Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-05-15T16:37:35Z

AodhMor: /* I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Wow, 100 [[liberals]] denied how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, there is better authority, like the vast majority of scientific studies on the topic. Read [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: I'm sure Caroline thanks you for that detailed response. Unfortunately she has been blocked for 5 years as a troll.

:::::::::::::: I must say, however, I am curious to know how you determined that "...over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk" actually meant "100 liberals".

:::::::::::::: Is that what they call ex post facto reasoning? Or do you know the politics of each individual involved? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Read [[abortion]] and its explanation of the breast cancer link. If you still deny the link, then take your denials elsewhere. We recognize that you have free will and that liberals will deny certain truths regardless of the evidence. We're not going to allow [[last wordism]] for chanting a [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Thanks, that's what I thought. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: It is a good article and it cites a [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf solid study] in its references. However, there is something I've noticed about many controversial issues: for every study strongly asserting one thing, there'll be another asserting just the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 opposite]. Perhaps one is a legitimate study and the other is merely [[junk science]] [[propaganda]] - but if I assume as much, what am I to base that conclusion on? Other studies of the same nature? My personal [[ideology]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Feebasfactor, you seem to be saying there is no such thing as truth. Well, there is truth and studies and logic can find it. In the case of abortion increasing breast cancer, both studies and logic support it. Only [[liberal denial]] stands in the way of everyone recognizing the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:49, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Hmm, I'm sorry, that's not quite what I wanted to say. I agree there's truth, I suppose I just think it's hard to find sometimes, like when some studies actually point the other way. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

<---undent
It really is a question on the nature of scientific knowledge. Given that humans are imperfect, we must interpret our environment imperfectly. The tools of science, mathematics, and statistics help us describe that reality, and religion helps us give it meaning and purpose. What happens when our scientific knowledge collides with our moral understanding of the world? Do we change our morals? Of course not. Do we change scientific fact? No, certainly not. The only choice is to take those facts, and use our morals to understand them better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the critic above is right, and that breast cancer and abortion are unrelated (hypothetically!) That doesn't make abortion morally right. It doesn't affect the morality of abortion in the least. Abortion is wrong either way. It seems silly to hang onto an idea in order to support a moral reality---we already know what is moral, we don't need to twist science to support it. Science has a different role. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Nice try in expressing [[liberal denial]] in an attractive way. It's still [[liberal denial]]. Would you also deny that 2+2=4? The increase in breast cancer caused by abortion is no less logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Doesn't 2+2=10? [[User:Eris|Eris]] 18:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::Sir, I never denied your assertion about breast cancer and abortion. I was making a more general point about the nature of knowledge and morality, and the fact that knowledge changes, while morality is timeless/permanent and cannot be altered by scientific fact, one way or the other. I must say, your ad hominem attack was quite unjustified.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your general point is quite correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: I reread your posting, RobertK, and it does implicitly deny that abortion causes breast cancer. I don't know why you deny that now. The clear theme of your posting is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but can be immoral anyway. Abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of its immorality, and let's not pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::With all respect, Mr S, I think you misread my posting. PJR apparently read ''all'' the words. I set up a ''hypothetical'' situation in which the two things, abortion and breast cancer, are not linked. Hypothetical means, basically, let's pretend. I used a hypothetical to show that it can be dangerous to look for moral teachings in science, since morality is a permanent, unchanging quality of the Divine, whereas science is the imperfect human approach to understanding the natural world. To base moral decisions on science is a fool's errand. Abortion is either moral or immoral, and whether or not it is related to breast cancer is a matter of science, not of morality. If this issue is too complex as stated, I can try to make it simpler for you, but it is important...it goes to the heart of how to approach moral decision making.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 22:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I think it was just a misunderstanding... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::: A few comments: First, rereading your (RobertK's) post, whilst I am not changing my comment that your general point is quite correct, the second-last sentence ("It seems silly ...") does appear as though it was written from the perspective that the scientific argument in this case is wrong. Personally, and because this is not explicit and not clear and may not be so, I don't believe that it's grounds for criticism, but perhaps that's what Andy was referring to. Regarding your latest post, whilst I don't ''really'' disagree with anything you said, I would qualify/clarify it by saying that if something is immoral, it will have consequences, so one should expect to be able to find those consequences, and science might be very useful for this. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing scientific evidence, even though, as you say, the scientific evidence should not be the ''basis'' of the moral argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

The sources got brought up earlier in this discussion, so I thought I'd quickly skim through them

* [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf JPands] states that giving birth decreases the risk of breast cancer, not that an abortion will actually increase it relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm The BCP Institute] states that abortion will increase the risk of breast cancer relative to carrying out the pregnancy, however does not state that abortion will increase the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm The Abortion Breast Cancer page] states that women who give birth will have a lower risk of breast cancer than those who abort, however does not state that abortion increases the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant.

My understanding from the reading of these is that although a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at a heightened risk of cancer compared to if they had gone ahead with the childbirth, a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will '''not''' be at any increased risk relative to a person who did not get pregnant in the first place. Therefore it is more correct to say that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than saying that it actually increase the risk of abortion.

Having said that, I haven't had time to review the sources not available on the internet, or properly read through all of the ones provided. That said, if they follow the general theme which permeates both the neutral and conservative views then the answer to CarolineMilton's original anecdote is that the person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at the same risk of breast cancer as the abstinent virgin who never got pregnant in the first place.

Feel free to refute me if my reading was in error. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 05:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: Your summary of a sample of the articles is a distortion. Abortion does increase a pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer and she should be told that. The increase in risk is not merely due to a lack of childbirth, but even if it were, that is still an increase in risk and the woman should still be told that. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I will neither agree nor disagree at this time, because I have not had sufficient time to properly read through the sources. Perhaps you could assist me by providing the specific section of a source which states that abortion increases the risk independently of child birth.

::That said I do believe that a medical patient should be given all available information, it forms the basis of consent in medicine. That said, the information needs to be delivered properly, if my original summary was correct then it would be wrong to say that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, rather it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings. I'll have a closer look through the sources when I get home, expect an answer then, although if you point to the specific section which states that abortion increases the risk without considering childbirth that would be a great help. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 17:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: TheGuy, you're still fighting the truth. A pregnant woman considering [[abortion]] makes a choice: increase her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion, or not. The doctor should tell her that the procedure increases her risk of having breast cancer. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::: TheGuy, here are a few sources asserting links between abortion and breast cancer independant of the cancer-risk reducing effect of childbirth.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf] There are others quoted in the [[abortion]] arcticle. Read them through and consider. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I apologise, I don't have time at the moment to conduct extensive research on the topics. Although I will concede that the articles do mention that abortion can increase risk independent of childbirth, the overwhelming number of studies seem to show that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than being an independent risk factor, a view echoed in both the sources provided. Again, I cannot properly comment until I have adequately reviewed the studies.

:::::Andy, I have already stated that I believe that medical patients should be informed of all the risks surrounding their electives. However, care must be taken in order to ensure that this information is accurate. If it is shown that the risk of breast cancer is increased independent of childbirth then by all means the woman should be informed that abortion will elevate her chances of getting breast cancer. However, if a majority of studies show that abortion only increases risk relative to a person who carries out the childbirth then the woman should be informed that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides, a correct statement which does not unduly incite fear or distort the facts. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 18:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: TheGuy, you would have made a good apologist for the tobacco industry. It denied increasing the risk of lung cancer for decades. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Your attempt at obfuscation by restating that as "abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides" is as confusing as it is nonsensical. "Fails to provide the decrease" is a compound negative, and an example of [[liberal obfuscation]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)

No I would not make a good apologist for the tobacco industry, because smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer independently of any other factors. The issue at hand is whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently to the decease in risk offered by birth.

Assuming that my position is correct, then it would be wrongful to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Consider the following scenario:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

My understanding is that both of these would have the same risk of getting breast cancer, therefore it would be wrong to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Instead, if we add a third person:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

In this case, person C would be at a lower risk of breast cancer to person A or B, therefore it is not that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, instead it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings.

If we do insist on stating that abortion leads to an increase in the risk of breast cancer then we might as well say abstinance does the same thing, as it prevents a person getting pregnant, which in turn prevents them from giving birth which in turn prevents them from getting a decrease in risk of breast cancer.

And yes I am aware of the studies that abortion independently leads to breast cancer, however I have not had time to research them properly, and do not like commenting on things I know nothing about. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::Nice effort, but there's not much point in trying to educate those who either are incapable or unwilling to understand statistics. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Wikipedia has terms with more than one meaning, yes, but those have a relatively small number of known meanings. 'Hollywood Values', conversely, has been used to mean a very large number of things already, and seems to be changed to mean just about anything depending on who uses it and in what context. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

On a related note - should this article perhaps contain a section on the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]? Or can that not really be considered a part of Hollywood Values...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Liberals denying there were communists in high-level government positions? Yes, that is old news but perhaps worth adding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::(Sorry if that seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, I actually posted that in the wrong article talk page) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Fall of communism in Europe ==
Shouldn't some credit also be given to [[Margaret Thatcher]]? Our article on her partially addresses this, but it is because of her that free market capitalism's successes were demonstrated to Europe. While Reagan may have helped end communism in Europe, Thatcher definitely made the alternative more appealing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... ==
But this page reads more like a tabloid article than anything. "Top ten instances of liberal denial"? According to who, exactly? It's no wonder that this website is so widely regarded as a joke when you have pages like this one dedicated to ignorant generalisations about so called 'liberals'. Maybe if you dedicated more time toward writing articles on things like history, and less time making bigoted assumptions about everyone, people would start taking this website seriously. Unlikely, though.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]]

:You thought way wrong, as you have obviously discovered. Here you shall learn that denial is the hallmark of every liberal. In fact, liberals often shockingly deny that they are liberals! However, they are easily detected by their frequent use of mockery and sighs. Speaking of which, I suspect you are a liberal. I would ask you to explain your positions on a number of issues, including gun control, censorship of school prayer, abortion, and intelligent design, but I am already 95% certain of those positions. Gladstone, indeed. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 12:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Sexually Transmitted Disease

2008-05-15T16:05:28Z

AodhMor: /* Prevention */

'''Sexually transmitted diseases''' (STDs) are illnesses transmitted by sexual contact. STDs comprise a large and diverse set of disease entities which include [[virus]]es, bacteria, protozoa, and arthropods. Many of these diseases can cause great harm before symptoms are detected.

The incidence of [[gonorrhea]] in the United States peaked during the [[Carter administration]], but began dropping during the [[Reagan administration|Reagan years]]. The [[chlamydia]] rate overtook gonorrhea during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton years]]. [http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table1.htm]

== List of STDs and their Signs and Symptoms==
This list is not complete, and many of these disease agents can be transmitted by non-sexual means. Because there are so many different infections, symptoms can vary greatly. Your doctor can give you a great deal of information and should be consulted early to prevent permanent health problems.

===Viruses===

'''Human Immunodeficiency Virus ([[HIV]])'''

In the early stages, HIV can cause fevers, rashes, joint pains, and other non-specific symptoms. These usually occur within weeks after exposure. If untreated, HIV infection usually leads to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) withing eight to ten years. The symptoms of AIDS can be anything, but common presentations include weight loss, night sweats, unusual skin lesions, and diarrhea.

'''[[Herpes Simplex Virus]] (HSV 1 and 2)'''

HSV can appear on either the lips or the genitalia. It usually presents as a painful, bumpy rash, sometimes with fever.

'''Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)'''

HPV often presents as anogenital warts, or as an abnormality on a pap smear. These lesions can be pre-cancerous.

'''Hepatitis B and C Viruses (HBV, HCV)'''

These are often asymptomatic, but over time can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. If any symptoms are present, the illness can look like any hepatitis, that is, jaudice, change in urine or stool color, abdominal swelling, and fatigue.

===Bacteria===

'''[[Neisseria gonorrhoeae]] (gonorrhea, "the clap")'''

In males, this presents as a foul penile discharge. Women may have a vaginal discharge, or no symptoms at all.

'''Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia)'''

This presents similarly to gonorrhea, but is often asymptomatic, and is commonly without the patient knowing they are ill. There are three different sub-types of the [[bacteria]] [[Chlamydia Trachomatis|Chlamydia trachomatis]] that cause [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum ]].<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000634.htm</ref> Lymphogranuloma venereum is one of the maladies associated with [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000634.htm</ref>

'''Treponema pallidum (syphillis)'''

This organism causes [[syphilis]], a multisystem disease.

===Protozoa===

'''Trichamonas vaginalis ("trich")'''

In females, this usually presents as a foul vaginal discharge, but males are usually asymptomatic. Even though males are asymptomatic, partners of infected females must be treated.

===Arthropods===

'''Pubic lice ("crabs")'''

This presents as itching in the groin, and often small parasites are easily visible.

'''Scabies'''

This often presents as itching, with rash being more prominent between the fingers and toes.

== Prevention ==

STDs are most easily prevented through abstinence from sexual contact.
Latex [[Methods of contraception|condoms]] provide protection against many STDs (including HIV), but not all (such as pubic lice), they are ineffective when not properly used or in the case of a rupture.

Vaccines are not widely available for STDs. An [[HPV vaccine]] has recently been released for protection against certain, but not all, strains of HPV.

People who have been sexually active before marriage can transmit their sexual diseases to their partner after marriage, therefore failure to use proper protection with a spouse can still lead to infection. Additionally many STDs can be transmitted to unborn children.
It must be noted that although abstinence until marriage greatly reduces the chance of contracting STDs, it does not eliminate the risk entirely.

== Treatment ==

Some STDs are curable; many are not. ''For further information, please consult a physician.''

[[Category:Sexually Transmitted Disease]]
[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Denver Nuggets

2008-05-15T16:02:11Z

AodhMor:

{{stub}}The '''Denver Nuggets''' are a professional [[basketball]] team based in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]].

In the 2006-2007 season they made a landmark trade with the [[76ers]], in which they procured [[Allen Iverson]]. Their record that year was over .500, (they won more than half their games), but they have struggled to get into the [[NBA Playoffs|playoffs]] because of the strength of other teams in the West. Other prominent players on their team include Carmelo Anthony.
==Official Team Website==

*[http://www.nba.com/nuggets/ Official Site of the Denver Nuggets]

{{NBA}}
[[Category:National Basketball Association]]
[[Category:Colorado]]

Guatemala

2008-05-15T16:00:43Z

AodhMor:

{{Country
|name =''República de Guatemala''
|map =Guatemala rel00.jpg
|flag =Flag of Guatemala.png
|arms =Arms of Guatemala.png
|capital =Guatemala City
|capital-raw =
|government =Presidential republic
|government-raw =
|language =Spanish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Álvaro Colom
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =42,042 sq mi
|pop =12,728,111 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$62.78 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$4,155 (2006)
|currency =Quetzal
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Guatemala''' is a [[country]] in [[Central America]]. The capital of Guatemala is Guatemala City (Ciudad de Guatemala). The current president is Álvaro Colom.

==People==
More than half of Guatemalans are descendants of indigenous [[Maya|Mayan]] peoples. Westernized Mayans and mestizos (mixed European and indigenous ancestry) are known as Ladinos. Most of Guatemala's population is rural, though urbanization is accelerating. The predominant religion is [[Roman Catholicism]], into which many indigenous Guatemalans have incorporated traditional forms of worship. Protestantism and traditional Mayan religions are practiced by an estimated 40% and 1% of the population, respectively. Though the official language is Spanish, it is not universally understood among the indigenous population. The peace accords signed in December 1996 provide for the translation of some official documents and voting materials into several indigenous languages.
*Population (2006 est.): 12.3 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2006 est.): 2.27%.
*Ethnic groups: Mestizo (mixed Spanish-Indian), indigenous.
*Religions: Roman Catholic, Protestant, traditional Mayan.
*Languages: Spanish, 24 indigenous languages (principally Kiche, Kaqchikel, Q'eqchi, and Mam).
*Education: Years compulsory--6. Attendance--41%. Literacy--70.6%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--36.9/1,000. Life expectancy--65.19 yrs.
*Work force salaried breakdown: Services--40%; industry and commerce--37%; agriculture--15%; construction, mining, utilities--4%. Fifty percent of the population engages in some form of agriculture, often at the subsistence level outside the monetized economy.

==Government==
Guatemala's 1985 constitution provides for a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The 1993 constitutional reforms included an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13. The reforms reduced the terms of office for president, vice president, and congressional representatives from 5 years to 4 years, and for Supreme Court justices from 6 years to 5 years; they increased the terms of mayors and city councils from 2-1/2 years to 4 years.

The president and vice president are directly elected through universal suffrage and limited to one term. A vice president can run for president after 4 years out of office. Supreme Court justices are elected by the Congress from a list submitted by the bar association, law school deans, a university rector, and appellate judges. The Supreme Court and local courts handle civil and criminal cases. There also is a separate Constitutional Court.

Guatemala has 22 administrative subdivisions (departments) administered by governors appointed by the president. Guatemala City and 331 other municipalities are governed by popularly elected mayors or councils.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Álvaro Colom
*Vice President--Rafael Espada
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Gert ROSENTHAL
*Minister of Government--Adela de Torrebiarte
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Jose Guillermo CASTILLO
*Ambassador to the UN--Jorge SKINNER-KLEE
*Ambassador to the OAS--Francisco VILLAGRÁN de León

===Political Conditions===
Common and violent crime, aggravated by a legacy of violence and vigilante justice, presents a serious challenge. Impunity remained a major problem, primarily because democratic institutions, including those responsible for the administration of justice, have developed only a limited capacity to cope with this legacy. Guatemala's judiciary is independent; however, it suffers from inefficiency, corruption, and intimidation.

In early December 2006, the government and the UN agreed to the creation of the joint International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). On August 1, 2007, the Guatemalan Congress approved the agreement. An earlier Guatemala-UN agreement was ruled unconstitutional in 2004 before it was acted upon by the Guatemalan Congress. The UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) ceased its 10-year project of monitoring peace accord implementation and human rights problems in November 2004 with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declaring Guatemala had made "enormous progress in managing the country's problems through dialogue and institutions".

===Foreign Relations===
Guatemala's major diplomatic interests are regional security and, increasingly, regional development and economic integration. Guatemala participates in several regional groups, particularly those related to trade and the environment.

The Council of Central American Ministers of Trade meets on a regular basis to work on regional approaches to trade issues. The council signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the U.S. in 1998, and was part of the negotiations that led to the creation of CAFTA. Guatemala joined Honduras and El Salvador in signing a free trade agreement with Mexico in 2000, which went into effect the following year. Guatemala also originated the idea for, and is the seat of, the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN).

The U.S and Central American countries signed the CONCAUSA (Conjunto Centroamerica-USA) agreement at the Summit of the Americas in December 1994. CONCAUSA is a cooperative plan of action to promote clean, efficient energy use; conserve the region's biodiversity; strengthen legal and institutional frameworks and compliance mechanisms; and improve and harmonize environmental protection standards.

Guatemala has a long-standing claim to a large portion of Belize; the territorial dispute caused problems with the United Kingdom and later with Belize following its 1981 independence from the U.K. In December 1989, Guatemala sponsored Belize for permanent observer status in the Organization of American States (OAS). In September 1991, Guatemala recognized Belize's independence and established diplomatic ties, while acknowledging that the boundaries remained in dispute. In anticipation of an effort to bring the border dispute to an end in early 1996, the Guatemalan Congress ratified two long-pending international agreements governing frontier issues and maritime rights. In 2001, Guatemala and Belize agreed to a facilitation process led by the OAS to determine the land and maritime borders separating the two countries. National elections in Guatemala put a temporary halt to progress, but discussions resumed in November 2005. Since being named Foreign Minister in early August 2006, Gert Rosenthal has reinvigorated discussions with Belize.

==Defense==
Guatemala is a signatory to the Rio Pact and is a member of the Conference of Central American Armed Forces (CFAC). Guatemala has deployed its troops to UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti and the Congo and has observers in several other locations. The president is commander in chief. The defense minister is responsible for policy. Day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the military chief of staff and the national defense staff.

An agreement signed in September 1996, which is one of the substantive peace accords, mandated that the mission of the armed forces change to focus exclusively on external threats. However, President Berger as well as his predecessors Portillo and Arzu used a constitutional clause to order the army to temporarily support the police in response to a nationwide wave of violent crime.

The accord calls for a one-third reduction in the army's authorized strength and budget--achieved under President Berger--and for a constitutional amendment to permit the appointment of a civilian Minister of Defense. A constitutional amendment to this end was defeated as part of a May 1999 plebiscite, but discussions on how to achieve this objective continue between the executive and legislative branches.

The army has gone beyond its accord-mandated target of reducing its strength to 28,000 troops, and numbered 15,500 troops as of June 2004. Not only was this the most profound transformation of any Central American military in the last 50 years, it also illustrates the effective control the civilian government has over the military. President Berger has tasked the Defense Ministry with increasing the professional skills of all soldiers. As part of the army downsizing, the operational structure of 19 military zones and three strategic brigades were recast as several military zones are eliminated and their area of operations absorbed by others. The air force operates three air bases; the navy has two port bases. Additionally, recent steps have been taken to redefine the military's mission--the military doctrine has been rewritten, and there has been an increase in cooperation with civil society to help bring about this reform.

==Economy==
After the signing of the final peace accord in December 1996, Guatemala was well-positioned for rapid economic growth over the next several years, until a financial crisis in 1998 disrupted the course of improvement. The subsequent collapse of coffee prices left what was once the country's leading export sector in depression and had a severe impact on rural incomes. Foreign investment inflows have been weak, with the exception of the privatization of utilities. Potential investors, both foreign and domestic, cite corruption, lack of physical security, a climate of confrontation between the government and private sector, and unreliable mechanisms for contract enforcement as the principal barriers to new business. On a more positive note, Guatemala's macroeconomic management was sound under the Portillo administration, and its foreign debt levels are modest. The country subscribed to a standby agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2002, which it extended in June 2003.

Guatemala's economy is dominated by the private sector, which generates about 85% of GDP. Agriculture contributes 23% of GDP and accounts for 75% of exports. Most manufacturing is light assembly and food processing, geared to the domestic, U.S., and Central American markets. Over the past several years, tourism and exports of textiles, apparel, and nontraditional agricultural products such as winter vegetables, fruit, and cut flowers have boomed, while more traditional exports such as sugar, bananas, and coffee continue to represent a large share of the export market.
*Real GDP (2006): $22.83 billion.
*Real GDP growth (2006): 4.6%.
*Per capita GDP (PPP, 2006): $4,317.
*Natural resources: Oil, timber, nickel.
*Agriculture (23% of GDP): Products--coffee, sugar, bananas, cardamom, vegetables, flowers and plants, timber, rice, rubber.
*Manufacturing (18% of GDP): Types--prepared food, clothing and textiles, construction materials, tires, pharmaceuticals.
*Trade (2005 est.): Exports--$3.94 billion: coffee, bananas, sugar, crude oil, chemical products, clothing and textiles, vegetables. Major markets--U.S. 28.9%, Central American Common Market (CACM) 42.4%, Mexico 4.8%. Imports--$7.75 billion: machinery and equipment, fuels, mineral products, chemical products, vehicles and transport materials, plastic materials and products. Major suppliers--U.S. 39.6%, CACM 12.3%, Mexico 8.3%, Japan 3.8%, Germany 2.4%.

The United States is the country's largest trading partner, providing 39.6% of Guatemala's imports and receiving 28.9% of its exports. The government's involvement is small, with its business activities limited to public utilities--some of which have been privatized--ports and airports, and several development-oriented financial institutions.

Guatemala ratified the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as CAFTA, on March 10, 2005 and the agreement entered into force between Guatemala and the U.S. on July 1, 2006. CAFTA eliminates customs tariffs on as many categories of goods as possible; opens services sectors; and creates clear and readily enforceable rules in areas such as investment, government procurement, intellectual property protection, customs procedures, electronic commerce, the use of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures to protect public health, and resolution of business disputes.

Other priorities include increasing transparency and accountability in Guatemala's public finances, broadening the tax base, and completing implementation of financial sector reforms. These measures attempt to ensure that Guatemala can comply with the standards of the international Financial Action Task Force for detecting and preventing money laundering.

The United States, along with other donor countries--especially France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Japan--and the international financial institutions, have increased development project financing since the signing of the peace accords. However, donor support remains contingent upon Guatemalan Government reforms and counterpart financing.

The distribution of income and wealth remains highly skewed. The wealthiest 10% of the population receives almost one-half of all income; the top 20% receives two-thirds of all income. As a result, about 80% of the population lives in poverty, and two-thirds of that number--or 7.6 million people--live in extreme poverty. Guatemala's social development indicators, such as infant mortality and illiteracy, are among the worst in the hemisphere. Chronic malnutrition among the rural poor worsened with the onset of the crisis in coffee prices. The United States has provided disaster assistance and food aid in response to natural disasters including Hurricane Stan, which caused extensive mudslides in Guatemala in October 2005.

==History==
The Mayan civilization flourished throughout much of Guatemala and the surrounding region long before the Spanish arrived, but it was already in decline when the Mayans were defeated by Pedro de Alvarado in 1523-24. The first colonial capital, Ciudad Vieja, was ruined by floods and an earthquake in 1542. Survivors founded Antigua, the second capital, in 1543. Antigua was destroyed by two earthquakes in 1773. The remnants of its Spanish colonial architecture have been preserved as a national monument. The third capital, Guatemala City, was founded in 1776.

Guatemala gained independence from Spain on September 15, 1821; it briefly became part of the Mexican Empire, and then for a period belonged to a federation called the United Provinces of Central America. From the mid-19th century until the mid-1980s, the country passed through a series of dictatorships, insurgencies (particularly beginning in the 1960s), coups, and stretches of military rule with only occasional periods of representative government.

====1944 to 1986====
In 1944, Gen. Jorge Ubico's dictatorship was overthrown by the "October Revolutionaries," a group of dissident military officers, students, and liberal professionals. A civilian President, Juan Jose Arevalo, was elected in 1945 and held the presidency until 1951. Social reforms initiated by Arevalo were continued by his successor, Col. Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz permitted the communist Guatemalan Labor Party to gain legal status in 1952. The army refused to defend the Arbenz government when a U.S.-backed group led by Col. Carlos Castillo Armas invaded the country from Honduras in 1954 and quickly took over the government. Gen. Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes took power in 1958 following the murder of Colonel Castillo Armas.

In response to the increasingly autocratic rule of Ydigoras Fuentes, a group of junior military officers revolted in 1960. When they failed, several went into hiding and established close ties with Cuba. This group became the nucleus of the forces that were in armed insurrection against the government for the next 36 years. Four principal left-wing guerrilla groups--the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP), the Revolutionary Organization of Armed People (ORPA), the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR), and the Guatemalan Labor Party (PGT)--conducted economic sabotage and targeted government installations and members of government security forces in armed attacks. These organizations combined to form the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) in 1982.

Shortly after President Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro took office in 1966, the army launched a major counterinsurgency campaign that largely broke up the guerrilla movement in the countryside. The guerrillas then concentrated their attacks in Guatemala City, where they assassinated many leading figures, including U.S. Ambassador John Gordon Mein in 1968. Between 1966 and 1982, there was a series of military or military-dominated governments.

On March 23, 1982, army troops commanded by junior officers staged a coup to prevent the assumption of power by Gen. Angel Anibal Guevara, the hand-picked candidate of outgoing President and Gen. Romeo Lucas Garcia. They denounced Guevara's electoral victory as fraudulent. The coup leaders asked retired Gen. Efrain Rios Montt to negotiate the departure of Lucas and Guevara.

Rios Montt was at this time a lay pastor in the evangelical protestant "Church of the Word." He formed a three-member military junta that annulled the 1965 constitution, dissolved Congress, suspended political parties, and canceled the electoral law. After a few months, Rios Montt dismissed his junta colleagues and assumed the de facto title of "President of the Republic."

Guerrilla forces and their leftist allies denounced Rios Montt. Rios Montt sought to defeat the guerrillas with military actions and economic reforms; in his words, "rifles and beans." The government began to form local civilian defense patrols (PACs). Participation was in theory voluntary, but in reality, many Guatemalans, especially in the heavily indigenous northwest, had no choice but to join either the PACs or the guerrillas. Rios Montt's conscript army and PACs recaptured essentially all guerrilla territory--guerrilla activity lessened and was largely limited to hit-and-run operations. However, Rios Montt won this partial victory at an enormous cost in civilian deaths, in what was probably the most violent period of the 36-year internal conflict, resulting in about 200,000 deaths of mostly unarmed indigenous civilians.

On August 8, 1983, Rios Montt was deposed by his own Minister of Defense, Gen. Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, who succeeded him as de facto President of Guatemala. Rios Montt survived to found a political party (the Guatemalan Republic Front) and to be elected President of Congress in 1995 and 2000. Awareness in the United States of the conflict in Guatemala, and its ethnic dimension, increased with the 1983 publication of the book I, Rigoberta Menchu, An Indian Woman in Guatemala.

General Mejia allowed a managed return to democracy in Guatemala, starting with a July 1, 1984 election for a Constituent Assembly to draft a democratic constitution. On May 30, 1985, after 9 months of debate, the Constituent Assembly finished drafting a new constitution, which took effect immediately. Vinicio Cerezo, a civilian politician and the presidential candidate of the Christian Democracy Party, won the first election held under the new constitution with almost 70% of the vote, and took office on January 14, 1986.

====1986 to 2003====
Upon its inauguration in January 1986, President Cerezo's civilian government announced that its top priorities would be to end the political violence and establish the rule of law. Reforms included new laws of habeas corpus and amparo (court-ordered protection), the creation of a legislative human rights committee, and the establishment in 1987 of the Office of Human Rights Ombudsman. Cerezo survived coup attempts in 1988 and 1989, and the final 2 years of Cerezo's government were also marked by a failing economy, strikes, protest marches, and allegations of widespread corruption.

Presidential and congressional elections were held on November 11, 1990. After a runoff ballot, Jorge Serrano was inaugurated on January 14, 1991, thus completing the first transition from one democratically elected civilian government to another.

The Serrano administration's record was mixed. It had some success in consolidating civilian control over the army, replacing a number of senior officers and persuading the military to participate in peace talks with the URNG. Serrano took the politically unpopular step of recognizing the sovereignty of Belize. The Serrano government reversed the economic slide it inherited, reducing inflation and boosting real growth.

On May 25, 1993, Serrano illegally dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court and tried to restrict civil freedoms, allegedly to fight corruption. The "autogolpe" (or self-initiated coup) failed due to unified, strong protests by most elements of Guatemalan society, international pressure, and the army's enforcement of the decisions of the Court of Constitutionality, which ruled against the attempted takeover. Serrano fled the country.

On June 5, 1993, the Congress, pursuant to the 1985 constitution, elected the Human Rights Ombudsman, Ramiro De Leon Carpio, to complete Serrano's presidential term. De Leon, not a member of any political party and lacking a political base but with strong popular support, launched an ambitious anticorruption campaign to "purify" Congress and the Supreme Court, demanding the resignations of all members of the two bodies.

Despite considerable congressional resistance, presidential and popular pressure led to a November 1993 agreement brokered by the Catholic Church between the administration and Congress. This package of constitutional reforms was approved by popular referendum on January 30, 1994. In August 1994, a new Congress was elected to complete the unexpired term.

Under De Leon, the peace process, now brokered by the United Nations, took on new life. The government and the URNG signed agreements on human rights (March 1994), resettlement of displaced persons (June 1994), historical clarification (June 1994), and indigenous rights (March 1995). They also made significant progress on a socioeconomic and agrarian agreement. National elections for president, the Congress, and municipal offices were held in November 1995. With almost 20 parties competing in the first round, the presidential election came down to a January 7, 1996 runoff in which National Advancement Party (PAN) candidate Alvaro Arzu defeated Alfonso Portillo of the Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG) by just over 2% of the vote. Under the Arzu administration, peace negotiations were concluded, and the government signed peace accords ending the 36-year internal conflict in December 1996. The human rights situation also improved during Arzu's tenure, and steps were taken to reduce the influence of the military in national affairs.

In a December 1999 presidential runoff, Alfonso Portillo (FRG) won 68% of the vote to 32% for Oscar Berger (PAN). Portillo's impressive electoral triumph, with two-thirds of the vote in the second round, gave him a claim to a mandate from the people to carry out his reform program.

Progress in carrying out Portillo's reform agenda was slow at best, with the notable exception of a series of reforms sponsored by the World Bank to modernize bank regulation and criminalize money laundering. The United States determined in April 2003 that Guatemala had failed to demonstrably adhere to its international counternarcotics commitments during the previous year.

A high crime rate and a serious and worsening public corruption problem were cause for concern for the Government of Guatemala. These problems, in addition to issues related to the often violent harassment and intimidation by unknown assailants of human rights activists, judicial workers, journalists, and witnesses in human rights trials, led the government to begin serious attempts in 2001 to open a national dialogue to discuss the considerable challenges facing the country.

National elections were held on November 9, 2003. Oscar Berger Perdomo of the Grand National Alliance (GANA) party won the election, receiving 54.1% of the vote. His opponent, Alvarado Colom Caballeros of the Nation Unity for Hope (UNE) party received 45.9% of the vote. The new government assumed office on January 14, 2004.

