Sadly, No! is on a Roll
By Mona
Brad showcases Col. Ralph Peters’ publication of a deranged essay which includes this gem, my emphasis:
Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.
(Peters also adds, my emphasis:
Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. )
And in another post Brad examines the thrice divorced Sam Schulman’s bizarre objections to same-sex marriage (shockingly published in The Weekly Standard!). Among the many things Schulman finds persuasive to his case against gay marriage is (second ellipses mine):
. . .marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage. . . is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined.
To which Brad solemnly observes:
So. Marriage, then. It’s actually about controlling what a woman does with her vagina.
Then there is D. Aristophanes addressing a Red State blogger who posits Jesus would have waterboarded at the drop of an olive:
… It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.[Addendum by Mona: If Jesus' "Dad" was God, how exactly would the elder member of the Trinity be captured for waterboarding? Me thinks Red State is not up on its Xian theology.]
Yeah, that Jesus, he said: “Suffer the torturers to come unto me — for theirs is my mansion gulag in heaven.”
.
I highly recommend reading all these latest S/N  posts. They lampoon well at S/N, of course — everyone knows that. But this latest stuff deals with  some seriously sick wingnut spewings.
Comment by Glaivester —
May 25, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
So. Marriage, then. It’s actually about controlling what a woman does with her vagina.
Well, to some extent, yes. Marriage is about a man getting a reasonable guarantee that the children he thinks are his are actually his, in return for his helping to take care of them. The alternative is where men don’t have much of an idea as to whom they are the father of, and the main reproductive strategy revolves around simply having sex with as many women as possible and not caring very much if any particular offspring survive.
This strategy is much more popular in Africa than it is in Europe, the Americas, or Asia, and is part of the reason for a lot of the problems there.
Addendum by Mona: If Jesus’ “Dad†was God, how exactly would the elder member of the Trinity be captured for waterboarding?
I am assuming they meant his foster father, Joseph. I have to admit, though, that I see this as a strange assertion. In particular, I find the idea odd that, because he allowed himself to be tormented for our sins, he found torment unobjectionable. It would seem much more in character for his earthly ministry to admonish his followers to accept being waterboarded and to forgive hose who did it to them than for him to condone them waterboarding others.
This is not to say that Jesus is exactly against torture; after all, he does not object to the torment of the unsaved in Sheol (and eventually Gehenna). But he does not seem to be very approving of torture other than as just punishment of sin (e.g. stoning to death)* and even then he emphasized forgiveness.
*Jesus did in some sense approve of stoning people to death for certain sins, as it was part of the law and it was just. Note that he never said that the adulterous woman did not deserve to be stoned to death. Rather, he forgave her and spared her what she deserved because of his grace, and counseled the would-be stoners to forgiveness and mercy as well, not because she deserved it (no one deserves to be forgiven, if they did it would not be forgiveness) but because they needed mercy just as she did. A particular point that he made was that we all deserve death, and that we do not receive it because God is not only just but also merciful.
Comment by Mona —
May 25, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Jesus did in some sense approve of stoning people to death for certain sins, as it was part of the law and it was just. Note that he never said that the adulterous woman did not deserve to be stoned to death. Rather, he forgave her and spared her what she deserved because of his grace, and counseled the would-be stoners to forgiveness and mercy as well, not because she deserved it (no one deserves to be forgiven, if they did it would not be forgiveness) but because they needed mercy just as she did
Which strongly suggest that the Jesus of the gospels did not endorse torture. He did, after all, say: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That would mean no one could torture.
I may be a “lapsed” Catholic and non-theist, but I know my theology and scripture. Jesus never advocated torture. With a few caveats, I admire what he is reported to have said in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Comment by Callimaco —
May 25, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I can’t believe, in this day and age, that I just read an article by a guy who thinks that marriage remains primarily concerned with “the organization of female sexuality”. Stunning. Absolutely stunning to realize that neanderthals of this sort remain in our midst. This isn’t even 1950s thinking. It’s pre-19th century thinking! It’s feudalism and concern with monarchical lines! Just crazy stuff.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
May 25, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Still available, ladies! Time’s a-wasting!
Comment by Mona —
May 25, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Hey Joe, I thought you were bound in holy wedlock?!
Comment by Kolohe —
May 25, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Random excerpts from the Col. Peters article:
Because we got better shit to do. Also, Peters forgets Patton (or at least George C Scott) “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.” Them having the suicide bombers and ’sacrificing more’ is a feature not a bug.
Godwin in Para 4!
Which explains a lot over the last eight years, but I’m not sure if the civilian leadership of the last administration was actually the colonel’s target of criticism with this statement (to be fair, he probably is, but indirectly to avoid riling up the right wing he’s talking to, as he makes later oblique criticism of both the OEF and OIF war planning. And the right-wing critique of the ‘military industrial complex he makes in the next paragraph and later on in the piece)
The ‘privileged’ have for a long time found themselves exempt from the nitty gritty of warfare – witness the paid substitutes of the civil war. And not to harp on this too much, a seeming preponderance of right wingers (compared to their left wing counterparts) in positions of authority.
