tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4933800903524974290..comments2024-03-28T16:27:10.914-05:00Comments on Althouse: "59% Think Most School Textbooks Put Political Correctness Ahead of Accuracy."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger265125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9846279901622814752015-03-21T17:34:19.667-05:002015-03-21T17:34:19.667-05:00If parents do not do their job and teach the kids ...If parents do not do their job and teach the kids at home what they do not bother to teach during the school day then that child's outlook on the world is completely skewed and warped, unable to make correct choices based on history.<br /> It reminds me of being about 14 and the Nam war was starting to ramp up. I would listen to the news from the US then turn my old console Zenith to Radio Havana, Cuba. Both were so slanted that you would find the truth somewhere in the middle.The Dirty Side of Capitalismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17009940727895307454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66872966967084690362013-02-24T19:47:55.276-06:002013-02-24T19:47:55.276-06:00Personally, I'd like to see some of the quotes...Personally, I'd like to see some of the quotes from that Mother Jones polemic in context. Some of them are pretty hard to fathom, but others . . . . ?<br /><br />Hypothetically -- these are FICTIONAL contexts<br /><br /><br />'Following the brutal,forced migration of the Cherokee, many missionaries worked to convert the Native Americans, leading at least one Cherokee to bitterly exclaim "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."'<br /><br /><br />#4 Given the evangelical nature of some Christians, It's not surprising that Dr. Dogooder said, after his last trip there in 2002, "Africa is a continent with many needs. It is still in need of the gospel…Only about ten percent of Africans can read and write. In some areas the mission schools have been shut down by Communists who have taken over the government."<br /><br />#5 might change a little <br /><br />'Although the emotional cost cannot be overstated, physical abuse of slaves not rampant. Although callously redarded as animals, slaves were valuable, even as livestock was. "A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well." At least as far as their physical well-being was concerned.'<br /><br />#6:<br /><br />'Students may well ask, how did an organization as evil and repulsive as the KKK become as popular as it did. But they should understand that sometimes it donned a veneer of respectiability. The "Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."1charlie2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04061320432775877360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10978339295532739532013-02-23T09:41:16.678-06:002013-02-23T09:41:16.678-06:00My high-school history class (early 90's) cove...My high-school history class (early 90's) covered three topics on World War II: the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Holocaust and the atomic bomb. As a World War II buff, I found this intolerably lazy.<br /><br />I have the utmost respect for the tactical and strategic prowess of the Red Army and the sacrifices the people of the Soviet Union made during the war. However, it is dishonest to talk about the Soviet war effort without mentioning the vast aid the SOviets received from the western powers and the culpability of Soviet leadership in starting the war in the first place and in being responsible for the horrible state of the Soviet army at the time of the German invasion (which led to a lot of those needless sacrifices).<br /><br />Beyond that, celebrating the Soviet war effort while talking up supposed US 'atrocities' is just crass, given what happened during the initial Soviet invasion of the Baltics, Poland and Finland and what happened during the later push to Berlin, and that's without getting into what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe after the war.Civilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05069223524986553508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66820009995542739602013-02-23T09:40:16.523-06:002013-02-23T09:40:16.523-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Civilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05069223524986553508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70223504822407158972013-02-23T08:52:12.074-06:002013-02-23T08:52:12.074-06:00Dropping nuclear bombs on non-combatants is morall...<i>Dropping nuclear bombs on non-combatants is morally reprehensible</i><br /><br />But dropping conventional bombs on non-combatants is peachy-keen in GarageWorld, I suppose. Otherwise there's no point to the distinction, is there?Paco Wovéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053886112561036768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10191707105384030262013-02-23T03:34:20.157-06:002013-02-23T03:34:20.157-06:00Japan wasn't too concerned with civilian casua...<i>Japan wasn't too concerned with civilian casualties. If they didn't surrender after Tokyo, they weren't going to after Hiroshima. </i><br /><br />Wow, deja vu. Yes, garage, they weren't going to surrender after Hiroshima. That's why we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. <b>The Japanese themselves</b> said that's when they decided to surrender. <br /><br />Saying the Japanese were "unconcerned with civilian casualties" is just more dumbass myth-making on your part. The Japanese government was semi-democratic and could no more decide "feh, who cares what the people think" than, say, the Canadian government could. The Japanese people themselves were *extremely* worried about getting slaughtered en masse, and with good reason.