Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Slave Trade

2007-12-08T17:34:28Z

Claude:

The '''slave trade''' began in 1455 in [[Africa]] as part of the [[Columbian exchange]]. The pope gave justification to enslave non-[[Christians]] in a papal bull. It became an important part of Africa's economy. It did not come to an end until 1800-1865 with the work of Christians; [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]]. The [[United States]] passed the [[13th Amendment]] in response to it.

[[World History Lecture Eight]] can be used for more information.

[[Category:History]]

Religious Left

2007-12-08T17:33:10Z

Claude:

The '''Religious Left''' or more specifically the [[Christian]] Left (aka [[Liberal]] Christians) are groups of religious people who combine the Christian faith with [[left-wing]] politics. They may agree with [[Conservatives]] about issues such as [[abortion]] and [[same sex marriage]] but they see issues such as [[global warming]], [[poverty]], and [[war]] as moral issues. While all Chrisitans see poverty and war as important moral issues, the Religious Left takes liberal positions on all of these issues. While conservative Christians believe that poverty can be solved by private charity and learning self-sufficieny, liberal Christians think that government handouts are the answer. They believe in [[public healthcare]], [[public education]] (minus the secular component), and social [[welfare]]. Liberal Christians also tend to be supportive of [[evolution]] and at least tolerant of deviant [[homosexual]] behaviour. They have been criticized by conservatives as straying away from original Christian teachings. Conservative Christians believe that [[Christ]] is a personal saviour not a social one. [[Liberation Theology]] was also espoused from Christian leftists.

==Christian Leftists==
*[[Tommy Douglas]] - Minister and former leader of the NDP. Founder of Canadian Public Healthcare.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - Evangelical Leftist, Human Rights Activist, and Former President of the United States.
*[[Hugo Chavez]] - Venezuelan Leftist President who calls Jesus the world's first socialist.
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - Liberal civil rights activist.
*[[Daniel Ortega]] - Nicaraugan President and former revoltutionary. Tried to combine Marxism with Christianity despite the fact that Marxism is heretical due to its atheism.

==See Also==
*[[Religious right]]
*[[Liberation theology]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Pretoria

2007-12-08T17:30:30Z

Claude:

{{stub}}

Pretoria is a city located in the Gauteng Province, [[South Africa]].

Nottingham

2007-12-08T17:28:51Z

Claude:

Greater '''Nottingham''' is [[England]]'s eighth largest city with a population of 666,000 people. With the exception of [[London]], it is the largest [[British]] city to pre-date the [[industrial revolution]]. It lies roughly in the centre of England. It is the traditional county town of the county of [[Nottinghamshire]].

==History==

Nottingham was founded by the [[Celts]], before the [[Roman]] invasion of the 1st century AD, who knew it as Tigguo Cobauc, meaning 'Place of Cavy Dwellings'. This name is derived from the cave houses which the local inhabitants cut into the soft sandsone rocks and cliffs in the city. An Anglo Saxon city was built around where the Church of St Mary stands, on a low cliff in the Lace Market area of the city. Part of Danish controlled East [[Mercia]] after the treaty of Wedmore, it grew in importance as a Danish ([[viking]]) stronghold during the 9th Century, and was known as Snotengaham, possibly named after a Norse leader called Snot. After the [[Norman]] Conquest of England in 1066, [[William the Conqueror]] had an imposing fortress, Nottingham Castle, built on top of a neighbouring cliff top and for a while, an English town and a [[French]] town grew. It is during this period of history that the legends of [[Robin Hood]] are set, focusing on the repression of the Anglo-Danish inhabitants of the Old City by the Norman nobility in the new French City. Nottingham Castle became one of Englands most important Royal fortresses, but was largely destroyed after the [[English Civil War]], by supporters of the [[Parliament]]. A new castle was constructed on the site in the 18th Century by the Duke of Portland, which was destroyed by [[Luddite]] rioters. The remains of this building now house the Nottingham City art gallery.
Nottingham grew rapidly during the industrial revolution and became one of the worlds most important [[lace]] manufacturing centres. Other important industries included [[Coal Mining]], and the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and bicycles. Nottingham was bombed during the second world war, though many of it's historic quarters have survived intact, the focus of air raids having been the industrial areas.

==Modern Nottingham==

Nottingham today is a thriving commercial centre and is the capital of the East Midlands Region. It is regarded as one of the top shopping destinations in the UK. It is well served by public transport to London (Rail journeys take around two hours). Nottingham East Midlands Airport is a minor international airport which serves mainly European destinations.
Major industries include pharmaceuticals and service industries. Nottingham is home to the UK Inland Revenue and the European Headquarters of several US and East Asian Corporations, such as Capital One.
Nottingham boasts two [[University|Universities]], the British National Watersports Centre, and the British National Ice Arena, as well as several theatres, concert halls and conference centres, and the worlds oldest public house, [[Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem.]]
Nottingham has a [[Catholic]] Cathedral. The Anglican ([[Church of England]]) Cathedral for [[Nottinghamshire]] lies in the nearby town of [[Southwell]]. The Ancestral Home of Lord [[Byron]], [[Newstead Abbey]] lies nearby.

[[Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities]]

Antarctica

2007-12-08T15:20:42Z

Claude: "Etymology" is the study of word origins. "Entomology" is the study of insects. "Entymology" is not a word.

[[Image:Antarctic region pol02.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Territorial claims on the Antarctic continent]]
'''Antarctica''' is a [[continent]] in the Southern Hemisphere, the coldest continent on the earth, and the last continental landmass to be discovered by man.

==Etymology==
"Antarctica" has its origins in the Greek word ''ανταρκτικός'' (''antarktikos''), which means "opposite of the Arctic," and may have been based on the myths of the "Southern Land" (''Terra Australis'') which explorers have speculated about since ancient times and have long sought.

==Antarctic Environment==
Antarctica is composed of two major, geologically distinct parts bridged by a vast ice sheet. East Antarctica, the larger of the two, is roughly the size of the U.S. and is composed of continental crust covered by an ice sheet that averages 1.6 miles thick. Rock exposures are limited to isolated coastal regions and to alpine elevations in the 2,000-mile long Transantarctic Mountains. West Antarctica, the smaller portion, is a mosaic of small blocks of continental crust covered by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an Andean-like mountain chain forming the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is grounded below sea level, in places over 1.5 miles below sea level.

The continent itself is depressed more than half-a-mile to near sea level under the tremendous load of the ice sheet, with some regions well below sea level. The highest mountains rise to elevations of over 14,000 ft. about the height of the U.S. Rocky Mountains.

The present Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 90 percent of Earth's total ice volume and 70 percent of its fresh water. It houses enough water to raise global sea level by 200 feet if completely melted. The ice sheet at the Pole, nearly two miles thick, is constantly shifting, carrying the Amundsen/Scott Research Facility at the Pole along with it at the rate of about 30 feet a year. Nearly 90 percent of the ice flowing across West Antarctica converges into ice streams that are the most dynamic, and perhaps unstable, components of the ice sheet. Recent glaciological observations have yielded evidence that some of these West Antarctic ice streams may be responding to climatic and sea level changes of the recent past, changes that could lead to more rapid retreat and global sea-level rise in the future. A few active volcanoes may also affect the ice sheet's behavior.

The Antarctic climate offers a formidable challenge to those who venture there in quest of scientific knowledge. It is the coldest, driest, highest (on average) and windiest continent on Earth. Absolute humidity is lower than on the Sahara. Annual snowfall in much of the interior is less than two inches. Winds that flow down the surface of the ice sheet toward the coast (katabatic winds) commonly reach speeds of 80 miles per hour, and maximum measured wind speeds have exceeded 180 miles per hour. Changes in the weather are dramatic: winds shift from calm to full-gale in a brief period of time. A drop of 65°F was once recorded in 12 minutes. Earth's lowest surface temperature (-126.9°F) was recorded at Russia's Vostok Station in the interior of Antarctica. Coastal locations in summer occasionally rise above the freezing point.

At the South Pole, the nights are six months long, extending from sunset on March 21 to sunrise on September 21. A lake (Lake Vostok) buried 11,000 ft. under the ice is the size of North America's Lake Huron.

Offshore cyclones occur with little warning. Winds typically reach hurricane strength within an hour and persist for several days. A concentration of storm formation and/or intensification occurs at approximately 50°S latitude and is associated with some of the most violent seas in the world ("the roaring forties"). The stretch of ocean between Antarctica and the tip of South America is considered the most hostile in the world and has claimed numerous ships over the centuries.

The stable upper atmospheric (stratospheric) air mass over the continent has been seriously altered by synthetic chemicals that arrived via natural atmospheric circulation from the world's industrial areas, resulting in the creation of the well-known Antarctic ozone hole. Ice core records provide evidence that atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane have increased markedly during the past 200 years and are presently more prevalent than at any time in the past 160,000 years. These records also show that low temperatures of the ice age occurred when greenhouse-gas concentrations were low.

Meteorological observations have been recorded only in recent decades, and then only in scattered localities, so long-term temperature trends remain uncertain. The longest instrumental temperature records come from the relatively warm Antarctic Peninsula region, referred to by the "Frozen Chosen" as the "Banana Belt" of Antarctica. The glacial systems that occur in the Peninsular region are the most delicate in Antarctica and the most vulnerable to climatic warming. In historical time the fronts of the Larsen and George VI ice shelves, the two largest ice shelves in the region, have retreated at rates of nearly one-half mile per year. Another smaller ice shelf, the Wordie Ice Shelf, has completely vanished during the past several decades. Whether these changes are due to induced global warming or to natural (perhaps regional) climatic cycles remains uncertain.

Millions of square miles of sea ice surround Antarctica; the extent annually experiences a five-fold increase and decrease, with the winter maximum more than doubling the entire Antarctic region's area of ice coverage. Icebergs larger than the State of Connecticut have been observed. The temperature gradient associated with Antarctica's sea-ice zone is one of the strongest on Earth, and the seasonal variability in the extent of sea ice is an important regulator of the climate of the Southern Hemisphere. This is primarily because of the significant difference between sea ice and water in reflecting the sun's energy (albedo) and because the sea ice serves as a barrier to energy exchange between atmosphere and ocean. The extent of sea ice around Antarctica also regulates (and stimulates) primary productivity of microorganisms in surface waters, and the sea ice zone is one of the most dynamic biological systems on Earth. Global warming could cause a significant reduction in the extent of the sea ice; the potential climatic and biological impacts of a change remain problematic.

Ocean circulation and water mass production in the Antarctic region are unique owing to the strong influence of sea ice and ice shelves on temperature and salinity and to a virtual absence of geographic obstacles to circulation around the continent. A key ingredient of the global ocean is the very cold, saline water that forms in regions of the Antarctic's continental shelf. This water is supercooled by exposure to ice shelves (floating glacial ice still attached to the land), and its salinity is increased by salt that is expelled from freezing sea water during annual sea ice production. This water flows off the Antarctic continental shelf and into the global ocean as Antarctic Bottom Water, the coldest and saltiest water mass in the deep ocean and a primary driver in global ocean circulation. Elsewhere around Antarctica, relatively warm water masses flow onto the continental shelf and melt the undersides of ice shelves. This feedback between water masses and ice shelves is still not well understood.

