the US has intervened in Mexico in the war on drugs and in its system of values as well.

Bacevich says, "We owe these people, big-time." That's a moral obligation after contributing to the destruction of their society for fifty years. But it's also in our self-interest. The war on drugs is spreading corruption and anarchy on an unprecedented level in Mexico. Vast swaths of the national territory are under the control of the narco—not the government. You say that Mexico is not a failed state, but that's really a judgment call. If the situation there was happening in the US, you'd certainly call it a failure. It's undeniable that Mexico is a failing state, if nothing else.

The consequences for our national security of having a failed state on our southern border are immense.

Is this ironic? The rationale for criminalization was the damage caused to society by drug use. By now it's obvious that the damages caused by criminalization are far worse than the drugs are or were. The rationale for Nixon's drug war was the damages drug smuggling was doing to our national security. The failed states caused by the drug war are far worse threats to our national security than drug smuggling ever was.

I'm not sure whether the above is "ironic" or if it's just another political bait-and-switch. I'm inclined towards the latter.

That's what I was going to say. But that was before I realized that it was too trite and obvious. I wish you had something more interesting to say about my comment other than obsessing over whether I'm "just as bad" as Sullivan. Oh, well...

Dude. I can't help you with this anymore. You're not seeing things for your own reasons.

Dude. Maybe the reason you can't see "how his amateur psychoanalysis differs significantly from [my] own" is that there's absolutely no psychoanalysis in my comment—or in Sullivan's for that matter. I'm simply considering the context of Sullivan's utterances. I can't see why this is not valid.

Dude. I don't think you can understand Sullivan without considering his twisted religious beliefs. After all, the topic here is "Andrew Sullivan’s dissection of one Boston cop’s overtly racist response… [emphasis added for you. Dude."

My first reaction to this was an exaggerated eye-roll

Your first reaction was correct. Usually further reflection just confuses things, as in this case.

Naturally I'm on the side of all right-thinking people of good will on the torture issue. That's not the point. The point is Sullivan's dragging Bush/Cheney into a local issue that has absolutely nothing to do with with them.

How can one read this and not cringe? Sullivan proclaims a sudden illumination into

the actual attitudes and beliefs of a segment of American society, the part that strongly disapproves of Obama…

Are we-who-disapprove-of-Obama to be openly called racist scum by such a poor excuse for a human being as Sullivan?

Sullivan is truly an embarrassment to read because of his fixation with Bush/Cheney/Palin, etc etc. His hysterical style of moral preening is way beyond embarrassing. His constant pontifications are suitable for the Pope. I guess that this is somehow what Sullivan is shooting for as a so-called liberal Catholic. After all, how much can one trust the judgment of someone who believes that some god was born by "immaculate conception" two thousand years ago to redeem humanity—which stays stubbornly unredeemed after all those years?

The following is more like what conservatives think about Gatesgate: Cambridge Police Profiling Still A Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty Assholes

It's true that a cop shouldn't arrest people for just being fools and trying to throw their weight around, like Gates. We all know that. Gates committed no crime at all.

On the other hand, we all know that if we act like Gates did, we'll likely end up arrested, just for the hell of it. I'm sure the cops knew that there were no real charges against Gates and that he'd be released. They just wanted to put him in his place, which is what they'd do to anyone, regardless of race. It was like my Dad used to tell me when I was whining and complaining: "you want to cry? I'll give you something to cry about!" The cops just gave Gates "something to cry about."
I just don't see how people can come up with such trite observations as

Conservatism in a nutshell seems to be: government is bad, unless a government official has a gun, in which case they are good and should always be unquestioned regardless of their actions.

based on this incident. What does this have to do with conservatism/liberalism? What conservative thinks that a "government official with a gun" is "good" no matter what? I suppose that a conservative with a healthy instinct for self-preservation would avoid pissing off government officials with guns but so would a liberal with healthy instincts, etc etc. Such people would just absorb the indignities the "government official with a gun" visited on them and later write a nasty letter, complain to the right people at the police dept, etc etc. They wouldn't make fools of themselves in public by trying to show the police how important/aggrieved they are.

