I’ll let the video speak for itself:

Hat-tip: Harry’s Place.

Sam Tanenhaus discusses his book The Death of Conservatism, dissecting the problems of the contemporary American Right. Essential viewing HERE.

Hat-tip: Little Green Footballs.

Jimmy Carter may well have overstated his case about the racial undertones of those criticising the President, but that doesn’t mean his argument has no merit. Yes, a lot of those who object to Obama’s politics do so from reasonable grounds, even if you happen to disagree with them. But there is a significant constituency who are opposed to the President for the simple reason that he is black. Carter’s criticism has relevance because those leading the populist opposition to Obama, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, have done virtually nothing to limit, contain or denounce this sinister fringe. To make matters worse, Rush Limbaugh is seen to be fanning these flames to pander to the racist constituency.

now we have Rush Limbaugh blaming Obama for black kids beating up a white kid on a school bus. This is what happens in “Obama’s America,” he said today on his radio show.

How low will these people go? Look, I think it’s important to talk about black male violence, or at least as important as it is to talk about any other important social trend. I don’t think we should be squeamish about discussing it in a responsible and fair-minded way, despite what the politically correct say. But good grief, Limbaugh is up to something wicked. He’s plainly trying to rally white conservatives into thinking that now that we have a black president, blacks are rising up to attack white kids! Christ have mercy, what is wrong with these people?

I won’t have anything to do with it, not even tangentially, which is why I took down the post. I can’t see this as anything other than Limbaugh deliberately trying to whip up racial fear and loathing of the president. This goes far, far beyond tough criticism of Obama. Does that man Limbaugh have any idea what rough beast he’s calling forth?

Have I suddenly become left-wing in saying this? No, just consistent. Earlier this year I made a pretty similar argument about the same thing happening on the left about Israel: an anti-semitic fringe exists that is either explained away or pandered to, but rarely denounced or distanced. This is pretty much the same argument, but applied to the American Right. In both cases, the majority of critics are not racist, but they invite such an accusation when they fail to get their own house in order and deal with the sinister underbelly of their movements. Those who do take them to task are also, unfortunately, not in the mainstream either.

Hat-Tip: Andrew Sullivan

My opposition to the death penalty has always been a practical one, as I see no need in opposing something in principle if it is unworkable in practice. The reality of he death penalty is one largely divorced from the fantasies proponents entertain of it. This scene, from the recent botched execution of an Ohio murderer, neatly demonstrates the surreal an perverse reality of a judicial execution (emphasis my own):

After the team spent nearly an hour trying to find a workable vein, Broom [the inmate] tried to help them bring him a quicker death. He turned over on his left side, slid rubber tubing designed to clarify his veins up his left arm, then began moving the arm up and down while flexing and closing and opening his fingers. The execution team was able to access a vein, but it collapsed when technicians tried to insert saline fluid.

Broom then became visibly distressed, turning over on his back and covering his face with both hands. His torso heaved up and down and his feet shook, as he appeared to be crying. He wiped his eyes and was handed a roll of toilet paper, which he used to wipe his brow.

He sat up at the end of the bed and talked with his execution team.

The team had been asking Broom whether he wanted a break, but he chose to push ahead, as did the execution staff, prisons director Terry Collins said. Collins then insisted on a break and contacted the governor to let him know about the difficulties.

If this sort of situation doesn’t highlight the inherent absurdity of civilised societies trying to administer the death penalty in accordance with their values, I don’t know what does.

In a debate, if you find yourself in the inconvenient position of being factually incorrect, a simple diversionary strategy is always possible: redefine the terms used.

Was waterboarding torture? Well yes, if you consider drowning someone to be a painful and distressing experience.

So how to get round it? Easy: redefine torture, preferably in a suitably wooly and vague way, then suggest that waterboarding doesn’t meet the strict definition of torture that you’ve just in effect destroyed.

That sort of nonsense unfortunately characterised much of the discussion I participated in last week. A debate on the value of life sentencing was distorted into a bizarre, confused and contradictory argument about not letting politicians have any say in the criminal justice system. You may have also seen my moaning on Twitter about a debate on Israel in which the proponents, apart from invoking the argumentum ad Hitlerum, decided that they would justify their argument by trying to challenge the legal definition of “occupation”. Dreary, annoying and deeply stupid.

Nonetheless my weekend was considerably brightened by the Onion’s satirical take on such tactics:

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan

The NHS is vastly preferable to the present American situation.

Republicans have taken a leaf out of How to Argue Effectively in their attempts to derail healthcare reform:

Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, “That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say,” or “You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”

A serious debate with massive implications, and this is the best the GOP can muster?

A while ago I wrote something of a broadside against self-styled “libertarians” engaging in rhetorical games over genuine matters of principle:

Liberty requires and deserves a defence that is not just robust, but pragmatic, nuanced and intelligent. Extremism in the defence of liberty is a vice, for it virtually guarantees its demise. It’s time we saw a little more pragmatism, and a little less rhetoric.

The problem is that there are a lot of people out there who find the rhetoric of liberty a fun thing to dress up in and construct an identity around, but fail to adopt anything approaching a principled defence of it. Liberty becomes a buzzword, something that your side is “for”, and everyone who disagrees with you automatically becomes “against”.

I bring this up because an example has emerged on Tory Bear, and has since exposed the shallowness of his convictions.

Ed Kozak, writing about Independence Day, opens with lofty rhetoric…

Two-hundred and thirty-three years ago American colonists were fighting and dying for their rights and liberties

… before veering somewhat wildly into hysteria:

we’re still fighting for our rights and liberties, guaranteed to us by the Constitution as Americans, yet denied us by a tyrant, Barack Obama. How long, I wonder, before Americans start dying again to protect and reclaim those rights and liberties?

Yet when called to defend his accusation, he couldn’t resist offering the following choice quote:

personally I don’t give a flying fuck who the CIA tortures as long as it’s not an American citizen. The AMERICAN government only exists to protect the life, liberty, and estates of AMERICANS

So much for universal rights and liberties; it’s simply a matter of birth and breeding old chap, and buggered if it’s going to interrupt my own personal convenience.

Over on Tory Bear, where I’m taking rather major issue with some anti-Obama hyperbole, engaging in a historiographic debate over the origins of the American Civil War, and having an argument about race, all within one topic.

Feel free to join in.

Vanity Fair carries a massive assessment of Sarah Palin. In particular this passage stuck out:

In every job, she surrounded herself with an insular coterie of trusted friends, took disagreements personally, discarded people who were no longer useful, and swiftly dealt vengeance on enemies, real or perceived.