Source:[[Template:Copyright Details (US Government)]]

==See Also==
*[[Guatemala City Guatemala Temple]]

[[Category:Central American Countries]]
[[Category:Mayan world]]

User talk:AodhMor

2008-05-15T15:53:04Z

AodhMor:

Warning: don't engage in [[talk pollution]] on pages here. If you have to be sarcastic and non-substantive, please find another site to rant. We're going to keep the quality here high. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:whatever you say chief

{{welcome|AodhMor}} [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 11:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)<small>Aschlafly's welcome was not so welcoming so I shall welcome myself</small>

User:AodhMor

2008-05-15T15:38:22Z

AodhMor: New page: hello

hello

User talk:AodhMor

2008-05-15T15:37:04Z

AodhMor:

Warning: don't engage in [[talk pollution]] on pages here. If you have to be sarcastic and non-substantive, please find another site to rant. We're going to keep the quality here high. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

{{welcome|AodhMor}} [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 11:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)<small>Aschlafly's welcome was not so welcoming so I shall welcome myself</small>

Talk:Disruptive physician

2008-05-13T17:47:22Z

AodhMor: broken link

The link in the reference is broken. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 13:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Adam Smith

2008-05-13T16:11:54Z

AodhMor:

[[Image:Sigentha.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Adam Smith''' (June 16, 1723 to July 17, 1790) was a [[Scottish]] political [[economist]] and moral [[philosopher]]. He is considered the fundamental economist upon whose work modern [[capitalism]] is based, as he advocated individual economic growth, [[free enterprise]] and [[free will]].

==Philosophy==

His most famous concept was that markets guide economic activity and act like an "invisible hand" - allocating resources through prices, which rise when there is a shortage of a commodity and fall when it is plentiful.

*Each individual strives to become wealthy "intending only his own gain" but to this end he must exchange what he owns or produces with others who sufficiently value what he has to offer; in this way, by division of labour and a free market, public interest is advanced. <ref>http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/</ref>

One of the key figures of the intellectual movement known as the Scottish Enlightenment, he is known primarily as the author of two treatises:
* ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'' (1759)
* ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'' (1776)

His ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' was one of the earliest attempts to study the historical development of industry and commerce in [[Europe]], as well as a sustained attack on the doctrines of mercantilism. That work helped to create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for [[free trade]], capitalism, and [[libertarianism]]. It continues to greatly influence the writings of economists.

==Biography==
Smith was born in [[Kirkcaldy]], [[Scotland]] in 1723 and was raised by his widowed mother. Smith entered the [[University of Glasgow]] at the age of fourteen and then attended [[Balliol College]] at [[Oxford]] for six years until he graduated at the age of twenty-three. Adam returned to Scotland, and delivered a series of lectures which were very well-received. Smith was appointed first chair of logic in 1751 at the University of Glasgow and later then chair of moral philosophy in 1752. In 1764, Adam Smith left the academy to tutor the young Duke of Buccleuch. They lived and traveled in [[France]] and [[Switzerland]] for two years. The duke had given his teacher a comfortable life pension, so Adam Smith retired to Kirkcaldy and began writing his book, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations''. In 1778 Smith was appointed to a post as commissioner of customs in Scotland and went to live with his mother in [[Edinburgh]]. He died there on July 17, 1790, after a painful illness and was buried in the Canongate Kirkyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh. Smith is hailed as the one who discovered the [[Invisible Hand]], and explained the theoretical bases of free enterprise.

==Legacy==
With effect from March 13, 2007, Smith's [[portraits|portrait]] appears on the reverse of the English £20 note. He is the first true Scotsman to feature on currency issued by the [[Bank of England]], though others with Scottish noble titles have been so featured. His portrait also features on £50 notes issued by the Clydesdale Bank. His [[economics|economic]] philosophy and insights are upheld in [[Scotland]] by the [[Scottish National Party]].

== Links ==
*[[Economics Lecture One]]
*[[Libertarian]] thinking

==References==

<References/>

==External links==
* [http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/ Adam Smith and the invisible hand] - Helen Joyce
* [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html Biography] at the ''Concise Encyclopedia of Economics''
* [http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Rae/raeLS.html ''Life of Adam Smith''] by John Rae, at the Library of Economics and Liberty
* [http://www.mises.org/web/2691 ''The Celebrated Adam Smith''] by Murray N. Rothbard; full text of Chapter 16 of ''An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought'', Vol. I and II, Edward Elgar, 1995; Ludwig von Mises Institute 2006
* [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/smith.htm Smith's works]
*[http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations''] at MetaLibri Digital Library
*[http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations''], by Adam Smith. Fifth edition (1789), presented here, republished from: Edwin Cannan's annotated edition, 1904, Methuen & Co., Ltd. First edition: 1776.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Adam}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Scottish People]]
[[Category:Capitalists]]
[[Category:Academics]]

Mumia Abu-Jamal

2008-05-13T16:05:44Z

AodhMor:

'''Mumia abu-Jamal''' (born Wesley Cook in 1954) is a convicted murderer currently serving a prison sentence in [[Pennsylvania]] for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner of the [[Philadelphia]] Police Department on December 9, 1981. Abu-Jamal maintains his innocence, and remains a cause célèbre among activists who make up the "Free Mumia" movement. The movement has gained attention among celebrities, such as actor [[Ed Asner]] and rock band [[Rage Against the Machine]], who have put out songs with lyrics supporting Abu-Jamal.

Abu-Jamal had been a [[Black Panther]] activist and underground journalist, and was affiliated with MOVE, a Philadelphia-based radical anti-technology organization.

Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death in 1982, but his [[death penalty]] was overturned in 2001. Joseph McGill, who was the lead prosecutor for the trial, has said that "that case was the strongest case that I ever had."<ref>25 years later, Mumia Abu-Jamal's case to be argued in appeals court, AP, May 16, 2007[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Mumia-Abu-Jamal.php]</ref> Currently, Abu-Jamal appears to be facing life in prison. Politicians such as Pennsylvania governor [[Ed Rendell]] have expressed interest in putting Abu-Jamal back on death row, but even if this occurred, Abu-Jamal might not ever be executed. The state of Pennsylania does not frequently execute criminals; 226 people sit on death row in the state as of January 1, 2007, but only three executions have taken place in the state since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976.<ref>Death Penalty Information Center, Pennsylvania section[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/]</ref>

A number of the specific details of the crime have been questioned by Abu-Jamal's supporters, who maintain that Abu-Jamal is the victim of a racially or politically motivated conspiracy. Faulkner's widow, Maureen, has spent the last 25 years trying to tell her side of the story and to specifically rebut the claims of the "Free Mumia" movement, but has found herself constantly harassed by Abu-Jamal's supporters. She has stated that "she fears for her life".<ref>Hollywood's Unlikely Hero, by ABCNews.com, hosted by FrontPageMagazine.com[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={BBAFE2F3-D704-436C-96DA-DF32D1AF1DF2}]</ref>

From his prison cell, Abu-Jamal has given speeches decrying the [[Iraq War]] and expressing other political opinions, and has also "spoken" at college graduation ceremonies via tape.<ref>http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-07-07/news/graduation-altercation.php</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Abu-Jamal, Mumia}}

[[category:Criminals]]

M16 rifle

2008-05-13T15:58:47Z

AodhMor: grammar

[[Image:USM16.jpg|thumb|right|A US Army Soldier fires an M16 rifle.]]

The '''M16''', formally the '''United States Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16''', is an [[assault rifle]] developed by [[Eugene Stoner]]. The rifle is based on the ArmaLite [[AR-15]] series of rifles. The M16 was originally designed for US soldiers as a replacement for the [[M14 rifle]].

[[Category:Guns]]

Alexis Carrel

2008-05-13T15:56:52Z

AodhMor: deleted superfluous italics

[[Image:Alexis Carrel.jpg|right|180px]]
'''Alexis Marie Joseph Auguste Carrel-Billiard''' (Lyons, [[France]] 1873 - Paris 1944) French surgeon, biologist and eugenicist. He was awarded the [[Nobel Prize]] in Physiology or Medicine in 1912.

Alexis was educated at home by his mother Anne Ricard, and also at St. Joseph School, Lyons. In 1889 he took the degree of Bachelor of Letters at the University of Lyons; in 1890 the degree of Bachelor of Science and in 1900 his Doctor's degree at the same University.

In 1935, in collaboration with [[Charles Lindbergh]], the airman who was the first to flow across the Atlantic, he devised a machine for supplying a sterile respiratory system to organs removed from the body.

He discussed this aspect of his work and its implications in his book The Culture of Organs. Carrel also published the well-known book entitled Man, the Unknown.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1912/carrel-bio.html Alexis Carrel]</ref>

Carrel, in collaboration with Theodore Tuffier, performed on the heart a successful series of valvotomies. He is considered the father of organ transplants and open heart surgery.

He also wrote in 1941 "Reflections on life".

== Honors ==

Carrel was honoured by memberships of learned societies in the US, Spain, Russia, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Vatican City, Germany, Italy and Greece, and by honorary doctorates of the Universities of Belfast, Princeton, California and New York, and Brown and Columbia Universities. He was a Commander in the Legion d'Honneur of France and in the Leopold Order of Belgium, a Grand-Commander in the Swedish Order of the Polar Star. The lunar crater "Carrel" was named after him as a tribute to his scientific achievements.

{{cquote|
"All great men are gifted with intuition. They know without reasoning or analysis, what they need to know."
}}

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Alexis Carrel...jpg|right|140px]]
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9020489/Alexis-Carrel Alexis Carrel] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Carrel-A.html Carrel, Alexis] The Columbia Encyclopedia.

== References ==
<References/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Illinois

2008-05-13T15:53:58Z

AodhMor:

{{USState
|name="Illinois
|flag=Illinois_State_Flag.gif
|motto="State" Sovereignty; National Union"
|nick=The Prairie State
|capital=Springfield
|language=English
|governor=Rod Blagojevich
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Barack Obama
|s1party=Democrat
|senator2=Richard Durbin
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=December 3, 1818 (21st)
}}
'''Illinois''' was the twenty-first state to enter into the [[union]]. Its capital is [[Springfield]], and the largest city is [[Chicago]]. Illinois is bordered by [[Indiana]], [[Kentucky]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], and [[Wisconsin]].

==Politics==

Illinois can be viewed as having a more [[liberal]] concentration in the northeastern portion of the state. This is often attributed to the large metropolitan area surrounding [[Chicago]]. In contrast, the southern and western portions of the state are typically more [[conservative]]. The state capitol is [[Springfield, Illinois|Springfield]], and there is political tension about state lawmakers who spend too much of their time in either Chicago or Springfield.

The population distribution has led Illinois to lean politically to the [[left]] in most recent non-local elections. Many consider Illinois to be a liberal stronghold, especially in regard to [[presidential]] elections.

Currently, Illinois has a [[Democratic]] governor, [[Rod Blagojevich]], but has elected [[Republican]] governors in the recent past, such as [[George Ryan]], who controversially emptied the state's death row after an investigation by [[Northwestern University]] law students proved that one death row inmate was innocent.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/</ref> Critics charged that he only did so to gain sympathy because he was about to be tried for [[corruption]] and selling [[commercial driver's license]]s when he was the [[Illinois Secretary of State]].

===Elected Officials===
*Sen. [[Richard Durbin]]
*Sen. [[Barack Obama]]

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]
[[Category:Illinois]]

==References==

<references />

Talk:Birth control pill

2008-05-13T15:47:52Z

AodhMor:

==Cancer Causing==

How? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:06, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

: The pill is a [[carcinogen]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::Could you please elaborate a little, this is an important point which needs to be expanded. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:07, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::According to [http://www.omsoul.com/who-pill-bc.php this] the pill increases the risk of some cancers but decreases the risk of others, perhaps this could be clarified. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:09, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::And not all of "the pills" are diethylstilbestrol, right? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 23:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::::[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2434694.ece This] study rejects any link of the pills to an increase in cancer, but supports a link to a decrease in cancer. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Guys, it doesn't matter what the research says. All that matters is that some conservatives think contraception encourages sex, despite little evidence, so they'll come up with any scare story they can think of about it. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 11:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)