“Worth engaging in” test passed with flying colours, there.

What's this supposed to mean?

He was planning a non-binding vote, yes.

He was planning to rig the non-binding vote, according to press reports. You have yet to respond to this little point—the whole point I'm making. I was clear when I said that I was supposing that the vote-rigging conspiracy was part of a larger one—to take control over the state of Honduras. I can't honestly see any other reason to rig the "non binding vote." Can you? There can be no "evidence" of this larger plan since, if it really existed, it was foiled by other powers of the state of Honduras, namely the congress, etc etc.

You did provide evidence, but as far as I could tell it itself relied upon speculation (stuff had been wiped, we know what was wiped) & might not be from a reliable source (I have no idea about who appointed this figure). Like I said, a fabrication would be entirely understandable.

The assistant prosecutor declared that he had evidence that documents and computer information had been destroyed or removed from government offices. He never said he knew "what was wiped out." We haven't seen the evidence he has yet. Maybe he doesn't have any or maybe the evidence he has is not conclusive. All we can do is wait and see.

Yes, it's true that "a fabrication would be entirely understandable." But so would rigging the "non binding vote." That it "would be understandable" doesn't mean it's a fact. You have no facts at your disposal to show that a "fabrication" of evidence has taken place. On the other hand, I do have evidence that a vote-rigging conspiracy was in operation-—the goddam government computers seized by the authorities, etc etc.

The reason Chavez has such virulent enemies is nothing to do with him being the enemy of a meritocracy. It is because he opposed an oligarchy. A tiny number of Venezuelans holding a massive amount of wealth. Etc Etc.

Before Chávez, Venezuela had possibly the largest and most dynamic middle-class in Latin America. His policies have destroyed this for generations. Where did you get the information that Venezuela was an oligarchy? Does your use of the word mean something like the "government of a few rich people?" In that case, you're probably referring to the huge income disparities that happen all across Latin America. It's true that elites hoard their wealth and power and that they do so by corrupt and sometimes violent means, but this is not the same thing as being governed by an oligarchy.

Elites use state power to maintain their status. How can this be considered capitalism? That's what I mean by saying that Latin America's development problems can be addressed better by more, rather than less, capitalism. The solution is not to use state power in favor of other people, even if these people are living in absolute poverty. The solution is to make the virtues of capitalism available to more and more people, including those living in absolute poverty. None of this means that I oppose using the power of the state for humanitarian goals in the fight against poverty. I'm just taking a general point of view about the proper role of the state.

If you are willing to present the case for a tiny fraction of the population hoarding the wealth being a better state of affairs than it being channeled into projects aiding the entire population then please do so.

This is plainly a transparent false choice. There is another way out of the problem of poverty. It's not a question of either using massive handouts or letting elites hoard all the wealth.

[…] besides some shoddy arguments about the poor developing “entitlements”

"Entitlements" means, "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group ; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program." My position is that entitlements are a negative factor in good governance but that some are truly necessary. But it's just a fact that the Chávez government expands its power through expanding these "government programs providing benefits to members"...etc etc. Opposing this kind of expansion of state power through entitlements is not the same thing as supporting an "oligarchy."

Ok. I withdraw it.

Jeez, James:
Why is it false that Zelaya was planning a fake ballot/referendum/opinion poll on revising the constitution? Why is is wrong to suppose that this conspiracy was part of a plan to take control of the state of Honduras?

Of course it's true that I don't support the national socialist revolutionary Bolivarianism that Hugo Chávez and his latest acolyte, Zelaya, are selling. I think that the best way forward for Latin American nations is more capitalism, not less. At least, this has been my experience so far.

So it's not true that I "want" Zelaya to turn out to be just another wannabe caudillo in the old mold. That was my opinion of him before the so-called golpe and it was my opinion of him before this latest incident. He certainly seems to fit it better than the junta today ruling Honduras fits the mold of golpista/gorila. I'm just putting up information that supports my position. There's nothing underhanded about it at all.

None of this has anything to do with the facts that the media have laid out: evidence of a conspiracy to commit voter fraud was found in Zelaya's possession.

To summarize: I put up evidence that Zelaya was planning vote fraud, which, if true, would discredit most arguments in his favor. You challenged me to come up with some "reliable sources." I already had put up two reliable sources. Also, you confirmed my prediction that you'd just use rank speculation to discredit this new information—"Wouldn’t you be keen on fabricating some fake data to give yourself false legitimacy?"

By the way, if the shoe fits…Third-worldism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third-worldism is a tendency within left wing political thought to regard the division between developed, classically liberal nations and developing, or "third world" ones as of primary political importance. Third-worldism tends to involve support for Third World nation states or national liberation movements against Western nations or their proxies in conflicts where the particular Third World state or movement.

I think you’re staging an assumption of legitimacy to suit your own interests.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I'm not "staging" anything. I'm just linking to information that supports my position here.

Can we not engage in ad hominem remarks? It detracts from the quality of the debate and diminishes the pleasure I derive from it.

Your link is just to a translation of the article in the Catalán newspaper I linked to (above). The author of the translation inserted the comment, "Jeez, it's just like Chicago." I suppose that he is the "hack" you just referred to. However, he is not the source of this information. The Catalán newspaper and the assistant prosecutor are. This normally would be authoritative enough for most purposes. In this case, the information makes it necessary for you to modify your original opinion of Zelaya. You find it hard to do so for your own reasons. But it's really not all that hard. You can admit that Zelaya was trying to subvert the state of Honduras and still support his overall programs (whatever they are). You can admit that Zelaya wanted to become just another tin-pot Latin American dictator and still maintain your thirdworldist views.

If he was installed by the post-coup junta he’s most likely a mere fabricator-in-chief, I shall check this out.

I'll wait till you do, which I suppose will be never—since you really lack any other argument aside from the ad hominem you just proposed.

James:
In the first place, nobody said, "“Jeez, it’s like Chicago.”

The articles I linked to show evidence of an attempted election fraud designed to overturn Honduran term limit laws in favor of Zelaya, who would then be enabled to continue as president.

James says,

Zeleya [sic]: a man so eager to install himself as permanant dictator he forgot to propose himself as an electoral candidate for the elections later this year…

Zelaya could not run for president in November under the Honduran constitution, which was the whole reason for the referendum/possible fraud in the first place.

I put up links to articles from US Today and from a Catalán newspaper. Why are these not "reliable sources" in your world?

Decomisan varios ordenadores en la Casa Presidencial con los resultados de la consulta que quería hacer Zelaya. europapress.cat

El fiscal adjunto [Roberto Ramírez] también indicó que hay evidencias de que en los últimos días fueron sustraídos documentos, material informático y cualquier prueba que pudiese dar luz en las investigaciones sobre el posible fraude que se quería cometer en el referéndum sobre la cuarta urna.

The assistant prosecutor [Roberto Ramírez] also said that there is evidence that documents and computer information have been removed along with any proof that could clear up the investigation into the possible fraud in the referendum on the fourth poll.

Now I suppose you'll try and discredit the sources for this news item, namely the assistant prosecutor in Honduras. If so, then give me some evidence why he can't be trusted, apart from your desire not to trust him because he gives evidence against your position.

Decomisan varios ordenadores en la Casa Presidencial con los resultados de la consulta que quería hacer Zelaya. europapress.cat
Honduras: computers seized with "election results" pre-loaded

He forgot because he wasn't planning on there even being elections in November. He was planning on winning the referendum with election fraud and then becoming president-for-life:

Tegucigalpa -- The National Direction of Criminal Investigation confiscated computers in the Presidential House in which were registered the supposed results of the referendum on the reform of the Constitution that was planned by former President