During the Civil War, Union general Benjamin Butler managed to defeat an army of trashy Southern women without firing a single shot. See how he did it:
Purist libertarian Murray Rothbard said a lot of good things when it came to basic economics and Randianism, but on just about everything else, he was a conspiracy nut and a soulless git. Here he is attacking our sainted conservative President Ronald Reagan (Rush’s Ronaldus Magnus) in language that makes it hard to distinguish purist libertarians from run-of-the mill America-hating liberals and Marxists, or Ron Reagan, Jr.:
And there are some in the tea parties who want to put Rothbard protoge Ron Paul in charge of things! I think tea partiers and Republicans will rue the day if they give Ron Paul, and other extremists, a platform to belch forth their insanities. Just because they might be good on some economic matters doesn’t mean they won’t poison the whole reform effort. Purist libertarians do not, and never have, understood America. This is why they hate Ronald Reagan, and it’s pretty much the same reason they hate Lincoln. Their loyalty is to Austria, not to America; to anarchism, not to the Constitution.
Here is a comment I received from a fan. I don’t really feel a response is necessary inasmuch as I don’t care about responding to anonymous posters, and more importantly, there’s no money in it. However, it does provide a specimen of the sort of rants W. J. Bryan had to endure at the hands of Mencken and other spawn of Satan during the 1920s. Nothing much has changed since then.
The Scopes trial? Way to be current. Have you heard of the Dover trial?
“What creationists object to is not change but a certain type of change. Change is a necessary condition for Darwinian evolution, but not a sufficient condition. Creationists insist that the change from an organism with less information content to an organism with greater information content is what is needed, and that has never been shown to happen, except maybe in fairy tales.”
That has never been shown to happen? What are you, a molecular biologist?
Google “gene duplication”. You have a lot to learn before you can competently write about evolutionary biology.
You call evolution “Darwinian evolution”. Evolution is called “evolution”. Evolution does not need any adjectives.
“If you assume in advance that similarity of structure is due to common ancestry, and you assume in advance that modifications in structure over time are by random, naturalistic processes, you’d have to say cars came about by random, naturalistic processes.”
This shows you don’t even understand natural selection which is a very simple concept. If you knew anything about biology you would at least know natural selection is NOT random.
And what do cars have to do with the diversity of life?
Your total ignorance of science is not evidence for anything. If you want to defend your childish magical creationism, you got to provide evidence for it. Your imaginary evidence AGAINST evolution (as if there was evidence against reality), is not evidence FOR your idiotic religious belief in supernatural magic.
So describe the magic wand your fairy uses, and provide evidence for this magical wand. Until you can do that, you need to shut up about science.
Here’s another comment for you to censor.
I noticed your blog invokes the anti-science Christian organization “Answers in Genesis” so probably you’re a Christian and probably you’re ashamed to admit it.
Since you don’t have a shred of evidence for your insane magical creationism, how about some powerful scientific evidence for the Resurrection of your dead Jeebus into a zombie. I mean besides the dead gullible witnesses. Of course you don’t have a shred of real evidence for that disgusting belief or any other Christian belief. You live in the Christian fantasy world only because you’re a coward, not because you have any evidence for it.
To defend your ridiculous Christian death cult you write long articles full of lies about science. You know science is the greatest possible threat to your fantasies, and that’s why you attack it.
Why don’t you try growing up and educating yourself. You’re not going to learn anything if you depend on the idiots who work for Answers in Stupidity. Try reading a book written by a real scientist. Or are you afraid that would make your dead Jeebus cry?
I’m not surprised you love censorship. Fuck off Christian retard.
Great voice, great showmanship, great talent, but he’s like a deranged version of Liberace mixed with Lady Gaga. I think he would make a great headliner in Vegas, along with Fighting Gravity.
Not sure Jackie Evancho will win this one, but I’ve no doubt she’ll be America’s Charlotte Church.
What Prince Poppycock will be … I’m afraid to guess.
Just watched Jackie and Prince Poppycock. I have to say that I was expecting something outrageous and entertaining from the Prince, but he was rather bland tonight. Hopefully, he’ll learn from this that showmanship doesn’t mean playing it safe.