Then what’s your point?
*people* are inherently violent, not religions.
(em original)
TridentD-5’s FTW!
(Clauswitz and Sun Tzu FTL)
postscript: re: media.
Adam’s put Ben Franklin’s son (grandson?) in jail for being a partisan media figure who was accused on ‘being for the other side’ (in this case the French) so Col Peter’s ideas wrt that are not exactly novel either.
Comment by jenna —
May 26, 2009 @ 2:29 am
Wait, he was trying to say that the woman deserved stoning, but he forgave her? I thought he was implying that you could use the state of grace as a source of work, like, constructing some sort of spiritual clarity accelerator sattvagun.
. . . does this mean the whole figs thing *wasn’t* a coded instruction manual for biotechnologists?
Comment by ajay —
May 26, 2009 @ 4:32 am
As I remarked elsewhere, this is insane: “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”
The first two are anything but unthinkable – they’re standard practice. Of course wars involve censorship and news blackouts. It’s called “operational security”.
Comment by mds —
May 26, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Yeah, I think the “and” does most of the heavy lifting to get to “unthinkable” territory. What, Lt. Col. Ann Armstrong Coulter finally gets to bomb the NYT building?
And is “foster father” how Joseph usually gets classified? I’ve often wondered. “Stepfather” doesn’t quite work somehow. Legal guardian? Divine cuckold?
[LIGHTNING BOLT]
Ouch!
Anyway, I appreciate Glaivester reminding us that Christ wasn’t saying that the Law was wrong per se, but that it should be tempered with mercy. (This is very Talmudic, too.) Illegal torture of people who may or may not be guilty of anything is almost certainly on the no-no list. On the other hand, Christ did supposedly die for humanity’s sins, so he was ready to “do what was necessary” to save lives. Plus, he could totally whip a Tyrannosaurus Rex. (Link NSFS*)
*Not Safe for Saved
[LIGHTNING BOLT]
Ouch!
Comment by dhex —
May 26, 2009 @ 9:56 am
that’s one small part of modern marriage. i didn’t get married to control where my children came from, but because my wife is catholic and they’re completely fuckshit crazy.
even going back to the wayback marriage was never just about paternity; familial alliances, cultural and business interweavings all played a part. now that women are no longer the chattel property of their fathers (in the west), it’s got very little to do with the above. invoking this chattel past should be looked upon with that same jaundiced eye one would look upon a modern rosy remembrance of how great slavery in the american south was and how kindly the owners were.
the dumbest part of schulman’s essay is this part:
i don’t know of any versions of marriage which are not culture-bound. gay people do not have kins? that will be very surprising to their families.
Comment by Barry —
May 26, 2009 @ 10:13 am
“…Christ did supposedly die for humanity’s sins, so he was ready to “do what was necessary†to save lives….”
The whole point being, of course, that he *suffered* what was necessary. He didn’t *inflict* things on people.
Comment by dhex —
May 26, 2009 @ 10:26 am
the temple shopkeepers and moneylenders would disagree, yo. that motherfucker busted up their shit in clear violation of the nap. goddamn semi-divine moral imperialist.
i’m not entirely as lovestruck with sadly no as mona is; if anything, i think it’s an excellent (and depressing) example of the sportsbar diplomacy mentality, particularly once you delve into the comments. on the other hand, when you’re picking on outliers it’s impossible to not want to swing for the fences, as it were.
Comment by mds —
May 26, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Yes, Barry, I know that. Please note that I linked to a cartoon of Jesus fighting a dinosaur. I’m certainly not buying into Redstate’s “Prince of Torture” nonsense.
Also, does Blood’n'Guts Peters really say:
? Because now I’m definitely too frightened to go check the original.
Comment by mds —
May 26, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Also, this would make a great motto for a T-shirt.
Comment by Seward —
May 26, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Well, in much of the apocalyptic rhetoric of Christ (last shall be first, and first shall be last, etc.) there is a heck a lot of implied violence that someone will have to be committing. There is a lot of “those bastards are going to get their just desserts, and right quick too.” Of course the “right quick” part was something the early church had to figure out to do with once things started to drag on a bit.
Matt. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matthew also has that bit where Jesus condemns several towns to hellfire (basically they’ll meet the fate of Sodom).
Comment by johndog —
May 26, 2009 @ 11:42 am
and let us not forget, jesus had two daddies!
Comment by Thoreau —
May 26, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
I think johndog wins the thread.
Anyway, Jesus was not violating the non-aggression principle. The moneylenders were in His Father’s house and He was just evicting people engaging in activity not authorized by the land owner. As libertarians, we should respect God’s property rights in the Temple, unless of course somebody can show a contract allowing the moneylenders to operate there, in which case God should be sued for allowing His designated agent to aggress against people adhering to the terms of a contract.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 26, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Mmm, the current state of Israeli law treated the temple as a public building, that is belonging to nobody. So any citizen of Israel had a right to hang out there and exercise ier right to go, “Hey, can I borrow a piece of silver?” So, the moneylenders had every right to be there.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 26, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Jesus, as a duly appointed representative of His Father, was merely exercising eminent domain over the section of the temple occupied by moneylenders.
Comment by Mark Z. —
May 26, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I believe they were money changers, not lenders. What are Jewish moneylenders going to do in the Temple? There aren’t any Gentiles there (on pain of a savage beating), so they’d be limited to zero-interest unsecured loans to other Jews. Not a great business plan, if you ask me.
Comment by Seward —
May 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
johndog,
Interestingly there is some language in the NT which implies that Jesus’ father was in fact Joseph. Medieval copyists, etc. tried to hide it, excise it, etc. I can’t remember which “canonical” gospel it is in though.
Mark Z.,
If I am not mistaken, I believe that in the ancient world that money changing was a means by which to hide, well, what we would call banking with interest. It was also of course a way to get around the various idiotic coinage laws of the many coin producing states and statelets at the time. So yeah, a money changer was sort of a proto-libertarian personage.
Comment by Barry —
May 26, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
MDS:
“Also, does Blood’n’Guts Peters really say:
“Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.—
The best way to put Peters is that the first article I saw by him was written in 2006(?), right when the sectarian violence flared up after the bombing of the Golden Mosque (?). Peters said that he had ridden around Baghdad with a US unit, and saw no incidents, so therefore nothing was happening. Peters was a colonel in intelligence, so there’s zero probability that he was simply being ignorant. He was quite deliberately deceiving us.
I’ve not seen anything from him since which changed my initial bad opinion of him.
Comment by Mona —
May 26, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
dhex writes:
I am anything but lovestruck w/ S/N! Virtually never do I comment there anymore, because they give me such puerile shit in the comments section about being a libertarian — and comments can, indeed, become pretty ridiculous and stoopid.
That said, they have some incredibly funny bloggers, Brad being first among them. And, “HTML Mencken” does good work, and in any event deserves credit for the cleverest nom de cyber I’ve yet seen.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 26, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
So you support eminent domain, eh?
Comment by dhex —
May 26, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
fair enough, mona. i did not mean to cast false allegations of budding romances on your part.
anyway, the only fun thing about getting purile shit for being a libertoid is telling people the hardest part of being a libertarian is finding like-minded individuals to help you hold down the poor children you rape while their parents and the government look on, completely helpless before your mighty powers.
(they need not know these powers come only in colloidal silver and ferret forms. this is our secret.)
Comment by Jon Hendry —
May 26, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
“so they’d be limited to zero-interest unsecured loans to other Jews.”
And the customers would be buying stuff to sacrifice at the Temple, so there goes any chance to repo the item if the loan goes bad.
“Hey, YHWH! Give me that ram back! The bastard stopped his payments!”
Comment by Jon Hendry —
May 26, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
“Jesus, as a duly appointed representative of His Father, was merely exercising eminent domain over the section of the temple occupied by moneylenders.”
I think you meant immanent domain.
Comment by Glaivester —
May 26, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Mona, I’m not really disagreeing with you too much; I think that the redstate blogger is a jackass too. But I want to be certain not to imply that Jesus had a principled position against the imposition of pain as a punishment, after all, he did in many sermons emphasize Hell, and his mercy did not mean a rejection of the harsher provisions of the law as wrong.
Which strongly suggest that the Jesus of the gospels did not endorse torture. He did, after all, say: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.†That would mean no one could torture.
I think that perhaps the best way to look at it would be that Jesus did not object to torture (as punishment) in the abstract, he just objected to torturers.
Or, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot about slavery: it’s not that there is no one who deserves to be tortured, it’s that there is no one who is fit to be torturer.
I may be a “lapsed†Catholic and non-theist, but I know my theology and scripture. Jesus never advocated torture. With a few caveats, I admire what he is reported to have said in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
No, he didn’t advocate torture by one human being to another – but he did emphasize hellfire, and he never said that stoning people was unjust.
Comment by abb1 —
May 27, 2009 @ 2:03 am
Indeed, He would waterboard, but only with Holy Water.
Comment by ajay —
May 27, 2009 @ 5:18 am
This is the problem with taking your moral guidance from someone who thought that restrictive dietary laws were a bigger problem than slavery.
Comment by Rhodo Zeb —
May 27, 2009 @ 7:24 am
S,N! has been rocking out for years now, with a slightly-evolving cast of great characters.
I remember when Brad and Gavin were new, or so it seemed and HTML wasn’t even there yet…but now that I think about it, I can’t remember who was there before, other than Seb…
I haven’t kept up closely for the past couple years, but its still a great site.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Jesus would never torture. He’d just quietly explain that you are making Baby Him cry.