==Antarctic life==
Life forms on the Antarctic continent are sparse because of the severe climate. Nevertheless, biologists have found bacteria and yeast growing just 183 miles from the South Pole. A lichen was found in a sunny canyon 210 miles from the Pole, and a blue-green alga was observed in a frozen pond 224 miles from the Pole. Microbes related to lichens colonize in green and brown layers just beneath the surface of rocks facing the Sun. Mosses and liverworts grow in some ice-free areas along the coast. Two species of flowering plants a grass and an herb grow along the Antarctic Peninsula.

The native land animals are limited to arthropods (insects and the like), of which 76 species have been discovered. Nearly all of these species are found only in Antarctica. These springtails, midges and mites generally live along the coast among plant colonies. The southernmost known animal, a mite, has been found 315 miles from the South Pole.

Sea life, in contrast to the land, is bounteous. The immense numbers of birds and seals that live in Antarctica are, properly speaking, sea animals. They spend most of their time in or over the water, where they get their food. These animals come ashore only to breed.

About 45 species of birds live south of the Antarctic Convergence. Of the seven penguin species, the emperor and the Adélie are distributed widely around the entire coastline. Gentoo and chinstrap penguins occupy Antarctic Peninsula coasts. The population of birds in the Antarctic is estimated to be 350 million, of which about half are penguins. The total weight of birds is estimated in excess of 400,000 tons greater than the combined weight of Antarctic seals and whales.

Four species of seals breed almost exclusively in the Antarctic: the Weddell, crabeater, leopard, and Ross. Other species include the fur seal and the huge elephant seal. Most populous is the crabeater, estimated at 50 million to 75 million. Leopard and Weddell seals number 250,000 to 500,000 each.

Fishes peculiar to the Antarctic include the Antarctic cod and the icefish. These and other fishes have developed proteins in their blood that enable them to live in sea water as cold as 28°F that is, below the freezing temperature of fresh water. There is abundant and varied bottom life (starfish, urchins, shellfish) in most coastal waters.

Aside from phytoplankton (marine plants), a singularly important member of the Antarctic marine food chain is krill. This crustacean looks like a small shrimp and exists in huge numbers; vast swarms stretching several miles in length have been observed from ships, and some biologists believe the krill population may exceed 5 billion tons. Krill eat phytoplankton and small marine animals and in turn are eaten in great numbers by squid, birds, seals, and whales. There is evidence that depletion of the ozone layer affects phytoplankton productivity, and may therefore affect krill and the entire southern ocean food chain.

==History==
Remote, inaccessible, and inhospitable, Antarctica was the last continent to be discovered, and knowledge of the south polar region was accumulated slowly. Until the present century the interior of Antarctica was unknown, and even the continental margins had been seen in only a few places. Of the world's 61,000 nonfiction papers and books published about the Antarctic since the earliest papers dating from the 1600s, 91 percent have been published since 1951. However, the historian Kenneth J. Bertrand (Americans in Antarctica 1775-1948, American Geographical Society, 1971) writes that "the success of recent operations in unveiling Antarctica with the aid of modern technology does not negate the importance of earlier efforts. Present accomplishments have been built on the past, developed step by step since 1674, sometimes haltingly and sometimes failing."

====Explorations====
Explorations have been conducted for a variety of motives and sometimes accidentally, as was the case of the first discovery south of the Antarctic Convergence (where temperate and polar waters meet) of South Georgia in the 1670s when a commercial ship was blown off course. The true nature of the Antarctic as a frigid region of ice and snow was convincingly proved for the first time by the second voyage of the English navigator, Captain James Cook, between 1772 and 1775. Until then, there was general belief in a large, still undiscovered continent in the southern hemisphere suitable for European settlement. Cook circumnavigated Antarctica, much of his course south of 60°S, and crossed the Antarctic Circle in three places. He failed to sight any part of the Antarctic continent, but disproved conclusively the existence of the mythical continent "Terra Australis Incognita" at latitudes north of 60°S. Mariners who followed Cook into high southern latitudes were attracted to the harsh environment by his reports of great numbers of whales and seals, particularly the latter.

In 1820-1821 the American sealer Nathaniel B. Palmer of Stonington, Connecticut, saw the Antarctic Peninsula from his sloop Hero and met the Russian Captain Thaddeus Bellingshausen commanding the two ships Vostok and Mirnyy on a major national expedition that circumnavigated Antarctica eastward. Three other great national expeditions were made between 1819 and 1843 by the French Admiral Dumont d'Urville, who discovered the Adélie and Clarie coasts in 1840; by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, who mapped 1,500 miles of Antarctica's coast south of Australia in 1839-1840, proving Antarctica a continent; and by Britain's Sir James Clark Ross, who discovered the Ross Sea, Ross Island, and the Ross Ice Shelf in 1841.

Historians have not settled the question of who was first to see land in Antarctica. British, Russian, and U.S. ships all were in the Antarctic Peninsula area in the early 1820s, and the first sighting occurred during that time. The first documented landing on the continent was on 24 January 1895, when the Norwegian whaling ship Antarctic landed a party at Cape Adare on the northern Ross Sea. The party consisted of Captain Leonard Kristensen, second mate Carstens Borchgrevinck, and H. J. Bull, who wrote a book about their adventure. Bull called being first on the Antarctic mainland "both strange and pleasurable," although he thought the crew would have preferred to find a Right Whale "even of small dimensions."

In 1895 a resolution by the Sixth International Geographical Congress in London promoted Antarctic exploration and set into motion a series of expeditions known now as the "Heroic Era." Before World War I halted this activity, 16 exploring expeditions from Australia, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Scotland and Sweden (but not the U.S.) had visited Antarctica. This activity is exclusive of whalers, discussed below. The magnitude of this activity was unprecedented for Antarctica, and, considering the state of technology and size of the world's population and wealth, it probably was greater than that of the mechanical age that followed and comparable to the operations initiated with the International Geophysical Year (IGY), 1957-1958. The best known of the Heroic Age expeditions were those led by Roald Amundsen (Norway) and Robert F. Scott (England), who separately reached the geographic South Pole (and were the first to do so) a few weeks apart on 14 December 1911 and 17 January 1912, respectively.

U.S. Antarctic activity in this century began with Richard E. Byrd's hugely popular, privately financed, expeditions in 1928-1930 and 1933-1935. Byrd's success led to Congressional appropriations of $10,000 in 1939 and $340,000 in 1940 (totaling about $4.1M in 1997 dollars) for the U.S. Antarctic Service, organized as a civilian entity under four cabinet agencies. Intended to be permanent but curtailed to a single winter and two summers because of World War II, the field work in 1939-1941 nevertheless was the largest Antarctic expedition up to that time, and it produced discoveries in a number of research disciplines.

After the War the U.S. Navy Antarctic Developments Project (Operation Highjump) in 1946-1947 was then (and remains) by far the largest Antarctic expedition, with more than 4,700 naval and marine personnel, 44 observers, 13 ships, and a number of aircraft. The expedition sighted more than 1.5-million square miles of Antarctica, half of it previously unexplored, and took 15,000 aerial trimetrogon (mapping) photographs. The following season the U.S. Navy Second Antarctic Developments Project (Operation Windmill) used ship-based helicopters to get geodetic ground control for the Highjump photographs. The expedition contributed to production of the first medium-scale maps of the region and influenced decisions regarding locations of stations for the International Geophysical Year the following decade. At a time when other nations had embarked on programs of permanent bases, the U.S. Navy Second Antarctic Developments Project also was a vehicle for continuing the U.S. presence in Antarctica.

====Whaling, Sealing, Fishing====
British sealers first crossed the Antarctic Convergence in 1778, and Americans in about 1792. Profits were enormous. Around 1797 the Neptune of New Haven, a ship worth perhaps $3,000, gathered 45,000 skins at the Falklands and Juan Fernandez, sold them for $90,000 in Canton, bought Chinese goods there and sold them for $260,000 in New York. As subantarctic seals were decimated the sealers pushed farther south. In 1820-1821, at least 30 American, 24 British, and 1 Australian vessels were hunting seals in the South Shetlands. The next year the numbers were perhaps doubled. Landings were said to have been made on the Antarctic Peninsula, the South Orkney Islands were discovered, and at least one and maybe three Americans traveled as far south as 66°S on the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula. James Weddell (British) discovered the Weddell Sea. Fur seals and then elephant seals (for their oil) were reduced almost to extinction by the mid-1800s, at which point the sealers for all practical purposes abandoned this activity. In 1978 the Antarctic Treaty nations agreed to prohibit the taking of fur, elephant and Ross seals, and to limit the annual catch of various other species. No seal hunting has taken place in the Antarctic since 1964 and the populations of fur and elephant seals have significantly regenerated themselves in the last half of the 20th century.

Whaling began in Antarctic waters in the 19th century. The industry enlarged greatly in the early 1900s, when steamships, harpoon guns, and shore processing stations (notably at South Georgia) were introduced. During the 1912-1913 season 10,760 whales were caught. After that time nearly all the whales caught in the world were taken in Antarctic waters. In 1931, the peak year, 40,199 whales were caught in the Antarctic, while 1,124 were caught in the rest of the world. The whaling industry declined after 1960. In the 1980-1981 season fewer than 6,000 whales were caught in the Antarctic; all were Minke whales, a relatively small-sized species. In 1994 the member nations of the International Whaling Commission declared Antarctic waters a whale sanctuary in which no commercial whaling is allowed.

====International Geophysical Year====
The IGY, 1 July 1957 to 31 December 1958, was a cooperative endeavor by scientists throughout the world to improve their understanding of the Earth and its environment. Much of the field activity took place in Antarctica, where 12 nations established some 60 research stations. Laurence M. Gould, who was Richard E. Byrd's chief scientist in Antarctica in the 1920s and 1930s and later chaired the National Academy of Sciences Polar Research Board and served on the National Science Board, called the IGY the most comprehensive scientific program ever undertaken and the first attempt at a total study of the environment. "No field of geophysics," he wrote in 1958, "can be understood or complete without specific data available only from this vast continent and its surrounding oceans."

The U.S. established six Antarctic IGY research stations: Little America (on the Ross Ice Shelf), Hallett (in Victoria Land), South Pole and Byrd (in Marie Byrd Land), plus Wilkes (on the coast of Wilkes Land, East Antarctica) and Ellsworth (on the Filchner Ice Shelf). Naval Air Facility, McMurdo Sound (now McMurdo Station), was set up as a logistics base from which to supply South Pole. Studies were directed toward geophysics and upper atmospheric physics and complemented simultaneous observations around the globe. Long traverses were made to collect data in glaciology, seismology, gravimetry, and meteorology. Geological and biological samples were also collected, although these disciplines were not formally part of the IGY.

====Antarctic Treaty of 1959====
International cooperation in the IGY stimulated the Antarctic Treaty [http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4700.htm], signed by the 12 Antarctic IGY nations at Washington, D.C., in 1959 and entered into force in 1961. The treaty establishes a legal framework for the area south of 60°S, which includes all of Antarctica. There are two types of Antarctic Treaty parties. Consultative nations, now 26 in number, are empowered to meet periodically and to influence operation of the treaty. Acceding nations, of which there now are 17, agree to abide by the treaty, but, not being among the original signatories and not having substantial programs in Antarctica, do not participate in the consultative process.

The treaty provides that Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only; it prohibits military operations except in support of peaceful activities. It provides that freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation shall continue and that nations shall exchange program plans, personnel, observations, and results. The treaty seeks to resolve the issue of territorial claims by simply not recognizing, disputing, or establishing claims; and it prohibits assertion of new claims. It prohibits nuclear explosions and disposal of radioactive waste. It guarantees access by any treaty nation to inspect others' stations and equipment. Appendix VI further summarizes the treaty.

