Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Claremont Institute

2019-10-06T04:38:18Z

Doug1943: Fixed misspelling of "Claremont" in its link (it was spelled "Clarement", resulting in a not found response when clicked on.

The '''Claremont Institute''' is an American conservative [[think tank]].

According to the Claremont Institute website:
{{cquote|The mission of the Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. These principles are expressed most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." To recover the founding principles in our political life means recovering a limited and accountable government that respects private property, promotes stable family life, and maintains a strong national defense.<ref>[http://www.claremont.org/about/ Claremont Institute website]</ref>}}

== See also ==

* [[Conservative think tanks]]
* [[List of conservative and libertarian think tanks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.claremont.org Claremont Institute website]

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

[[Category:Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Conservative Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]

Talk:Bloody Sunday

2007-03-02T11:30:22Z

Doug1943: Tendentious description of Bloody Sunday

It is a great over-simplification to say that the Bloody Sunday events in Derry were sparked by a "peaceful Irish march for freedom". This omits the fact that the Irish in question were Catholic Irish, at odds with Protestant Irish, and that the big issue in dispute between them was whether the province in which both lived, but where the Protestants were a majority, called Ulster, was to remain part of Britain, or become part of the Catholic Republic of Ireland. The possibility of IRA provocation should also be addressed, plus the fact that the British government has, over the last several years, conducted an extensive investigation into Bloody Sunday, at great cost.

Niels Bohr

2007-03-02T11:23:59Z

Doug1943: "main" to "many"

Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was a Danish theoretical physicist who helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics. Early in his career he performed work on the structure of atoms that earned him the Nobel Prize in 1922.

Bohr embraced the revolutionary insights of quantum mechanics and resisted attempts by critics of quantum mechanics to deny its basic characteristics. Bohr argued that insights of quantum mechanics should change fundamental features of the scientific view, and even extend beyond science to all of human knowledge.

Specifically, in 1927 Bohrs formulated the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics in collaboration with [[Werner Heisenberg]]. Though opposed by many physicists at the time, this is now the most widely followed explanation for puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics. Bohr also helped clarify confusing issues encountered in quantum physics by developing the concept of complementarity.

Bolshevik Revolution

2007-03-02T11:22:37Z

Doug1943: Corrected date

The Bolshevik Revolution was the second phase of the Russian Revolution in 1917. It was the first Marxist communist revolution in history. The Bolshevik Revolution is also known as the October or November revolution.

Conservapedia talk:Ask questions

2007-03-02T11:20:19Z

Doug1943: Two suggestions for ConservaPedia

(1) Did you know that the Login/Create Account button does not allow anyone to create an account? This looks very unprofessional and should be corrected as quickly as possible.

(2) It seems to me that this site is properly described as a "fundamentalist Protestant Christian conservative" site, rather than as a general "conservative" site. I have noticed a number of things asserted as fact with which I am sure a very large number of self-described conservatives would disagree.

Of course, one could always have a semantic, and sterile, argument about who is "really" a conservative, so let me put this assertion as a testable proposition: if we gathered together the editorial boards of the American journals calling themselves conservative (such as ''Modern Age,'' ''National Review'', ''Weekly Standard'', ''American Conservative'', ''Chronicles'', ''Claremont Review'', to name some of the most prominent) I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the editors would disagree strongly with such (astonishing) statements as "there is no evidence for the existence of human civilizations earlier than about 3500 BC."

In the interests of political clarity, the particular kind of conservatism espoused here should be made clear.

Consider how you would feel if a group of atheist homosexual conservatives (and there are people who are homosexual atheists who call themselves conservative, and are sincere about it) were to start a "Conservative Encyclopedia" site, claiming it to be representative of conservatism in general, and put in entries such as "Conservatives are strongly for the institution of marriage, and wish to see it extended to embrace gay couples as well as straight." This would be out of order, I would think. But if they said, "Atheist Homosexual Conservatives are strongly for ..." etc then that would be a simple statement of fact, although you might well object that atheists and homosexuals should not be called conservatives regardless of their other beliefs -- but that is a different issue. What is for sure is that they would be wrong to claim their beliefs as representative of all self-described conservatives).

Talk:Contras

2007-03-02T10:56:36Z

Doug1943:

It is well-known that this site has been the target of liberal-left vandalism, at several levels.

One method is to write up false, but superficially-plausible entries. If this sort of thing is done right, and sparingly, then we can salute the skill of the prankster, and have a laugh at ourselves. (And, of course, correct the entry.) Such was the case with the entry on cacti.

The send-up has an honorable history, and we are then given license to practice it on the Left. (The classic case of this, of course, is the delicious "Sokol Hoax", which should have destroyed the credibility of the post-modernists forever. And all the better that the authors of the hoax were themselves liberals -- hats off to them.)

However, crude attempts at this sort of thing only reveal the intellectual poverty of the perpetrators, and the entry on the Contras, obviously a fake, is one such. Of course Leftists are angry at Ronald Reagan, the destroyer of so many of their dreams.

And his great crime in the subject under discussion was in forcing the Nicagraguan government to hold free elections, with the usual results.

Talk:Vladimir Lenin

2007-03-02T10:47:24Z

Doug1943:

May I suggest some minor changes to the English here, which seems to have been written by someone whose first language is Russian. (And who better to write on this topic?)

Change "the frigid Siberia" to "frigid Siberia" (or better yet just to "Siberia").
Change "after czar" to "after the Czar".

More generally, there should be links to a much more extensive history of Russia, especially the development of the Revolution from the late 1880s to 1917, and to events after the Revolution.

These would bring out that Lenin actually created the Bolshevik Party by leading a split within Russian Marxism; that the Bolsheviks considered themselves a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, not a separate party themselves, until 1912; and that Russia, under Lenin's rule, underwent some great variations in economic organization prior to Stalin's final full socialization of the economy beginning in 1928 -- from the extremes of "War Communism" during the Civil War, to the "New Economic Policy" after 1921, none of them successful in squaring the circle of how a country led by thorough socialists can experience all-round sustainable economic growth to match and exceed that achievable under a system of ordered liberty.