Stress Positions

A reader writes:

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on Strappado:

Strappado is a form of torture in which a victim is suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to his hands which are tied behind his back, in which the arms are most likely dislocated. Weights may be added to the body. Other names for strappado include reverse hanging and Palestinian hanging. It is best known for its use in the Medieval Inquisition and has since been used by the governments of Turkey, Nazi Germany and the United States of America.

Granted Wikipedia is subject to all manner of mischief and manipulation but I believe that most Americans would be sickened, as I am, to see our country listed there.

Stress Positions And The Crucifixion

Several e-mailers have made this point about stress positions:

"Stress postions" may will win the award for the most obfuscatory euphemism.  If one gives attention to the actual method, as opposed to the Orwellian terminology, then the most casual student of ancient history — and of the New Testament — will see an immediate parallel with crucifixion.

To be sure, the Romans — as well as other ancient practitioners of this form of torture — often embellished the method with scourging, the breaking of the condemned’s legs and the like, but the basic outline is quite similar.  The condemned is suspended, usually with the arms outstretched or overhead, with some of his weight being transferred to the lower body either by means of a platform below the feet (as one sees in many depictions of Christ’s crucifixion) or by means of sort of cushion below the rump, a sedile, which is like a gruesome parody of a ‘misericord’ (lit. "act of mercy") the semi-seat one sees on the underside of choir seats in medieval churches, which allowed those in the choir to rest ther hindquarters while appearing to stand through the service.

But I digress.   While it is true that modern "stress positions" have done away with the use of nails through the wrists or arms (depictions of Christ with nails through his hands are based on a mistranslation from the Greek; a hand is not strong enough to support the weight), and are not intended, so far as we know, as a means of execution, the general aim is the same:  "Experiments by Frederick Zugibe have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain."

Another reader adds:

The crucifixion is a “stress position” torture.  The Roman would bind their victims’ hands above and outward.   They would become so tired over a period of days that they would eventually suffocate to death.  It was not a pleasant way to die.  Actually, as awful as this sounds, the Romans took mercy on Jesus and killed him after only three hours.  Our merciful Christianists should know this already.

The Conservative Soul

Rush’s version:

I treat [talk radio] as a business. My definitions for success have nothing to do with who wins elections, but rather, Is the program growing audience-wise? Are we attracting new sponsors? Are those sponsors paying confiscatory rates? Are we able to charge confiscatory rates? Which we are. Are they getting results for their advertising? Yes they are. We’re sold out constantly, we’ve got a waiting list for people to get on. That’s how I define it.

The Ignorance Of The Right

Here’s Victor Davis Hanson:

Under pressure to produce some facts and specifics, the Obama team is beginning to release a little on the economy, taxes, and new entitlements.

Now the reason I balk at this is that I actually sat through a long Obama speech on taxes last year in Washington. I couldn’t get through the details there were so many. It bored the pants off me. The notion that Obama has not released details and specifics on economic policy is a fantasy. It’s a product of pundit laziness. The cocoon right seems to believe that because they haven’t done their homework, Obama hasn’t.

And because Obama actually inspires with oratory, they also assume he doesn’t have substance. The premise is that you cannot be inspiring and detailed at the same time. Two words: Why not?

What people fail to understand is that in politics, words are also substance.  The ability to inspire people is not inherently a dangerous phenomenon. It is sometimes critical to effective governance. Conservatives used to understand this. Perhaps Churchill’s greatest actual weapon was the English language. It did things no bureaucrat, soldier, armament, or policy could do. The core of Ronald Reagan’s success was his rhetorical ability to reach over the heads of the Washington process to the people who can force Washington to change: the American people. And I don’t recall conservatives decrying the rhetoric of hope reacting to George W. Bush’s inspired speeches after 9/11.

Look: flim-flam and emotional hysteria are dangerous things. There are moments when Obama’s rhetoric gets the better of his common sense. But the record shows that he also does have common sense – more common sense than Charles Krauthammer or me when it came to predicting the practical consequences of an Iraq occupation. And if a potential president has a head on his shoulders and is able to inspire millions, what on earth is wrong with that?

Moore Award Nominee

"Right now, I would like to put every City trader and master-of-the universe banker into an offshore penal colony where they would have to make their own clothes out of copies of The Wall Street Journal, cook a ration of rice in a dung-oven, and read at least one important book a day. I think they can all begin with Das Kapital, not because Marxism is a viable economic model, but because the rich West urgently needs to remember that making money is neither an end in itself, nor an activity that commands respect," – Jeanette Winterson, The Guardian. (Hat tip: John Baker).

Obama, Clinton and The War

Ximena Ortiz draws a distinction:

"While Obama’s positions on important foreign-policy issues have not always been static (even to some degree on the Iraq War), Obama has demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge his prior position. Obama has therefore not resorted to that dark art of politics, alchemizing one’s prior positions in order to avoid acknowledging misjudgments or contradictions… the main dichotomy between Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s Iraq positions may be that while Clinton has obfuscated to some degree on her 2002 vote, Obama has not equivocated on what position he took in 2002, even though he may at times have doubted whether or not he had made the correct call on the war."

The difference between a dissembler and a doubter, between pure politics and intellectual honesty.