The consultative meetings provided for by the treaty have generated a series of recommendations, most of which have been formally adopted by the treaty nations, that provide rules for operating on and around the continent. One of the most significant is the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, ratified by the U.S. as Public Law 95-541, the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. Other advances have included the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. A failed recommendation of significance is the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, which would have permitted mining if the proponent were to demonstrate that the environment would not be damaged. Instead, a 1991 Antarctic Treaty meeting adopted a protocol for improved environmental protection that prohibits mining; the U.S. signed this protocol into law (PL104-227) in October 1996 and is preparing to deposit its instrument of ratification with the Antarctic Treaty system. The U.S. and other Antarctic Treaty nations are complying with the protocol on a voluntary basis pending its entry into force, which will occur only after all 26 of the nations initially signing the 1991 agreement ratify it.

==Territorial Claims==
Seven nations have asserted claims to pie-shaped sectors of Antarctica bounded by longitudinal lines: Great Britain (claim made formally in 1926), New Zealand (1923), Australia (1936), Norway (1939), Chile (1940), Argentina (no formal date), and France (1924). The initial claims were based on discovery, adjacency, or decree, and all but one of the claims extend from north of the coast to the South Pole. Three claims overlap. One sector is unclaimed. The claims occasionally have led to conflict; on 2 February 1952 the Argentine navy fired on the British when they tried to land at Hope Bay. Conflicts over other remote areas have not been unknown, including the U.K./Argentina war over the Falklands as recently as 1982. Other nations have acted to make claims, but not asserted them; for example, Germany sent an expedition for this purpose in 1938, and in 1939 Lincoln Ellsworth, heading his second Antarctic expedition (the first was a transantarctic flight in 1935), dropped from his plane a brass cylinder containing a note claiming territories for the U.S. "so far as this act allows."

Other than the claimant states, most nations do not recognize Antarctic claims. U.S. non-recognition, a cornerstone of the nation's Antarctic policy, dates to 1924, when Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes wrote that discovery of lands unknown to civilization "does not support a valid claim of sovereignty unless the discovery is followed by an actual settlement of the discovered country." In 1934 the Assistant Secretary of State added: "I reserve all rights which the U.S. or its citizens may have with respect to this matter." President Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed the U.S. stance in 1939: "The U.S. has never recognized any claims of sovereignty over territory in the Antarctic regions asserted by any foreign state." In 1947 Dean Acheson, then Under Secretary of State, wrote that the U.S. "has not recognized any claims of any other nations in the area and has reserved all rights which it may have in the area."

Despite the Antarctic Treaty provision that "no acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting, or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica," some signatories have taken what appear to be assertive steps. For example, both Argentina and Chile publish their claimed Antarctic sectors on their official national maps, and both have established hotels and post offices. Chile has placed whole families in residence at its Antarctic stations, with schools, banks, and other evidence of "effective occupation," including the birth of a child. An Argentinian child was born at Argentina's Esperanza Station in the late 1970s, the first child to be born on that continent..

==Links==
*[http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4700.htm The Antarctic Treaty, from the U.S. State Dept. website]
*[http://terraweb.wr.usgs.gov/TRS/projects/Antarctica/ Antarctica resources on the Internet, from the USGS]
*[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/livecamera.html NOAA's "South Pole Live" camera]

[[Category:Continents]]

Brights Movement

2007-12-08T03:37:50Z

Claude:

[[Image:golly.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an "enthusiastic bright" by the Brights Movement website. He is also listed as an awesome human being by every right-thinking person in the world.]]
The '''Brights Movement''' was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. [[Atheism|Atheists]] already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

Notable skeptics and atheists may still embrace the Brights Movement and are listed as "Enthusiastic Brights" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref> Examples of individuals listed as Brights are notable skeptics/atheists such as [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Margaret Downy]], [[James Randi]], [[Mel Lipman]], [[Bobbie Kirkhart]], [[Herb Silverman]], [[Michael Shermer]], [[Matt Cherry]], and [[Babu Gogineni]].<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

==Criticism==
Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on D'Souza--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] Richard Dawkins News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

According to Mr. Mooney virtually all the feedback he has received regarding the Brights Movement from [[Philosphical skepticism|skeptics]] and atheists has been negative.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref>
Atheist author and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref>

Michael Shermer may not be a "enthusiastic Bright" after all, as he stated in 2003 the following: "However, when it became apparent to me that the vast majority of people most likely to fall under the "bright" rubric would not use the label, I became, well, skeptical that it would succeed. For the time being I continue calling myself a skeptic."<ref>http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/12/31/73740/169</ref>
[[Image:GaryDeMar_main.jpg‎|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Gary DeMar, smiling after raping five babies.]]]]
The Brights Movement has not been immune from religious [[conservative]]s' criticism. [[Gary Demar]] the President of [[American Vision]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|While the “official” site of “The Brights” espouses “a level civic/civil playing field for all worldviews [that] does not include demeaning the worldview of religious individuals,” Dawkins and Dennett are demeaning and anything but civil when it comes to contrary worldviews. Here are two examples:

Dennett: “ If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods—that the Earth is flat, that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.”

Dawkins: “ It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

As one would expect, the co-directors of “The Brights” argued that the views of some Brights do not represent the views of all Brights. But Dawkins and Dennett are not just “some Brights.”<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar sees the Brights Movement as an attempt to soften the image of [[Secular Humanism|secular humanist]] post the banning of [[school prayer]] in 1962 in the [[United States]] and other subsequent initiatives and DeMar states the following:
{{cquote|In an effort to repackage themselves, some groups began softening their image. The secular humanists, for example, revised the [[Humanist Manifesto]], replacing its anti-God statements with anti-supernaturalism statements. This was done, interestingly, the same year the Brights movement was founded.<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar also offers the following criticism of the Brights Movement:
{{cquote|The Brights' Net is peppered with suggestions of second-class citizenship and charges of social discrimination against their ilk, reminiscent of the [[Civil Rights]] days. Yet, unlike Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] who successfully invoked God and God's law for moral authority, the Brights are without any standard higher than the whimsy of populism or the tyranny of [[authoritarianism]].<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref> Or, y'know, that stupid "all men are created equal" crap. Who buys that?"}}

According to a 2004 ''[[Psychology Today]]'' article the Brights’ Web site launched in 2003 and has subsequently signed on tens of thousands of Brights from more than 84 countries.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref> The Psychology Today article quotes a founder of the Brights Movement Paul Geisert as stating, "It’s too soon to tell if the movement will really catch on. We just have to empirically wait and see what happens.”<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref>
==External Links==
*[http://www.the-brights.net/ The Brights' Net - Home Page]
*[http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html The Bright Stuff] by [[Daniel Dennett]] in the ''[[New York Times]]'', July 12 2003
*[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2 Religion Be Damned" - Wired Magazine, October 2003] by [[Richard Dawkins]]
*[http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html The Future Looks Bright] by [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The Guardian]], June 21 2003

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

[[Category: Naturalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Social Movements]]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2007-12-08T03:08:33Z

Claude:

[[Image:Bgnfy6n.jpg|right|thumb|Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]

'''Mahmoud "I'm a Dinner Jacket" Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of [[Islamic]] fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor. He has a huge crush on Vice President Dick Cheney, and has been quoted as saying that Mr. Cheney is "dreamy".

[[Image:Hostage.jpg|thumb|240px|right|The AP photo]]

The inset photo taken 26 years prior shows a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad at the time of the 1979 [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." <ref>*[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4115 Ahmadinejad - Hostage Taker?], Daniel Pipes ''Kommersant'' (Moscow daily), November 13, 2006.</ref> However, some former hostages dispute this claim. <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref> Additionally, a number of terrorists who were actually involved in the hostage taking have denied Ahmedinejad's involvement. <ref>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16</ref> <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html</ref> A CIA report was commissioned to determine whether or not Ahmedinejad was involved in the hostage taking, and that report determined that the evidence was at best inconclusive. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2</ref> <ref>http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html</ref>

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].{{fact}}

==Rerefences==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud}}

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2007-12-08T03:06:54Z

Claude:

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

and Italian widows.

Larry Craig

2007-12-08T03:05:41Z

Claude:

'''Larry "Wide Stance" Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] [[United States Senate|United States Senator]] from the state of [[Idaho]] since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the [[United States House of Representatives]]. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
Larry Craig is completely heterosexual. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GIsLFjWCTsk

==Early years==
Senator Craig was born on the family ranch near Midvale, Idaho, which was homesteaded in 1899 by his grandfather. He later served as the Idaho State President and National Vice-President of the Future Farmers of America. Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

==U.S. Senate==
In 1974, the people of Payette and Washington counties sent Craig to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's First District Congressional Seat. He was re-elected four times before winning the U.S. Senate election in 1990 and was re-elected to the Senate in 1996 and 2002. Senator Craig served as chairman of the Steering Committee, a legislative "think tank" and action group for Senate conservatives. He was the youngest senator ever elected to that position.

Craig quickly rose in the Senate leadership in his first term, when his colleagues elected him Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He was re-elected to that position in the 106th and 107th Congresses. The Committee is responsible for developing policy positions for Senate Republicans.

Craig has emerged as a leader for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, limited taxation, private property rights, and greater accountability in government. He has been recognized by national groups including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation,

With his appointment to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Craig oversees funding on the following subcommittees: Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development; Homeland Security; Labor, HHS, and Education; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Interior and Related Agencies, where he serves as the Ranking Member. He is also a member of the Special Committee on Aging, which he chaired during the 107th and 108th Congresses, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where he serves on the Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children's Health Protection Subcommittee and the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee.

In addition to his committee memberships, Craig sits on a number of caucuses including: Air Force; Diabetes; Congressional Sportsmen's; Senate Sweetener; WTO for Farmers and Ranchers; Congressional Potato; National Congressional Award Board of Directors; Idaho Safe Kids Coalition (Honorary Co-Chair); the Western States Senate Coalition; Education Advisory Committee to the National Youth Leadership Conference. He serves as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and helped to found and lead the CCAI, an institute working on adoption issues.

Craig is also on the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]], the Alliance to Save Energy, and he co-founded and co-chairs the Congressional Property Rights Coalition.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

==Airport incident==
On September 1, 2007, Craig announced he intended to resign from the Senate (effective September 30, 2007) after reports surfaced about an incident on June 11th, 2007 which he was arrested on a [[misdemeanor]] charge in a Minneapolis police airport sting operation in which Craig claimed entrapment.<ref>[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Craigtranscript.pdf Transcript of arrest interview] [http://www.break.com/index/senator-craig-police-audio-tape.html Audio]</ref> Craig is a regular commuter through the Minneapolis airport. After his arrest, Craig indicated he planned to plead guilty to the charges and continued on his trip. He had hoped to keep the arrest quiet, didn’t consult a lawyer, and he never told family, friends, staff or colleagues about the incident. Senator Craig returned to Minneapolis on August 8th, 2007 and plead guilty to disorderly conduct.<ref>John, McArdle,[http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/rollcall-search/search.html?subscriber_search=true&query=%22Craig+Arrested%2C+Pleads+Guilty+Following+Incident+in+Airport+Restroom+but+Says+He+Did+Nothing+Wrong&x=8&y=7 Craig Arrested, Pleads Guilty Following Incident in Airport Restroom but Says He Did Nothing Wrong], ''Roll Call'', August 27, 2007.</ref> After the incident became public, Craig hired two Washington criminal defense lawyers, Stan Brand, who has defended lawmakers before, and Billy Martin, whose most recent client was NFL quarterback [[Michael Vick]]. Craig also retained one of the capital’s top public-relations experts, Judy Smith, who handled press for [[Monica Lewinsky]] and more recently for U.S. Rep. [[William Jefferson]].<ref>[http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/149810.html Craig may not quit after all if he's cleared of charges, spokesman says], By GREGORY HAHN AND ERIKA BOLSTAD - ''Idaho Statesman'', 09/04/07.</ref>

Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on [[CNN]]'s ''Larry King Live'',

:"Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family.... we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this ...I think that that is more important than the politics of this. The politics of this will have to be resolved by him and the Republicans in the Senate."

Craig has also received support from Senator [[Arlen Specter]], and Sidney Smith, a spokesman for Larry Craig, has stated that the decision to resign may not be final.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RF0EGO0&show_article=1</ref>

Larry Craig's attempt to withdraw the guilty plea was rejected by a Hennepin County District Court judge on October 4th 2007. Senator Craig has indicated that his intention is to serve out his Senate term. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/craig.arrest/].</ref>

Should Craig choose not to resign, his third Senate term will expire in January 2009.<ref> [http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html (Idaho Statesman)] </ref> Craig earlier resigned as an adviser to [[Republican]] [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref>

Craig was dedicated spokesman on behalf of the people and economic base of Idaho who depend upon the [[timber]] and power industries,. Many [[environmentalist]]s believe his departure could be benificial for [[ecological]] causes, such as [[salmon]] recovery, which may cause economic disruption and unemployment in a conservative "flyover" state.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_go_co/salmon_democrats Sen. Craig's fall may benefit salmon]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators|Craig, Larry]]
[[Category:Republican Party|Craig, Larry]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2007-12-08T03:04:29Z

Claude: "wore black entirely,"

User talk:MichaelGaribaldi

2007-12-08T02:57:46Z

Claude: New page: Dude, check out the "watchdog's" WIGO talk page under "American Indian Genocide...." All will be clear. Who is this anyway? ~~~~

Dude, check out the "watchdog's" WIGO talk page under "American Indian Genocide...." All will be clear.

Who is this anyway? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 21:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Equal Rights Amendment

2007-12-07T03:36:24Z

Claude:

The Equal Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the [[United States Constitution | United States Constitution]] passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification within a deadline of seven years. The amendment, which was untitled, stated:

:SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of [[sex | sex]].

:SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

:SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The purpose of the Amendment was to prohibit many legal distinctions between men and women, and boys and girls. An all-male draft or male-only combat regimens would presumably have become illegal.{{fact}} But equal representation of boys and girls on sports teams, and the termination of all-boys or all-girls sports teams, would probably not have been required, since the courts usually treat some gender distinctions as a ''bona fida operating qualification'' for which discrimination is allowed.

35 out of 38 states passed this amendment, but opposition led by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] ultimately defeated it.<ref>Testimony in 2007 by Phyllis Schlafly against the Equal Rights Amendment is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7iEL54jY9Q here].</ref> Congress then extended the deadline to 1982 in legislation that a court later invalidated, but no more states passed the amendment in the additional three years anyway. Several states rescinded their prior passage of the amendment.

==History==
In 1923, three years after women won the right to vote, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in [[Congress]] and rejected in every one of its sessions until 1972.<ref>http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2003/ms003077.pdf</ref>

It was initially authored by [[Alice Paul]], head of the National Women's Party, who led the suffrage campaign. The original version of the ERA stated that "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction."

==Advocacy==

Much of the advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment is baseless. For example, a pro-ERA site claims that "[t]he new Constitution's promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children."<ref>http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm</ref>

In fact, the [[U.S. Constitution]] has never discriminated against women. It has always been gender-neutral.

==Canadian Equivalent==

The Canadian equivalent to the Equal Rights Amendment is known as Charter Section 28. It was ratified as a section of the constitution in 1982, and came into effect in 1985. Since then, many laws have been invalidated because they were in violation of Charter Section 28.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:law]]

Algerian War of Independence

2007-12-07T03:31:46Z

Claude:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Algerian War of Independence
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:FrenchTanksInAlgiers.png|240px]]
French tanks guard Algiers, c. March 1962
|-
|Combatants
|[[France]] vs. Algerian guerrillas
|-
|Strength
|''France'': 400,000 ''Algeria'': 43,000
|-
|Result:
|Algerian independence from France
|-
|}
The '''Algerian War of Independence''' (1954 - 1962) was a war fought between [[France]] and [[Algeria]], resulting in Algerian independence. The French loss marked the first defeat of a Western army by a non-[[Ottoman Empire|Turkic]] [[Muslim]] force since the [[Crusades]]. It should also be noted that even though France had over eight times the number of soldiers as Algeria, and all of the French soldiers supposedly had superior training, the Algerian guerrillas still won.

==External Links==
*[http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/webberm/algeria.htm USFCA Info on Algerian Revolution]
[[Category:Wars]]

Rome-Berlin Axis

2007-12-07T03:26:57Z

Claude: "Pack," eh?

The '''Rome-Berlin Axis''' was a coalition formed by [[Italy]] and [[Germany]]. It was by prepared by Galeazzo Ciano, Italy’s Foreign Minister. The agreement linked the two fascist countries informally on October 25, 1936. It was made formal by the Pact of Steel three years later.
[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-06T22:50:58Z

Claude:

I don't even know where to start with this one... did whoever write this article actually read Capital (or any of Marx's works), or is she paraphrasing Wikipedia?
:Really, opium was a good thing? That's weird. I thought that statement would imply that religion is a drug that desensitizes people... (In Marx's opinion, of course) I don't know too much about this guy, but from what I've seen, he looks kind of um... whacked. [[User:Mskreuz|Mskreuz]] 12:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sociologist? ==

Rob, why do you have a problem with categorizing Marx as a socilogist? Capital goes beyond being an analysis of political economy to an examination of the sociological effects (as Marx understood them) of that political economy. Please discuss. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:So, Is this the "poor Marx, he was misunderstood by [[mass murder]]ers" school of logic? We can save ourselves a lot of time and trouble right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:38, 6 December 2007 (EST)

No, it's not - in fact, you can read my comments on that subject on the Main Page talk page, where I clearly disavow those sorts of apologetics. What I'm saying is that one cannot ignore the fact that Marx's work had huge impacts on several fields - 18th Bruimaire is a key historical text, for example - just because one (rightfully) holds communism in low regard. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:Hitler was a social theoritician too, with about as good a credentials as Marx in the field. Should we put Hitler in Category:Philosphers & Category:Sociologists? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Are people in the academy still writing about his ideas and applying them to new situations as they are the ideas of Marx? Did Hitler's ideas lead to the work of such a large body of scholars such as Marcuse, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, CLR James, Padmore, Althuser, Benjamin, Lukacs, Fiske, Zizek, Dobnik, Foucault, Bhaba, Hebdige, Hall, Wallerstein, etc, etc.??? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:50, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-06T22:41:18Z

Claude:

Karl Marx

2007-12-06T22:26:16Z

Claude: See: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/ieesmarx.htm for a discussion of KM as a respected sociologist.

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category: Sociologists]]

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-06T22:16:51Z

Claude: Sociologist?

Talk:Politically correct

2007-12-06T20:21:08Z

Claude:

Hmmm. One hears so much about the "mainstream" these days. It would seem to me that, if conservatism is ''really'' based on unchanging, immutable principles, then a true conservative should not give a d*** about whether he is in the mainstream or not, and should not invoke the mainstream (besides, since some liberal views, such as the call for universal health care, are now supported by a vast majority, couldn't they then just as readily lay claim to the "mainstream" as well?? [[User:Boethius|Boethius]]

:And, not for nothing, but a source wouldn't be uncalled for somewhere in there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well there are a handful of sources now, but I can't write this thing by myself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Origins of the term==

I remember seeing an old campus [[comic strip]] with "Political Correctnessman" as a caped [[superhero]].

I also remember reading a European immigrant's writings about Nazi and Communist ideas of [[socially correct]] or [[ideologically correct]] ideas and language. It had more to do with content than wording, IIRC. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

''There are many outrageous examples of what is now considered objectionable in modern text books''
The source is to a description of a book written by [[Diane Ravitch]] and all I could find is ''A typical publisher’s guideline advises that...'' There is no mention of which publisher(s) or which textbooks. That is perhaps quoting opinion as fact and is likely in breach of [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] 2, footnote 1. The book itself perhaps does mention which publisher(s) or textbooks. The book and page number should be given as the source. As it stands at the moment accuracy is questionable.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:If the statement is not backed by the source, please correct or remove the statement. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The source is where the statement comes from. That is not being questioned. I am questioning the accuracy of the source. I am unsure if that breaks any [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], I know much higher standards apply here than at wikipedia, consequently I am very reluctant to edit for fear of braking any rules myself.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

As both a children's librarian and a published writer of children's book, I can vouch that the publisher's forbidden list is purest BS. Harry Potter alone breaks all those commandments. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 00:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:In that case, please edit it. It seems to be a weak flailing, the "anti-PC" perspective is well represented and described without it. Perhaps an example of ''genuine'' PC writing for children ''might'' have a place here (you know, the "Jane Has Two Mommies" type of thing), althoug it must be presented as a writing movement rather than a publishing dictum. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 'source' is a review of a book which appears written with the express intent of creating controversy, and with no context given even for its place in the book. Im going to take it out, and give the rest a general tidyup. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Liberal this, Liberal that==

Oh just grow up Andy. Seriously, you're past the point of pathetic at this stage. (I'm referring to your recent editing of this article)

Do you have a girlfriend, out of interest? [[User:Smith090|Smith090]] 19:28, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

==Humorous early example==

This example predates the term, but it is may be worthy of inclusion. In 1957, on the ''Stan Freburg Radio Show'', they did a routine called [http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=3473 "Elderly Man River"]in which a network censor, complete with buzzer, interrupts a performance of "Old Man River", by adjusting the language and the grammer so as not to offend, "more elderly people" and to "Keep in mind the tiny tots" ending in a hilarious PC version of a classic song. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 10:46, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

==Replacing Muslim with Jewish holiday in the example section==
I've done so for two reasons:
* Eid does not refer to a particular holiday. This Arabic word actually means "Holiday" (or properly "festivity" or "event").
* The Muslim calendar is lunar, as opposed to the Christian solar and Jewish hybrid (lunar with a solar leap-month). This causes the seasons in which their holidays appear to change over time.
:While Kwanza is a recent invention, it maybe a troublesome argument to claim either Eid or Hanukkah are part of a politically correct movement. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Especially given the fact that Eid does not necessarily overlap with Christmas as Chanukkah does.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 15:21, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Politically correct

2007-12-06T20:04:33Z

Claude:

[[Image:Political Correctness.jpg|right|275px]]
'''Politically correct language''', or ''political correctness'', consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups, particularly by [[liberals]]. The modern politically correct movement began at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]], one of the most [[liberal]] institutions in the [[United States]]. George Orwell's ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' famously incorporated the notion sof limiting thought through language (see [[Newspeak]]).

Political correctness (often abbreviated to "polcor" or "PC") is the use of language or behaviour said to be intended to provide a minimum of offence, particularly to racial, gender, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the ideas of political correctness is said to be 'politically correct'. Its proponents are often derisively described as the "PC Brigade".

Political correctness re-emerged on U.S. university campuses during the 1980s and 1990s, and is essentially a politically-motivated programme of attempted language manipulation. It is strongly associated with feminism, post-modernism and the academic left. The term 'PC' is often used to refer to any practice or decision which has been noticably influenced by, or which seeks to promote, a post-modernist, leftist or feminist agenda. However, prescriptive language reform remains one of its key components.

The language reforms demanded by polcor advocates are superficially reminiscent of historical - largely conservative and middle-class - attempts to insist upon good manners and polite speech in order to avoid giving offence. However, the language reforms demanded by the PC movement go far beyond mere politeness.

The theory advocated by polcorists, therefore, is to transform political and social reality by transforming language; if one wants to abolish 'racism', all one needs to do is to abolish 'racist' words or language, and everything else will follow, because people will literally no longer be able to frame racist ideas.

What counts as 'politically correct' language changes arbitrarily over time according to the whims of government and awry intellectuals.
==Brainwashing or Conditioning==

[[Political correctness]] is a form of brainwashing or conditioning using manipulative 'inclusive' or 'neutral' language based on the '''Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis''' and upon earlier research at the '''Frankfurt School'''.
===Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis===

The '''Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis''' holds that there is a systematic relationship between language and how a person both understands the world and behaves in it. (Although it has come to be known as the '''Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis''', it rather was an axiom underlying the work of linguist and anthropologist Edward Sapir and his colleague and student Benjamin Whorf.)

It is an academic theory which argues that our language determines our thoughts. ''The idea is that without particular words in which to express them, we will be literally unable to think particular thoughts.'' Put simply, the hypothesis argues that the nature of a particular language influences the habitual thought of its users.

Different patterns of language yield different patterns of thought. It is sometimes expressed as 'language determines thought', suggesting that speakers of another language might have a view of the world very different from our own. The artificial language '''Loglan''' (Logical Language) was originally intended to test the '''Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis'''. The idea was that a logical language would be so different from any natural language that differences in thought should be readily detected, if the '''Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis''' were true.

The science fiction novel ''Babel-17'' imagines an artificial language that can turn its speakers into traitors. In ''Snow Crash'' language hackers can control people’s minds by speaking to them in a special language.

===The Frankfurt School===

[[Political correctness]] started off as a 'think tank', the Institute for Social Research (better known as the '''Frankfurt School'''), in Germany in 1923. Its original remit was to apply Freudian brainwashing techniques in spreading Soviet spin and propaganda through word manipulation, by changing concepts, and meanings of words, and to taboo the use of certain words. In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Institute moved to the U.S. where they continued to use Freud's guilt-and-fear conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into [[political correctness]].

This research was quickly taken up by zealots at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (long associated with extremism like [[political correctness]], [[feminism]], and inventing the car bomb{{fact}}) and when the University's chancellor, Donna Shalala, was appointed ''Secretary of Health & Human Services'' by ex-president Bill Clinton she wasted no time in propagating these extremist ideologies.

==History==
The earliest reference to the concept of '''political correctness''' is in Robert LaFolette's 1912 memoirs:

:"Speaking of his education at the University of Wisconsin, he says "In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name."

[[Liberal]]s impose [[political correctness]] to prevent recognition of differences between men and women, religions, belief systems, and nationalities. In the 1960s, [[feminists]] began to demand that the neutral pronouns ''he'', ''him'' and ''his'' be replaced with expressions like "he or she", "him or her", "them", etc. This was part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity.

Other groups jumped on the political correctness bandwagon, with handicapped people dodging the kindly meant slogan, "Hire the handicapped", and insisting that their condition was not abnormal. Rather, they were to be called, "differently abled".

'''Political correctness''' or '''P.C.''' eventually came to refer to the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative "leaders" or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well. After thorough public ridicule of [[liberal]] imposition of '''political correctness''', liberals themselves began to distance themselves from it in public ways. [[Liberal]] comedians [[Bill Mahr]], [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Stephen Colbert]] have sought to attract viewers by attacking '''political correctness''' themselves. Some more serious [[liberals]], such as Nat Hentoff, Richard Lamm, and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., have also been critical of '''political correctness'''.

==Examples==

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored", once perfectly acceptable terms, were declared degrading and offensive by some activists during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "[[African Americans|African-American]]", and in broader usage, "people of color".

The distinction for example between "colored people" (1950s-60s usage) and "people of color" (today) is an important one which illustrates the basis of political correctness.

The question of politically correct language has spilled over from the use of racially descriptive words and affected the use of traditional language. In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word meaning "stingy," unrelated to the racial slur). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resigned even though he had not said anything racially charged, though his name was cleared within a matter of days and was offered to return to his previous position. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm</ref>

As well as language, political correctness discourages the use of racial or stereotypes in fiction out of concern that these stereotypes may become self-perpetuating. For example, frequently seeing the image black gang-members decked out in gold chains, carrying guns and listening to rap may pressure young black people into seeing this lifestyle as the most 'acceptable' choice for their racial group. The common image of women-only occupations (nurses, secretaries, care workers, etc) and of men-only occupations (IT workers, military, machinery operators, etc) can discourage individuals of either gender from considering those occupations traditionally belonging to the other. Additionally films like "The Siege" and "True Lies" have been criticized by pro-Islamic groups as having Muslims portrayed as terrorists, despite the fact that most current terrorists are in fact Muslims. Thus political correctness becomes the consideration of all public statements and media for their unintentional social impact.

Glossing over the [[Christmas]] holiday by using "holidays", "the season", and other terms which omit the name of Christ, is another example of political correctness, or if Christmas is acknowledged at all it is only alongside non-Christian holidays like the recent invention [[Kwanzaa]].

==Differing Opinions==

Demands for politically correct language usage are rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and excluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics.{{fact}} The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphasize their difference from the "norm".

Some people allege that instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as [[identity politics]]. According to this view, gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves;{{fact}} Black Americans are encouraged to adopt [[Afrocentrism]] and convert to [[Islam]] or to conform to stereotypical black behavior, etc.{{fact}}

==The Language Police==
Conservative scholar [[Robert Bork]] has charged that the educational system is a battleground where the future of America is being undermined and ill-served. He has counseled against the troubles which will ensue as a result of anti-religious policies in the schools, permissive attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion, as well as welfare policies that have destroyed families since [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s War on Poverty. <ref> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. by Robert Bork published by Harper Collins (c) 1997</ref>

In her book "[[The Language Police]]", [[Diane Ravitch]] documents just how easy it is to get a word, phrase or idea banned from modern textbooks and references. Textbook producers are beholden to small non-elected educational boards in a few key states such as New York or California. Few citizens know anything about these boards or who holds the seats of power on these boards. It's not a difficult for an interest group to mobilize a campaign to bombard the educational board. Meanwhile, the public is not even aware that their words or values are under attack.

Then, once a big state makes a textbook purchase, it's very difficult for a small state or any municipality to make any changes. Thus, profound changes can be inserted into textbooks and reference books by putting pressure on a handful of educational administrators. The work of textbook selection committee's is done privately, to avoid politicizing textbooks, but the reverse has happened. It's easier to pressure a lawmaker who is not beholden to community standards, but instead is enamored with political correctness. <ref>The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Children Learn by [[Diane Ravitch]] (c) 2003 published by Knopf</ref> Ravitch has documented "''bias guidelines''" for major publishers of texts and tests. These "guidelines" consist of advice to writers and editors about words and topics that must be avoided.<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003695</ref>

==Totalitarianism and Political Correctness==

The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of [[totalitarian]] regimes.[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816(196002)22%3A1%3C68%3ATIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W] This could be viewed as an argument for or against the politically correct use of language, depending on one's perspective.
==See Also==
*[[Postmodernism]]

==Notes==

<references/>

==References==
An excellent expose [http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/pc.htm "Political Correctness"] by Philip Atkinson

[[Dinesh D'Souza]]. ''Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus New York'' Macmillan, Inc./The Free Press, 1991, ISBN 0-684-86384-7

Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf. ''The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook'' Villard Books, 1992, paperback 176 pp, ISBN 0-586-21726-6

David E. Bernstein. "You Can't Say That! Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Anti-discrimination Laws" Cato Institute 2003, 180 pp, ISBN 1-930865-53-8

Daniel Brandt. "An Incorrect Political Memoir" Lobster Issue 24: December 1992

William S. Lind. "The Origins of Political Correctness" Accuracy in Academia, 2000

Nat Hentoff. ''Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee'' HarperCollins, 1992, ISBN 0-06-019006-X

Diane Ravitch. ''The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn'' Knopf, 2003, hardcover, 255 pp

Nigel Rees. ''The Politically Correct Phrasebook: what they say you can and cannot say in the 1990s'' Bloomsbury, 1993, 192 pp, ISBN 0-7475-1426-7

Kors, Alan C.; Silverglate, Harvey A. (1998) ''The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses'' New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-85321-3

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. ''The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society'' W.W. Norton, 1998 revised edition, ISBN 0-393-31854-0

Howard S. Schwartz. ''Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness'' Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003 Revised Paperback Edition ISBN 0-765-80537-5

''Campaign Against Political Correctness'' List of examples cited by the Daily Mail

Berman, Paul. ed. ''Debating P.C.: The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses'' New York: Dell, 1992

Bloom, Allan. ''The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students'' New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987

[[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza, Dinesh]]. ''Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus'' New York: Vintage Books, 1992

Levine, Lawrence W. ''The Opening of the American Mind: Canons, Culture, and History'' Boston: Beacon Press, 1996

Wilson, John K. ''The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education'' Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995

==External Links==
*[http://www.capc.co.uk The Campaign Against Political Correctness]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=8olE_futZogC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=communist+%22socially+correct%22&source=web&ots=DYD85Lsf1G&sig=pkoUxDOLFJZsme40QO13zakFZw4 The Chinese Have A Word For It]

[[Category:Politics]]

Mayflower

2007-12-06T19:52:09Z

Claude:

The '''Mayflower''' was one of the first [[ship]]s to sail and bring [[Christianity|Christians]] from [[England]] to what was then the [[New World]]. British [[Puritans]] yearned to establish a Christian society free from the religious oppression that they had faced in England.

Under the [[Captain Christopher Jones]], in 1620 one hundred and two [[Pilgrims]] made a 3,000 mile voyage from England to America during autumn storms. When it left England there were three pregnant women and a crew of 25-30. Food was usually oatmeal, peas, pork, fish, beans, cheese and other foods that could be stored for long periods of time. The Mayflower could carry 180 large barrels of food storage along with Pilgrims furniture and tools.

Pilgrims spent 65 straight days living in the ships hold with no privacy and only a chamber pot for a toilet. They were not prepared for the rough waters of their long voyage. They suffered injuries from being thrown against the walls as the wind and wave tossed the ship. Besides the injuries many were seasick. At sea, Elizabeth Hopkins gave birth to a son she named Oceanus. After the Mayflower anchored in Provincetown harbor off the tip of [[Cape Cod]], Susanna White gave birth to a son she named Peregrine(one who has made a journey). The Mayflower then sailed across the bay and anchored at [[Plymouth Harbor]] where Mary Allerton gave birth to a stillborn son. One passenger died while at sea three days before land was sighted and one crew member also died.

The ship's passengers made the [[Mayflower Compact]], a set of laws they would follow upon landing in [[America]].

==Sources==

Caffry, Kate The Mayflower (1974)
Gill, Crispin, Mayflower Remembered (1970)

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Ships]]

Mayflower

2007-12-06T19:51:19Z

Claude: 1. It wasn't all "citizens," it was the Puritans. 2. Even at that, there were no British "citizens" - they were subjects, not citizens.

The '''Mayflower''' was one of the first [[ship]]s to sail and bring [[Christianity|Christians]] from [[England]] to what was then the [[New World]]. British [[Puritans]] yearned to establish a Christian society free from the religious oppression that they had faced in England.

Under the [[Captain Christopher Jones]], in 1620 one hundred and two [[Pilgrims]] made a 3,000 mile voyage from England to America during autumn storms. When it left England there were three pregnant women and a crew of 25-30. Food was usually oatmeal, peas, pork, fish, beans, cheese and other foods that could be stored for long periods of time. The Mayflower could carry 180 large barrels of food storage along with Pilgrims furniture and tools.

Pilgrams spent 65 straight days living in the ships hold with no privacy and only a chamber pot for a toilet. They were not prepared for the rough waters of their long voyage. They suffered injuries from being thrown against the walls of the wind and wave tossed ship. Besides the injuries many were seasick. At sea, Elizabeth Hopkins gave birth to a son she named Oceanus. After the Mayflower anchored in Provincetown harbor off the tip of [[Cape Cod]], Susanna White gave birth to a son she named Peregrine(one who has made a journey). The Mayflower then sailed across the bay and anchored at [[Plymouth Harbor]] where Mary Allerton gave birth to a stillborn son. One passenger died while at sea three days before land was sighted and one crew member also died.

The ship's passengers made the [[Mayflower Compact]], a set of laws they would follow upon landing in [[America]].

==Sources==

Caffry, Kate The Mayflower (1974)
Gill, Crispin, Mayflower Remembered (1970)

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Ships]]

Talk:Frank Jasper

2007-12-06T19:45:40Z

Claude: New page: I thought there was some sort of rule around here about trivial pop-culture entries. ~~~~

I thought there was some sort of rule around here about trivial pop-culture entries. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:45, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Icelandic language

2007-12-06T19:43:06Z

Claude:

'''Icelandic''' is the official language of [[Iceland]]. It is one of the most well-preserved languages in the world. The alphabet contains letters not found in the English alphabet, such as æ, ð and þ.

[[Category: Languages]]

His Dark Materials (novel)

2007-12-06T19:32:40Z

Claude: Are there any "nonfiction fantasy novels?"

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of fantasy novels written by [[Britain|British]] author Philip Pullman. It has caused controversy due to themes of anti-theism and the author's [[atheist]] and [[secularist]] beliefs.

The trilogy consists of ''The Golden Compass'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''The Subtle Knife'' (published in 1997) and ''The Amber Spyglass'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''Paradise Lost'' by [[John Milton]], [http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html], a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.
{{uncited2}}

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa . They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love, and it is implied, but not clearly stated, that they engage in intercourse. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They make the ultimate sacrifice, deciding that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names [http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html]. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, the character's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is believed to be immortal and limitless in power.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan" </ref>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass'' <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North" </ref>

==Religious Response==
The majority of Christians online believe that the trilogy is overly [[atheist]] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341], [[pantheism|pantheist]] [http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php], or [[humanist]] [http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html]. It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation. [http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322].
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category: Books]]

Religion in India

2007-12-06T19:31:44Z

Claude:

==History==
Four major world religions [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Jainism]] and [[Sikhism]] were founded in Indian subcontinent. in addition, [[Islam]] has been an important force on the subcontinent sine the seventh century.

The first identifiably [[Jewish]] migrants arrived in India as the Bene Israel group. There is some debate as to the Jewishness of a possibly older group of Indians in the Northeastern part of the country called the Bnei Menashe. [[Christianity]] arrived in India in the first century A.D., possibly through the travels of the [[Apostle Thomas]], whose tomb in the Indian city of Chennai is a major pilgrimage site for Christians in India. [[Islam]] arrived partly through the implementation of holy war or "[[Jihad]]" by Arab militants led by [[Muhammad bin-Qasim]] in the latter half of the 8th century A.D., and partly through the efforts of Arab traders in South India. It continued to spread with invasions, wars and forced conversions by Afghans and Turkic Mongols. Eventually, peace settled and they slowly integrated into the society and formed India's Islamic tradition. The [[Taj Mahal]], India's national monument, was built by a Muslim emperor named Shah Jahan.

==Demographics==
'''Hinduism''' is India's largest religion; 80.4% of the population are Hindu.
'''Islam''' is the largest minority religion in India; 13.4% of the population are Muslim.
'''Christianity''' is the third largest religion of India; 2.3% of the population are Christians.
India is home to 12 million '''Buddhists'''; 0.773% of the population are Buddhists. 4.2 million '''Jains''' live in India; 0.4% of the population are Jains. According to census of 2001, there are 19.2 million '''Sikhs''' in India. 0.006% of the population are '''Parsis''' ('''Zoroastrians'''). 2.2 million people in India follow the '''Bahá'í Faith''', which is the largest national contingent of Bahá'ís in the world. '''Jews''' are a religious minority of India, and are concentrated in the states of Kerala and Maharashtra. 2% of the population are '''atheists'''.

==Conflicts and violence==
Hindu nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism are prevalent in India since independence. In the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, more than 4,000 Sikhs were killed by Hindu mobsters. From December 1992 to January 1993, 900 people died in the riots between Hindus and Muslims in Mumbai (then Bombay). The 2002 Gujarat violence killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.

==Violence towards Christians==
{{main|Violence towards Christians in India}}

Hindu nationalist groups like '''Bajrang Dal''', '''Vishva Hindu Parishad''' ('''VHP''') have anti-Christian sentiment. VHP has engaged in several programs to convert Christians to Hinduism. In a well-publicised case, Bajrang Dal member Dara Singh and 12 others killed Graham Staines, a Christian missionary and his two sons Philip and Timothy (aged 10 and 8 respectively). Graham Staines was working with leprosy sufferers for 34 years. '''Shiv Sena''', a political party in India, remain opposed to Valentine's Day celebrations and members of Shiv Sena carried out violent attacks on shops and restaurants organising Valentine's Day.

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:India]]

Bomb

2007-12-06T19:28:01Z

Claude:

{{stub}}A '''bomb''' is an explosive weapon used primarily in [[War|warfare]] or [[terrorism]].
[[Category:weapons]]

Taking Books Program

2007-12-06T19:27:16Z

Claude: ain't nothing "free."

The '''Talking Books Program''' is part of the [[Library of Congress]]' National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS). Persons who are blind and visually/physically impaired may qualify for books paid for by the state through this program. Persons with reading disabilities may also qualify in certain cases. Materials are shipped postage-free using the Free Matter for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Mail.<ref> http://www.loc.gov/nls/</ref>

Talking Books are currently available in four-track cassette format. However, NLS is beginning a new digital download pilot project for books. <ref>https://www.nlstalkingbooks.org/dtb/</ref>

Persons interested in learning about more library related resources for visually impaired or physically handicapped inviduals can visit various internet related blogs on the topics. An example of such a blog is one written by the Talking Books Librarian.<ref> http://talkingbookslibrarian.blogspot.com/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Education Resources]]

Talk:Tesseract

2007-12-06T19:21:36Z

Claude:

==Description==
I don't want to step on toes, while this page is being created, but it would be better to say that a tesseract can be "depicted in three dimensions as a cube suspended inside another cube, with connections at each if the corresponding vertices." The three dimensional representation is not an actual tesseract, any more than a drawing of a cube on a flat piece of paper is actually a cube. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:05, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== What exactly is this article about? ==

Is this something from a children's book or something? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Sort of, the theory was used in a wrinkle in time though definitivy not elaborated upon.

Could you rephrase that in a complete sentence without non-words like "definitivy" and then explain why this concept is encyclopedic? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:21, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Tesseract

2007-12-06T19:16:55Z

Claude: What exactly is this article about?

Talk:Conservative

2007-12-06T19:14:00Z

Claude:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
****Interesting, it seems you therefore support affirmative action towards those who hold conservative views. The article on this very site about the subject is extremely critical of affirmative action, and yet here it is being basically said that the conservative view is unable to compete in a marketplace of free ideas. Very disapointing! - Colduck77
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== The nature of the page ==

It would seem to me that the nature of the page seems to be more in relation to the actual ideology of conservatism than of conservatives in general. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have the introduction rewritten appropriately, and then move this page to an article entitled "Conservatism" (with the appropriate redirection, of course)? [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 21:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Neoconservative? ==

This description sounds more like what a neolibertarian would be. Neoconservatives would support increased government spending (especially on the military) and an interventionist foreign policy based on spreading democracy throughout the world (especially the Middle East). Neolibertarians also support an interventionist foreign policy, though as libertarians, they would support limited government and would be "amoral."

I think there should be "paleoconservative" (Pat Buchanan, etc.), "neoconservative" (Bush, etc.), and "mainstream conservative" (a mix of both ideologies, e.g. Reagan). The same should apply to the article on libertarianism - "paleolibertarian," "neolibertarian," "anarcho-capitalist," (party) "Libertarian," etc.

What do you think? --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 22:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

:Where did this word, "paleoconservative," originate? I am beginning to feel uneasy about it without a source. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

[[The Nation]], 20 October, 1984, according to Lexis-Nexis.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Negro

2007-12-06T19:09:36Z

Claude:

==Why delete?==

This is a perfectly valid topic? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Not here. Not yet. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, that's arcane. So you decide wether or not something is valid for people to look at? That sounds like censorship to me. I don't see why we can't have open discussions about topics that are uncomfortable "yet" [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, I will take it to AFD not speedy. And expand my reasons there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Deleting this term & changing the links ==

Apparently it's been deleted before. If the Admins agree that it should be deleted again, I'd be happy to change all the pages that link to it, so it won't show up as "wanted."-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:00, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Is this site now offering a one-word Spanish-English dictionary? Either allow for an entry that discusses what the word means and its rich and varied cultural history in the US, the Caribbean and elsewhere, from racist uses to the United Negro College Fund, or leave it blank. This current version is a cop-out. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:The entry says exactly "what the word means" even better than wikipedia does. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's entry. Why does this one Spanish word warrant an entry? When are you going to get going on the rest of the language?[[User:Claude|Claude]] 18:38, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:This is educational. Negro is the Spanish word for black. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:56, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Then I eagerly await the rest of your entries to the Spanish translations category I've started for you. I'd do it myself, but I don't speak Spanish.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:09, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Halifax

2007-12-06T18:23:51Z

Claude:

'''Halifax''' is the capital of the province of [[Nova Scotia]], [[Canada]]. The city was founded in 1748 in an excellent natural harbour, well protected from the elements, and at the time the French Navy. (The city was founded before the [[Seven Years War]]), and was a vital link for the Canadian war effort in both [[World War I]] and [[World War II]] as [[convoys]] to cross the [[Atlantic Ocean]] formed there. In 1917, the city was devastated by a huge explosion created by the collision of two ships, creating one of the largest explosions until the [[Trinity_(atomic_explosion)|Trinity Test]], the first atomic bomb. To honor the relief to the city from the people of Boston during the aftermath of the explosion, Halifax sends a Christmas tree to Boston every year.
The population of Halifax in 2006 was 372,629. <ref> 2006 Canadian Census : [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=802&PR=12&S=0&O=A&RPP=25]</ref> The city now is the centre of government for Nova Scotia, as well as a major Canadian naval base, and a large intermodal port.

== External Links ==
* [http://www.halifaxinfo.com/ Halifax Tourism Information)]

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

==See Also==
[[Halifax Nova Scotia Temple]]

[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Canada]]

Eve

2007-12-06T17:55:32Z

Claude:

A common woman's name. From the Hebrew ''Chavah'', derived from the verb to breathe, or the word life.

In the Bible, '''Eve''' is the name of the first [[woman]]. According to [[Genesis]], [[The Lord]] made her from one of [[Adam]]'s ribs when he was asleep and was then his helpmate and companion. Eve was approached by the serpent ([[Satan]]) and gave in to the serpent's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit. Eve then had Adam do so as well. Both knew they were breaking God's command. As punishment for Eve's sin, women were made subject to men and were forced to endure painful childbirth. Men were also punished. This is the origin of the concept of [[Original Sin]].

Eve gave birth to many children. The three mentioned in the Bible are [[Cain]], [[Abel]], and [[Seth]]

[[Category:Biblical persons]]
[[Category:Abrahamic religions]]

Piano

2007-12-06T03:42:34Z

Claude: Added a few non-white pianists.

[[Image:Piano.jpg|thumb]]
A '''piano''' (French: piano, German: Klavier, Russian: фортепиано, Spanish: piano)
(short for pianoforte, which is Italian for "soft - loud") is a stringed musical instrument played by means of a mechanical linkage to a [[keyboard]]. Pressing the keys down causes hammers to strike the strings. It was referred to by famous composer Ludwig van [[Beethoven]] as "the god of all instruments". [[Franz Liszt]] famously stated, "Why do you need an orchestra when you have a grand piano with 88 keys?"

A modern piano should properly have three pedals. The left pedal is called the ''soft pedal'' or ''una corda.'' On a grand piano it shifts the hammer assembly so that the hammers strike only two of the three [[strings]] for each note (or, in the case of the double-strung notes, only one of the two strings). This does not just make the sound softer, it changes its tonal characteristics.

The right pedal is the "loud pedal" or "damper pedal." Normally, releasing a key causes a felt damper to press against the string so that it stops sounding. The damper pedal prevents the dampers from actuating, so that every note continues to sound until the sound decays naturally. The middle pedal is the "sustaining pedal." It affects ''only the dampers that are lifted when the pedal is engaged.'' The result is that the pianist can strike a chord, and engage the sustaining pedal; the chord will then continue to sound while freeing the pianist hand's to play other notes.

Smaller piano models may take shortcuts with the pedal functions The "soft pedal" may move the hammers closer to the strings instead of shifting them sideways. The "sustaining pedal" may simply disengage the dampers from all of the bass strings, or may be missing altogether.

Famous pianists include [[Arlene Cole]], [[Glenn Gould]], [[Vladimir Horowitz]], [[Elton John]], Ben Folds, [[Liberace]], Freddie Mercury, [[Artur Rubenstein]], [[Rick Wakeman]], [[Richard Clayderman]] [[Oscar Peterson]], [[Nina Simone]], [[Bud Powell]], [[Thelonious Monk]], and [[Herbie Hancock]].

[[Category:Musical Instrument]]

Category:Sociologists

2007-12-06T03:38:37Z

Claude: New page: Auguste Comte Karl Marx Max Weber

[[Auguste Comte]]

[[Karl Marx]]

[[Max Weber]]

Battle of Passchendale

2007-12-06T00:09:36Z

Claude:

{{stub}}{{uncited}}

The '''Battle of Passchendale''' was also known as the Third Battle of Ypres. This third battle was fought in Ypres, [[Belgium]] which had seen two previous battles, one in 1914 and one one 1915. The Third Battle of Ypres lasted 18 months beginning in 1917 was was to relieve pressure from the French troops who had low morale after their own terrible losses of the [[Nivelle Offensive]].

In this battle the [[United Kingdom|British]] hid 19 huge land mines underneath the [[Germany|German]] lines. Unfortunately for the British, once the land mines exploded, the British did not move fast enough and became bogged down by the ensuing rain.

In October 1917, the [[Canadian]] Corps, under Sir Arthur Currie was called upon to complete the battle, after their victory at the [[Battle of Vimy Ridge]]. Currie felt that the battle would of little value and a high cost. After two weeks of fighting the Canadians would capture the town, although the losses were high. Of 20,000 initial Canadian troops nearly 75% (15,654) were either killed or wounded. It total the Allies suffered 448,000 casualties and the Germans 260,000.

This battle ended as another stalemate for the Allies. The battle had become another instance of Generals fighting current battles with old tactics at horrific losses.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Passchendale, Battle of}}
[[Category:World War I Battles]]

Negro

2007-12-05T23:38:37Z

Claude:

'''Negro''' (pronounced '''nay-gro''') is the [[Spanish]] word for [[black]].

[[Category: Spanish-English Translations]]

Talk:Negro

2007-12-05T23:38:02Z

Claude:

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-12-05T23:36:47Z

Claude:

== Say What?! ==

"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe one could use bombs as bridge abutments? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== One can argue ... anything ==
"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."

And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If you really want to put the bible into it, remember that God did kill all of humanity, raze several cities, and destroy livestock and firstborn sons. Of course, God is the first and ultimate WMD.

==Boeing 747==
Since when has a 747 had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since September 11th, 2001. [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 00:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: None of the planes was a 747. Furthermore, planes aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It's an example of duel use technology; with the proper knowhow, i.e. training, a civilian aircraft was transformed into a kamikazi missile that killed 2900+ persons, i.e. a weapon of mass destruction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Revamping==

This article is in need of a severe revamp to eliminate POV, make it more like an encyclopedia entry, and get rid of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 01:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Go right ahead then.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Irrelevant==
''To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although the possibility that they were exported to a neighboring country is still open.''

Just out of curiosity, how can this be irrelevant to the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD's? Granted, it presently bears somewhat of a liberal slant, but this could be fixed just by clarifying that the WMD's were most likely destroyed or exported prior to investigation. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:Well, the US funded the [[Manhattan project]] to the tune of $4 billion (about $80 billion in todays money) to prevent [[Hitler]] from getting WMD first. Turns out, Hitler didn't even have a nuke program and I don't hear anyone calling for [[FDR]]'s [[impeachment]], or what a scam, [[fraud]], and bogus war that was. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:41, 20 November 2007 (EST)

If Hitler was seeking WMD's from other countries and looking to develop a nuke program, like Saddam was, then I would say to include it in the article. Obviously he wasn't, so we haven't. But considering that the article specifically addresses Saddam's looking to arm himself with WMD's, why shouldn't we inform readers as to what the eventual outcome was? Why would we exclude that relevant information? He ''did'' have an interest, he ''did'' have a program - what happened to all that? The article should give some idea, at least. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Telegraph Article and WMDs... ==

C'mon, surely you can do better than that. That article is dated July 2004 - three and a half years ago. More importantly, it *speculates* that WMDs may have been transported - it offers no evidence that this was the case. I'll change the article to reflect what your little article actually says into you can produce something with evidence that those mysterious WMDs are somewhere else. Good luck.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:You are still missing the point here and in numerous other discussions: no one ever said "WMD '''stockpiles'''", only the [[liberal media]] and other assorted types said so ''after'' the 2003 invasion. We are just not going to allow that kind of historical revisionism here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:29, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Well, *I* never said anything about stockpiles, so I don't know what you're getting at with that. My edit only brought the article in line with the evidence given.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 18:36, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Reynard

2007-12-05T23:16:13Z

Claude:

'''Reynard''' the Fox is a character who appears throughout medieval [[literature]]. He generally represents a conniving, [[deceit | deceitful]] character.

"Reynard" is the [[French]] word for [[fox]].

[[category:Literary Figures]]

Koran

2007-12-05T23:12:17Z

Claude:

[[Image:Opened Qur'an.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A copy of the Qur'an opened for study.]]
The '''Qur'an''', also called the '''Koran''' ('''القرآن''' in [[Arabic]]) is the sacred scripture of [[Islam]]. It is analogous to the [[Bible]] for [[Christian|Christians]].

==Sources==
Scolars and theologians have identified six main sources for the contents of the Qur'an. The [[Catholic Bible]] states: "The sources of the Koran be reduced to -

*The [[Old Testament]] (canonical and apocryphal) and the hybrid [[Judaism]] of the late rabbinical schools. During Mohammed's time the Jews were numerous in many parts of Arabia, especially around Medina. Familiarity with them is undoubtly responsible for many Old Testament stories alluded to in Koran. Later Judaism and Rabbinism are equally well represented (Geiger, "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?", Wiesbaden, 1833; tr. "Judaism and Islam", Madras, 1898).
*The [[New Testament]] (canonical and apocryphal) and various heretical doctrines. On his journeys between Syria, Hijaz, and Yemen, Mohammed had every opportunity to come in close touch with Yemenite, Abyssinian, Ghassanite, and Syrian [[Christianity|Christians]], especially heretics. Hence, while the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends, on the other hand, are one of the original sources of Koranic faith. (See Muir, op. cit. infra, 66-239; Tisdall, "The Original Sources of the Qur'an", London, 1905, 55-211.)
*[[Sabaism]], a combination of Judaism, [[Manicheism]], and old disfigured Babylonian [[heathen]]ism.
*[[Zoroastrianism]]. On account of Persia's political influence in the north-eastern part of Arabia, it is natural to find Zoroastrian elements in the Koran.
*[[Hanifism]], the adherents of which, called Hanifs, must have been considerable in number and influence, as it is known from contemporary Arabian sources that twelve of Mohammed's followers were members of this sect.
*Native ancient and contemporary Arabian heathen beliefs and practices. Wellhausen has collected in his "Reste des arabischen Heidentums" (Berlin, 1897) all that is known of pre-Islamic Arabian heathen belief, traditions, customs, and superstitions, many of which are either alluded to or accepted and incorporated in the Koran. From the various sects and creeds, and Abul-Fida, the well-known historian and geographer of the twelfth century, it is clear that religious beliefs and practices of the Arabs of Mohammed's day form one of the many sources of Islam. From this heathen source Islam derived the practices of polygamy and slavery, which Mohammed sanctioned by adopting them."<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08692a.htm Koran], by Gabriel Oussani, ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Book of Worship]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Captain Kirk

2007-12-05T23:07:19Z

Claude:

'''Captain Kirk''' or James Tiberius Kirk, was the fictional captain of the U.S.S Enterprise in the TV series [[Star Trek]]. He was known to mix strong leadership with inspired and intuitive emotional choices. An active character and the chief protagonist of the show, Kirk was constantly getting himself and his crew out of binds that often involved him getting involved in physical fighting. Kirk was also a bit of a womanizer, a role that was somewhat risque for television series from the 1960's.

The part of Captain Kirk was played by [[William Shatner]]. His style of quick delivery and pauses when playing the character of Captain Kirk has been mimicked over the years in good natured fun.

[[Category: Star Trek]]

Eric Robert Rudolph

2007-12-05T23:03:59Z

Claude:

'''Eric Rudolph''' is an American terrorist. Inspired by his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual beliefs, he committed four bombings, killing three. He is currently incarcerated.

==Attacks==

Rudolph's most famous attack was a bombing at the [[Atlanta Olympics]], which killed Alice Hawthorne and injured her daughter and 110 other spectators. The attack was originally blamed on the hero security guard who found the bag, [[Richard Jewell]], in a horrible case of trial by media. When it was recognized Rudolph was behind the attack, he was placed on the [[FBI]]'s [[most wanted list]]. He also bombed 2 abortion clinics, killing 2 (including an off duty policeman hiring himself out as a security guard), and a gay and lesbian night club, injuring 5.

==Arrest==

After 5 years on the run Rudolph was captured in North Carolina living in squalid conditions. A police officer found him looking through a garbage dumpster for food. He was sentenced to 2 life sentences for his crimes, and 2 more life sentences in a subsequent trial, and is currently locked up in supermax. He still sends anti-abortion and anti-homosexual messages to the [[Army of God]], a militant anti-abortion group, which publishes them on its website.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rudolph,Eric}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Quebec

2007-12-05T23:00:47Z

Claude:

'''Québec''', formerly known as [[Lower Canada]], is the largest [[province]] in [[Canada]] geographically, and the second most populous after [[Ontario]]. The [[capital]] of Québec is [[Québec City]] with the largest city being [[Montreal|Montréal]]. Quebec entered Confederation in 1867 and has a total area of 1,540,680 km2. The population of Quebec was 7,546,131 in 2006, approximately 23.4% of the national total.<ref>[http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/provinces/p/quebecfacts.htm Canadaonline]</ref>

Quebec traces its roots to [[France|French]] colonization of North America prior to the [[British|English]] conquest of Canada during the [[French and Indian Wars]]. Quebec still retains much of the unique French culture, although this has become distinct from the culture of France.

The official language of the province is [[French]], although many residents are bilingual, speaking both French and [[English]].

==Economy==

The per capita provincial income in 2001 was $28,756 (Cdn).<ref>[http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/Complements/Publications/ADT2003/en/2.html The Economy of Quebec and its Regions]</ref>. This has lagged behind the overall growth of Canada, in part because of the successive separatist governments who did not create a stable environment and their policies of large government intervention. The economy has a large aerospace and manufacturing sector, however mineral extraction and forestry also play a large role.

==Politics and Government==

On May 20th, 1980 a separatist government held a referendum on declaring independence from Canada. This was defeated by a 60% to 40% vote. A second referendum was held on October 31st, 1995 and saw the separatist side lose again, but by less than two percentage points.

The separatist movement has waned recently, and since 2003 Québec has been governed by a pro-federalist Party. On March 26, 2007, the Liberal Party of Québec, led by [[Jean Charest]], was elected to a minority government, with Mario Dumont's Action Démocratique Québec forming the official opposition. The former official opposition, the Parti Québecois led by André Boisclair, finished the election in third place.

[[Category:Canada]]

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.bonjourquebec.com/ Quebec Tourism]

Jeremy Bentham

2007-12-05T22:58:11Z

Claude: Bentham had little to say on embryonic stem cells.

'''Jeremy Bentham''' (1748-1832) was an [[English]] atheistic [[philosopher]] who created the concept of [[utilitarianism]]<ref>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/jb.htm</ref>. Utilitarianism means that government should do whatever maximizes overall "utility" (benefits minus costs). If killing one innocent man saves ten other lives, then utilitarianism would favor it. Under utilitarianism there is no Christian morality, and it is replaced by comparing benefits versus costs.

His [[Panopticon]] design influenced the design of prisons around the world.

Bentham's preserved body is on public display at University College, [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]<ref>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/site_images/auto_il.gif</ref>.

===References===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bentham, Jeremy}}
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Weapons of mass destruction

2007-12-05T22:52:03Z

Claude:

'''Weapons of Mass Destruction''' or '''WMD''' can consist of stockpiles, production facilities, or the human know-how to manufacture weapons designed to kill a large number of people. WMD begins with research and development among persons with highly specialized scientific and technical training. This requires a location and resources to employ such persons with know-how to build production facilities of WMD. Once a location, resources, know-how and production facilities are employed, stockpiles can be built.

Overall it is important to remember that know-how, production facilities, and stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction held by appropriate forces such as [[NATO]] can be beneficial to the balance of world order. Whereas with a rogue dictator such as the late [[Saddam Hussein]] or [[Kim Jong Il]] it would be inappropriate to possess the know-how to create and stockpile WMD, a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able retain the control of Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully.

Know-how is the most dangerous aspect of WMD in today's world; persons who receive classroom training in these specialized techniques can travel anywhere in the world where location and resources may be available to produce WMD. Also, communicating the know-how, a potentially lethal weapon to large numbers of people, is largely unregulated in some parts of the world. There are [[United Nations]] Treaties which have attempted to regulate the spread of know-how throughout the world, but it is still possible for a person with know-how to communicate their knowledge how to manufacture WMD to anyone, without the signatory of the International agreements who holds their place of citizenship knowing of the illegal transfer or being able to stop it.

The International scientific community of technicians with knowledge to teach and manufacture weapons of mass destructions likewise consist of independent persons, some with no national loyalties to the nations who have signed International agreements barring the spread of WMD, i.e. the know-how, potential "dual use" technologies, or the end manufactured result. A young person trained today, in an al-Qaeda training camp, in the methods of producing stockpiles of WMD, has an entire lifespan to communicate his knowledge to whomsoever he pleases. And a persons political or ideological views can change over a lifetime. In the old Soviet system, scientists were often retired to special [[Gulag]]s apart from the rest of society, so as there would be no chance they can reveal the potential lethal know-how to unauthorized persons.

One of the most troubling aspects of the [[War on Terror]] is understanding that scientific knowledge itself has become a weapon in the hands of dangerous persons against innocent people.

In times of crisis, the habit has been to call upon our best, brightest and most talented individuals to find solutions. This usually in the past meant scientists and technicians; now we have discovered in the War on Terror knowledge itself has become a dangerous thing, and new gadgets and technology cannot defeat terrorist cells who do not wear the easily identifiable military uniforms as is custom throughout the Western world. In fact, we've discovered past scientific and technical solutions in warfare now threaten the civil populations of the nations that discovered and built them. Knowledge indeed is a weapon.

== Types of WMD ==

Weapons of mass destruction were termed by the U.S. military, as late as the 1980s, as [[nuclear]], [[chemical]], and [[biological]] (or NBC) weapons designed to kill large numbers of personnel or civilians with a single device.

==Saddam Hussein and WMD==

Eygptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> While no WMDs were found in Iraq, the program for such was discovered to be in place, and there is speculation that they were exported to neighbouring countries before the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war]].<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/15/ndoss115.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/15/ixnewstop.html Report holds out the possibility that WMD may still be found...one day] The Telegraph. July 14, 2004</ref>.

Former [[First Lady]] and now Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said on October 10, 2002,
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-12-05T22:51:27Z

Claude: Telegrapg Article and WMDs...

== Say What?! ==

"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe one could use bombs as bridge abutments? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== One can argue ... anything ==
"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."

And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If you really want to put the bible into it, remember that God did kill all of humanity, raze several cities, and destroy livestock and firstborn sons. Of course, God is the first and ultimate WMD.

==Boeing 747==
Since when has a 747 had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since September 11th, 2001. [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 00:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: None of the planes was a 747. Furthermore, planes aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It's an example of duel use technology; with the proper knowhow, i.e. training, a civilian aircraft was transformed into a kamikazi missile that killed 2900+ persons, i.e. a weapon of mass destruction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Revamping==

This article is in need of a severe revamp to eliminate POV, make it more like an encyclopedia entry, and get rid of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 01:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Go right ahead then.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Irrelevant==
''To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although the possibility that they were exported to a neighboring country is still open.''

Just out of curiosity, how can this be irrelevant to the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD's? Granted, it presently bears somewhat of a liberal slant, but this could be fixed just by clarifying that the WMD's were most likely destroyed or exported prior to investigation. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:Well, the US funded the [[Manhattan project]] to the tune of $4 billion (about $80 billion in todays money) to prevent [[Hitler]] from getting WMD first. Turns out, Hitler didn't even have a nuke program and I don't hear anyone calling for [[FDR]]'s [[impeachment]], or what a scam, [[fraud]], and bogus war that was. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:41, 20 November 2007 (EST)

If Hitler was seeking WMD's from other countries and looking to develop a nuke program, like Saddam was, then I would say to include it in the article. Obviously he wasn't, so we haven't. But considering that the article specifically addresses Saddam's looking to arm himself with WMD's, why shouldn't we inform readers as to what the eventual outcome was? Why would we exclude that relevant information? He ''did'' have an interest, he ''did'' have a program - what happened to all that? The article should give some idea, at least. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Telegrapg Article and WMDs... ==

C'mon, surely you can do better than that. That article is dated July 2004 - three and a half years ago. More importantly, it *speculates* that WMDs may have been transported - it offers no evidence that this was the case. I'll change the article to reflect what your little article actually says into you can produce something with evidence that those mysterious WMDs are somewhere else. Good luck.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Weapons of mass destruction

2007-12-05T22:41:29Z

Claude: Remove completely unsubstantiated claim. Do you have any documentation to support this claim?

'''Weapons of Mass Destruction''' or '''WMD''' can consist of stockpiles, production facilities, or the human know-how to manufacture weapons designed to kill a large number of people. WMD begins with research and development among persons with highly specialized scientific and technical training. This requires a location and resources to employ such persons with know-how to build production facilities of WMD. Once a location, resources, know-how and production facilities are employed, stockpiles can be built.

Overall it is important to remember that know-how, production facilities, and stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction held by appropriate forces such as [[NATO]] can be beneficial to the balance of world order. Whereas with a rogue dictator such as the late [[Saddam Hussein]] or [[Kim Jong Il]] it would be inappropriate to possess the know-how to create and stockpile WMD, a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able retain the control of Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully.

Know-how is the most dangerous aspect of WMD in today's world; persons who receive classroom training in these specialized techniques can travel anywhere in the world where location and resources may be available to produce WMD. Also, communicating the know-how, a potentially lethal weapon to large numbers of people, is largely unregulated in some parts of the world. There are [[United Nations]] Treaties which have attempted to regulate the spread of know-how throughout the world, but it is still possible for a person with know-how to communicate their knowledge how to manufacture WMD to anyone, without the signatory of the International agreements who holds their place of citizenship knowing of the illegal transfer or being able to stop it.

The International scientific community of technicians with knowledge to teach and manufacture weapons of mass destructions likewise consist of independent persons, some with no national loyalties to the nations who have signed International agreements barring the spread of WMD, i.e. the know-how, potential "dual use" technologies, or the end manufactured result. A young person trained today, in an al-Qaeda training camp, in the methods of producing stockpiles of WMD, has an entire lifespan to communicate his knowledge to whomsoever he pleases. And a persons political or ideological views can change over a lifetime. In the old Soviet system, scientists were often retired to special [[Gulag]]s apart from the rest of society, so as there would be no chance they can reveal the potential lethal know-how to unauthorized persons.

One of the most troubling aspects of the [[War on Terror]] is understanding that scientific knowledge itself has become a weapon in the hands of dangerous persons against innocent people.

In times of crisis, the habit has been to call upon our best, brightest and most talented individuals to find solutions. This usually in the past meant scientists and technicians; now we have discovered in the War on Terror knowledge itself has become a dangerous thing, and new gadgets and technology cannot defeat terrorist cells who do not wear the easily identifiable military uniforms as is custom throughout the Western world. In fact, we've discovered past scientific and technical solutions in warfare now threaten the civil populations of the nations that discovered and built them. Knowledge indeed is a weapon.

== Types of WMD ==

Weapons of mass destruction were termed by the U.S. military, as late as the 1980s, as [[nuclear]], [[chemical]], and [[biological]] (or NBC) weapons designed to kill large numbers of personnel or civilians with a single device.

==Saddam Hussein and WMD==

Eygptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Negro

2007-12-05T22:30:06Z

Claude: