We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

When anti-war means anti-liberty

Jeremy Sapienza wrote in his article called Only Terrorists Kill Innocents on Anti-State.com:

There seem to be many people, even in libertarian circles, who think that America was attacked because of abstract principles like “freedom” and “prosperity” and even “democracy.” And I didn’t want to say it, but so far it has been overwhelmingly true: the libertarians who would otherwise agree with the rest of us on most things but have done complete 180s here are Jewish. They support Israel blindly and fanatically, out of some allegiance to, as one writer put it, his “creed.”

[…]

It is a very easy concept to understand: the US government bombs innocent civilians all over the world, with hundreds of thousands dead in Arab parts, and so they hate us. They hate us because our government exterminates them like mosquitoes. So, in response to our government killing civilians, they kill OUR civilians. It is not right, but it is the only logical sustaining impetus for this utter hatred of Americans and our country.

[…]

Don’t worry, if we carpet-bomb Kabul there will still be Afghanis. I mean, they can still make more, right?

[…]

What the hell is the matter with you people!? Why are you so thirsty for innocent blood!? There has not been any arguments thus far that have convinced me that Muslims or Arabs are innately evil, or innately hate America because it is a prosperous, capitalist country. These are the ravings of people who are either lunatics or are too lazy to apply otherwise-heeded libertarian principles to their knee-jerk emotional reactions. Death is horrible. We should be working to eliminate it, not perpetuate it.

Well I am a so-called ‘pro-war’ libertarian, though 100% Goy, so I assume at least some of what is being written on anti-state.com is being directed at me and those of my ilk. However I do not support Israel 100%… in fact probably rather less that 50% if the truth be known.

Nevertheless I think it is clear that America was indeed attacked for abstract principles, just not ones like “freedom” and “prosperity” and even “democracy”. It was attacked for the abstract principles upon which the Islamic fundamentalism is based, which is to say ‘anti-secularism’ and as a corollary, anti-capitalism. You see Islam is indeed under attack in ways that really terrify fundamentalists the world over. However it should be obvious that the people who brought us the latest in Kamikaze tactics that bombing, and violent death generally, is not what frightens and engenders hatred from Islamists… it is an aggressive, global, unbounded secularism, whose carrier wave is a global and God-neutral capitalism which they fear. Not B-52s or F-16s or Tornados or Cruise missiles, but Playboy and Nintendo and banks-which-charge-interests and cheap DVD’s and satellite TV which mullahs cannot effectively control and so on and so on…

The likes of Al Qaeda want ‘us’ to leave ‘them’ alone… and by ‘them’ they mean the world’s Muslim population. But ‘we’ will never ever do that, because ‘we’ not really controlled by any authority who can make us stop making and selling whatever nominal Muslims the world over want to buy. And so out of desperation, the people to whom the very reason for their existance on earth is an imposed morality centred on certain abstract conceptions of God and Man which the secular world cares nothing about, attack us.

But Jeremy Sapienza does not see that, just the fact Iraq has been bombed since the ‘end’ of the last Gulf War, ergo that is the reason ‘they’ attacked ‘us’. And yet on September 11th the USA was not attacked by Iraqis angry at their treatment by the USAF, so I cannot see the relevance of Mr. Sapienza’s remarks about that being why ‘they’ kill ‘our’ civilians … neither was the USA attacked by members of the PLO or Hamas, who regularly get bombed by Israel, so I am not sure what relevance that has either… and just for completeness, neither were the hijackers that day Serbians who were pissed off about losing Kosova due to US and NATO actions, or German smarting over the end of the Third Reich or Japanese lamenting the loss of the South-East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

For the most part they were Saudis… and I cannot off-hand recall the last time the USAF bombed Saudi Arabia.

But then I think the article about which I am commenting is just a litany of misunderstandings and outright fallacies…leaving aside the patently false and positively libelous notion that the USAF/USN intentionally targeted civilians in Afghanistan (or anywhere else in the last decade). I wonder if Mr. Sapienza realises ‘carpet bombing’ is a technical military term which actually has a specific meaning. If Kabul had been carpet bombed, it would look rather like Dresden or Hamburg circa 1945, with tens of thousands killed in each air attack.

So what is the matter with us? Well for a start, we are not ‘pro-war’… we are pro-liberation. If Jeremy Sapienza can come up with a way to end mass murderous Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq by using harsh language and grimaces and singing Kumbayah, then I will quickly become a generous benefactor of anti-war.com. Until that is the case, I do wish he would stop his knee jerk emotional reactions and realise that yes, death is horrible… and the best way to stop the epidemic of state sponsored death in Iraq is to engineer the overthrow of Ba’athist Socialism so that Saddam and Uday, and their coterie of thugs, end up hanging on meathooks in a public square in Baghdad.

You see, some libertarians see the world the way it really is and want to actually see tyranny overthrown with the tools at hand now and replaced with liberty and justice for all. Quaint but there you have it.

Yes we all know that what will follow Ba’athist Socialism will not be some libertarian nirvana, but it will be better that what is there now… if you are an isolationist, then call yourself an isolationist, I have no problem with that. Just don’t think you are taking a moral libertarian position. You ain’t. The article quotes the anti-war.com crowd, who are very willing to contemplate the cost of war and the benefits of peace… but that rather misses the obvious fact that the alternative to war in Iraq, right now, is not ‘peace’ but continued tyranny. So what is the cost of tyranny in Iraq, Mr. Sapienza… year after year after year?

So when he writes “Death is horrible. We should be working to eliminate it, not perpetuate it”… why is he so keen to see Saddam Hussain, the principle cause of unnatural death in Iraq, perpetuated? That may not be his desire, for I have no reason to think Jeremy Sapienza is an evil man, but that is the reality of an anti-war position.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

28 comments to When anti-war means anti-liberty

  • Fritz the Cat

    Streuth! I agree… and what a veritable blogapotamus of a post!

  • Lee Harris has written several articles in the last year which I think transcend ordinary punditry and point out profoundly important things. One of his more important articles was “Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology” which gives an extremely interesting explanation for the attack.

  • Beavis

    AMEN! I dislike when terms like carpet bombing and genocide is being misused. They know what it is, they know that the US isn’t doing it. Some libertarians are merging with the extreme left in their views of this upcoming war. I don’t understand that at all.

    Neither why some libertarians think Gore Vidal has anything clever to say about anything. But that is a different matter…

  • JensDensen

    Avoid the Randi’tes they attract neocons.
    Samizdata=exit.
    too bad.

  • Bravo. Well written and very sound. I’ve seen several left wing pseudo-Socialists try to tell me that libertarians should be anti-war but it just shows how little they understand about libertarianism. It’s about the liberty. Not just for me and you but for everyone. Even my enemy. (Not that the Iraqi people are, but the Germans and Japanese at the end of WWII could be considered so)

  • 1. This is on anti-state.com and not antiwar.com as stated in the article.

    2. No mention is made in the article that Sapienza is himself half jewish and yet you seek to make out that Sapienza is anti-semitic. Is this a coincidence?

    3. Why pick on an article 18 months old?

  • Oops… he quotes Justin Raimondo of anti-war.com in the article, so the ref is a typo… which I have just corrected.

    I did not mention Jeremy Sapienza is half -Jewish because it is irrelevant… particularly as I never accused him of anti-sematism and so I am puzzled you would suggest that. Which bit of what I wrote made you think I was?

    The fact the article is old is also irrelevent as this particular topic does not really have a shelf life. As for why I wrote about it…I was pointed at it via a link in an e-list and felt like commenting on it as it remarks about ‘pro-war’ libertarians.

  • blabla

    Emmanuel,
    That’s weak. Accusing someone of portraying someone else as being anti-semitic based on this article. Perhaps you were looking for such a charge?

  • Bob Briant

    Perry,
    >The fact the article is old is also irrelevent as this particular topic does not really have a shelf life.

    If you cannot recognise that as complete and utter rubbish you deserve not to be taken seriously. Of course readers need to know the date of posting you have cited because the context changes.

    Readers would have a further problem in checking your attribution to make an assessment for themselves since you gave the wrong blog name. As they won’t find the piece on the blog you gave they might well come to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.

    To add my own penny’s worth, by other news reports there appear to be attempts in America to smear and threaten anyone with a public profile who makes a stand for peace or against war.

    By the account here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/2829575.stm Jed Bartlett, who plays the role of the President in the popular TV series, West Wing, is under threat:

    “His Hollywood union, the Screen Actors Guild, has expressed concern that certain of its members holding ‘unacceptable’ views might be punished by losing their right to work.

    “It recalls, it says, the days of the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 1950s when so-called Communists were blacklisted.”

    I suppose the upside is that McCarthyism brought Carl Foreman and Sam Wanamaker to Britain from Hollywood and we greatly benefited from that.

    The day is fast coming when Tony Blair will have to say where he stands in this. Let’s recall that any remaining confusion over the legality of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in international law seems to have been definitively cleared up by a letter in Friday’s Guardian signed by 16 eminent academic lawyers. The letter is accessible at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,909314,00.html

    You wouldn’t want to be seen as urging anyone to do anything unlawful, would you?

  • Bob Briant: If you cannot recognise that as complete and utter rubbish you deserve not to be taken seriously. Of course readers need to know the date of posting you have cited because the context changes.

    Don’t be daft… I included a link to the original article in the first line of my article, so anyone can see the date!

    Moreover, it is irrelevant as nothing this article says has not been repeated ad nauseam over and over again since then. The fact I confused anti-war.com and anti-state.com when I proofed the article is because to be honest both sites contain a great deal of the same anti-survival material and constantly cross refer to each other. I actually do agree with some of the stuff I find on anti-state.com, but that does not change the fact I think the views of which the Jeremy Sapienza article is very typical are not just wrong, they are suicidal.

    You wouldn’t want to be seen as urging anyone to do anything unlawful, would you?.

    There is no moral basis for obeying an immoral law, so yes, I would urge people to act unlawfully if a law is unjust.

  • “You wouldn’t want to be seen as urging anyone to do anything unlawful, would you?”

    Yes. “It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law as for what is right.” That very most especially goes for “international” law, which is one of the most ridiculous charades ever foisted on humanity.

    A libertarian is never going to endorse building state power up when the right thing calls for devolving it down toward individuals. I don’t need George Bush, and I need the United Nations even far less.

    “International law” can go to hell with my earnest compliments.

  • ellie

    Bob Briant:

    “By the account here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/2829575.stm Jed Bartlett, who plays the role of the President in the popular TV series, West Wing, is under threat:

    “His Hollywood union, the Screen Actors Guild, has expressed concern that certain of its members holding ‘unacceptable’ views might be punished by losing their right to work.”

    As far as I know, Joe McCarthy was a US Senator, and, hence, ‘McCarthyism’ refers to government suppression of free expression of political views. Hollywood actors, in fact, have NO ‘right to work.’ They are employed based upon their ability to attract viewers. If they fail in that regard, their programs are cancelled.

  • Hep Cat

    Other than Iraq and Afghanistan who in the hell else is the U.S. bombing? Somebody alert the media! U.S. bombing of innocent civilians all over the world is a flat out lie. Folks this ain’t happenin’.

    The stupidest thing that I have read in a while? “Death is horrible. We should be working to eliminate it.” Holy Shit! Those two statements are down right incredible. I don’t know of anyone ever beating the reaper. Premature death or unnecessary death may be unfortunate and some people have died horribly, but death is as much a part of life as taking a piss. In and of itself death is not horrible, it’s natural. It’s something we’re all going to do sooner or later. As a matter of fact in the Netherlands you can pay, or have your insurance company pay, someone to kill you and it’s legal. And as far as eliminating death is concerned; the dog that chases its tail is busy indeed. In the immortal words of Bug Bunny, “what a maroon.”

  • Maxwell

    Keep in mind what website this was found on. This same website today has a forum in which a participant refers to Al-Qaeda as freedom fighters:

    http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=4358

    And Sapienza is the same guy who referred to Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who died on the Colombia as a “terrorist”:

    It wasn’t terrorism. Ok? Iraqi agents didn’t sneak into Cape Canaveral and loosen a few tiles. They didn’t shoot it down with their, as Margaret said to me, pea shooters of mass destruction. Didn’t happen, get over it.

    There was a terrorist ON BOARD though. Ilan Ramon, son of an Israeli independence terrorist, er, hero, was the youngest member of the Israeli warplane team that bombed the Osirak reactor in Western Iraq in 1981, that was intended to generate power for a modernizing Iraq. There is evidence of Iraq working toward a nuke bomb program, but only AFTER 1981. An embryonic example of the “war on terror” CREATING terror.

    Side note — I loved Ramon’s double propaganda spots in space: in Israel, and to many Jews, the world only exists in its juxtaposition to the (capital H) Holocaust. “The Israelis knocked down a whole Palestinian market today — ”

    “HOLOCAUST!”

    “Sorry, I forgot about the Holocaust, never mind, bulldoze away.”

    So he took up a picture of the moon by a kid from the Holocaust. Propaganda.

    The other thing was Ramon, who was secular, was gonna observe the Sabbath in fucking space. Just to say “look at me, I’m Jewish, I’m different from you!” even though he prolly needed to be trained on how to observe the Sabbath. “I’m Jewish! Give me a medal!”

    http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=3925;start=140

  • Bob, Jed Bartlet is the name of the character of the President on The West Wing. The actor’s name is Martin Sheen.

    And to invoke McCarthyism is ridiculous. Mr Sheen and friends are using their celebrity status to voice their political views. For them to suddenly turn around and say that their political views are imperiling their celebrity is ludicrous, not to mention hypocritical. Nobody forced them to speak out on the war. The public has a right not to patronize movies or television shows FOR WHATEVER REASON. Maybe it’s because they’re “unsound” on the war. Maybe it’s because they’re ugly or they’re bad at what they do. Who’s to say?

  • Bob Briant

    Perry,
    >There is no moral basis for obeying an immoral law, so yes, I would urge people to act unlawfully if a law is unjust.

    And you, doubtless, will decide which laws you deem unjust and which can therefore be disregarded by yourself. If so, perhaps you might like to explain what your personal objection is to terrorists, who, presumably, claim exactly that same right when they bomb people who they deem to represent the source of the laws they personally consider unjust. Where do you think Hitler went wrong in invading the previously unoccupied parts of Czecho-Slovakia and then Poland in 1939?

    But I’m glad to see you now concede that the date at which a blog was posted is relevant to understanding context.

    Ellie,
    >Hollywood actors, in fact, have NO ‘right to work.’ They are employed based upon their ability to attract viewers. If they fail in that regard, their programs are cancelled.

    The likes of Sam Wanamaker and Carl Foreman were able to find work outside America so their talents were not held in low esteem elsewhere. Carl Foreman, as I recall, wrote the screenplays of some hugely successful movies, like High Noon: http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/ThisMonth/Article/0,,12529,00.html

    and Bridge Over the River Kwai: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAforeman.htm

    Btw for avoidance of doubt, I’m notoriously anti-Marxist and anti-Soviet. In fact, unlike Tony Blair and several other members of his benighted government, I never joined or campaigned for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarment in Britain. It has only come to light in recent years that when Tony Blair was so active on behalf of CND in the 1980s, an agent of the East German Stasi was a member of the national council of CND: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/09/99/britain_betrayed/451366.stm

    The fascinating insight is that Putin, the Russian president, was a KGB liaison officer with the East Germany from the beginning of 1985 through to 1990. In that capacity, he was presumably placed to read the files of the feedback from the Stasi agents in Britain.

    Sasha,

    Thanks for naming the actor who plays the president in West Wing – which shows you are more familiar with TV than I am.

    As for the connection with McCarthyism being ridiculous, by blog reports a 60 year-old lawyer was ejected from a shopping mall in Albany for wearing a T-shirt with the legend: Give peace a chance, because of the offence that caused other shoppers.

    Just what sort of a message do you think that sends out to the world?

  • RK Jones

    Bob,
    I think that Sasha’s point is that folks who don’t care for an actor, for any reason, are free not to view said artist’s work. Also, how do the actions of a private mall, right or not, prove that there is ‘McCarthyism’ rampant. Unless of course, you are defining ‘McCarthism’ as any expression of disapproval, by any party, against any cause you happen to agree with.
    RK Jones

  • Bob Briant: And you, doubtless, will decide which laws you deem unjust and which can therefore be disregarded by yourself. If so, perhaps you might like to explain what your personal objection is to terrorists….

    Ah.. the old equivalency argument. I break laws all the time. Most people do. They find themselves on an empty road and so they break the speed limit. They pay their builder cash so that they state does not get to rob them with taxes. The fact is that I am guided by my conjectural understanding of objective morality and if law and what I think is moral collide, I try to find a way to do what I think is moral. Why do I get to decide and not some law maker? That is because I am the one being told to do something, not someone else. If there is a law that says all left handed people must be forced to write with their right hand, and I see a southpaw writing with his left, must I report him? Or should I use my moral judgement that this law is unjust and so I will not cooperate with its enforcement?

    Some law breaking is immoral, not because it is illegal but because the action itself is objectively immoral. Some laws are also immoral bacuse to comply would require you to act in an immoral fashion. There is nothing sacred about The Law. It is really that simple.

    But I’m glad to see you now concede that the date at which a blog was posted is relevant to understanding context.

    When did I concede that? I was rather under the impression I said it was irrelevant! It was just a very good example of the sort of emotional anti-war position that the web is chock full of, hence my commenting on that article. There is nothing he says that is really all that ‘time sensitive’ and to be frank, had I been inclined to I could have targeted any other articles on anti-state.com and anti-war.com which make the same points again and again but are more recent. So I still fail to see why this is such an issue. The pro-war libertarians about whom he wrote are still taking the same positions he deplored and his ilk are still saying much the same things. Feel free to disagree with my views but I really do not get why you fasten onto such an odd aspect of this discussion <shrug>

  • maddie

    FYI:

    Due to an uproar by fellow Americans, the security guard that arrested a mall shopper for wearing an anti-war T shirt was fired (not sure that’s the right thing, really, but democracy is, after all, inherently messy. It’s only the dictatorships that color inside of the lines all the time).

    BTW, the all powerful Instapundit’s got the link.

  • Bob Briant

    Perry,
    >The fact is that I am guided by my conjectural understanding of objective morality and if law and what I think is moral collide, I try to find a way to do what I think is moral.

    By that argument you can have no complaint about Hitler ordering the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia and Poland in 1939, or about Brezhnev ordering the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia in 1968, with each presumably invoking their respective conjectural understandings of objective morality.

    You can perhaps appreciate why I am not reassured. Personally, I still think Tony Blair had it right when he said: “If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.”

    Btw you haven’t explained exactly which law you consider unjust and what brought you to that conclusion.

  • Bob Briant… I am trying to decide if you are being serious or making a joke here… I will assume you are serious and respond accordingly. Forgive my brevity but I want to keep this as simple as possible as I am pressed for time right now.

    By that argument you can have no complaint about Hitler ordering the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia and Poland in 1939, or about Brezhnev ordering the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia in 1968, with each presumably invoking their respective conjectural understandings of objective morality

    That assumes that all views and opinions are equally valid, which is patently absurd. It would mean that an explanation of why we do not all fly off into space based on the earth being flat is as valid as one that is based on a theory of gravity.

    Ok… if reality is objective (i.e. we are all not a figment of your imagination), then some things will be objectively true and others will be objectively false. Logic therefore indicates that if I think Hitler invading Czechoslovakia and Poland was immoral and Hitler thought it was just fine, then one of us is wrong. EVERYTHING we know is conjectural but some things are a great deal more likely to be correct than others… read Karl Popper if you do not know what I am talking about.

    Anyway, I can only act on the basis on my knowledge, derived from my understanding of reality, and thus when I am confronted with a law (which is to say, a force backed order to do or not do something), I must decide if I am going to obey it or try to avoid doing so, based on my understanding of what is, and is not, immoral. To think otherwise is to just opt out of moral determination and leave that to whoever establishes The Law.

    What makes a human political process automatically trump your own human determination of what is or is not moral, based on your reason and free will? We all make mistakes but that does not mean we should not apply logic and reason when confronted by The Law.

  • Dale Amon

    In support of Perry… I suppose it would have been wrong to disobey any of the laws in Nazi Germany, given the government was formed – albiet dodgily – in accordance with the laws of the Weimar Republic.

    It is my individual right to not view anything I chose to not view, and to state to anyone else why I think they should also join me in not viewing it. If sufficient numbers of people agree, the number of eyeballs will fall below a critical limit and advertisers will withdraw the support of *their* money, at which point the market will select actors who the viewership find less personally obnoxious.

    That is as libertarian and free market and individualistic as it gets.

    Also, if you refer to more recent info on Instapundit, it turns out the fellow was ejected from the mall due to complaints that he was accosting shoppers and haranguing them. As this occurred on private property, they had every right to eject him from the premises. It is, after all, THEIR property.

    The fellow who was fired was the one who signed the complaint by the order of his boss. I think he would have a very good Union case for a strike against the facility for unfair dismissal. Again, a perfectly valid response as his fellow workers own themselves and are perfectly able to withdraw their labor if they feel strongly enough about it.

    And btw. Don’t watch “West Wing”. Sheehan is an arsehole.

  • Snide

    Bob Briant says he agrees that “If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.”… so what he is saying is that places like Syria, Iran, Myanmar (Burma), China, Libya, Zimbabwe, Belorus, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc etc, who are members in good standing of the UN, get to vote on what is, and is not, a ‘moral’ use of force?

    These hell hole nations are run by people who make the Mafia look like choir boys, and YOU think an organisation which has no problem allowing the vermin who rule them from standing tall in the UN is somehow a GOOD THING? I for one do not want “a world ruled by law and by international cooperation” if it means cooperating with evil regimes which murder their way into power and are then promptly rewarded with tax money from US and UK taxpayers via the UN and tea with the Queen of England on their state visit to London.

    Unbelievable.

  • “The fact the article is old is also irrelevent as this particular topic does not really have a shelf life. As for why I wrote about it…I was pointed at it via a link in an e-list and felt like commenting on it as it remarks about ‘pro-war’ libertarians.”

    That’s fine, but you should point out in your blog entry that this was written the week of 9/11. No doubt Sapienza is as antiwar today as he was then, but it’s important to note, especially with regard to his statements about Afghanistan, that he was he was predicting events before the fact, not misrepresenting them after the fact in this piece.

  • “The fact the article is old is also irrelevent as this particular topic does not really have a shelf life. As for why I wrote about it…I was pointed at it via a link in an e-list and felt like commenting on it as it remarks about ‘pro-war’ libertarians.”

    That’s fine, but you should point out in your blog entry that this was written the week of 9/11. No doubt Sapienza is as antiwar today as he was then, but it’s important to note, especially with regard to his statements about Afghanistan, that he was he was predicting events before the fact, not misrepresenting them after the fact in this piece.

  • “As for the connection with McCarthyism being ridiculous, by blog reports a 60 year-old lawyer was ejected from a shopping mall in Albany for wearing a T-shirt with the legend: Give peace a chance, because of the offence that caused other shoppers.

    Just what sort of a message do you think that sends out to the world?”

    That’s easy: “This place is private property, and if you don’t like that, then go build your own bloody mall and then that’ll be where you get to make the rules.”

    Nothin’ to it, Bob. Happy to help.

  • >>Thanks for naming the actor who plays the president in West Wing – which shows you are more familiar with TV than I am.< < Um...actually, Bob, it shows that I can READ. The very first line of the article you cited reads thusly: "His portrayal of US President Jed Bartlet in NBC's The West Wing, has made Martin Sheen one of America's most respected actors." Even if I didn't know anything about TV, that line is pretty self-explanatory I think. Jed=character, Martin=real-life actor. Not too difficult. >>As for the connection with McCarthyism being ridiculous, by blog reports a 60 year-old lawyer was ejected from a shopping mall in Albany for wearing a T-shirt with the legend: Give peace a chance, because of the offence that caused other shoppers.<< In fact, the man was ejected not for his fashion choices but for the fact that he was haranguing the mall patrons. Very different story, that.

  • Michael Pukin

    Sapienza is hardly original; I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say his comments have an anti-semitic tinge to them. Who is dragging us to war? Oh, of course, it must be the Jews!

    It is insulting that Sapienza thinks a defender of Israel, a country with hobbled with an unfortunate amount of Eurosocialism, is not interested in liberty. Are the principles of liberty held up better in, say, Iraq? Syria? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Me thinks Israel looks mighty fine in comparison… we pro-Israel libertarians have nothing to apologize for.

    P.S. Whether or not Sapienza is Jewish, half-Jewish or whatever, who cares??? In the words of Chuck D. of Public Enemy: “every brother ain’t a brother.” Just look at Noam Chomsky.