Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-12-22T02:34:20Z

JHarris: Redirecting to Mystery:Why do some conservatives suffer from "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder"?

#REDIRECT [[Mystery:Why do some conservatives suffer from "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder"?]]'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''', the #1 documentary of 2008,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/v/441 Discovery Institute]</ref> is a [[documentary]] film and DVD charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[intelligent design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[evolution|the theory of evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments from schools, universities and the scientific community merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

*This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16857&category_id=778</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref> This also refers to privately funded science institutions as well.

Perhaps most infuriating for design opponents is the way the film links Darwin's ideas to [[Social Darwinism]] and destructive materialistic ideologies such as Hitler's [[National Socialism]] and [[Marxist]] [[socialism]].<ref> [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778 Expelled - Implications of Neo-Darwinism (4:15)] - Doctors and Scientists explore how the belief in Neo-Darwinism affects our society.</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and intelligent design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms and scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent support for [[atheism]]. ID theory says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an intelligent designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for providing Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".{{fact}}

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. One example the films mentions is that modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. The film claims that armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film. Darwin's theory of Evolution by means of natural selection does not address the issue of the origins of life.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the theory of evolution and the ''Origin of Species'' is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of intelligent design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==Not dogmatic about intelligent design ==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

While makers of the documentary say the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth, they say it calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.<ref> [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0 'Expelled' Approaches DVD Release Date]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

A victim of the sort of discrimination the film documents, [[Russell Humphreys]] said of the film that:
{{QuoteBox|...it kicked me in the gut. It made me see—no, feel—that I’d grown accustomed to the intolerable. I’d been taking the censorship as something in the natural order of things, and as the suppression increased, I just adjusted to it, like the proverbial frog in hot water. But the movie made me realize that our God-ordained right of free thought and speech is under systematic and increasing attack. By controlling the public “microphone”, as Phil Johnson says, the Darwinists have been hoodwinking our minds.<ref name="RH">Humphreys, Russel, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5975 Not too old to be Expelled] 29th August, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>}}

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $2.97 million US, $2,824 per screen, in its first weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> The producers claim that it was pulled from American theaters due to a lawsuit by Yoko Ono. After the movie won a victory in the lawsuit, a second run release was announced<ref>[http://expelledthemovie.com/rerelease.php Expelled Re-Released]</ref> Initially, Expelled grossed a domestic $7.7 million on a $3.5 million production budget. The promotional budget is unknown. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' also began opening in international theaters.

The film is planned to be released on DVD in October 2008.<ref name="RH" />

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film by people who had never seen it, it is sometimes hard to tell what actual viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box Office Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic. These reviews merely reflect the extreme [[liberal]] bias present in the media.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref> On June 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein (no relation to Ben Stein) ruled in favor of the filmmakers under the "fair use" provision.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0231537020080602</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

*Regarding claims by Dawkins and Myers that filmmakers were tricked into being interviewed for the film, Ruloff has denied any wrongdoing. "There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here," said Ruloff, "but I can assure you it's not coming from us. We're just the ones exposing it." [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0]

==Film Clips==

WingClips provides several free glimpses into "Expelled".
*[http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16680&category_id=778 Expelled - Genetic Mutation (2:23)] - Scientists discuss how the evolutionary theory of random genetic change contradicts what really occurs in nature.

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Documentary film]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:33:49Z

JHarris: Redirecting to Mystery:Why do some conservatives suffer from "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder"?

#REDIRECT [[Mystery:Why do some conservatives suffer from "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder"?]]Conservative principles are seldom based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a focus on biblical passages that [[User:Aschlafly|this guy]] thinks are liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is rational.
USmart rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying deceitful authority

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:33:05Z

JHarris:

Conservative principles are seldom based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a focus on biblical passages that [[User:Aschlafly|this guy]] thinks are liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is rational.
USmart rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying deceitful authority

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:32:08Z

JHarris:

Conservative principles are seldom based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is rational.
USmart rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying deceitful authority

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:31:36Z

JHarris:

Conservative principles are seldom based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is irrational.
Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying deceitful authority

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:31:02Z

JHarris: No, really?

Conservative principles are seldom based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Contents [hide]
1 Statistical Analysis
2 What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
3 Cultural indoctrination
4 Liberal characteristics
5 References

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is irrational.
Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority
References
↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Ronald Reagan based in his friendship with his conservative father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[1]
↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F"
Category: Mystery
ViewsPage talk page Edit History Unwatch Personal toolsJHarris My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Popular Links
Main Page
Educational Index
Debate Topics
Recent changes
All pages
All images
All logs
Random page
Help
Help Index
Statistics
Conservapedia Commandments
American History
American History Lectures
American History Homework
Search
edit console
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page

Privacy policy About Conservapedia Disclaimers

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-22T02:30:39Z

JHarris:

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Contents [hide]
1 Statistical Analysis
2 What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
3 Cultural indoctrination
4 Liberal characteristics
5 References

Statistical Analysis
(Estimates)

40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas
What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?
What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values[1]
10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
5%: taking a convincing conservative course in economics, or learning it in the workforce[2]
Cultural indoctrination
Brainwashing and deceit:
They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
No exposure:
Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

Peer Pressure:
They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.
Systemic bias:
Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.
See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?
Liberal characteristics
Poor abstract thinking:
They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."
Closed-minded:
They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents
Naivety:
Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.
Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
Some choose to do what is irrational.
Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority
References
↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Ronald Reagan based in his friendship with his conservative father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[1]
↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F"
Category: Mystery
ViewsPage talk page Edit History Unwatch Personal toolsJHarris My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Popular Links
Main Page
Educational Index
Debate Topics
Recent changes
All pages
All images
All logs
Random page
Help
Help Index
Statistics
Conservapedia Commandments
American History
American History Lectures
American History Homework
Search
edit console
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page

Privacy policy About Conservapedia Disclaimers

University of California, Berkeley

2008-12-22T02:28:35Z

JHarris:

{{University
|image=Berkeley.jpg
|name=University of California - Berkeley
|text=gold
|background=navy;
|type=Public
|city=Berkeley, California
|sports=baseball, basketball, crew, cross country, football, curling, field hockey, gold, gymnastics, lacrosse, rugby, soccer, swimming, softball, track and field, volleyball, water polo, tennis
|colors=Yale Blue and Golden Yellow
|mascot=Golden Bears
|website=http://www.berkeley.edu/
}}

The '''University of California at Berkeley''' was founded in 1868 and is located in [[Berkeley]], [[California]]. UC Berkeley is a campus of the [[University of California]] system. It is known as ''California'' or ''Cal'' in the sports sections of [[newspaper]]s.

== History ==
The roots of the University of California go back to the gold rush days of 1849, when the drafters of the State Constitution, a group of vigorous and farsighted people, required the legislature to "encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement" of the people of California. These early planners dreamed of a university which eventually, "if properly organized and conducted, would contribute even more than California's gold to the glory and happiness of advancing generations."
==References==
One of the things I have noticed about [[Conservapedia:About|Conservapedia]] is that there appears to be a number of Conservativewho appear to have what I am dubbing as "Conservapedia [[Obsessive compulsive disorder|obsessive compulsive disorder]]". If you look at the statistics reported at [http://www.quantcast.com/conservapedia.com Quantcast on Conservapedia], you will see that a fairly high percentage of users are "addicts" according to Quantcast. I have observed that there definitely appears to be Conservatives of the Arsefly subspecies, who are utterly and seemingly hopelessly addicted to viewing the Conservapedia website. I suspect if Conservapedia went down for technical reasons for a long time that [[User: Karajou| some]] [[User:Aschlafly| people]] on Conservapedia would start getting the shakes. Perhaps some fundamentalist nut jobs might be even tempted to start stealing televisions and other items in order to send money to Conservapedia to fix whatever technical problems might be occurring. :)

[[User:Ed Poor| Many]] of these tithe-payers are individuals who constantly carp and complain about the material at Wikipedia and ®ationalWiki with picayune and unwarranted complaints (while I certainly do not agree with all of the material at Wikipedia and ®ationalWiki Conservapedia and have stated so publicly, I can't see spending the rest of my life preoccupied with criticizing sanity like [[Rush Limbaugh|some people!]]. I would remind these conservative crazies that nobody ever built a monument to a [[User:Bugler|nutcase]]! I would also add that it appears as if many of the [[User:TerryH| weirdos]]who appear to be very "addicted" to Conservapedia never seem to get around creating worthwhile internet content that a [[User:HelpJazz|significant ]] [[User: Philip J. Rayment|amount ]] [[User:Hsmom|of]] [[User:JessicaT|people]] [[User:BRichtigen|have]] [[User:IanG|any]] [[User:Taj|interest]] [[User:CPAdmin1| in]].

I strongly suspect that many of these Reaganomic addicts are preoccupied with Conservapedia because while Conservapedia sometimes raises points that show signs of [[User:LowKey|sanity]], Conservapedia does also raise completely pathetic points about [[conservative|conservatism]], liberalism, and [[User:TK|that one guy]], and when Conservapedia does so it is like boiling oil being [[User:Jallen|poured]] over wisdom. After all, often the cats who yelp the loudest are the ones who have been hit by a shoe! For example, so far no American [[theocrats, to my knowledge, have shown any common sense about the Conservapedia material on [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|American atheists and uncharitableness]] which is currently featured on Conservapedia's main page and focuses on the [[Per capita|per capita]] giving of American [[Atheism|atheists]]. Also, to my knowledge, no [[User:DeanS|creationist]] has ever pointed out a single factual truth in Conservapedia's [[evolution]] article, nor have they ever found a single truthful fact in Conservapedia's article entitled ''[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]''. :)
‘’’ ®ationalWiki ®ationalWiki ®ationalWiki Ra, Ra, ®ationalWiki!!!!!’’’

[[Category:Mystery]]

In the 1930s research on campus burgeoned in nuclear physics, chemistry, and biology, leading to the development of the first cyclotron by Ernest O. Lawrence, the isolation of the human polio virus, and the discovery of a string of elements heavier than uranium. Twenty members of the Berkeley faculty have been awarded Nobel Prizes for these and subsequent discoveries, as well as in literature and economics, for liberal arts kept pace with physical sciences. In 1966 Berkeley was recognized by the American Council on Education as "the best balanced distinguished university in the country." [http://www.berkeley.edu/about/history/]
While it may have been balanced in its courses, today Berkeley is best known for its professors' well known leftist biases.
== Colleges ==

UC Berkeley's fourteen colleges.

*College of Letters & Science
*[http://haas.berkeley.edu/ Haas School of Business]
*College of Chemistry
*Graduate School of Education
*[http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/ College of Engineering]
*College of Environmental Design
*School of Information
*Graduate School of Journalism
*[http://www.law.berkeley.edu/ Law School (Boalt Hall)]
*College of Natural Resources
*School of Optometry
*School of Public Health
*[http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~gspp/ The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy]
*School of Social Welfare

== External Links ==

*[http://www.berkeley.edu/ Official Website]

{{Nb_US_universities|California}}

Fabio Grobart

2008-12-21T22:48:31Z

JHarris:

{{merge|Cuba}}

Fabio Grobart (Abraham (Yunger) Semjovitch,), was starting from about 1924 to well into the [[Cuba|Castro regime]], the principal communist agent in Cuba. He was a founding member of the (Stalinist) Cuban Communist Party. Generally considered the principal Stalinist Agent in Cubam and was said charged with the "black" (covert) section of the Cuban communist party.<ref>Alexander, Robert Jackson 2002 A History of Organized Labor in Cuba, Praeger Publishers ISBN-10 027597703X
ISBN-13: 978-0275977030 on Page 109: "Louis (B.) Serrano Tamayo, a one time Communist trade union leader in Oriente Province, who after 1940 became and Auténtico and ultimately became a secretary general of the Tobacco Workers Federation, claimed that the change in name (to Partido Socialista Popular L.D) did not change the nature of the Cuban communist Party. He argued that the Popular Socialist Party existed for “electoral purposes: and that “anyone could join it,” while there continued to exist a clandestine Partido Comunista de Cuba, headed like the PSP by Blas Roca as secretary general, in which Fabio Grobart, a European who did not become a Cuban citizen, played a major role. It was the clandestine party that in fact determined the policies of the legal one."
</ref> He was expelled from Cuba several times,<ref>Garcia Montes, Jorge and Antonio Alonso Avila, 1970 Historia del Partido Comunista de Cuba Ediciones Universal, 1970, Miami p. 116 Free translation: XII Deportion of Fabio
Grobart and Dora Vainstock. Fabio Grobart and Dora Vainstock had been arrested several times (towards the end of Machado rule) on charges of conspiracy against the constitutional order. For one reason or the other the Cuban courts had freed them. This situation went on until the government decided to expel them. On October first 1932 both were placed on the Holand American Line Steam vessel Leederman, which took them to Holand. Dora Vainstock was only out of Cuba for a few months. As soon as she arrived in Europe she went to Paris. In Paris she obtained a irregular Cuban passport which she obtained through the “cultivation” of sexual intimacy with the son of an important person in the Machado cabinet (other sources mention Ricardo Herrera, former secretary of state and then Minister, e.g. Ambassador of Cuba in Paris) She left for Cuba arriving in March of 1933 (before Machado fell). Fabio Grobart remained out of Cuba until after Machado was forced to leave Cuba.
</ref> but returned to Cuba early in 1959 said to be at the request of [[Raul Castro]] and Ernesto [[Che Guevara]]. He is believed to have advised [[Fidel Castro]] on the means and methods of achieving absolute and lifetime power. Grobart died 1994 <ref>Times staff 1994 (accessed 3-19-08) Fabio Grobart, Veteran Cuban Communist, 89. New York Times October 24, 1994 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E0D8173FF937A15753C1A962958260 Fabio Grobart, a founder of Cuba's Communist Party, has died, state news organizations reported. He was 89 years old.
The report from the state news agency A.I.N. did not say when he died or the cause of death, but it said he was buried on Saturday. Mr. Grobart, who emigrated from Poland to Cuba when he was 19, was a founding member of the Cuban Communist Party in 1925. At one time he owned a tailor shop in Havana. In the years after the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power, Mr. Grobart served on the party's Central Committee and as a member of Parliament. In his later years he was considered the party's historian. In the 1960's he was listed as a director of the influential magazine Cuba Socialista and was considered a top planner in guiding Cuba's revolution ideologically. </ref>

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:51:28Z

JHarris: Moaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate what conservatives believe are destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:45:14Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ There are Christian actors. Like, say, reagan!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by churches which have a focus on biblical passages that appear to support what conservatives believe to be liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], and [[James Maxwell]].(When the importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, liberals claim it could happen to one of them.)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:44:06Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ redundant

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], and [[James Maxwell]].(When the importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, liberals claim it could happen to one of them.)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:43:39Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ Unclear wording, used "liberal" 8 thousand times!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], and [[James Maxwell]].(When the importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, liberals claim it could happen to one of them.)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:42:19Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ Do we need "obvious" when it isn't so obvious to moderates?

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], and [[James Maxwell]].(When the importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:40:42Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ Isaac Newtn: Christian, but Conservative??? I dunno!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], and [[James Maxwell]].(When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:39:44Z

JHarris: /* Cultural indoctrination */ Family values, ra, ra, ra!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television program comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:39:14Z

JHarris: /* What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs? */ Don't underestimate Community Will!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values appear to be destructive to many people
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by socially maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:38:01Z

JHarris: weasel words...

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: convinced by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a convincing conservative course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-19T21:36:56Z

JHarris: Undo revision 589487 by Aschlafly (Talk)Is neutrility Liberal? Are facts liberal? You Betcha, Aschlafly!

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Talk:The Stalingrad Madonna

2008-12-19T21:34:01Z

JHarris:

Both Nazis and Communists were atheistic and anti-Christian organisations, so I cannot see the significance here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)
:Yes, the Communists were atheistic and anti-Christian. As for the Nazis, well, I would just like to say:
 The Nazi Party and Germany in general was obsessed by the (clearly incorrect) idea God was on their side. The material pumped out of the Nazi propaganda machine was full of lies claiming that He supported Nazism. If every non-deceitful chaplain had the ability to complain, the Nazi party would never exist. One last thing before I am blocked for 90/10, Parodist, Personal Comments, etc., I also want to tell you that the Stalingrad Madonna is symbolic of what could go wrong when religion is twisted in the hands of a wiley leader. That's it. I'm done. No parting shot. Just block me!--[[User:JHarris|JHarris]] 16:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-17T23:24:01Z

JHarris: NPOV? Just a little?

Conservative principles are often based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 40%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 20%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
:* 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and liberal values are destructive
:* 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as a youth is socially unexceptable among Christians
:* 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[Hannah Montana]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

George W. Bush

2008-12-16T03:13:01Z

JHarris: I think we all know Kerry was leftist, and "leftist" is being used as a multi-purpose insult. Not good...

{{President
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|seq=43
|term_start=January 20, 2001
|term_end=Present
|party=Republican
|vp=Dick Cheney
|previous=Bill Clinton
|next=Barack Obama
|birth_date=July 6, 1946
|birth_place=New Haven, Connecticut
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Laura Bush]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
}}

'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when [[liberal]] Democratic contender [[Al Gore]], who initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

===Economic issues===
Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since [[Lyndon Johnson]]. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Foreign policy===
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA, when a series of terrorist attacks destroyed the twin towers of the [[World Trade Center]] and severely damaged the [[Pentagon]], resulting in the deaths of an estimated 3,000 people. On October 8, 2001, during an address to [[Congress]], President Bush announced the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. In his [[State of the Union]] address on January 29, 2002, he asserted that an "[[axis of evil]]" consisting of [[North Korea]], [[Iran]], and [[Iraq]] was "arming to threaten the peace of the world" and "pose[d] a grave and growing danger".<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Presidential State of the Union Address] [[January 29]] [[2002]].</ref> Since then, the Bush administration has pursued military action in [[Afghanistan]] and, more controversially, in [[Iraq]], with the stated aims of eliminating threats to United States security and combating [[terrorism]].

===Afghanistan===
On October 7, 2001, US and [[Australia]]n forces were deployed in [[Afghanistan]], then governed by the [[Taliban]], an extremist [[Islamic]] government -- a decision that was backed by most of the industrialized world. The Taliban had been fighting an active insurgency who they had bottled up in a tiny portion of the country, but never defeated. The US and Australian forces initiated a [[bombing]] campaign which turned the tide as they could no longer bottle up, or stop, the insurgency who attacked them after each bombing campaign. This led to the Taliban losing control of [[Kabul]], Afghanistan's capital city, on November 13. By December 2001, an "Afghan Interim Authority" had been installed, led by current Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]].<ref>[http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm Fact Sheet], Center for Defense Information, 2002-02-14</ref> The stated aims of military action in Afghanistan were to topple the Taliban and to eliminate or capture key leaders of the terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]], as well as destroying all al-Qaeda bases and activities in Afghanistan. However, al-Qaeda leader [[Osama bin Laden]] escaped a battle in December 2001 in [[Tora Bora]] and has not yet been successfully captured.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16 U.S. Concludes [[Bin Laden]] Escaped at [[Tora Bora]] Fight], The Washington Post, 2002-04-17</ref>

Despite the US troops' early success in removing them from power, the Taliban was regrouping and amassing funds and recruits by 2003.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related Taliban Appears to be Regrouped and Well-Funded], Christian Science Monitor, 2003-05-08</ref> In 2006, offensives against the Taliban such as [[Operation Mountain Thrust]] attained limited success.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285 World Cannot Give Up On Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say], US Department of Defense, 2006-02-28</ref> The Taliban remain a major threat to security in Afghanistan today, with US and allied troops working alongside the Afghan government of [[Hamid Karzai]] to combat the Taliban.

===Iraq===
Egyptian 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 President 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. September 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/memento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el memento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref>

In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain appeared to distance himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. At the same time, [[Democratic]] candidiate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]
==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ends at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama will be inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a [[Bible]] I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for federal funding of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When President George W. Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, George had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

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

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
{{USPresidents}}

Gambling

2008-12-16T03:11:36Z

JHarris: /* Legality of Gambling */ Fixed link

'''Gambling''' is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting of betting on games of chance. Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Gambling also includes betting on sporting events, or on events such as election results. [[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.

Many tragedies result from addiction to gambling, such as losing all of one's money in a single gambling spree. Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].

In games played against the "house" (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the "house" takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%.

==Legality of Gambling==

Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again. Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.

In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that "the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities."<ref>http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/</ref>

In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.

On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA). The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?". Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml</ref>. Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.

On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill. Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act. The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.

On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm</ref> of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web<ref>http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html</ref>. According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.

== Gambling Loss Limit ==

The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons. The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day. This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering.

Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler. Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org</ref>. This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html</ref> In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html</ref>

The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money. “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises. An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html</ref> A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:gambling]]

Volgograd

2008-12-15T22:32:06Z

JHarris: /* References */ My Mistake

'''Volgograd''' (formerly '''Stalingrad''') is a major city in [[Russia]], originally named after [[Joseph Stalin]], and originally called Tsaritsyn.

== World War II ==

The [[battle of Stalingrad]] was fought for 6 1/2 months in [[World War II]], in 1942-43, in one of the bloodiest battles in human history. The German 6th Army under General von Paulus managed to occupy 90% of the city, but was surrounded and destroyed by Soviet armies after Hitler forbade an attempt to break out (and promoted von Paulus to Field Marshal on the grounds that no German Field Marshal had ever surrendered in the field). The German surrender was considered the turning point of the war in Russia, and indeed World War II, as Germany had suffered a fatal strategic defeat.

According to authors John Loftus and Mark Aarons, "A handful of Jews won World War II". They worked for the only intelligence organization to penetrate both the Axis and [[Allied powers]]. Agents of [[Reinhard Gehlen]]'s <ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/world/germany/intro/gehlen.htm Organization Gehlen] retrieved 08 May 2007.</ref> "Max network" of supposed "Fascist Jews" in the [[Kremlin]] "lured the Nazi divisions into a series of death traps on the Eastern front, using rare bits of false intelligence planted through the Max network. The first trap was Stalingrad". <ref>John Loftus and Mark Aarons, [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/secretwar_06.rtf ''The Secret War Against the Jews''], St. Martin's Press (1994).</ref>

== Economy ==
Volvgograd is now a major shipbuilding hub, and also thrives on a local hydroelectric plant<ref>[http://regions.famouswhy.com/volgograd/]''Famous Why? Regions''</ref>

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/default.aspx Battle of Stalingrad] by Mike Yoder
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0862011.html The Turning Point] of World War II, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. C
*[http://regions.famouswhy.com/volgograd/] Famous Why article on Volgograd
[[Category:Russian Cities and Towns]]

Volgograd

2008-12-15T22:28:50Z

JHarris:

Volgograd

2008-12-15T22:24:15Z

JHarris:

'''Volgograd''' (formerly '''Stalingrad''') is a major city in [[Russia]], originally named after [[Joseph Stalin]], and originally called Tsaritsyn.

== World War II ==

The [[battle of Stalingrad]] was fought for 6 1/2 months in [[World War II]], in 1942-43, in one of the bloodiest battles in human history. The German 6th Army under General von Paulus managed to occupy 90% of the city, but was surrounded and destroyed by Soviet armies after Hitler forbade an attempt to break out (and promoted von Paulus to Field Marshal on the grounds that no German Field Marshal had ever surrendered in the field). The German surrender was considered the turning point of the war in Russia, and indeed World War II, as Germany had suffered a fatal strategic defeat.

According to authors John Loftus and Mark Aarons, "A handful of Jews won World War II". They worked for the only intelligence organization to penetrate both the Axis and [[Allied powers]]. Agents of [[Reinhard Gehlen]]'s <ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/world/germany/intro/gehlen.htm Organization Gehlen] retrieved 08 May 2007.</ref> "Max network" of supposed "Fascist Jews" in the [[Kremlin]] "lured the Nazi divisions into a series of death traps on the Eastern front, using rare bits of false intelligence planted through the Max network. The first trap was Stalingrad". <ref>John Loftus and Mark Aarons, [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/secretwar_06.rtf ''The Secret War Against the Jews''], St. Martin's Press (1994).</ref>

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/default.aspx Battle of Stalingrad] by Mike Yoder
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0862011.html The Turning Point] of World War II, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. C

[[Category:Russian Cities and Towns]]

Card game

2008-12-15T22:18:59Z

JHarris: just a stub for a start

A card game is a multi-player [[gambling]] game involving a deck of cards, using one or more decks of 52 cards in 4 suites.

Fertility

2008-12-15T22:13:50Z

JHarris: /* Low Fertility countries: USA, Japan, Britain */ Fixing a few grammer errors

'''Fertility''' is a term used to describe something which is fertile and has the ability to grow or reproduce.
==Demography==
In [[Demography]], fertility is the statistical analysis of having babies. Couples do it, and so too do entire societies, in a way. Therefore demographers approach the topic at both the individual and the social level. At the individual level, the statistics are normally analyzed in terms of the mother, though admittedly the father plays a role as well. At the social level we measure fertility with different rates using birth statistics and census data. Research on fertility inside the United States has slowed in recent decades, because most of the important questions have been answered. nearly identical. There has been a shift from a focus on fertility as the basis of population growth to one of fertility as a component of health, marital and family-building patterns, and the connection to women's employment and careerism. There has been new attention to racial and ethnic patterns, and to the fertility of unmarried women. Attention has shifted to historical patterns in the US and Europe, going back to the year 1600. Even more important, attention has shifted to the rapid growth of population in developing countries, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In terms of world population, the main issue is the overall number of births, and how it can be reduced.
==Measuring Fertility==
The most basic measurement of fertility is the number of births; combined with deaths and migration, it permits the calculation of population change. To compare countries or groups, we must relate the number of births to the total population ("crude" birth rate) or to the number of women at risk (various measures.)
===Period Measures===
"Period" measures refer to a cross-section of the population in one year. "Cohort" data on the other hand, follows the same people over a period of decades. Both period and cohort measures are widely used.
*'''[[Crude Birth Rate]]'''. The CBR is simply the number of births in a year divided by the midyear population, times 1000. Since 1972, the CBR for the USA has been fairly steady , between 14.0 and 16.0. To calculate it you need to count the number of births and know how large the population is.
*'''[[General Fertility Rate]]'''. GFR is the number of births in a year divided by the number of women aged 15-44, times 1000. It focuses on the potential mothers only, and takes the age distribution into account. To calculate it you need age data.
*'''Child-Woman Ratio'''. CWR equals ratio of the number of children under 5 to the number of women 15-49, times 1000. It is especially useful in historical data. It does not require counting births. This measure is actually a hybrid, because it involves deaths as well as births. (That is, because of infant mortality some of the births are not included; and because of adult mortality, some of the women who gave birth are not counted either.)
*'''[[Coale's Index of Fertility]]''' is a special device used in historical reseach.

===Cohort Measures===
Cohort measures relate to a "cohort" of women (that is, women in the same age group). The cohort of women born in 1920 were aged 15-19 in 1935-39; they were 45-49 in 1965-69. Since we know the age specific birth rates in each of those years we can measure the cohort fertility. But consider the cohort of women born in 1970; they were aged 15-19 in years 1985-89; they were age 20-24 in 1990-1994; they will be aged 45-49 in 2025-29. Obviously we do not know what the future rates will be, so we have to wait a few decades. What impatient demographers do is create a "synthetic cohort"--an imaginary group of women who have the same age-specific birth rates as we observe in a given year. The result is a snapshot of fertility in a single year (See Exercise 3 for how it works.)
*'''age specific fertility rate'''. ASFR = number of births in a year to women in a 5-year age group, divided by the number of all women in that age group, times 1000. Thus if there are 10 million women age 25-29, and they had 1,179,000 babies in a given year, then ASFR = 117.9. The usual age groups are 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, etc.
*'''[[Total Fertility Rate]]'''. TFR is the total number of births over a lifetime for a synthetic cohort. In the USA since 1972, TFR has flyctuated between 1.7 and 2.0.TFR equals the sum for all age groups of 5 times each ASFR rate.<ref> Another way of doing it: add up the ASFR for age 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, etc, and multiply by 5 (to cover the 5 year interval).</ref>
*'''Gross Reproduction Rate'''. GRR is simply the number of girl babies a synthetic cohort will have. Since 49% of American babies are girls, GRR = .49 x TFR. It assumes that all of the baby girls will grow up and live to at least age 50.
*'''Net Reproduction Rate'''. NRR starts with the GRR and adds the realistic assumption that some of the women will die before age 59; therefore they will not be alive to bear some of the potential babies that were counted in the GRR. NRR is always lower than GRR, but in countries (such as the USA) where mortality is very low, almost all the baby girls grow up to be potential mothers, and the NRR is practically the same as GRR. In countries with high mortality, NRR can be as low as 70% of GRR. NRR of course requires knowledge of the age-specific death rates, in addition to the age-specific birth rate, and the numbers of women in each age group. When NRR = 1.0, each generation of 1000 baby girls grows up and gives birth to exactly 1000 girls. When NRR is less than one, each generation is smaller than the previous one; in the 1990s, the NRR for the USA was slightly under 1. When NRR is greater than 1 each generation is larger than the one before. NRR is a measure of the long-term future potential for growth, but it usually is different from the current population growth rate.

==Determinants of Fertility==
Fertility declines sharply with age in a women, such that by age 30 her fertility has already fallen by nearly 40% and by age 40 her fertility has fallen by 2/3rds.<ref>See [http://www.babycenter.com/0_chart-the-effect-of-age-on-fertility_6155.bc chart]</ref> The reproduction ability of humans has factors extending to nutrition, sexual behavior, culture, instinct, endocrinology, timing, economics, way of life, and emotions.

===Biological Determinants.===
"Fecundity" is the biological ability to have children, It is a function of age, health and nutrition. Fecundity begins at menarche, is low for several years and then increases quickly to a maximum in the early 20s, then declines to menopause (about age 50). "Natural fertility" is the level of fertility reached without any form of conscious birth control. The [[Hutterites]], a small religious group in the U.S. and Canada who resemble the better-known Amish, do not practice birth control. Therefore their fertility pattern is used as a statistical model of "natural fertility" for a population that does not use any contraception. Hutterite women average 12 children each.
===Social Components of Fertility.===
The "Three-step Analysis" was introduced by Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake in 1956 that makes analysis of the proximate determinants of the fertility process clear.
*Intercourse. The first step is intercourse, and an examination of the average age at first intercourse, the average frequency outside marriage, and the average frquency inside. Voluntary abstinence is a simple and highly effective technique to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.
*Conception. Certain physical conditions may make it impossible for a woman to conceive. This is called "involuntary infecundity." If the woman has a condition making it possible, but unlikely to conceive, it is called "subfecundity." Venereal diseases, especially gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia are causes. Nutrition is a factor as well; women with less than 20 percent body fat may be subfecund, a factor of concern for athletes and people susceptible to anorexia. "It takes 50,000 calories to make a baby," argues demographer Ruth Frisch. There is subfecundity in the weeks following childbirth, and it can be prolonged for a year or more through breastfeeding. A furious political debate raged in the 1980s over the ethics of baby food companies marketing infant formula in developing countries. A large industry has developed to deal with subfecundity in women and men. An equally large industry has emerged to provide contraceptive devices designed to prevent conception. Their effectiveness in use varies. On average 85% married couples using no contraception will have a pregnancy in one year. The rate drops to the 20% range when using withdrawal, vaginal sponges, or spermicides. (This assumes the partners never forget to use the contraceptive.)The rate will be only 2 or 3% when using the pill or an IUD, and drops to near 0% for implants and 0% for tubal ligation (sterilization) of the woman, or a vasectomy for the man.
*Gestation. After a fetus is conceived, it may or may not survive to birth. "Involunatry fetal mortality" involves miscarriages and stillbirth (a stillbirth is a fetus born dead). Voluntary fetal mortality is called "abortion," and is the single most-used form of birth control around the world. In the USA, the number of abortions has been steady at about 1.6 million a year.
==Explanations for Fertility Transition==
"The Fertility Transition" takes place when a society moves from high to low fertility. All sorts of social and economic changes take place at the same time during modernization, making it hard to sort out all the causes and effects. Policy makers who want to move a particular society from high to low fertility must have a workable theory of how to get there.
===Supply-Demand Framework===
Supply and demand is the economists' approach, looking at fertility from the viewpoint of a couple that has a potential supply of babies (the mother's potential fertility) and a demand. Part of the demand is caused by natural sexual behavior. (If unrestrained, it will lead to "natural fertility" or Hutterite levels of childbearing.) An important demand factor in agricultural societies is the usefulness of children and teenagers to help with the crops and animals. Children as young as 6 or 7 can pay their own way. A second factor (important in developing countries that lack a social security apparatus) is the need for children to provide support for the parents in old age. The more children they have the better off the parents will be.

Ghana is typical of the many societies where the women bear most of the cost and burden of child-bearing and child rearing, while men make the fertility decisions.

What are the motivations for wanting ("demanding") fewer children. First of all they are expensive, especially in urban settings. Second, as a society modernizes and develops a complex infrastructure, large families are at a disadvantage compared to small ones. When family resource are concentrated on a few children, they are likely to do better than when resources are spread over many children. Schooling is an example; two children who attend secondary school can be more effective in a modern society than six illiterate children.

A model of three preconditions for fertility decline was developed by demographer Ansley Coale. He asked what perceptions of the world were necessary if people were to consciously limit their fertility. a) Accept calculation, planning, and choice as valid (and thereby turn away from fatalism or the sense that God or the stars predetermines everything.) b) Perceive the advantages of having fewer children. However, families may perceive advantages and disadvantages in a very different way from government officials or outside experts. There are two factors here: whether or not fewer is better; And how people perceive advantages and disadvantages--who do they look to for the norms and standards of behavior? c) Know about and be able to master effective contraceptive techniques. This is the easiest part.

===Innovation-diffusion and "cultural perspective".===
Historically societies that have low fertility now formerly had high fertility. Using the Coale model we can see that people have to learn how to control their fertility. Typically, low fertility is a cultural value that originates in the more privileged classes and then diffuses throughout society. In each community and social group there are innovators who are the first to experiment with any new idea or technique; they tell their friends and family, who are the secondary adopters. The mass media may speed up the process. In the USA, the "Comstock Laws" made it illegal until 1970 to publish information about contraceptives or to send devices through the mail.<ref> The Comstock laws forbidding pornography involving children are still in effect and rigorously enforced.</ref> Family physicians quietly informed married couples about withdrawal and condoms. Until the 1970s abortions were illegal and for most women hard to obtain. American feminist [[Margaret Sanger]] (1883-1966) crusaded tirelessly to promote knowledge about birth control and family planning. She wanted sexual liberation for women, and to attain that they needed control of their reproductive functions. She recommended the diaphragm, which gives the woman more control.

==High Fertility Countries: India, Ghana, Jordan==
The need to replenish society is a major cause of high fertilty. Before World War Two, mortality was so high in India that they needed the very high CBR of 37 (37 births a year per 1000 population) just to stay even (ie to keep a NRR of 1.0). In addition there was a strong commitment to the idea of the lineage. Everyone had a duty to ancestors and descendants to keep the line going, and indeed to maximize its strength or numbers. Thus there was a demand for high fertility.

Sometimes, a minority group will promote high fertility in order to gain relative power, as for example the Palestinians in Jordan today (vis-a-vis Israel), and a century ago, the French (vis-a-vis Germany).

Children are in demand in India, Ghana and Jordan because they provide agricultural labor in rural societies. In countries with a weak social welfare system, children provide security for the parents' old age. India is rapidly modernizing and presumably fertility will fall sharply.

In many societies (especially in Korea, China and northern India) there is a strong preference for sons. As a result, couples who had mostly daughters are socially embarrassed, and they kept having more babies in order to get some sons. (A paradoxical result: the more people insist on having sons, the more girls will be born!)

India before the 1950s, practiced natural fertility. There was very little birth control of any kind; fertility varied somewhat by education, but by no other social factor. The custom of very early arranged marriages (at age 12 or 13 for girls) increased fertility. Young widows were not allowed to remarry, which reduced the birth rate.

==Low Fertility countries: USA, Japan, Britain==
Low fertility countries have already undergone the demographic transition, and usually have also modernized their economy.

If rural societies favor large families, urban societies favor small ones. By concentrating family resources on fewer children, each child performs better. One of the reasons societies urbanize is that their population has abandoned fatalism and is engaged in much more complex organizational forms (like corporations). When the people give up fatalism and take control of their lives they have attained Coale's first prerequisite. In Japan the culture always favored small families; the widespread use of abortion as a population control device helped the country slash its birth rate in half in the dozen years after World War Two.

Education is strongly related to fertility in every country, and has been for more than a century: the more education the mother has, the fewer children. Literate mothers can help prevent infant mortality (so that fewer births are needed to achieve desired completed family size.) Literacy is highly correlated with the use of contraceptives. Education helps people give up fatalism and take more active control of their lives. They can set an ideal family size, reach it, and stop. They set smaller ideal family sizes and use contraceptives more often and more effectively. Educated women are more modernized, and are more likely to reject traditional norms and lifestyles that are conducive to high fertility. In developed societies, women seeking a college degree often postpone motherhood. Once they have a dregree they are more likely to pursue full-time careers in demanding jobs that are hard to combine with childrearing. On the other hand, more education usually means better nutrition for the mother and less use of practices like extrended breastfeeding. These factors tend to increase the fertility of better educated women, but they are usually overwhelmed by the factors that lower fertility. The difference in fertility between the best and least educated women varies from country to country. In most countries the difference is one or two. The greatest difference is in copuntries in the midst of the demographic transition. In Latin America, for example, women who never attended school average six or seven children, while high school graduates average only two or three.

Income matters rather little to fertility. High income people may be able to afford more children, but they do not have them. Partly this is because wives must reduce or postpone childbearing in order to help earn that high income, and in part it is because high income people usually have more education.

Other factors such as religion and ethnicity are sometimes important. Until the 1960s, Roman Catholics typically favored much larger families than did Protestants. Mormons still do. On the other hand, Catholics also promoted religious orders of celibate nuns, as well as a celibate all-male priesthood.
===Baby boom: 1940-1964===
'''[[Baby boom]]''': fertility fell steadily in the USA, from 1800 to 1940. Then suddenly it started going up again, reaching a new peak in 1957. After 1960 fertility started declining rapidly. In the Baby Boom years (1940-1964) women married earlier and had their babies sooner; the number of children born to mothers after age 35 did not increase. After 1960 ideal family size fell sharply, from 3 to 2 children. Couples postponed marriage and first births, and they sharply reduced the number of third and fourth births.

In the United States in 1995, there were 110 live births per 1,000 women ages 20-24. Four decades earlier near the peak of the Baby Boom in 1958, there were 258 live births to women in the same age range.
====Easterlin Model====
American Economist [[Richard Easterlin]] developed an ingenious model or theory to explain the Baby Boom. He assumes first that young couples try to achieve a standard of living equal to or better than they had when they grew up. This is called "relative status;" in other words, young men in one cohort compare themselves now to where their own fathers in a previous cohort had been. Second Easterlin assumes that when jobs are plentiful, it will be easier to marry young and have more children and still match that standard of living. But when jobs are scarce, couples who try to keep that standard of living will wait to get married and have fewer children. For Easterlin, the size of the cohort is a critical determinant of how easy it is to get a good job. A small cohort means less competition, a large cohort means more competition to worry about. The assumptions blend economics and sociology, and they seem to make sense, but notice that Easterlin did not rely on surveys or interviews asking people what really motivated them.

Now to put the model to work. In the 20 years after World War Two, 1945-1965, the economy was strong and growing and demanded workers. But immigration was slight, and social custom prohibited most young mothers from working. Most important, the cohort (or number of people coming of age each year) depended on the number of births 15 or 20 years earlier, which was small. In 1940, there were 5.7 million men age 20-24, in 1950 there were 5.6 million, but in 1960, with a much larger economy, there were only 5.3 million. Employers scrambled to hire those young workers, and paid them well, enabling them to start families young. Furthermore, these men grew up in the Depression, and so there expectations of a standard of living were modest. Hence the Baby Boom. By the late 1960s times were changing. More immigrants were arriving (because of the new laws in 1965), mothers were now "allowed" to work (social customs changed drastically), and most important, the first of the Baby Boomers started flooding the job market (cohorts became larger). Thus by 1970 there were 7.8 million men aged 20-24. They had much more competition for jobs (from each other, the mothers and the immigrants), AND they grew up in the more affluent 1940s and so had higher standards to meet. (Easterlin also notes that they were crowded growing up, and had to compete for attention with siblings in large families and classmates in crowded schoolrooms.) Their solution was to delay getting married (perhaps by staying in school), and when married to have the mother work and to bear fewer children. Divorce was high because it was harder to make a marriage work. Indeed, the stress contributed to all sorts of other social problems, such as suicide and crime. Easterlin's model explains the Baby Boom very well. He and his students used it to explain the fertility changes in the early 19th century, when America was an agricultural society and to get married a young man had to have a farm. They tried to show that long-term cycles existed. When farm land was readily available couples married young and had lots of children, but when land became scarce they married later and had fewer children.

Unfortunately there are fatal problems with the Easterlin model. First of all, the sociologists have been unable to find the hypothesized motivations. Do people try to attain a standard of living similar to what they had when they were young by delaying marriage or manipulating family size? People deny it and the statistics for individuals show no effect. Do large cohorts in fact earn less than small cohort? The differences, over a lifetime, seem to be about 3% for men and 0% for women, so the effects are too small to be important. Easterlin theory's predicts an upturn in wages for young people entering the labor market in the 1990s (because they came from a smaller post-baby boom cohort). However, the wages seem to be lower, not higher. Do other countries show an Easterlin effect in their wage or fertility patterns over time? No. The theory seems to stop working circa 1980. With smaller cohorts trends toward lower fertility and lower wages were supposed to reverse themselves, but they did not. As Ronald Lee has concluded, Easterlin's grand theory now has few believers.

see [[United States Population]]

===France===
The French pronatalist movement from 1919-1945 failed to convince French couples of their patriotic duty to help increase their country's birthrate. Even the government was reluctant in its support to the movement. It was only between 1938 and 1939 that the French government became directly and permanently involved in the pronatalist effort. Although the birthrate started to surge in late 1941, the trend was not sustained. Falling birthrate one again became a major concern among demographers and government officials beginning in the 1970s.<ref>Andres Horacio Reggiani, "Procreating France: the politics of demography, 1919-1945." ''French Historical Studies'' Spring 1996 v19 n3 pp 725-54 </ref>

==Fertility in religions==

One good example of the role fertility played in religion is the Israelites' use of pagan gods such as golden calves to bring fertility to the lands and their women. In most of Mesopotamia fertile land was essential to one's well-being and survival, so most pagan gods were devoted to fertility and growth.

==Bibliography==
* Barrett, Richard E., Donald J. Bogue, and Douglas L. Anderton. ''The Population of the United States'' 3rd Edition (1997) compendium of data
* Coale, Ansley J. and Susan C. Watkins, eds. ''The Decline of Fertility in Europe,'' (1986)
* Eversley, D. E. C. ''Social Theories of Fertility and the Malthusian Debate'' (1959) [http://www.questia.com/read/27821849 online edition]
* Garrett, Eilidh ety al. ''Family Size in England and Wales: Place, Class, and Demography, 1891-1911''(2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/105014031 online edition]
* Grabill, Wilson H.. Clyde V. Kiser, Pascal K. Whelpton. ''The Fertility of American Women'' (1958), influential study at the peak of the Baby Boom [http://www.questia.com/read/31149540 online edition]
* GuzmÁn, JosÉ Miguel et al. ''The Fertility Transition in Latin America'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/91845268 online edition]
* Haines, Michael R. and Richard H. Steckel (eds.), ''A Population History of North America.'' (2000), 752 pp. advanced scholarship
* Hawes, Joseph M. and Elizabeth I. Nybakken, eds. ''American Families: a Research Guide and Historical Handbook.'' (1991)
* Klein, Herbert S. ''A Population History of the United States.'' (2004). 316 pp
* Knox, P. L. et al. ''The United States: A Contemporary Human Geography.'' (1988). 287 pp.
* Kohler, Hans-Peter ''Fertility and Social Interaction: An Economic Perspective'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/110004723 online edition]
* Leete, Richard. ''Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/77198881 online edition]
* Lovett, Laura L. ''Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1938,'' (2007) 236 pages;
* Mintz Steven and Susan Kellogg. ''Domestic Revolutions: a Social History of American Family Life.'' (1988)
* Pampel, Fred C. and H. Elizabeth Peters, "The Easterlin Effect," ''Annual Review of Sociology'' (1995) v21 pp 163-194]
* Population Reference Bureau, ''Population Handbook'' (5th ed. 2004) [http://www.prb.org/Reports/2004/PopulationHandbook5thedition.asp online] (5th ed. 2004), A quick 72pp guide to population dynamics; explains how to calculate and use major rates, ratios, and other measures from the birth rate to the life table; includes tips on interpreting population data.
* Reed, James. ''From Private Vice to Public Virtue: The Birth Control Movement and American Society Since 1830.'' 1978.
* Tarver, James D. ''The Demography of Africa'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/26237427 online edition]
* Weeks, John R. ''Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues'' (10th ed. 2007), standard textbook

====notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Reproduction]]
[[Category:Demography]]

Canaan (land)

2008-12-15T22:06:59Z

JHarris:

Canaan was a historical region encompassing modern-day Israel, Jordan, and Southern Syria and Lebanon.

== History ==
After being invaded my the Israelites in the 3rd millennium BC, Canaan was unified under one government, and one faith. <ref name=Penn>Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology[http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/LandandTime.shtml]</ref> Canaan was the birthplace of [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]]. Canaan remained in Israelite control until waves invading troops from the East and North pushed them out.

== Name ==
Canaan is named after Canaan, the fourth son of Ham<ref name=crystalink>Crystalinks [http://www.crystalinks.com/canaan.html]</ref> and Grandson of Noah.

== Religion ==
Before the Israelite invasion, Canaanites worshipped Ba'al and Ashteroth, god and goddess of [[fertility]]. The Israelites tried to exterminate Canaanites who didn't convert, but a few survived and became the [[Philistines]]. After the birth of [[Jesus]], [[Christianity]] began to phase out Judaism. Eventually, the Muslims would invade, and fighting between the montheistic religions over Canaan continues to this day.

== references ==
{{Reflist|2}}

Canaan (land)

2008-12-15T22:00:45Z

JHarris: New page: Canaan was a historical region encompassing modern-day Israel, Jordan, and Southern Syria and Lebanon. == History == After being invaded my the Israelites in the 3rd millennium BC, Canaan...