Jackie sang Ave Maria, and did it with grace and style. In its own way it was just as good as, or perhaps even better than, Connie Talbot’s version. I hope Jackie sticks with opera and doesn’t go the Charlotte Church route of singing pop. We’ve got enough of that already.
I was a bit shocked that Michael Grimm won out on AGT over Jackie Evancho, and he looked shocked too when the announcement was made. However, he’s a good singer and I guess America loves a hard luck story during these hard times and voted to give him his own Vegas show. Somehow, Jackie Evancho does not seem to fit Vegas, and she still has many years to go to polish her spectacular voice and sing in venues proper to her talent.
I actually thought the contest was really between Jackie and Prince Poppycock, who will no doubt get his own Vegas show. In any case, I loved the duet between Sarah Brightman and Jackie, who was so sweet, but I did have a sneaking desire to see Sarah Brightman sing with Prince Poppycock. Stranger things have happened.
I do worry about kids getting fame too soon, but my main concern with young singers like Jackie (and Hollie Steel and Connie Talbot), is that they stay sane. I don’t think Prince Poppycock has to worry about that since he’s just the opposite — he mainly needs to worry about becoming sane.
I have to take issue with Rush Limbaugh regarding the subject of war. He said: “It used to be back in the days when we fought wars to win them that civilian deaths were the object. It was folks, as hard as that may be to hear.”
Now, I know he’s right in one thing. Our current rules of engagement are making it harder for our troops in Afghanistan, putting them at greater risk. So, it’s right to loosen these restrictions as Rush contends.
But he is wrong to say that civilian deaths were, or should be, the object of war. That gives ammunition to purist libertarians and neo-confederates, who respectively use it to attack our military and Lincoln.
First of all, it may be true as a factual matter that wars go after civilians, but that’s not the same as saying that’s the way it ought to be. Moralists squabble a lot, but most agree you can’t go from an “is” to an “ought.”
Rush defends his thesis by citing Lincoln, Sherman and the bombing of Atlanta. He also mentions the bombing of Dresden and Berlin, and the atomic bombings of Japan.
Shame on Rush. He ought to know better.
Sherman bombed Atlanta because Confederate troops were holed up there. Most of the civilians had already left the city, or they stayed in bunkers, and the number of civilians killed amounted to about 20.
That’s hardly wholesale slaughter.
Sherman was a realist. In a letter of June 6, 1862, he complained to his wife that the newspapers and editorialists were the real cause of the war. (See Sherman’s Home Letters):
They kept fanning the flames of hatred between Southerners and Northerners. In addition, they complained about General Grant for the defeat at Shiloh. Sherman did not think Northern editorialists understood the grim cost of war.
This was all long before the terrible battles at Antietam, Chancellorsville, or Gettysburg, and Sherman’s words show just how accurate his realism would prove to be:
“The very object of war,” he said, “is to produce results by death and slaughter, but the moment a battle occurs the newspapers make the leader responsible for the death and misery, whether of victory or defeat.”
Sherman did not say that the death and slaughter of civilians was the object of war. He is complaining that editorial writers did not understand the real, physical object of war, which is to kill the enemy.
In a letter of July 31, 1862, Sherman predicted that the war in the near future will be “very bloody,” and he complained that Northern merchants were doing business with Southerners. His early critics, who believed the Civil War would be a cakewalk, thought him insane.
Because of their greed, the North was providing the South with the wherewithal to conduct the war, including ammunition. “Of course our lives are nothing in the scales of profit with our commercial people.”
Sherman then goes on to describe his camp as pleasant, though he is surrounded by secessionists (“Secesh”) and that “they prefer the South to the North, and that they hope and pray that the Southern army will in due time destroy us.”
He ends up by saying, “We are in our enemy’s country and I act accordingly. The North may fall into bankruptcy and anarchy first, but if they can hold on the war will soon assume a turn to extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people.”
This is the quotation Rush uses to prove that Sherman believed in killing civilians.
However, the context of the prior letter and the following letter of August 10, 1862 shows that Sherman was upset because the North was not taking the war seriously. They were still trying to make peace. They were selling out the Northern army by doing business with the South. They were in fact prolonging the war.
He says, “Well, at last I hope the fact is clear to their minds that if the North design to conquer the South, we must begin at Kentucky and reconquer the country from there as we did from the Indians.”
In other words, the only way to win the war against the South was through hard war. This was something the North had to learn as much as the South.
Hard war is another name for strategic warfare. It means not only going after military targets, but also the infrastructure that supports a nation’s military. This is what Sherman did in his march to Atlanta. He had to clear out Confederate guerrilla fighters and snipers, so he began destroying their civilian support.
Sherman ruined the South’s ability to supply its army with staples or ammunition. That only meant destroying civilian infrastructure. It did not mean killing civilians.
In WW2, we (Americans) did not bomb civilians as a first objective. We engaged in strategic warfare. We bombed the infrastructure that fed the German war machine.
The bombing of Dresden is usually cited as “total war” and Rush implies that we deliberately attacked civilians to make them want to give up. In fact the railway yards were the real target, for they aided German troop movement.
Both British and American air forces bombed the city. The fires from the bombing turned the city into an inferno which killed about twenty thousand. It wasn’t the worst ever seen in Germany during WWII, but the failure of the mayor to prepare his city, plus the wooden-frame structures, created a firestorm.
The bombing of Berlin was in order to target war industries, railroads, communications, and the Luftwaffe.
It’s obvious that many civilians are killed in such carpet bombing attacks, but they did not have smart bombs in those days. Smart bombs have spoiled us, and we have a tendency to judge wars of the past by the technological standards of today.
The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible and killed many civilians. The death and destruction was so great as to almost guarantee that nations would not use such devices again.
At the time, however, people were sick of war and tired of Japanese brutality and fanaticism. In addition, the kamikazi runs on Pacific ships reinforced the idea that Japan would not surrender, and the Allies would suffer tremendously in an invasion of the Japanese homeland.
So the decision was made to go ahead with the atomic bombs. Hiroshima was the headquarters of Japan’s Second Army, and both cities had industrial and military importance. Also, it was presumed that no POWs were in those cities (though it turned out some were).
In any case, our (American) strategic warfare of the past did not deliberately target civilians, and even in the case of the atomic bombs, the cities were chosen for their military and industrial value.
Rush is obviously right that war cannot be fought without civilian losses. An atomic bomb, of course, would make it a certainty. “War is all hell,” Sherman said, and it’s hell for everybody, not just for soldiers.
But that’s different from saying we deliberately target civilians. If that were the case, we’d be hardly different from terrorists or Islamo-fanatics.
We must fight hard against military and industrial targets, and in worst cases against residential infrastructure (where guerrillas hide out). But, contrary to Rush, we should not deliberately kill or maim civilians.
Leave that to the fanatical hordes.
I had heard of argumentum ad Hitlerum, but not of Godwin’s Law. The former refers to a fallacy of modern political debate when one side accuses the other of holding positions that Hitler believed, or that such and such a policy would “lead to the Holocaust.” For an overview of the fallacy, see:
Fortunately, the Wikipedia article linked to an article on Godwin’s Law:
The humorous point of Godwin’s law is not that one cannot use Fascist- or Hitler-analogies, but that the longer a political debate goes on, the greater the likelihood — approaching certainty — that a Fascist- or Hitler-analogy will be used.
I think we need something like that for creation/evolution debates. Only in this case, Darwinists can be counted on to accuse creationists (of whatever variety) of being ignoramuses, Nazis, or what-have-you from the very start. In other words, they don’t wait until later to invoke such comparisons but begin right away.
I suggest we call it Mencken’s Law, in that Mencken’s most deranged writings usually involved a discussion of evolution or of cross-of-gold Democrat, William Jennings Bryan.
The probability of this happening at the beginning of creation/evolution discussion is very nearly a certainty, and it suggests a corollary, that the intellectual caliber of such a discussion seldom rises to the level of noticeability.
Therefore, over time the intellectual caliber of a Godwin’s Law discussion will achieve the same threshold of noticeability captured by Mencken’s Law.
Scientists beginning to accept rapid formation of canyons by megafloods: