Baylen writes:

I offer up now a point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments made by Giordano, an otherwise fine person, using a blogging tactic known as “fisking.”

In fact, the term "fisking" is used only by a certain neoconservative sliver of the blogosphere that favors the Iraq war. The term comes from point-by-point critiques of journalistic work by Iraq war critic Robert Fisk of the Independent of London. And because these neocon bloggers (mainly Instapundit and his fellow pro-war cheerleaders) are often in a kind of Beavis & Butthead boy's club narcissistic self-obsession, they giggle that it sounds like "fisting," and think they invented the concept of point-by-point rebuttals, which, I'm old enough to remember, existed before blogs did.

You won't find the term "fisking" used outside of that little slice of blogdom. For example, over at the Daily Kos, which has beaten Instapundit for the crown of most-read blog, and has 5,000 more bloggers than Instapundit, you never see the term used, although you'll see many point-by-point rebuttals. Why? Those folks are against the war. They don't feel it necessary to take a cheap shot at Robert Fisk every time they debate a text!

I am a little bit surprised to see Baylen use this pro-war term because as I understood it he was against the war. He implies as much above when he cheers Mexican President Vicente Fox:

But when Fox did choose to take a stand against the policies of the U.S., it was to oppose the unjust American attack on Iraq. For this, Fox was sent to the doghouse, with former ally George W. Bush holding up the approval of Mexican truckers who sought permission –previously denied – to bring their goods into the U.S.

Thus, Bush imposed restrictions on free trade with Mexico – breaking the rules and spirit of NAFTA – in order to punish Fox. For Fox to push for legalization of drugs at a time when the edgy U.S. is launching willy-nilly attacks half-way around the world would be courageous, true, but foolhardy.

Now, I read the Mexican news daily, in Spanish, and I wonder if Baylen would be willing to make a wager and part with yet another $100 dollars. When did Fox "take a stand against" the Iraq war? Show me the quote, the date, the cite. The fact is that Fox never took such a stand.

What Baylen is confusing here is the fact that the Mexican Congress - controlled by opposition parties to Fox - took a stand against Mexico participating in the so-called Iraq coalition, and for this Mexico was "punished" by the U.S.... and that Fox, unable to speak for his nation on the issue, his hands tied, never spoke up in favor of the war... that is quite different from "taking a stand" against the war!

Finally, on this point of Mexico and drug policy, Baylen writes:

Is it far-fetched that Bush might invade a Mexico that has legalized drugs? Of course not. Remember that Bush’s father – by far the more sane of the two – invaded former ally Panama after that country’s leader was publicly revealed to be involved in the drugs trade.

In fact, I have long argued that it is impossible for the United States to militarily invade Mexico - or even place an economic embargo upon it - without causing conditions that would fast lead a rebellion by United States citizens against their own government at home, and that Mexico enjoys a unique power in this sense.

Mexico, a nation of about 100 million people, that shares a gigantic border with four United States, including the big electoral voting ones California and Texas, has great power in this equation.

The reason is simple: Every time the peso drops in value, another million Mexicans cross the border into the U.S. to seek the lost opportunity (for this reason the United States spends a fortune each year propping up the Mexican peso). Immigrants flooding over the border causes many more political problems than drugs crossing over the border in terms of public reaction, especially in the Southwest.

A military invasion would be even worse (let's not forget that Mexico has a proud history of beating back U.S. incursions into its territory, and winning some of those battles militarily)! It would lead to a dissolving border, along thousands of kilometers, impossible to patrol, and a huge exodus of Mexicans into the United States. Think that the U.S. public is going to tolerate its government's causing of that for an El Paso Minute? It is an impossible, pie in the sky, scenario.

Sure, the U.S. can invade Panama or place an economic embargo on Cuba or Haiti... small countries, with less impact (although, in the case of Cuba and Haiti tightening of embargoes has historically lead to waves of immigrants into Florida that, although very much smaller than what would come from Mexico, have had profound political consequences inside the United States).

Mexico, yes, does have the unique power to reform drug laws without the U.S. being able to invade or harm it economically. It has even more power than Canada in this regard. It has the weapon of an exodus that heads North at the slightest provocation or recession down South.

There are other reasons why Fox has not done anything to reform drug laws. They have more to do with his own administration's vulnerability as having been corrupted by drug trafficking, and the constant blackmail by the U.S. of charging Mexican officials with drug crimes. But it's not, and it never has been, fear of "invasion," another not-very-well-thought-out scenario offered by my esteemed colleage on the right side of the screen!