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41293500404604744602013-02-23T02:30:09.432-06:002013-02-23T02:30:09.432-06:00RichardS is quite correct that the term "poli...RichardS is quite correct that the term "political correctness" did not originally mean the avoidance of certain expressions or acts but rather the adherence to the approved expressions or acts. <br /><br />The first use of the term that I know of is in 1939. Three key members of the Communist Party of Great Britain had supported the declaration of war by the UK; CPGB General Secretary Harry Pollitt, "Daily Worker" editor Johnny Campbell, and Willie Gallacher, MP. The CPGB remained faithful to the Comintern line that the war was between rival imperialists; Pollit and Campbell were sacked [Gallacher refused to leave Parliament]. In 1941 they were re-accepted as being "members in good standing".<br />The October 1939 motion stated that the dissidents had "a politically incorrect approach".Grant Michael McKennahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15973365770715579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67149203330343263852013-02-22T23:50:44.997-06:002013-02-22T23:50:44.997-06:00No. I just don't think you've read much in...<i>No. I just don't think you've read much in depth history on this topic. </i><br /><br />I'll go slowly.<br /><br />Your first claim is that the A-bomb was unnecessary. <br /><br />Your evidence in support of this claim is that Japan did not surrender after many firebombing raids. The irrelevance of this evidence is demonstrated by the simple fact that Japan <i>did</i> surrender after two A-bomb attacks.<br /><br />Your further claim is that a combined invasion by the US and the USSR would have induced surrender by Japan at a lower cost of civilian life.<br /><br />The evidence you have provided in support of your conjecture is....absolutely nonexistent, aside from your claim of deep historical understanding based on your reading of unspecified sources. (I'm guessing a recent post at Mother Jones.) Did your sources discuss the invasion of Okinawa?<br /><br />The blindingly obvious point that any such invasion would have cost a huge number of US and Soviet soldiers lives appears to be of no importance to you.<br /><br />How strange.Chip S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13210586187250159751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35514249984253486782013-02-22T23:14:54.582-06:002013-02-22T23:14:54.582-06:00My AP United States History teacher made us also r...<i>My AP United States History teacher made us also read parts of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn with approving commentary.</i><br /><br />I'm so glad I was out of school before this sort of idiocy started. It's a hard thing to accept, but talking to people just out of high school I realize much of what they've "learned" will have to be unlearned unless they want to work in academia or for the government.Bob Loblawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081916786770290968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84666241262527205552013-02-22T22:38:22.802-06:002013-02-22T22:38:22.802-06:00Poor garage mahal doesn't seem to have noticed...Poor garage mahal doesn't seem to have noticed that the Emperor's address to the people telling them the war was over specifically mentions "a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable", but does not mention the Russian intervention. Someone seems to be determined to magnify Stalin's role in winning the war and minimize Truman's. I wonder why.Dr Weevilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059306888033890029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24326645250319517732013-02-22T22:27:25.770-06:002013-02-22T22:27:25.770-06:00@Revenant
Japan wasn't too concerned with civi...@Revenant<br />Japan wasn't too concerned with civilian casualties. If they didn't surrender after Tokyo, they weren't going to after Hiroshima. They didn't seem to concerned over civilian casualties.<br /><br />Germany didn't surrender from allied carpet bombing over Dresden in 1945. Britain didn't surrender over London getting bombed to hell.garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65894632554435200082013-02-22T22:27:12.477-06:002013-02-22T22:27:12.477-06:00So garage mahal thinks that someone else hasn'...So garage mahal thinks that <b>someone else</b> hasn't "read much in depth history on this topic"? The same garage mahal who refuses to acknowledge my demonstration (5:28pm) of the extraordinary ignorance of his claim that "The U.S. and Britain combined were fighting 10 German divisions. The Russians alone were fighting 200 German divisions."<br /><br />Here's another little bit of information for GM: Wikipedia's heavily-annotated article on the Falaise pocket concludes that "More than 40 German divisions were destroyed during the Battle of Normandy. No exact figures are available, but historians estimate that the battle had cost the German forces a total of around 450,000 men, of whom 240,000 were killed or wounded." Forty is a lot more than ten, and there were plenty of other German divisions still to be fought after Falaise. Will GM correct his false statements? I'm not holding my breath.Dr Weevilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059306888033890029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45795197751393019732013-02-22T22:18:23.120-06:002013-02-22T22:18:23.120-06:00I just don't think you've read much in dep...<i>I just don't think you've read much in depth history on this topic. </i><br /><br />Tell us again about how the Germans only devoted 5% of their forces to the western front. I loved that part. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21487533853115180192013-02-22T22:14:25.157-06:002013-02-22T22:14:25.157-06:00What difference is 200 bombs from 200 planes or on...<i>What difference is 200 bombs from 200 planes or one bomb from one plane?</i><br /><br /><i>There is a big difference between nuclear bombs and conventional bombs.</i><br /><br />Garage has asked the question. Apparently he also knows the answer. Whether he will choose to let the rest of us know the difference... that is the remaining question. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-92078118106466494962013-02-22T22:13:05.141-06:002013-02-22T22:13:05.141-06:00I see. Well into the home brew, eh?
No. I just do...<i>I see. Well into the home brew, eh?</i><br /><br />No. I just don't think you've read much in depth history on this topic. <br /><br />garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76173678457212621232013-02-22T22:10:06.859-06:002013-02-22T22:10:06.859-06:00So "human" genetic engineers as opposed ...<i>So "human" genetic engineers as opposed to what?</i><br /><br />As opposed to whatever ID believers think was manipulating genes during all those hundreds of millions of years before humans existed, obviously. But no, my implied mention of non-human intelligence does not imply either (a) that it "must" exist or (b) that it be of "higher order" than us, whatever the that means.<br /><br /><i>Aside from that, you claim we "know" that evolution can result in complex organisms. Really? You know that? </i><br /><br />That depends. Am I allowed to say "I know slavery once existed in the United States", or do I have to say "I don't actually know that slavery ever existed here, that's just a theory"? Same answer, really.<br /><br /><i>So what we "know" right now that can produce complex organisms has zero bearing on what we may later discover...but only if we have an open mind to the possible.</i><br /><br />We do have an open mind on the subject. When you make those hypothetical discoveries that lend credibility to your hypothesis, you go right on ahead and let us know.<br /><br />But until then, do stop pretending you're any better than people who think aliens killed Kennedy. :)<br /><br /><i>A being contained within a plane cannot perceive a solid.</i><br /><br />A being contained within a plane perceives a solid as the two-dimensional slice of that solid that intersects the plane.<br /><br /><i>We are limited to 4 dimensions, and our presence in the 4th dimension is unidirectional (from past toward future).</i><br /><br />Our perception and memory are unidirectional; we perceive only the past. Whether we are moving through the "time" dimension or can simply only perceive in one direction is an open question.<br /><br /><i>If there were a being that can travel multidirectionally through time, we could not perceive it with 4-dimensional devices.</i><br /><br />A being moving "backwards" in time would be perceived by us as a being moving forwards in time, but doing everything in the reverse order of how it was "really" doing it. So yes, we absolutely would perceive it. More broadly, anything which interacts with our 4D world must by definition be detectable by things within our world; interaction IS detection.<br /><br />You're really obsessed with this Star Trek-like vision of "higher orders", "higher dimensions", et al. What you miss is that there is no such thing as one-way interaction. To act is to be acted upon. A being we cannot act upon is a being that cannot act upon us, either.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87417993340213185012013-02-22T21:58:43.753-06:002013-02-22T21:58:43.753-06:00I already have.
I see. Well into the home brew, e...<i>I already have.</i><br /><br />I see. Well into the home brew, eh?Chip S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13210586187250159751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46298233524369568242013-02-22T21:51:47.245-06:002013-02-22T21:51:47.245-06:00george mahal's pal Joseph Stalin advised the J...george mahal's pal Joseph Stalin advised the Japanese to ignore our warning about having a new weapon that would be able to destroy a large city with a single use. 1)Stalin wanted to see it in action and many Soviet scientists didn't believe it would work. 2) Stalin had his own plans to invade the North of Japan--setting up a divided country like in Eastern Europe--he needed time to get ready, though. After Hiroshima, the Japanese still came to Stalin for advice and he told them that the Americans couldn't do it again--they couldn't possibly have enough fissile material for two bombs. 1) He wanted to see what we did have and if the bomb was dependable. 2) He wanted us to expend whatever we had on the Japanese so that it couldn't be used against him.<br /><br />The Japanese needed better advisors than Stalin and garage.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277966379512526469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75841422880250773292013-02-22T21:47:20.559-06:002013-02-22T21:47:20.559-06:00Feel free to correct my statement of the facts
I ...<i>Feel free to correct my statement of the facts</i><br /><br />I already have. garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15900348821109373132013-02-22T21:43:42.377-06:002013-02-22T21:43:42.377-06:00Feel free to correct my statement of the facts.
O...Feel free to correct my statement of the facts.<br /><br />Or you could try to stop being so predictably lame.Chip S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13210586187250159751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5848565365758936922013-02-22T21:38:03.895-06:002013-02-22T21:38:03.895-06:00[waves hand furiously] I know! I know!
Actually ...<i>[waves hand furiously] I know! I know! </i><br /><br />Actually you don't know. garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58168131229778626272013-02-22T21:23:47.621-06:002013-02-22T21:23:47.621-06:00George Bush thinks highly of Truman, that should t...<i>George Bush thinks highly of Truman, that should tell you something.</i> <br /><br />Guess that means you don't think very highly of <a href="http://www.trumanlibrary.org/video/Clinton/" rel="nofollow">Bill Clinton</a>, who said: <br /><br />"Harry Truman was a hero to me from the time I was old enough to look at politics."Lydiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380908751421386368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28151833562777497322013-02-22T21:23:08.141-06:002013-02-22T21:23:08.141-06:00garage mahal said...
the U.S had already firebombe...garage mahal said...<br /><i>the U.S had already firebombed over 100 Japanese cities. What difference is 200 bombs from 200 planes or one bomb from one plane? </i><br /><br />[waves hand furiously] I know! I know!<br /><br />The Japanese didn't surrender after the firebombing of > 100 cities. They did surrender after two doses of one bomb from one plane.<br /><br />Gee, that didn't seem all that difficult. Was it a trick question?Chip S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13210586187250159751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40019571431839984182013-02-22T21:13:58.922-06:002013-02-22T21:13:58.922-06:00If there's no difference between nuclear and c...<i>If there's no difference between nuclear and conventional bombing, why whine about our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?</i><br /><br />There is a big difference between nuclear bombs and conventional bombs. Dropping nuclear bombs on non-combatants is morally reprehensible, and the "we needed to do it" argument has justified endless stupid wars and endless military buildup right up to this day. George Bush thinks highly of Truman, that should tell you something. <br />garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67502246993471880572013-02-22T20:32:04.472-06:002013-02-22T20:32:04.472-06:00So if there is no way to scientifically determine ...<i>So if there is no way to scientifically determine is something is designed or not designed, then by your own argument, Intelligent Design is equally as valid as Evolution.</i><br /><br />Let me explain the mistake you're making, here.<br /><br />ID makes the positive claim "there is evidence that such-and-such a feature was designed" ("the eye" is a popular choice). If it is impossible to distinguish designed features from undesigned ones then the claim "there is evidence of design" is false -- there can only be *belief* in design, not evidence of it. Thus the theory is useless *unless* it is possible to distinguish designed features from undesigned ones.<br /><br />The theory of evolution, on the other hand, doesn't depend on the claim "there is evidence this feature wasn't designed". It relies on explaining how the feature *could* come to exist through natural processes. <br /><br />So on the one hand you have a natural process that could have done it. On the other you have belief, but no evidence, that a "designer" has been running around for a billion years manually imitating a natural process. The former theory is the rational choice. If the designer deigns to make an appearance either in the modern day or in the fossil record, theories will be revised accordingly.<br /><br />But until then, saying "there was an intelligent designer" is the equivalent of saying "it was Martians". Except that we've got proof that Mars exists, so technically the Martian theory has an edge. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com