Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Aspire

2008-07-23T23:06:20Z

JJacob: New page: haha

haha

Media event

2008-07-22T23:12:47Z

JJacob: more info added

A '''Media event''' is an event that is purposely arranged in order to give the [[press]] an opportunity to see an elected-official at work or to hear an official speak. It allows the [[politician]] some good press coverage and the ability to convey a message. An unarranged media event of the same sort, usually based around a scandal of some sort, is called a Media Circus.

[[Category:Politics]]

Liberal bias

2008-07-22T02:24:21Z

JJacob: revert but reworded. Take up on talk page

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools.{{fact}} It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.


Such a bias could manifest itself as one or more of the following:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention 
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention 
*an attempt to be consistent by treating men and women alike
*an obsession with race where images are used
 

==The  Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[NPR]]
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[National Academy of Sciences]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is rampant in American university campuses. Leftist [[professor values|professors]] dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
Interestingly the [[New York Times]] recently rejected an opinion piece, written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal bias

2008-07-22T00:39:23Z

JJacob: added NYT refusing to publish McCain piece

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools.{{fact}} It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.


Such a bias could manifest itself as one or more of the following:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention 
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention 
*an attempt to be consistent by treating men and women alike
*an obsession with race where images are used
 

==The  Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[NPR]]
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[National Academy of Sciences]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is rampant in American university campuses. Leftist [[professor values|professors]] dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
Most recently the [[New York Times]] refused to print an opinion piece, written by [[John McCain]], which was critical [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Max Planck

2008-07-21T23:41:18Z

JJacob: grammar fix

[[Image:Max planck.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Max Planck]]
'''Max Planck''' (Kiel 1858 - Göttingen 1947) was a great [[Germany|German]] physicist. He advanced the subjects of [[thermodynamics]], [[thermoelectricity]], and the theory of [[dilute solutions]], and was one of the founders of [[quantum mechanics]].

Planck's revolutionary discovery, one of the most influential in all of science, was that a resonator could emit energy in discrete units, or quanta. The energy emitted by a resonator of frequency '''''ν''''' is '''''hν''''', where "'''''h'''''" is a universal constant that is now called Planck's constant. This explanation resolved important discrepancies between theory and observations, and helped lay a foundation for the development of [[quantum mechanics]].

Planck's research in quantum theory was published in the ''Annalen der Physik'', and his work was summarized in the books ''Thermodynamik'' (Thermodynamics) (1897) and ''Theorie der Wärmestrahlung'' (Theory of heat radiation) (1906).<ref> [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html Biography]</ref>

Planck was award the [[Nobel Prize]] for physics in 1918.<ref>The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History, Bulliet et al, 2005</ref>

Planck's son was executed in 1945 for his part in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] in 1944.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Planck, Max}}
[[category:physicists]]

Liberal myths

2008-07-21T03:45:47Z

JJacob:

{{uncited}}

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system. They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is an attempt to justify abortions)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]].[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths]
*The claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml]
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce [[energy]] prices.
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father.
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right.
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]

==Patriotism==

The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political leftwing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabatoge or anarchism. Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The leftwing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips<ref>http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200508%5CSPE20050825a.html</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]

Talk:Conservapedia conference

2008-07-20T07:33:16Z

JJacob:

Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

==Stem cell research==

I added [[stem cell research]] to the list. While it's debatable whether it's junky science, it's certainly morally corrupt because it effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells. I personally believe they could probably achieve at least some of the things they say, which is why I hesitate on the "junky" label. But this real possibility of satisfying their goals is part of why stem cell research is so scary. People will be impressed by the results and forget the way they were obtained--an awful application of the ends justifying the means. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Stem cells are quite the hot topic. What I find striking is that you can get stem cells ''without'' resorting to embryo's however we never hear about it. Its as if some are determined to cheapen human life by any means possible. Anyway, my above transcript request stands.....Oh please please!!!!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 03:33, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia conference

2008-07-20T02:45:19Z

JJacob: New page: Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it! ~~~~

Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia conference

2008-07-20T02:35:59Z

JJacob:

List here suggested topics for talks, and possible speakers, for the next conference on "federally funded junk science":

* [[global warming]]
* [[gun control]]
* [[evolution]]

(add more)

Conservative insights

2008-07-20T02:34:32Z

JJacob: hope this is ok

'''Conservative insights''' are truths discovered or ideas implemented, for the benefit of all, as a result of the [[conservative]] movement:

* that [[Reagan]]'s public exhortation to "tear down this wall" would result, merely a few years, in tearing down the Berlin Wall<ref>Not only did [[liberals]] oppose Reagan's statement, but they felt it was foolish and senselessly provocative.</ref>
* that decreasing taxes would increase government revenue<ref>See, e.g., the [[Laffer Curve]]</ref>
* that more guns leads to less crime<ref>See [[John Lott]]</ref>
* that "[[Choose Life]]" license plates would be popular and productive
* that, with little investigation, serious flaws can be found in scientists self-serving experiments<ref> see [[Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study]]</ref>

(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

Enron

2008-07-19T04:31:17Z

JJacob: grammar

'''Enron''' was an [[energy]] company based out of [[Houston]], [[Texas]], though it was founded in Omaha, Nebraska. It was one of the largest energy providers in the United States, and employed over 21,000 people. It was named Fortune Magazine's "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years. Then everything went downhill in 2001.

==Corruption and Demise==

The Enron scandal occured when Blue Chip stock Enron, was revealed to have much more debt than thought. It would appear that top officers misled shareholders, and that some transactions did not appear on the company's financial records. The stock dropped in this period from $90 to mere pennies. It is considered to be one of the largest bankruptcies in history.

==Aftermath==

The "Enron 3", [[Ken Lay]], [[Jeffery Skilling]], and [[Andrew Fastow]], the top officers of Enron were all convicted for their role in the collapse of Enron. Enron's accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for its dealings in the event, and went from being one of the top five accounting firms in the world, to a mere shadow of its original stature. This is because the numerous civil suits against it, lack of credibility, and loss of clients in the Enron collapse. The [[Houston Astros]] baseball stadium, Enron Stadium, was changed to Minute Maid Field after the incident. Many documentaries, movies and books about the Enron Scandal have been created, one of the most notable is the movie, Fun with Dick and Jane, with a storyline loosely based around the scandal, even mentioning Enron in the credits.

[[Category:corporations]]

[[Category:corruption]]

Enron

2008-07-19T04:30:50Z

JJacob: sp

'''Enron''' was an [[energy]] company based out of [[Houston]], [[Texas]], though it was founded in Omaha, Nebraska. It was one of the largest energy providers in the United States, and employed over 21,000 people. It was named Fortune Magazine's "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years. Then everything went downhill in 2001.

==Corruption and Demise==

The Enron scandal occured when Blue Chip stock Enron, was revealed to have much more debt than thought. It would appear that top officers misled shareholders, and that some transactions did not appear on the company's financial records. The stock dropped in this period from $90 to mere pennies. It is considered to be one of the largest bankruptcies in history.

==Aftermath==

The "Enron 3", [[Ken Lay]], [[Jeffery Skilling]], and [[Andrew Fastow]], the top officers of Enron were all convicted for their role in the collapse of Enron. Enron's accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for its dealings in the event, and went from being one of the top five accounting firms in the world, to a mere shadow of its original stature. This is because the numerous civil suits against it, lack of credibility, and loss of clients in the Enron collapse. The [[Houston Astros]] baseball stadium, Enron Stadium, was changed to Minute Maid Field after the incident. Many documentaries,movies, and books about the Enron Scandal have been created, one of the most notable is the movie, Fun with Dick and Jane, with a storyline loosely based around the scandal, even mentioning Enron in the credits.

[[Category:corporations]]

[[Category:corruption]]

SimCity 2000

2008-07-18T09:50:12Z

JJacob:

'''SimCity 2000''' ([[ESRB]] rating: E) was one of the earliest games in the [[SimCity]] series. It has more options such as ability to build [[Hospital]]s and [[College]]s, the player is allowed to receive loans and there are many disasters to choose from like [[hurricane]], [[fire]], [[air crash]], [[riot]], monster attack and many more. It does not have very good graphics but that has not stopped its popularity with SimCity enthusiasts. It is still collected mostly due to its antiquity.

{{stub}}

[[category:Video Games]]

Rhinoceros

2008-07-18T09:47:41Z

JJacob:

[[Image:RHINO.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]

The [[rhinoceros]] is one of several kinds of large [[pachyderm]]atous [[herbivore|herbivorous]] mammals of Africa and Asia, equipped with one or two nasal horns which is composed of compressed hair much like the human fingernail.

Rhinoceri have poor vision but a good sense of smell.

Five sorts are in existence today, but all with greatly diminished ranges; all are threatened with [[extinction]] due to [[poaching]], as their horns command enormous prices, being believed to have [[aphrodisiac]] properties. The legend of the [[unicorn]] is believed by some to have been based on seeing some sort of rhinoceros.

*White or square-lipped rhinoceros (2-horned, Africa) is the largest variety.
*Black rhinoceros (2-horned, Africa), renowned for its pugnacity.
*Indian rhinoceros (1-horned, India and Nepal).
*Sumatran rhinoceros (2-horned, Sumatra, Indo-China and Indonesia) is the smallest variety, and unlike the others has a hairy pelt.
*Javan rhinoceros (1-horned, Java and Vietnam) is the rarest large land mammal in the world; less than sixty survive.

A number of extinct varieties are also known, notably the woolly rhinoceros of the [[Ice Age]], which cohabited with the Woolly [[Mammoth]]. Several frozen corpses of this animal have been discovered in the [[Siberia]]n [[permafrost]].

[[Category:Hoofed Mammals]]

Polycythemia Vera

2008-07-18T07:41:19Z

JJacob: whoops

'''Polycythemia Vera''' (POL-e-si-THE-me-ah VE-ra), or PV, is a rare blood disease in which the body manufactures too many red [[blood]] cells. These extra red blood cells make the blood thicker than normal. The thickened blood flows more slowly through the small blood vessels and can form clots, which can cause a heart attack or stroke.

Blood cells are formed in the bone marrow, which is the soft tissue inside bones. In addition to red blood cells, blood contains two other types of cells: white blood cells to help fight infection and platelets to help the blood clot. In individuals with PV, the bone marrow bone marrow produces too many red blood cells, but it also can make too many white blood cells and platelets.

Red blood cells also are called RBCs or [[erythrocytes]] (eh-RITH-ro-sites). Normal red blood cells look like doughnuts but with shallow indents rather than holes in the center and have an average lifespan of 120 days. Red blood cells contain [[hemoglobin]] (HEE-muh-glow-bin), an iron-rich protein that gives blood its red color and carries oxygen to the body. Red blood cells also remove carbon dioxide, a waste product, from cells and carry it to the lungs to be exhaled.

PV is a rare, chronic disease that can be fatal if not diagnosed and treated. The cause of PV is not known. It develops slowly and may not produce symptoms for many years. Sometimes, symptoms can be vague and nonspecific. Many people find out they have PV from blood tests done for other reasons. It is more common in adult males 60 years or older. It is very rare in people younger than 20 years.

With PV, thickening of the blood slows down the flow of blood to all parts of the body. Clots form more easily, potentially blocking blood flow through arteries or veins. The slower flow of blood means that organs do not receive enough oxygen. The shortage of oxygen can lead to angina, congestive heart failure, and gout. Slower blood flow also deprives the arms, legs, lungs, and eyes of the oxygen they need to perform normally. This can cause headaches, dizziness, itching, and problems with vision, such as blurred or double vision.

PV may also cause stomach ulcers and kidney stones.

A small number of people with PV may develop myelofibrosis (MY-e-lo-fi-BRO-sis), a condition in which the bone marrow is replaced by fibrous (scar) tissue. The abnormal bone marrow cells may begin to grow out of control. This abnormal growth can lead to acute myelogenous (my-e-LOJ-e-nus) leukemia (AML), a disease that worsens very quickly. In AML, too many immature white blood cells are found in the blood and bone marrow.
Outlook

PV is a serious illness that can lead to death if it is not treated.

PV can be controlled with treatment, but no cure exists. Some people with PV need only minimal care. Others will need more intensive treatment. Treatment can control PV and lessen the risk of blood clots, heart attack, and stroke that can result from the disease.

== Sources ==

* [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Browse/Blood.html NIH Glossary]
[[category:medicine]]

Polycythemia Vera

2008-07-18T07:40:59Z

JJacob:

'''Polycythemia Vera''' (POL-e-si-THE-me-ah VE-ra), or PV, is a rare blood disease in which the body manufactures too many red [[blood]] cells. These extra red blood cells make the blood thicker than normal. The thickened blood flows more slowly through the small blood vessels and can form clots, which can cause a heart attack or stroke.

Blood cells are formed in the bone marrow, which the soft tissue inside bones. In addition to red blood cells, blood contains two other types of cells: white blood cells to help fight infection and platelets to help the blood clot. In individuals with PV, the bone marrow bone marrow produces too many red blood cells, but it also can make too many white blood cells and platelets.

Red blood cells also are called RBCs or [[erythrocytes]] (eh-RITH-ro-sites). Normal red blood cells look like doughnuts but with shallow indents rather than holes in the center and have an average lifespan of 120 days. Red blood cells contain [[hemoglobin]] (HEE-muh-glow-bin), an iron-rich protein that gives blood its red color and carries oxygen to the body. Red blood cells also remove carbon dioxide, a waste product, from cells and carry it to the lungs to be exhaled.

PV is a rare, chronic disease that can be fatal if not diagnosed and treated. The cause of PV is not known. It develops slowly and may not produce symptoms for many years. Sometimes, symptoms can be vague and nonspecific. Many people find out they have PV from blood tests done for other reasons. It is more common in adult males 60 years or older. It is very rare in people younger than 20 years.

With PV, thickening of the blood slows down the flow of blood to all parts of the body. Clots form more easily, potentially blocking blood flow through arteries or veins. The slower flow of blood means that organs do not receive enough oxygen. The shortage of oxygen can lead to angina, congestive heart failure, and gout. Slower blood flow also deprives the arms, legs, lungs, and eyes of the oxygen they need to perform normally. This can cause headaches, dizziness, itching, and problems with vision, such as blurred or double vision.

PV may also cause stomach ulcers and kidney stones.

A small number of people with PV may develop myelofibrosis (MY-e-lo-fi-BRO-sis), a condition in which the bone marrow is replaced by fibrous (scar) tissue. The abnormal bone marrow cells may begin to grow out of control. This abnormal growth can lead to acute myelogenous (my-e-LOJ-e-nus) leukemia (AML), a disease that worsens very quickly. In AML, too many immature white blood cells are found in the blood and bone marrow.
Outlook

PV is a serious illness that can lead to death if it is not treated.

PV can be controlled with treatment, but no cure exists. Some people with PV need only minimal care. Others will need more intensive treatment. Treatment can control PV and lessen the risk of blood clots, heart attack, and stroke that can result from the disease.

== Sources ==

* [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Browse/Blood.html NIH Glossary]
[[category:medicine]]

Fiber

2008-07-18T07:37:13Z

JJacob:

'''Fiber''' refers to a [[material]] with string-like consistency, either wholly, or internally. For example, [[muscle]] tissue has a fibrous internal consistency. Fiberous material is also needed for a balanced diet.

[[category:Science]]

Valley

2008-07-18T07:32:40Z

JJacob:

Geographically, a '''valley''' is an area of lower altitude with [[mountains]] or [[hills]] on either side. Most commonly, they are formed when a river cut down into bedrock, such as with the [[Grand Canyon]]. These have a V shape when seen in profile, and can have very steep slopes. When a [[glacier]] intrudes into one of these valleys, it causes the valley to widen and take on a U shape. Glacial valleys can be very wide, long and quite pronounced.

Metaphorically, a '''valley''' is a time when a soul is going through tribulation, turmoil, [[depression]] or just a really bad day.

[[Category: Geology]]

PZ Myers

2008-07-18T07:30:01Z

JJacob:

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is an [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught.<ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== Militant atheism ==

Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans.

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.

=== Communion host ===

On July 8, 2008, Myers posted an entry attacking the Christian practice of Communion. After ridiculing Christians as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "Nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> Myers quickly ducked behind the "satire and protest" defense<ref>'Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!" '({{Bible ref|Proverbs|26|18-19}})</ref> and backed down on his threat to desecrate Communion wafers.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers) had been spoofed.<ref>The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html) The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]

Naked mole rat

2008-07-18T07:29:23Z

JJacob:

The '''naked mole rat''' is a burrowing [[rodent]] most known for its peculiar [[adaptation]]s to living underground. These include limited vision, the loss of most hair, and [[incest | incestuous]] based mating system similar to [[ants]] with a dominant female and infertile worker females which defer to the dominant females every need and whim. Nake mole rats are the only [[eusocial]] [[mammal]]s.

[[Category:Rodents]]

Maori

2008-07-18T07:25:20Z

JJacob: no longer stubby

'''Māoris''' are the native people of [[New Zealand]].They descended from an early [[Polynesia]]n race. According to legend, they came from the island of Hawaiki. The exact date of their arrival to New Zealand is unclear but it is estimated they arrived between 700-1000AD<ref>Mike King, ''A history of New Zealand''</ref>. Representatives of the Maori gave up governorship of New Zealand by signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. There was however controversy as to the nature of the rights they were giving up over New Zealand. The English and the Maori versions of the treaty differed on this point. The Maori version stated that the Maori would give Kawanatanga (literally "governorship") whereas in the English version, sovereignty was ceded. This mistranslation has had ramifications for the Maori people as did wholesale confiscation of Maori land by the crown in the decades following the treaty. This confiscation of lands provoked the "Maori land wars" in the 1860's and 1870's. The controversy around the Treaty of Waitangi continue to this day.

They are distinguished for their bravery. The Maori Battalion was a corps made up of Maori soldiers that distinguished itself in the Second World War. They excel in rugby union and rugby league, traditionally making up a large presence in All Black (rugby union) and Kiwi (league) teams. Their presence in the All Blacks was often controversial when they toured the South Africa. Maori's were excluded until 1970, when the protest group "Halt All Racist Tours" (Hart) pressured the rugby union to demand that Maori players be allowed to tour.<ref>http://www.sarugby.com/news/News/article/sid=4052.html</ref>

They are overwhelmingly Christian <ref>http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/Census+snapshot:+Maori</ref>, having been converted from their myths and legends by early British missionaries.

Maori speak a rich sonorous language which is one of the two national languages of [[New Zealand]]. However less than 1 in 4 Maoris people speak the language though this is being addressed with the recent (2007) introduction of a Maori TV channel and emphasis in schools on learning the language. Unfortunately, Maori's are heavily featured in many of New Zealand's negative statistics such as unemployment and imprisonment <ref>By 1989 Maori were 49% of sentenced prisoners while making up 8% of the
total population 15 years and over. [http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TT6PjpyASNoJ:www.howardleague.co.nz/factsheets/8.pdf+Maori+statistics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] </ref>

==References==

<references/>
[[category:New Zealand]]

Maori

2008-07-18T02:56:20Z

JJacob:

'''Māoris''' are the native people of [[New Zealand]].They descended from an early [[Polynesia]]n race. According to legend, they came from the island of Hawaiki. The exact date of their arrival to New Zealand is unclear but it is estimated they arrived between 700-1000AD<ref>Mike King, ''A history of New Zealand''</ref>. Representatives of the Maori gave up governorship of New Zealand by signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. There was however controversy as to the nature of the rights they were giving up over New Zealand. The English and the Maori versions of the treaty differed on this point. The Maori version stated that the Maori would give Kawanatanga (literally "governorship") whereas in the English version, sovereignty was ceded. This mistranslation has had ramifications for the Maori people as did wholesale confiscation of Maori land by the crown in the decades following the treaty. This confiscation of lands provoked the "Maori land wars" in the 1860's and 1870's. The controversy around the Treaty of Waitangi continue to this day.

They are distinguished for their bravery. The Maori Battalion was a corps made up of Maori soldiers that distinguished itself in the Second World War. They excel in rugby union and rugby league, traditionally making up a large presence in All Black (rugby union) and Kiwi (league) teams. Their presence in the All Blacks was often controversial when they toured the South Africa. Maori's were excluded until 1970, when the protest group "Halt All Racist Tours" (Hart) pressured the rugby union to demand that Maori players be allowed to tour.<ref>http://www.sarugby.com/news/News/article/sid=4052.html</ref>

They are overwhelmingly Christian <ref>http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/Census+snapshot:+Maori</ref>, having been converted from their myths and legends by early British missionaries.

Maori speak a rich sonorous language which is one of the two national languages of [[New Zealand]]. However less than 1 in 4 Maoris people speak the language though this is being addressed with the recent (2007) introduction of a Maori TV channel and emphasis in schools on learning the language. Unfortunately, Maori's are heavily featured in many of New Zealand's negative statistics such as unemployment and imprisonment <ref>By 1989 Maori were 49% of sentenced prisoners while making up 8% of the
total population 15 years and over. [http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TT6PjpyASNoJ:www.howardleague.co.nz/factsheets/8.pdf+Maori+statistics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] </ref>
{{stub}}
==References==

<references/>
[[category:New Zealand]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-07-17T05:39:50Z

JJacob:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==Most Liberal?==

What about Bernie Sanders?

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you read the article correctly, you would know that Obama is a secret Muslim--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 17:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Franklin Graham (son of Billy) tried to find out is Obama was a Christian. It looks like the answer is no![http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68581]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 16:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually, the quote from that article is that Obama said, 'Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people.' when asked if he believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. All of the accusations in that article indicating that he is a Muslim have already been cited (from the original sources, not an article which cites them in turn) on this or the main page. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to get to "informative truth," why isn't the top of John McCain's page about how he sold other POWs out, didn't pay his taxes, and left his crippled wife in the 70's for a beer fortuness that was worth 100 mil and was 18 years younger than him? That would seem biased and mean toward McCain, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, and it's no different here. We need to have respect for Republicans and Democrats alike, especially the two men who one of them is going to be the President by next January. [[User:Impm|Impm]]

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I know many leftists, and none of them seem to hate soldiers. One of my good friends is extremely left-wing (has gay parents), and is ''in'' the military. I'm not sure the "General Betrayus" comment was necessarily anti-military, it seemed more anti-a-specific-person. And what about all of the pro-veteran bills being introduced by Democrats? I think it's ''without a doubt'' that many leftists are anti-war, but I think it's a stretch to say they're anti-soldier.--[[User:Cockamamie|Cockamamie]] 12:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, but McCain accepted 300k from a man who likened rape to bad weather, saying that "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He also told a female competitor for Governor of Texas, the office he was running for, that he would "hog her and tie her and drag her through the dirt." McCain accepted 300,000 dollars for his campaign that this man raised. So I suppose McCain is a raging sexist, too?

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

:: Might not be good enough for this page; they don't seem enough like angry black militants.

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The sentence which indicates that Obama wearing a flag pin "might be political pandering" has no reference and no basis in verifiable fact. This comment should be removed. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] is what you are looking for. It seems to me that the first step in complying with this template would be to move most of the intro into the relevant sections in the article. The intro should only include "'''Subject's Name''' (in bold) followed by a brief synopsis of notable positions held or sought." ~ [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 11:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The references being used for this section are incorrect. If you follow the link on the pages you eventually get to this page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html. There it states: Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The statement being made is blatantly false and has been addressed by the university of Chicago.--[[User:Redragon104|Redragon104]] 14:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why WOULD he change his name?===
The entire portion of the article that discusses this is ridiculous. Why should a person change their name at all? It's similar to saying that a person named Weinstein should change their name if they were a Christian, because "Weinstein" is a Jewish name. This portion of the article has no purpose and should be removed. If you want to show why Obama is a poor choice for president, do so. But juvenile attacks like this just make the people doing it look silly. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Spot on-- This dirty Muslim clearly mixed up the number of states in the glorious USA with the number of non-observer states in an obscure organization! There is no WAY he could've misspoken, saying fifty-seven instead of fourty seven! [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Saul didn't change his name to Paul. At one point Luke says, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and carries the account on from there. This occurs several chapters after his conversion, and it is simply a Greek form of Saul's Hebrew name. For heaven's sake. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Under Published criticism, A fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html] , http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html, June 23, 2008</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 20:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's not so much the attacks as the nit picking nature of them- we've got calling a senior lectureship a professorship, saying 57 instead of 47, the fact that his uncle helped liberate a different concentration camp, the fact that he has no executive or military experience (I've been wondering about the executive part- is that refering to presidential experience?)... it all just seems a bit overplayed. [[WillD]]
::I agree, nitpicking is a good way to look at it. The article has missed the forest for the trees and, to further our usage of cliches, is missing the broad strokes. Although the executive experience part I believe refers to never holding a position similar to President but on a lower level; i.e., he's never been a governor, a mayor, or any other such position.--[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::: ''"article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations"'' Hmmm, if there wasn't references, you might have had a valid point.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's the usage of sources and the presentation of them that is problematic. This article, instead of finding sources and writing an article based off of them, is making claims and then adding "sources" that loosely connect them. An example is the Kenyan father thing; he says his father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, but the article indicates that because less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, it's impossible. You don't see the problem with that? Even ignoring that Obama himself says his father was an atheist (and who, despite being abandoned by him, knew him far better than any of us), it isn't possible Obama Sr. is one of those less than 1% of Kenyans?
:::: And if that isn't enough, here's an interview by British newspaper The Guardian with [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008 one of Obama Sr.'s daughters by another mother], who says "His [Barack's] father was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name." That would be a proper source, if it weren't for the fact that it completely contradicts what's written. The Muslim insinuations should be removed. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:46, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: The entry is factual. Obama's self-serving claim that his father was an atheist has all the plausibility of anything else that occurs less than 1% of the time. That Obama asserts that this was true before Obama could have possibly known (e.g., before Obama was born) only adds to implausibility of it.

::::: By the way, your quote (also self-serving) by Obama's relative does not indicate that Obama Sr. was an atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

She doesn't say he was an atheist, but she does say he was not a Muslim. And I doubt that a woman who apparently has never left Kenya would have much to gain by lying about her father's religious beliefs. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 18:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: But you missed the point, perhaps intentionally: Obama claimed Obama Sr. was an atheist, a claim having an obvious effect of appeasing both atheists and Christians. Too bad that it is so implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== President experience ==

Abraham Lincoln had 2 years in the house and 8 years in the state legislature. JFK was 8 years in the senate and 6 years in the house. Madison was 8 years in the house and 4 years in state legislature. Hoover was 7.5 years in the cabinet - was never in the state legislature, governor, house, or senate. Harrison was 6 years in the senate. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html goes into the various experience of various presidents. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==James Dobson on Obama==
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, points out that Obama distorts the Holy Bible for his own political ends [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama]--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::James Dobson was apparently not listening closely to his speech. Obama's point was that policy should be made by people who don't automatically use Christian principles alone to make decisions. The reasons for policy decisions should be made accessible by people of all affiliations, not just Judeo-Christian ones. Dobson is just angry because his name was mentioned in a speech by a liberal candidate. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Is it me or do liberals always need others to explain what they have said?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Islamic holidays==
"However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. ". What are we suggesting he should have done, in a country where the schools close for Islamic holidays? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

For today, he should enlighten us all to his past. He refuses to give us much detail. When you are running for the highest office in the land, nothing can be hidden. Did he go home and watch TV during his days off? Maybe he celebrated the Holidays by attending a Mosque. What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining. He grew up in a predominate Muslim country. He left a Christian school after two years. The rest has yet to be explained.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because you don't know something you think it has to be explained? Would you like to describe for us what you did on every holiday you took off school? Maybe you spent them attending meetings of the Communist party? "What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining." [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What difference does it make what he did? You would think we'd be better off focusing on his foreign and energy policies than pondering what he did with his free time when he was 10. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I would focus on his foreign and energy policy, if he had one! The little he has accomplished, I disagree with completely.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Didn't want you to hurt yourself with actually, you know, looking, so here you go, Jpatt: [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Foreign Policy] and [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Energy Policy] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: yawn, much talk but nothing of logic--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative Action?==
The line "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" should be replaced with "If elected, Obama would be the first African-American Affirmative Action President." By Conservapedia's definition, many white male Presidents did benefit from their "race or gender", and qualify as Affirmative Action Presidents.

: I think the main problem is not the phrasing of the claim but rather the claim itself. Not only does it insinuate that Obama has done absolutely nothing noteworthy in his entire life, but it is also inherently racist. I'm a conservative and will be voting for John McCain, but I really don't think he'd approve of this either. This website seems to approach politics like it's some kind of all-out war in which you should do anything, from lie to slander to smear to win. That's just wrong. This article, this Obama article, is giving us conservatives a bad name. If Obama loses this election, it should be on his policies and ideas, not because someone told everyone he was a Muslim.

==Barack Obama Visits Wounded War Veterans==
Barack Obama makes a surprise visit to wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html], http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html ,AP Barack Visits Wounded Vets, June 28, 2008 </ref> The visit wasn't on his public schedule.

In the past, Obama criticized the Bush administration for veterans treatment returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since becoming a US Senator, it has taken Obama more than 1270 days or three and a half years to visit our countries finest wounder soldiers in Washington, D.C.
:I assume you specifically mean the ones at Walter Reed, since he's visited [http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html other] veterans in the past. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Place of birth==
Last week on talk radio (the Shaun Hannity program I think) they raised the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Apparently, his campaign cannot produce a birth certificate. If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:08, 29 June 2008 (EDT).
:Technically they produced an image of his [http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert birth certificate]. Sean Hannity and Right-Wing blogs question its authenticity. This feeds into the "He's a foreigner! Scary!" meme. If you don't think he's a citizen and isn't eligible to be President, telling CP probably won't do much. Instead, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate federal agency and tell them. Although, since elections are technically handled state-by-state, you will probably need to contact the Secretary of State for each state and file your complaint. Would you like help locating those agencies to check into your allegations? Of course, one should be mindful, as I wonder whether this type of accusation would be considered "libel".--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::He should be required to produce an authentic certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii. As for libel, that is simply a liberal scare tactic. Truth is a perfect defense against libel. After all, you don't see Richard Lenski trying to sue Andy Schlafly do you? That's because he knows that Andy's doubts about his research are true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:55, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Who should he be required to produce it to for verification? Again, if you think that he isn't constitutionally qualified, the onus falls on YOU to request that he provide verification. The requests should be sent to the Secretaries of State, as they are the ones who are in charge of elections in each state. So if you believe it so firmly, do something about it. Don't sit here and complain, go out and force it. Or are you going to just grumble about it and make accusations without following up? And as for Lenski suing Schlafly--I don't think CP's questions have done any "harm" to Lenski's reputation and the time of going through and filing a lawsuit for libel? You'd be up in arms claiming it was a waste of the court's time to hear that case. Seems if Lenski doesn't file a lawsuit you'll say it's because he knows he's wrong, and if he does file a lawsuit, you'll say it's a waste of time. So that example doesn't really hold any water, in my book. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::That's a good point. I'll add it to [[Lenski]]'s page. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well when you get a job with the government (Senator falls in this category) you have to give the US Government your birth certificate. If it was false something would have come up earlier. If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else.

::::: "If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else." I'm afraid you may be on the wrong site, my friend. We tell the truth here regardless of what other people may or may not accept.

::::: The standards for confirming legal status for a government employee are not, obviously, as high as the standards for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution by a potential U.S. President.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::What evidence would be acceptable proof of his being born in the US? I'm fairly certain that I could find such evidence, if I knew what would be considered valid. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Here is a link to a story regarding the birth certificate story. Obama may be in trouble if the Republicans have the gumption to pursue this.[http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/birth-certificate-could-doom-obama.html]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 08:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: The US Government would know where Obama was born. I think they would've spoken out and say "hey wait a minute" at some point in the past year and a half he's been running this campaign.

::::World Net Daily and The National Review (both trusted Conservapedia sources) acknowledge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and consider it a non-issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66991

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=

Could some sysop please delete the word "alledged" from the birth information? I would do it myself (and do a productive edit) but the page is locked. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 14:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Why hasn't anyone made this change? It is absolutely clear that even trusted conservative sources don't think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Continuing to suggest otherwise is just a infantile smeer. Isn't any sysop gutsy (or fair) enough to make the change? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Death Knell for Affirmative Action? ==

Interesting article related to the opinion that Obama is an affirmative action candidate. It says that, in actuality, Obama proves [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/ there's no need for affirmative action]. "Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy he supports.
Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender
for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== List of Obama VP's refusing to take the number 2 job==

* Ted Strickland (D) Governor of Ohio
* Jim Webb (D) Senator of Virginia
* Jack Reed (D) Senator of Rhode Island
* Claire McCaskill (D) Senator Missouri
* John Edwards (D) Frm. Senator N. Carolina

==Employment while a student==

Does two summer jobs in six years at university count as "working your way through"? Even liberal Newsweek calls this [http://www.newsweek.com/id/144336 a bit of a stretch]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

==Double up==
Hi,
This page is locked so I cant fix it but the whole intro is repeated under the section Published Criticism? Can someone fix?
Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Physician

2008-07-17T00:21:09Z

JJacob: grammar

A '''physician''' is a person who is licensed to practice [[medicine]]. Physicians take care of the human body and its ailments. A modern physician undertakes a course of study at an institution of higher learning such as a [[university]]. In the U.S. a physician earns the degree [[Doctor]] of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) after 4 years of graduate study. In the U.K., Ireland and most [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries the basic medical degree is of 6 or 7 years of duration. In recent times a postgraduate 4-year degree has been introduced.

In general, all physicians who wish to gain certification (US) or registration (UK) must undertake extra training and or residency. In the UK and most of the Commonwealth the term physician is used for a person who has undertaken around 8 more years of study and training above their university degree. Physicians in this instance are considered to be specialist[http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectId=668DFD94-2A57-5487-D4FDBF2C1F2F0291].

==External links==
*[http://www.acponline.org/ American College of Physicians]
*[http://www.racp.edu.au/ Royal Australian College of Physicians]
*[http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/ Royal College of Physicians]

[[category:medicine]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-16T23:46:17Z

JJacob: Undo revision 490881 by Peterted (Talk)Please discuss this on the talk page first. see the discussion already there

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[school prayer]]
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]
*Obsession over [[Mindless Equality]]
*Obsession over [[political correctness]]
*Obsession over rights for terrorists
*Obsession over the [[homosexual agenda]]
*Obsession over the plight of Palestinians

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]

[[Category:Liberals]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-16T23:40:54Z

JJacob: Undo revision 490875 by Peterted (Talk) for example Tax and spend is a liberal policy NOT an obsession

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-16T22:59:39Z

JJacob:

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-16T22:59:02Z

JJacob: removed things that are merely liberal beliefs as opposed obsession

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[school prayer]]
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]
*Obsession over [[Mindless Equality]]
*Obsession over [[political correctness]]
*Obsession over rights for terrorists
*Obsession over the [[homosexual agenda]}
*Obsession over the plight of Palestinians

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]

[[Category:Liberals]]

Week

2008-07-16T22:29:46Z

JJacob:

A '''week''' is a period of [[time]] comprising seven [[day]]s. There are 52 weeks in one calendar [[year]]. In the [[Bible]], [[God]] took six days to create the [[earth]] and all the creatures thereon, and then rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for our modern week. In [[Judaism]] the seventh day or [[sabbath]] is equivalent to the Christian [[Saturday]]. In [[Christendom]] the seventh day, and day of rest, is held to occur on [[Sunday]]. For this reason there is often confusion about whether Monday or Sunday should be referred to as the first day of the week. In [[Islam]] the day of rest and religious observance is equivalent to the Christian [[Friday]].

In western society a working week is usually considered to run from Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday constituting the weekend. However, many individuals are obliged to work at the weekend and take other days in lieu.

{{stub}}
[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Talk:Rugby

2008-07-16T21:23:46Z

JJacob:

[[Rugby]] should not be a list of pages. In American English, it refers to the sport. And, yes, I know that rugby has split into two "utterly different" sports, but there as similar as two species of jungle cat as far as we on this side of the pond are concerned.

I propose that [[Rugby]] explain the sport, and be the {main} article for spin-offs such as [[rubgy (league)]] and the, er, other kind. I know it matters a lot to our dear friends overseas, but frankly we Yanks haven't a clue. If you'd like us to [[get a clue]], we will "hear" you a lot better if you stick with our terminology and formats.

I know that "football" can mean [[soccer]], but it's going to take a long uphill struggle to teach me about the various forms of rugby. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:15, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:Minor detail but it's a pet peeve---you spelled "they're" wrong. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:16, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll work on this over the weekend Ed.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 17:23, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Accuracy In Media

2008-07-16T09:19:24Z

JJacob: fixed wikilink

'''Accuracy in Media''' is a [[website]] created to catalog controversial statements made by [[liberals]]. The creators of the site noted that when liberals spoke on their pet causes, that they often received press attention. But when they would make outlandish statements, these statements were often ignored and not mentioned. The goal of Accuracy in Media is to record the outlandish statements that the "main stream" press would not.

==Accuracy in Media (AIM) and KAL 007==

AIM has championed the cause of rectifying the media understanding of the shootdown of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] in 1983 and its aftermath. It has done that by sponsering two speaking engagements in Washington for the Director of the [[International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors]], [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]], and by publishing the Committee's conclusions concerning survivors to this great tragedy.

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/ Official Website for Accuracy in Media]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/ Official Website for Accuracy in Media - What Liberals Say]
*[http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2001/11/01.html AIM column on KAL 007 - "Let's Ask Putin"]
*[http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2001/21.html AIM Column on KAL 007 - "Put it to Putin"]
*[http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2001/11/16.html AIM column on KAL 007 - "Questions for President Putin"]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hold-russia-accountable-for-kal-007-shootdown/ Accuracy In Media report on KAL 007 "Hold Russia Accountable For KAL 007 Shootdown"]
*[http://www.rescue007.org/ International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors]

[[Category:Websites]]

New Democrat

2008-07-16T05:48:44Z

JJacob: sp and wikilink

A term coined to reflect the modern [[Democratic]] party. New Democrats are self proclaimed Progressive. They stand for a Woman's right to have an abortion. Also, they are for civil rights for gays and support gay marriage and civil unions. New Democrats want to expand the government by taxation to create massive new social programs such as Universal Healthcare. They wish to empower workers [[Unions]], which comprise a large majority of campaign donations. New Democrats consider themselves moderates even though they are far left of centrist positions. Organizations that represent New Democrats are the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and congressional New Democrat Coalitions.

== Origin ==

Former Democrat Presidential candidate Gary Hart of a liberal reformist group first used the words New Democrat. <ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817945822_87.pdf , Hoover.org The Fate of the New Democrats</ref> Many people believe that New Democrats came about during the [[Clinton]] Administration. Others would argue New Democrats came as a result of [[George W. Bush]] becoming President and [[Republicans]] controlling all branches of government.

== Old Democrat ==

Modern era Democrats hold 20th century Democrats with high esteem, often giving praise to leaders such as [[John F. Kennedy]]. However, the ideals the old Democrats contrast differently with today's new Democrats. Kennedy's inaugural address "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Contrast that with the New Democrats position that we shall not pay any price or bear any burden in Iraq. That liberty and [[Democracy]] should not be spread to other countries that are America's foes. Also, that the rights of American's held by our constitution does not apply to those children in the womb.

== Canadian Politics ==

[[Canada]] has a political party called The New Democrat Party

== Reference ==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

New Democrat

2008-07-16T05:42:16Z

JJacob: changed the wording a bit

A term coined to reflect the modern [[Democratic]] party. New Democrats are self proclaimed Progressive. They stand for a Woman's right to have an abortion. Also, they are for civil rights for gays and support gay marriage and civil unions. New Democrats want to expand the govenment by taxation to create massive new social programs such as Universal Healthcare. They wish to empower workers [[Unions]], which comprise a large majority of campaign donations. New Democrats consider themselves moderates even though they are far left of centrist positions. Organizations that represent New Democrats are the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and congressional New Democrat Coalitions.

== Origin ==

Former Democrat Presidential candidate Gary Hart of a liberal reformist group first used the words New Democrat. <ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817945822_87.pdf , Hoover.org The Fate of the New Democrats</ref> Many people believe that New Democrats came about during the [[Clinton]] Administration. Others would argue New Democrats came as a result of George W. Bush becoming President and [[Republicans]] controlling all branches of government.

== Old Democrat ==

Modern era Democrats hold 20th century Democrats with high esteem, often giving praise to leaders such as John F. Kennedy. However, the ideals the old Democrats contrast differently with today's new Democrats. Kennedy's inaugural address "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Contrast that with the New Democrats position that we shall not pay any price or bear any burden in Iraq. That liberty and [[Democracy]] should not be spread to other countries that are America's foes. Also, that the rights of American's held by our constitution does not apply to those children in the womb.

== Canadian Politics ==

Canada has a political party called The New Democrat Party

== Reference ==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-16T01:43:06Z

JJacob: what I notice

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I count at least four distinct diagnostic methods used in the paper for distinguishing whether clones are Cit+. One in particular they describe as being very sensitive to weakly citrate-using cells. It's not that I 'think' Blount et al. claim they started with Cit- cells. They say that in the 'Supporting information' document.

::Andy, for tonight, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to answer your own question of how one might test a clone to be sure that is was Cit-. Use the paper if you'd like or present another means. Tomorrow evening I'll cite the methods Blount used in the paper.

::Meanwhile, here's another question to ponder: If the colonies used to start the 'replay' cultures were Cit+ at the start, why is it that no Cit+ cells were found in such cultures before 750 generations? These cultures were all started from single clones which must have either had the Cit+ phenotype or not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

-
How did Lenski obtain Cit- clones from later populations after Cit+ had become the dominant phenotype? It's pretty standard procedure. First, keep in mind that these populations contained a minority of Cit- cells. Now, a small liquid growth is made from the frozen glycerol stock of cells from a given generation, say 32,000. This is grown to an appropriate OD and then plated on a standard rich media agar plate. Provided that the plated sample isn't too dense, this plating will deposit somewhere between 15-100 individual cells on the agar, with plenty of spacing between them. The plate is then incubated at 37 C for a given time, during which the individual cells replicate to form small, visible colonies. These colonies will consist solely of cells that are genetically identical to the original cell deposited on the agar. This is all well and good, but how do you find which of the colonies are Cit-? Here you use a technique called replica plating. The agar plate is gently inverted onto a sterile swatch of velvet so that some of the cells from each colony are deposited onto the fabric. Next, a citrate-only agar plate is pressed against the velvet, transferring cells from the fabric to the new plate in exactly the same spacial orientation as the first plate. The cells are then allowed to grow on the citrate-only plate. When we then compare the two plates, we look for colonies on the rich plate that did not grown on the citrate-only plate. These colonies will be Cit-, and can be used for the replay experiments. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:Just a correction: The Cit+ cells didn't dominate the cultures at generations 32,000 & 32,500. Cit+ mutants represented 12% and 19% of the population at these times points, respectively. Replica plating is definitely one means of identifying Cit- and Cit+ clones but because the Cit+ cells represented a fraction of the total, it is simple enough to streak the samples to individual colonies (founded by single cells) and test each colony individually. Otherwise, a nice description of replica plating (a technique developed by Joshua Lederberg that allowed him do the research for which he was awarded one of the 1958 Nobel Prizes in Medicine)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oops, you're right, Argon. Cit+ wasn't dominant at generation 32,000, so replica plating might not be the best option. Still, in the case of almost 20% Cit+, I think replica plating might be labor reducing. I'm a biochemist by training, not a microbiologist, but I'm sure there are other methods that could be used. For example, Christensen's agar appears to provide a sensitive, colorimetric method of identifying even weakly citrate-utilizing colonies, so one might be able to plate cells on a Christensen's agar plate and pick uncolored colonies. Again though, I'm no microbiologist so I don't know the best method. However, there are ways to easily pick Cit- clones from later generations in this case. That said, I think that this specific "flaw" cited in Lenski's paper should be removed from the main article. Clearly, Cit+ were not used in the replays from later generations, so Conservapedia's objection is totally baseless.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 19:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::All appropriate descriptions. For generating estimates of the population distribution (Cit-/Cit+) in a culture, replica plating would certainly be applicable. The main point is that identifying and isolating Cit- clones from the generations used in the experiment is straightforward. I agree that it would be a mistake to keep that objection in the article (actually that thread runs across several points in the article).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit+ variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit+ variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of the construction of my expression plasmid. I might mention that I cloned my gene into a particular vector, but there wouldn't a discussion of how I did my PCR, restriction digests, or transformations. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::***** *****
:::::Actually the methods cited in the paper would separate the Cit+ lines from the Cit-. They took single colonies (founded by single cells), and tested them on selective agar (minimal citrate media - MC agar) and an indicator medium, Christensen's citrate agar (Product information from Sigma here: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/datasheet/c7595dat.pdf). As Gerlach notes from the Blount paper, Christensen's citrate agar is very sensitive to citrate utilization. Typical ''E. coli'' strains do not produce a color change but other citrate-using enterics like ''S. typhimurium'' and Cit+ ''E. coli'' mutants appear pink/red on the plates.

:::::This conclusion is further validated (as I mention above), by the fact that Cit+ mutants did not appear immediately in the replay experiments (Others have also noted this). For example, in replay set-1, it took 750 generations before the first Cit+ mutants were isolated. Many didn't produce Cit+ cells after 3700 generations. If the starting line was Cit+, *all* the cells in the culture would have show up as Cit+ in the first pass.

:::::Overall, it is abundantly clear that the cell lines used in the replay experiments were not Cit+ at the beginning.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::I don't follow. Are you suggesting that Lenski doesn't understand the proper application of the statistical methods used in his paper? If so, I haven't seen a description of which alternate methods you'd employ, let alone any output from such an analysis. Here's a thought: Why don't you substantiate your claims by writing up the work and submitting it as a correction letter to PNAS?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Argon, if you really "don't follow," then try harder. You insist on credentials by others who criticize Lenski, and yet you do not insist on expertise by Lenski in statistics with respect to his "analysis". Perhaps Lenski should first take and try to pass "Statistics 101" before trying to use a website by its name to draw flawed conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Do you really think that Lenski went to statistics101.net to learn about statistics and how to apply them? That simply is not the case. The Lenski group knew that they needed to do a Monte Carlo resampling analysis on the results of their replay experiments. In this situation, they are faced with two choices: either code an appropriate program themselves, or utilize one that has already been developed and is readily available to researchers. Since statistics101 had such a program available, they chose the latter option. Statistics101.net was simply the source of the program that the Lenski group used to perform the statistical analysis. If you want to argue against that choice, then you need to examine the source code for the statistics101 package and enumerate why it should not have been used.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::***** *****
::::I don't insist on credentials per se. I *recommend* developing a working understanding of the experiments or a willingness to do the necessary background research to get the details straight before heading off on possibly the wrong direction. It saves a lot of thrashing about. It's perfectly OK to raise questions but before leveling accusations it might be nice to do that privately and discuss that with others who can provide useful feedback. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: By now Lenski has probably seen the flaws identified on the content page here. What's "proper" is for him to correct his own paper in PNAS. The criticism will likely continue as long as he declines to do so. If anyone here would like to educate the PNAS editors about the flaws, then please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll be glad to submit these items to PNAS on behalf of Conservapedia using the "Letters" forum described by Stitch75 above. Should I cite you the author of this analysis, and is there an email you'd prefer me to include instead of my personal one for any PNAS response? I'll put up a draft of the Letters submission here for your approval before sending anything out. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::It would have a very strange scientific taste should somebody else that Mr. Schlafly be the first author of the letter (however, if you insist on that, i suggest "personal communications" as the right kind of citing the work here.). It is his turn to stand up to his claims in this way (by publishing it into a Forum which he is not the owner of). I personally share the doubts of many here about his argumentation (and his understanding os the experiments), but i am sure only more of his dismissive comments will follow. However i see that he comes up with a clear alternate Hypothesis (contamination), so he is free to show that this is more likely (calculations please) and peform Monte-Carlo simulations on it (for a person complaining that statistics101 is to simple that should be no difficult task). As far as i understood and see the data Lenski and coworkers did the best to exclude this Hypothesis, however i did not run own simulations (And I won't do it, because i think nothing will come out - furthermore Mr. Schlaflys personal style in the communication "you have to try harder" is not the style i am used to be adressed by people whose qualification in a subject is appearlingly nor more than mine). So running the simulation, evaluating his own hypothesis using a valid statistical method is now Mr. Schlaflys job - if he come up with a decent calculation showing this Hypothesis is more likely, the letter would for sure be accepted and Lenksi would have to react. If Mr. Schlafly is not the first author of the letter he could evade the critics after that by saying that he was misunderstood, which means somebody else take the risk of submitting the letter, but in case of success Mr. Schlafly would take the glory. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:10, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, here's point 4 in layman's terms: Lenski's hypotheses of a mutation rate imply that a ten-fold increase in sample size should result in a ten-fold increase in mutations. But it doesn't. In fact, a nearly ten-fold increase in sample size results in only a slight increase in mutations in Lenski's data. These data, as presented by Lenski in his paper, suggest (if properly interpreted) that there is no mutation rate at all. Rather, these data are more consistent with occasional contamination, broadly defined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Except that the growth pattern of the Cit+ cells in the third replay experiment demonstrated that there were no Cit+ cells in the cultures at the time of plating. Control plates with a mix of Cit- and Cit+ cells were done which showed rapid development of Cit+ colonies, whereas the experimental plates did not show any Cit+ colonies for at least 8 days and up to 28 days. If you believe that the plates became randomly contaminated during the course of the incubation, rather than at the initial plating, the post-plating contamination should have affected all generations equally, but it did not--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:46, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Blount et al. discussed the unexpectedly low Cit+ conversion rate for the third replay set in the supplementary document. They have some speculations but don't know why it occurred. They are dealing with low probability events. I don't agree that the 'proper' interpretation is contamination. First, they isolated and tested each Cit+ isolate for the markers and sequences we've discussed on earlier Conservapedia pages. Second, the distribution of Cit+ isolates does not appear to be random: They correlate strongly with the later generations. If undetected contamination was random, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo resampling tests would reject the null hypothesis of the 'rare-mutation' hypothesis over the 'potentiated' hypothesis. As Brossa correctly notes, contamination would have affected all generations. Blount et al. write in the paper's supplement: "To facilitate handling and minimize possible confounding variables, we divided this third experiment into 20 blocks of 14 clones each. All of the clones within a block came from different generations, and the single ancestral clone was included in all 20 blocks."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:01, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Good and detailed analyis and conclusion, Argon. I had no time to read everything in that detail, but i think you present exactly the arguments (contant background would favour rare mutation hypothesis) would be exactly the one i had in mind, so let's see how Mr. Schlafly will bend his own Monte-Carlo simulations to showing several 1000 times no mutation into accordance with any reasonable background explaining a significant number of counts in *some* samples --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The above comments are non-responsive. The essence of ''both'' of Lenski's hypotheses is that there is a fixed, or stepped, mutation rate. But any such rate would be roughly proportional with sample size. Yet his three experiments prove otherwise, which Lenski fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, Lenski's presentation of his data disproves the very thing he claims to have shown.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, please answer: Which the of the two hypotheses is, according to your calculations the most likely? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with about 4x10^8 cells vs. 1-2x10^10 cells per plate in the third experiment. That is a 25-50x increase in the third experiment's plating density and can affect the survival rates of cells. Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:Hello Fyezall. I rearranged the position of your question to hopefully keep the conversations clearer. It boils down to this: The researchers found that mutant Cit+ strains arose over the course of time in their long term growth experiment. They wanted to learn something about how that strain acquired this ability. They wondered, 'Was this the result of a single, very low frequency mutation or did some other mutation have to precede it in earlier generations, followed by the final mutation(s) that allowed the cells to grow on citrate?'

:If the Cit+ change required a single mutation with a low but constant probability over time one would expect Cit+ mutations to be distributed across cells taken from any generation of the experiment. On the other hand, if a 'potentiating' mutation had to arise at some point in the cultures before the final Cit+ mutation could function, then one would expect the probability for Cit- cells to mutate to Cit+ cells would increase with samples of cells taken from later cultures.

:Blount ran the experiment and found that Cit+ mutants arose more frequently in cells taken from later generations in the culture. The Monte Carlo resampling tests were used to assess how likely the pattern of results would fit the models. The statistical significance (smaller P-values mean greater significance), was calculated for each experiment and the combination of experiments. The numbers suggest the distribution of mutants was not randomly distributed across the experimental generations, they tended to appear in cells taken from the later generations. This would argue against the single-mutation, constant, low-probability hypothesis. It appears that a pre-adaptive mutation had to have arisen first, followed by the mutation the finally allowed the cells to utilized citrate. Future work in Lenski's lab will focus on trying to identify the various mutations involved. I hope this brief explanation helps.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

==What I have noticed==
I tell you what strikes me the most about this discussion - Its watching evolutionists do whatever they can to keep their precious beliefs above question or scrutiny. Its as if they know that it will come toppling down so they must resort to side-lining the hard questions.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Crimean War

2008-07-15T21:50:29Z

JJacob: a bit of info added

The '''Crimean War''' lasted from October 1853 to February 1856. It was a war fought primarily on the [[Crimean Peninsula]] between the [[Russia]]ns on one side, and the British, French, and the [[Ottoman Turks|Ottoman Empire]] on the other.

The beginnings of the war can be traced to 1851, when [[Napoleon III]] (France) demanded that the Ottomans acknowledge [[France]] as the 'sovereign authority' of the [[Holy Land]].

However, this flew in the face of two earlier treaties between the Russians and the Ottomans, and so the Ottomans renounced the treaty. Napoleon III responded by sending a warship, the ''Charlemagne'' to the [[Black Sea]]. This show of force, along with some diplomacy and money, led the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid I to reverse his decision, and a new treaty confirmed France and the Catholic Church as the supreme Christian Organization in the Holy Land. It also gave the keys to the [[Church of the Nativity]], previously in the hands of the [[Greek Orthodox Church]], to the [[Catholic Church]].

Napoleon appeared to misjudge the religious convictions of Tsar [[Nicholas I]]. Angry over losing the diplomatic war to France, the Russian Tsar had his 4th and 5th Army Corps mobilized and deployed along the [[River Danube]] and had Count [[Karl Nesselrode]], his foreign minister, begin a diplomatic war to regain Russian prestige with the Ottomans.

Prince Menshikov attempted to negotiate a new treaty, under which Russia would be allowed to interfere whenever it deemed the Sultan's protection inadequate.
The British embassy in Istanbul at the time was being run by Hugh Rose. Rose gathered intelligence on Russian troop movements along the Danube frontier, and became concerned about the extent of Menshikov's mission.
Rose used his powers as the British representative to the Ottomans, and ordered a British squadron of warships to depart and head for Istanbul. However, Rose's actions were not backed by the British admiral in command of the squadron, only the French sent a naval task force.

At the same time, however, the British Prime Minister Aberdeen sent Lord Stratford who, through skillful diplomacy, convinced the Sultan to reject the treaty. Benjamin Disraeli blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, starting the process by which Aberdeen would be forced to resign. Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy, the Czar marched his armies into Moldavia and Wallachia (Ottoman principalities in which Russia was acknowledged as a special guardian of the Orthodox Church), using the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the Holy Places as a pretext. Nicholas believed that the European powers would not object strongly to the annexation of a few Ottoman provinces.

In 1853, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, Great Britain and France declared war.

''The Charge of the Light Brigade'', a poem by [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]], is about a battle in the Crimean War where a brigade of horsemen was sent against cannons and heavy artillery.
[[Category:Wars]]

Fall of man

2008-07-15T21:41:56Z

JJacob: worked on the grammar

The '''Fall of man''' is the Judeo-Christian theological concept that mankind and the universe existed in a perfect and ideal state prior to a 'fall' triggered by the actions of [[Eve]]. In this state, death and suffering did not exist - Adam and Eve were, for practical purposes, immortal - as were all animals. Predation did not occur - animals that are now carnivorous existed solely on a diet of plants.

The one flaw of this perfect world was [[Satan]], who was able to trick Eve into consuming a fruit she had been forbidden by God from eating. The immediate effect of this was to introduce [[Sin]] into the universe. No longer perfect, but tainted by sin, the perfect universe rapidly decayed with the introduction of death, predation, disease, pain, and all other consequences of sin.

[[Creationism|Young-earth creationists]] have determined the fall accounts for various apparent contradictions with scientific dating mechanisms which assume an approximately uniform rate of change. Genetic dating, for example, would vastly exaggerate time spans prior to the Fall as in the perfect sinless state genetic mutation would be minimal.

The presence of sin also caused a gradual decline in human lifespans (Accounting for the extremely long lifespans of early biblical figures such as [[Noah]]) and moral turpitude, necessitating the advent of a [[Savior]]. The accumulation of sin-induced [[entropy]] gradually reduced lifespans and morals. Given sufficient time, this accumulation will become so great as to require the reconstruction of the earth, with the second coming of [[Christ]].

[[Category: Abrahamic Religions]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-15T01:17:55Z

JJacob: another examples

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of school prayer
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]
*[[Mindless Equality]]

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]
*[[Gun control]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[School prayer]]

[[Category:Liberals]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-15T01:07:17Z

JJacob: cat

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of school prayer
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]
*[[Gun control]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[School prayer]]

[[Category:Liberals]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-15T00:48:25Z

JJacob: /* Examples */

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession on censorship of school prayer
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]
*[[Gun control]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[School prayer]]

Liberal Obsession

2008-07-15T00:45:08Z

JJacob: New page on Liberal behavior

A '''Liberal Obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. This can be anything political, environmental or personal and is groundless, irrational and often flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. This obsession can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their obsession.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood|Hollywood values]]
*Obsession on censorship of school prayer
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]

(Please add more)

==See Also==

*[[Liberals]]
*[[Gun control]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[School prayer]]

Sharpeville Massacre

2008-07-14T22:28:26Z

JJacob: typos fixed

On March 21, 1960, [[South Africa]]n police fired on a group of black anti-[[apartheid]] protesters, killing 69 people and wounding 180. The massacre occurred in the township of Sharpeville in what is now the Gauteng province.

[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:South Africa]]
[[Category:Apartheid]]

Liberal hypocrisy

2008-07-14T07:14:36Z

JJacob: added example + Changed title

'''Liberal [[hypocrisy]]''' is the act of a [[liberal]] saying or doing a certain thing for which they condemn others in doing. [[Liberal]] [[hypocrisy]] can extend as far as condemning a [[conservative]] position yet embracing the same postion it if it becomes a [[liberal]] position. A recent example of [[liberal]] hypocrisy is that [[liberals]] will often criticize [[George W. Bush]] for drinking and alleged [[cocaine]] use however do not criticize [[Barack Obama]] who blatantly admitted to using [[drugs]] and [[alcohol]].

==Gun control==
The [[Founding Father]]s of [[America]] knew first hand what it was like to fight against a tyrannical government, and they recognized even before the [[American Revolution]] that [[gun]]s owned by private citizens act as a threat against such a government. The following individuals have either proposed legislation against private gun ownership, or have spoken for anti-gun laws, while at the same time acted the opposite:

===Hollywood celebrities===

'''George Clooney, actor'''

Hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, he said:
:''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref>
[[George Clooney|Clooney]] stared in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

'''Mark Wahlberg, actor'''

Upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', [[Mark Wahlberg|Wahlberg]] rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards:
:''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref>
Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

'''Rosie O'Donnell, actress and talk show host'''

On her television show, April 19, 1999, O'Donnell had this to say about gun owners:
:''"I don't care if you want to hunt. I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, 'Sorry.' It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."''
Several months later, her bodyguard applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19448]

===Politicians===
[[Image:21kerry.jpg|right|thumb|Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry on the hunt in Ohio]]
'''Sarah Brady, wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady'''

For Christmas, 2000, Sarah Brady bought her son, James Brady Jr., a Remington .30-06 hunting rifle, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.
:''"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."''<ref>http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/Outdated%20News/SarahBuysRifle.htm</ref>
Sarah Brady fought for gun laws to make it tougher for the average citizen to purchase and own one, which was the end result of her husband being seriously wounded by John Hinckley in March, 1981, when he tried to assassinate President [[Ronald Reagan]]. "We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

'''John Kerry, United States Senator'''

[[John Kerry| Kerry]]'s voting record here <ref>http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/kerry_long.htm</ref> and here <ref>http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/voting_record.htm</ref> speaks for itself. The National Humane Society, long against the hunting of animals in any fashion, gave Kerry a 100% good rating during his failed presidential run in 2004. <ref>http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/jkhunting.htm</ref>

'''John Edwards, Democratic Presidential candidate'''

Liberals have long purported to promote equality and acceptance of women in the marketplace, and oppose [[hate speech]]. Former U.S. Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate [[John Edwards]] while campaigning for the [[Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|Presidential nomination]] in 2007 in the same breath after calling social commentator [[Ann Coulter]] a "she-devil," said "people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language." <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'], ''ABC NEws'', August 17, 2007.</ref>

==Making money==
'''John Edwards, former United States Senator'''

On August 2, 2007, Edwards made a demand of fellow Democrat presidential candidates that they refuse to accept money from Rupert Murdoch. He said this while speaking in Chapel Hill, North Carolina:
:''"News Corp's purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media — all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets — not fewer. It's time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.''
:''"Moreover, given Fox News' consistent efforts to demean Democrats — they have attacked the character of Senator Obama, Vice President Gore, and many others — no Democrat running for president should accept campaign money from top News Corp executives. So, today, I'm challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and return any they've already taken, beginning with Rupert Murdoch. The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party."'' [http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070802-media-consolidation/]
John Edwards is the recipient of some $800,000 in advance royalties for a book he wrote titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives", from HarperCollins Publishers, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. When asked if he would return the royalties, the answer was "no". [http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm]

'''Harry Smith, co-host of CBS' ''The Early Show'''''

On July 24, 2007, home and garden expert Danny Lipford demonstrated a product that can water a parched lawn from underground. Referring to the cost ($140.00), Smith said this:
:''"Now that the minimum wage is up, maybe we can afford it."''
The minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. Smith can afford the product on his $3,000,000 a year salary. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/07/24/cbss-harry-smith-pretends-be-minimum-wage-earner]

'''Dianne Sawyer, co-host of ABC's ''Good Morning America'''''

''Good Morning America'' on July 18, 2007 criticized Rupert Murdoch as the “the man with everything” just after he bought the [[Wall Street Journal]]. Sawyer elaborated with this:
:''“You think he has everything? I'll bet the day after tomorrow there is something new he wants,”''
Sawyer herself makes $12,000.000 a year. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2007/08/03/tv-anchors-make-millions-still-attack-rich]

==Taking money (taxation)==
In 2001 the state legislature and many liberals in Arkansas clamored for Republican governor [[Mike Huckabee]] to raise taxes to shore up an estimated $142 million budget deficit. In response, Huckabee create the "Tax Me More" Fund, in which liberals who feel they are guilty of not contributing more to the government can voluntarily do so and, according to spokesman Rick Nelson, "assuage their guilt". "We share responsibility for the [budget] fiasco," said state Senator John Riggs, a Democrat who represents Little Rock. "I am responsible for my actions and am as guilty as everyone else for letting the governor's budget go through."

Riggs ponied up $100 for the fund. One week after inplementing the fund at the end of November, 2001, the fund amounted to $260. By the following April, the amount was between $2,000-$3,000. The program ended in June, 2002.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40100,00.html][http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/22/182422.shtml][http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/3/171750.shtml][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/08/politics/main548369.shtml][http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1620]

==The cost of gasoline==
'''Katie Couric, CBS News anchor'''

While a co-host for the NBC morning news program ''Today'', she said this on August 15, 2005:
:''“I had to take out a loan to fill up my minivan. It’s crazy.”''
At the time, she had a contract with NBC worth $15,000,000 a year. [http://newsbusters.org/node/284]

==The Environment==
[[Image:Greenpeaceprotest1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|To protest the drilling of oil from which gasoline is made, Greenpeace frequently uses vehicles powered by gasoline engines, in this case a Zodiac inflatable boat with an outboard engine.]]
'''Al Gore, former United States Vice-President'''
:''"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of [[disinformation]] lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."''
Sean Hannity reported on Fox News Channel's ''Hannity & Colmes'', February 18, 2007, that when Al Gore was running his campaign: ''"On January 27th, 2000, Gore campaign in Concord and Manchester, New Hampshire, and on that very same day reimbursed the Thomas Lee Company $1,400 for the use of their corporate jet. That evening he left New Hampshire and flew back to Washington aboard Air Force Two, the vice president's official plane is a 757, which means that the flight from New Hampshire to Washington, well, the vice president emitted more than 22,000 pounds of CO2."'' [http://newsbusters.org/node/10951]

'''Leonardo DiCaprio, actor'''

Well know Hollywood actor turned environmentalist is highlighting the plight of [[polar bears]] and [[global warming]] however, in doing so, is using reams and reams of unrecycled paper<ref>http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=260902300&p=z6x9x3xx6</ref>.

'''Oil tanker SS ''Prestige'''''

Spain, a member of the [[Kyoto]] accords, refused to permit a stricken oil tanker, SS ''Prestige'' into a safe harbor; the reason given was to prevent pollution in Spanish waters. On November 19, 2002, the ''Prestige'' sank in the open ocean, spilling more then 77,000 tons of fuel oil which washed ashore on much of the Atlantic coastal areas of Spain, Portugal, and France. [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0311/S00074.htm]

==Voting==

'''Democratic National Committee'''

The [[Democratic National Committee]] under Chairman [[Howard Dean]] floated a plan that violated the basic [[human rights|human right]] and principal mandated by [[law]] of individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]] in the election of delegates to the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Democratic_Strategy|2008 Democratic National Convention]] slated to nominate the Democratic Presidential candidate. The DNC sought to put pressure on the Florida Democratic Party to move its Primary Election to a later date by threatening to strip it of equal and proportionate representation at the nominating convention. <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersberg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref>

==Labor==

'''Outsourced picketers'''

For decades [[Labor Unions]] allegedly presented themselves as defenders of the oppressed, and against the "capital exploitation of labor." Labor Unions were supposed to have won for workers certain rights, guarantees, benefits, and fair wages. Unions were said to have forced businesses to be accountable for "fair labor practices," and through the higher pay scales they won for themselves paid more taxes on income collected from their paychecks by employers which had the support of government. Trade Unionism had been an important part of the liberal coalition within the [[Democratic party]]. In the late 1990's, Unions began protesting the loss of jobs through [[outsourcing]].

'''Exploitation of the poor'''

By the 21st century, Unions began outsourcing picket lines to non-union, scab labor. The un-unionized workers were recruited from the most vulnerable of society willing to take on the most undignified type of work. The Unions offered no benefits, no healthcare, no job security, low pay, and intolerable working conditions. The Unions likewise paid in cash and did not collect taxes due to either federal, state, or local governments. Further, the Union's exploitation of workers on outsourced picket lines contributed absolutely nothing to the workers [[Social Security]] retirement fund. Unions did not pay required [[Workers Compensation]] premiums for a hazardous job known to be risking life and limb. All this, so the greedy employer, in this case the Union membership, could enjoy higher living standards for themselves. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072302011_pf.html Outsourcing the Picket Line], By Keith L. Alexander, ''Washington Post'', July 24, 2007.</ref>

==Cigarette smoking==
'''Tennessee'''

The state of Tennessee in July 2007 enacted in increase in the tax on cigarettes; the plan was to discourage smoking by youths, new smokers, and get others to break the habit. The state's treasury also expects to see an increase in revenue from the resulting taxation. Among the organizations supporting the new tax is Campaign for a Healthy and Responsible Tennessee (CHART), which has this written on their website:
:''"For the past six years, CHART has taken a public stand on key issues related to tobacco policy. Among other victories, the coalition helped to secure a 7 cent increase in the state's tobacco excise tax in 2002 which has reduced youth and adult smoking rates, generated vital state revenues and provided significant health care savings."'' [http://www.tnchart.org/issues.htm]
The only way to generate the vital state revenues that Tennessee needs from this cigarette tax is for people to continue smoking.

==Fast Food==
John Banzhaf III is a legal professor at George Washington University [http://banzhaf.net/] who has filed public-interest lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers and fast food restaurants. Among the defendents was McDonald's, which was targeted in 2002 [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20020330/ctvnews854709/] for contributing to obesity. This was posted on his website:
:''McDONALD'S TRANS FAT: McDonald's was sued after it announced, with great fanfare and publicity, that it would remove trans fat from its offerings, and then quietly reneged on its promise. McDonald's agreed to make the requested disclosure, and to pay $8 million to settle the law suit.'' [http://banzhaf.net/suefat.html]
At about the same time Banzhaf began his suit, he made an appearence on Morgan Spurlock's documentary about obesity from fast food, ''Super Size Me'' (2004), and Banzhaf is clearly shown in the film eating a large McDonald's hamburger, fries, and drink. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/]

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal hypocrisy|Examples of liberal hypocrisy from previous "Breaking News" articles]]

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.nrawinningteam.com/norosie.html Transcript on Rosie O'Donnell's NRA rant against actor Tom Selleck]
*[http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15 List of anti-gun organizations, corporations, and individuals]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Liberal tricks

2008-07-14T04:10:51Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489811 by PlausibleF (Talk) inserting rude references

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# insert a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?!"
# distract and disrupt reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage
# claim expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty
# make arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# pretend that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# exaggerate praise for fellow liberals;<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref> pretend that atheism equals intelligence
# in court decisions, hold in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as pre-marital sex, worshipping many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool; [[Hollywood values]] are cool; [[professor values]] are brilliant; blindly follow your government
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# demonize [[conservative]]s and pretend they don't care about regular people
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# the poor are blameless because they have nothing; the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# to discount other point of views, [[liberals]] use comparisons of other known "wrong actions" to justify their supposed correct stance. <ref>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/07/hanson-earth-at-crisis-point/ , AFP Hansen, Earth At A Crisis Point, April 7, 2008</ref>

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #15 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Norway

2008-07-14T03:54:32Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489805 by Jacob2556 (Talk) your garbage ends now

{{Country
|name =''Kongeriket Norge''
|map =Norway rel96.jpg
|flag =Flag of Norway.png
|arms =Arms of Norway.png
|capital =Oslo
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Norwegian
|king =Harald V
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Jens Stoltenberg
|pm-raw =
|area =148,746 sq mi
|pop =4,770,000 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$213.6 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$46,300 (2006)
|currency =Norwegian krone
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Norway''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital is [[Oslo]], and the principal language in [[Norwegian]], though [[Sami]] languages are also spoken in the far north. Norway is one of the few Western European nations not in the [[European Union]] but is a member of the [[Schengen Agreement]] group of countries which permit cross-border travel without passport control.

==People==
Ethnically, Norwegians are predominantly Germanic, although in the far north there are communities of Sami who came to the area more than 10,000 years ago, probably from central Asia. In recent years, Norway has become home to increasing numbers of immigrants, foreign workers, and asylum-seekers from various parts of the world. Immigrants now total over 300,000; some have obtained Norwegian citizenship.

Although the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the state church, Norway has complete religious freedom. Education is free through the university level and is compulsory from ages 6 to 16. At least 12 months of military service and training are required of every eligible male. Norway's health system includes free hospital care, physician's compensation, cash benefits during illness and pregnancy, and other medical and dental plans. There is a public pension system.

Norway is in the top rank of nations in the number of books printed per capita, even though Norwegian is one of the world's smallest language groups. Norway's most famous writer is the dramatist Henrik Ibsen. Artists Edvard Munch and Christian Krogh were Ibsen's contemporaries. Munch drew part of his inspiration from Europe and in turn exercised a strong influence on later European expressionists. Sculptor Gustav Vigeland has a permanent exhibition in the Vigeland Sculpture Park in Oslo. Musical development in Norway since Edvard Grieg has followed either native folk themes or international trends.

==Government==
The functions of the king are mainly ceremonial, but he has influence as the symbol of national unity. Although the 1814 constitution grants important executive powers to the king, these are almost always exercised by the Council of Ministers in the name of the king (King's Council). The Council of Ministers consists of a prime minister--chosen by the political parties represented in the Storting--and other ministers.

The 169 members of the Storting are elected from 19 fylker (counties) for 4-year terms according to a complicated system of proportional representation. After elections, the Storting divides into two chambers, the Odelsting and the Lagting, which meet separately or jointly depending on the legislative issue under consideration.

The special High Court of the Realm hears impeachment cases; the regular courts include the Supreme Court (17 permanent judges and a president), courts of appeal, city and county courts, the labor court, and conciliation councils. Judges attached to regular courts are appointed by the king in council after nomination by the Ministry of Justice.

Each fylke is headed by a governor appointed by the king in council, with one governor exercising authority in both Oslo and the adjacent county of Akershus.

===Political Conditions===
Until the 1981 election, Norway had been governed by majority Labor Party governments since 1935, except for three periods (1963, 1965-71, and 1972-73). The Labor Party lost its majority in the Storting in the 1981 elections. Since that time, minority and coalition governments have been the rule.

From 1981 to 1997, governments alternated between Labor minority governments and Conservative-led coalition governments. The first government coalition led by Christian Democrat Kjell Magne Bondevik came to power in 1997, but fell in March 2000 over the issue of proposed gas-fired power plants, opposed by Bondevik due to their impact on climate change. The Labor Party's Jens Stoltenberg, a Brundtland protégé, took over in a minority Labor government but lost power in the September 2001 election when Labor posted its worse performance since World War I. Bondevik once again became Prime Minister, this time as head of a minority government with the Conservatives and Liberals in a coalition heavily dependent upon the right-populist Progress Party.

The September 2005 elections ended the Bondevik government, and the Labor party came back with its most substantial victory in years, securing 60 of the 169 seats in Parliament. While this election result once more made Labor the undisputed heavyweight in Norwegian politics, Stoltenberg, chastened by his previous stint as the head of a minority government, reached out to the far left Socialist Left party and agrarian Center party to form a coalition government that commanded a majority of seats in Parliament. The current government is the first majority government in Norway in over 20 years, but the governing coalition has had to bridge substantial policy differences to build this majority.

Norway and [[Switzerland]] are the only countries in Western Europe that do not belong to the [[European Union]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*King--Harald V
*Prime Minister--Jens Stoltenberg
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Jonas Gahr Støre
*Minister of Defense--Anne-Grethe Strøm Erichsen
*Ambassador to the United States--Knut Vollebaek
*Ambassador to NATO--Kim Traavik
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Johan Ludvik Løvald

===Foreign Relations===
Norway supports international cooperation and the peaceful settlement of disputes, recognizing the need for maintaining a strong national defense through collective security. Accordingly, the cornerstones of Norwegian policy are active membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and support for the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Norway also pursues a policy of economic, social, and cultural cooperation with other Nordic countries--Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland--through the Nordic Council.

In addition to strengthening traditional ties with developed countries, Norway seeks to build friendly relations with developing countries and has undertaken humanitarian and development aid efforts with selected African and Asian nations. Norway also is dedicated to encouraging democracy, assisting refugees, and protecting human rights throughout the world.

A survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit based on measures including military spending and actions and violent crime rates has found that Norway is the most peaceful country in the world.<ref>http://www.ppu.org.uk/newsx/news_013.html</ref>

==Economy==
Norway is one of the world's richest countries in per capita terms. It has an important stake in promoting a liberal environment for foreign trade. Its large shipping fleet is one of the most modern among maritime nations. Metals, pulp and paper products, chemicals, shipbuilding, and fishing are the most significant traditional industries.

Norway's emergence as a major oil and gas producer in the mid-1970s transformed the economy. Large sums of investment capital poured into the offshore oil sector, leading to greater increases in Norwegian production costs and wages than in the rest of western Europe up to the time of the global recovery of the mid-1980s. The influx of oil revenue also permitted Norway to expand an already extensive social welfare system. Norway has established a state Petroleum Fund that exceeded $132.6 billion as of December 2004. The fund primarily will be used to help finance government programs once oil and gas resources become depleted. Norway is currently enjoying large foreign trade surpluses thanks to high oil prices. Unemployment remains currently low (3%-4% range), and the prospects for economic growth are encouraging thanks to the government's stimulative fiscal policy and economic recovery in the United States and Europe.

Norway voted against joining the European Union (EU) in a 1994 referendum. With the exception of the agricultural and fisheries sectors, however, Norway enjoys free trade with the EU under the framework of the European Economic Area. This agreement aims to apply the four freedoms of the EU's internal market (goods, persons, services, and capital) to Norway. As a result, Norway normally adopts and implements most EU directives. Norwegian monetary policy is aimed at maintaining a stable exchange rate for the krone against European currencies, of which the euro is a key operating parameter. Norway is not a member of the EU's Economic and Monetary Union and does not have a fixed exchange rate. Its principal trading partners are in the EU; the United States ranks sixth.

===Energy Resources===
Offshore hydrocarbon deposits were discovered in the 1960s, and development began in the 1970s. The growth of the petroleum sector has contributed significantly to Norwegian economic vitality. Current petroleum production capacity is more than 3 million barrels per day. Production has increased rapidly during the past several years as new fields are opened. Total production in 2003 was about 263 million cubic meters of oil equivalents, over 63% of which was crude oil. This represents a slight decline in crude oil production over the past year, accompanied by sharp increases in gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production. Hydropower provides nearly all of Norway's electricity, and all of the gas and most of the oil produced is exported. Production increased significantly in the 1990s as new fields come on stream.

Norway is the world's third-largest oil exporter and provides much of western Europe's crude oil and gas requirements. In 2003, Norwegian oil and gas exports accounted for 56% of total merchandise exports. In addition, offshore exploration and production have stimulated onshore economic activities. Foreign companies, including many American ones, participate actively in the petroleum sector.

==History==
The Viking period (9th to 11th centuries) was one of national unification and expansion. The Norwegian royal line died out in 1387, and the country entered a period of union with Denmark. By 1586, Norway had become part of the Danish Kingdom. In 1814, as a result of the Napoleonic wars, Norway was separated from Denmark and combined with Sweden. The union persisted until 1905, when Sweden recognized Norwegian independence.

The Norwegian Government offered the throne of Norway to Danish Prince Carl in 1905. After a plebiscite approving the establishment of a monarchy, the Parliament unanimously elected him king. He took the name of Haakon VII, after the kings of independent Norway. Haakon died in 1957 and was succeeded by his son, Olav V, who died in January 1991. Upon Olav's death, his son Harald was crowned as King Harald V.

Norway was a nonbelligerent during World War I, but as a result of the German invasion and occupation during World War II, Norwegians generally became skeptical of the concept of neutrality and turned instead to collective security. Norway was one of the signers of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 and was a founding member of the United Nations. The first UN General Secretary, Trygve Lie, was a Norwegian. Under the terms of the will of Alfred Nobel, the Storting (Parliament) elects the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee who award the Nobel Peace Prize to champions of peace.

----
According to Alexa traffic statistics, Conservapedia enjoys its second highest national traffic rank in Norway.[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservapedia.com%2F]

=== References ===
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3421.htm]

[[Category:Norway]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]

Tobacco

2008-07-14T03:43:41Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489801 by Jacob2556 (Talk) I would block you if I could

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. Smoking has been associated with a lower risk of Kaposi's sarcoma<ref>http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/goedert942002.pdf</ref>. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis and one form of epilepsy.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

In addition, smoking has been shown to double the risk of Alzheimer's Disease<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/115829.stm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:psychology]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Tobacco

2008-07-14T03:42:18Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489802 by Jacob2556 (Talk) haha not

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. Smoking has been associated with a lower risk of Kaposi's sarcoma<ref>http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/goedert942002.pdf</ref>. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis and one form of epilepsy.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
It makes you strong. And gives you more lung power. I smoked twenty packs today, and then I coughed because I drank some water and it went down the wrong pipe. But, my cough destroyed my house. There technically WAS a tornado next to the house... BUT, it was me. I know it.

After that, I went to work. I was kinda bummed out by the house and I decided to lift some stuff and break it at the construction site where I work. So I lifted this gigantic boulder! I didn't get to break it though. So, fine, technically there WAS a crane and the chain hooked to the crane was attached to the rock, I'm pretty sure. I LIFTED IT. I don't really think anyone was in the crane anyway, excluding bob... But whatever.

Kthxbai-- John Bulla

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:psychology]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Real number

2008-07-14T02:39:59Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489781 by Anjruu (Talk) Put it on the talk page, not in the article

'''Real numbers''' can be thought of as numbers which can be represented by some infinite or finite decimal representation, such as 0.707106781187...

They are called "real" because they actually exist in the real world, i.e. measures, weights, temperatures and so on are all real numbers, as opposed to the [[imaginary number]]s, which are just an abstract concept, but do not really exist.

In classical physics, measurements of things that can vary smoothly and continuously, like [[speed]] or [[temperature]], are treated as real numbers.

In a number line representation, the real numbers correspond to all the points on a geometric line. The distance between any two points on a line is a real number.

In computer programming, some computer languages such as [[FORTRAN]] include a ''real'' data type that is intended to represent real numbers.<ref>In reality, the actual values the computer uses are very-high-precision fractions which can equal or approximate real numbers</ref>

The real numbers include within them all of these other kinds of numbers:

*The "natural numbers" or positive integers, 1, 2, 3, ...
*Zero and the negative integers
*Fractions, like 355/113
*Any decimal representation which terminates (comes to an end), like 6.023, because this is just a way of writing a fraction (in this case, 6023/1000)
*Any decimal representation which repeats or recurs, like 1.86292929292929..., because these can be shown to be fractions{{prove}}
*[[Irrational numbers]], like <math>\sqrt{10} = 3.162277660168...</math>π = 3.1415926525..., whose decimal representations never repeat or terminate.

==Formal definition==

Formally, real numbers are defined as the unique [[Field (mathematics)|field]] which is [[ordered]], [[Complete (mathematics)|complete]], and [[Archimedean]]. The reals can be constructed from the [[rationals]] by means of [[Dedekind cut]]s or [[Cauchy sequence]]s, i.e. it is the completion of the [[metric space]] of rational numbers.

==Infinity==

The real numbers ''do not'' include <math>\infty</math> or <math>-\infty</math> (infinity and minus infinity). However, there are non-standard models of real numbers which include <math>\infty</math> or include both <math>\infty</math> and <math>-\infty</math>.

There is no largest real number, because you can always make a real number larger by adding 1 (or 137.035 or 6.023·1023) to it, and no smallest real number, because you can always make a real number smaller by subtracting from it.

Every real number is finite. One way to see this is to observe that you cannot subtract infinity from itself—the result is indeterminate—but, for any real number '''''x,''''' then '''''x - x = 0''''', exactly.

It is sometimes convenient to have a set of numbers that ''does'' include infinity. For example, in computer programming, "real arithmetic" is often done by a specific system defined by standard IEEE 754-1985; this system is built in to modern processor chips. It provides for values which print out as INF and -INF and which participate in arithmetic as if they were numbers. Thus, division by zero, which was often an error that stopped calculation on older machines, can be a legal operation which simply produces a +INF or -INF result. The system of numbers implemented in IEEE 754 is known in mathematics as the "affinely extended real numbers."

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Liberals and friendship

2008-07-13T22:48:55Z

JJacob: see, easy fix

'''Liberals''' often make approval of [[liberal]] values a condition of [[friendship]]. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal values]]. For example, Nobel laureate [[Ronald Coase]] described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his [[conservative]] economic positions.<ref>Thomas W. Hazlett. [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30115.html "Looking For Results"]. ''Reason'' January 1997. </ref>

Princeton University professor Robert George observed,
:"If [a conservative] kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he's likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He's going to face pressure to conform or he'll be the victim of discrimination. It's a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad."<ref name="badger">Darryn Beckstrom, [http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/01/confessions_of_a_con.php "Confessions of a conservative grad student"]. The Badger Herald, September 1, 2005.</ref>

A '''liberal friendship''' can occur wherever [[liberals]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.There is even a website entitled "Ostracize a Republican," which justifies the practice by comparing Republicans to Nazis using a parody of the famous [[Martin Niemoeller|"I did not speak up" speech]]. <ref>http://ostracizearepublican.org/</ref>

David Brooks of the [[New York Times]] published advice from prominent professors which said that conservative graduate students in humanities and social sciences are better off if they keep their conservative views in the closet. Brooks wrote:<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E5DB133DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63</ref>

:"The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: 'You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet.'"

Darryn Beckstrom, a graduate student at [[liberal]] [[University of Wisconsin]], confirmed it:<ref name="badger" />

:Mr. George is right. It is indeed harder to hide your political ideology. Not because of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 button on the ol’ backpack, but because your fellow graduate students — and future colleagues — expect you to be liberal. It’s as if these students have gone through their entire educational careers using the liberals’ edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the definition for “intelligent” specifically forbids any association with conservativism.

:I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror. (Disclosure: This column was written with a notebook purchased from the Texas-based, Dubya-supporting, capitalistic leviathan Dell Corporation.)

:Though my monologue most likely fell on deaf ears, a familiar response came afterward: “Well, at least you aren’t one of those social conservatives, are you?” Indeed I am.

Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy described this phenomenon, without endorsing it, in reference to [[conservative]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]: "among professional blacks, especially lawyers, he is widely ostracized."<ref>http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010657</ref>

Renowned [[conservative]] physicist [[Edward Teller]] described how [[liberals]] terminated their friendship with him and his wife for political reasons. "By old friends we were practically ostracized," he said, adding that his wife "was very badly hurt" and even fell ill from it.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/obituaries/10TELL.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=527a0430768a87c7&ex=1378612800&partner=USERLAND</ref>

[[Michael Medved]] observed that in [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]], "There are no movies in the recent past that send overt unapologetic conservative messages. Why? Because anybody who attempted to do that would be criticized [and] ostracized socially, if not commercially, in the Hollywood community."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148108,00.html</ref>

Attorney David Bernstein described his experience at the very [[liberal]] [[Yale]] law school:<ref>http://volokh.com/posts/1130872867.shtml</ref>

:[A] classmate of mine told me ... that a significant number of my Yale classmates shunned me [first semester] because of "what you said in [first semester] Contracts class." I responded that I don't remember saying anything all that controversial--after all, we didn't discuss abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, or any other especially hot button issues in Contracts class, and my views on such issues were not especially out of the mainstream at Yale, anyway. My classmate responded, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "yes, but you kept saying that contracts should be enforced."

[[Image:David Clarke.jpg|right|thumb|Sheriff David Clarke]]
African American sheriff David Clarke explains how [[liberals]] ostracize black [[conservatives]]:<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_heralds.html</ref>

:Clarke argues — plausibly — that President Bush should give him and other black conservatives a platform to boost their credibility and exposure. Black ministers call him furtively to express support but explain that they can't do so publicly. "People are watching what will happen to me; they want assurance that they can survive. It's going to require individuals to develop courage to buck the plantation politics, because it's not fun to be ostracized by one's own people."

One college student in relatively neutral [[Pennsylvania]] observed:<ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/teenscene/s_555216.html</ref>

:I think a lot of young Republicans are afraid of being ostracized by fellow classmates and professors if they are open about their political opinions, since most people regard the majority of college students and professors as being liberal.

In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neil]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]].

Besides the loss of a friendship if you display disapproval of the liberal [[belief]] system, if a liberal knows you are a well known [[conservative]], they may wish you bad luck. However, if you change by discounting your past conservative relationships / principles, they would embrace and reward you with '''liberal friendship'''. e.g. Press Secretary Scott McClellan of the Bush administration was hated by liberals just for working in the administration. After leaving his position and writing a book publically criticizing President Bush, the typical left leaning media sources actually defended him.<ref>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/ , Salon.com In Defese Of Scott McClellan, May 29, 2008</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Liberal bias in grading]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Professor values]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Liberals and friendship

2008-07-13T22:46:39Z

JJacob: Undo revision 489726 by Jareddr (Talk)I'll reqrite so dont delete it all

'''Liberals''' often make approval of [[liberal]] values a condition of [[friendship]]. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal values]]. For example, Nobel laureate [[Ronald Coase]] described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his [[conservative]] economic positions.<ref>Thomas W. Hazlett. [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30115.html "Looking For Results"]. ''Reason'' January 1997. </ref>

Princeton University professor Robert George observed,
:"If [a conservative] kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he's likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He's going to face pressure to conform or he'll be the victim of discrimination. It's a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad."<ref name="badger">Darryn Beckstrom, [http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/01/confessions_of_a_con.php "Confessions of a conservative grad student"]. The Badger Herald, September 1, 2005.</ref>

A '''liberal friendship''' can occur wherever [[liberals]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.There is even a website entitled "Ostracize a Republican," which justifies the practice by comparing Republicans to Nazis using a parody of the famous [[Martin Niemoeller|"I did not speak up" speech]]. <ref>http://ostracizearepublican.org/</ref>

David Brooks of the [[New York Times]] published advice from prominent professors which said that conservative graduate students in humanities and social sciences are better off if they keep their conservative views in the closet. Brooks wrote:<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E5DB133DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63</ref>

:"The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: 'You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet.'"

Darryn Beckstrom, a graduate student at [[liberal]] [[University of Wisconsin]], confirmed it:<ref name="badger" />

:Mr. George is right. It is indeed harder to hide your political ideology. Not because of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 button on the ol’ backpack, but because your fellow graduate students — and future colleagues — expect you to be liberal. It’s as if these students have gone through their entire educational careers using the liberals’ edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the definition for “intelligent” specifically forbids any association with conservativism.

:I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror. (Disclosure: This column was written with a notebook purchased from the Texas-based, Dubya-supporting, capitalistic leviathan Dell Corporation.)

:Though my monologue most likely fell on deaf ears, a familiar response came afterward: “Well, at least you aren’t one of those social conservatives, are you?” Indeed I am.

Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy described this phenomenon, without endorsing it, in reference to [[conservative]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]: "among professional blacks, especially lawyers, he is widely ostracized."<ref>http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010657</ref>

Renowned [[conservative]] physicist [[Edward Teller]] described how [[liberals]] terminated their friendship with him and his wife for political reasons. "By old friends we were practically ostracized," he said, adding that his wife "was very badly hurt" and even fell ill from it.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/obituaries/10TELL.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=527a0430768a87c7&ex=1378612800&partner=USERLAND</ref>

[[Michael Medved]] observed that in [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]], "There are no movies in the recent past that send overt unapologetic conservative messages. Why? Because anybody who attempted to do that would be criticized [and] ostracized socially, if not commercially, in the Hollywood community."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148108,00.html</ref>

Attorney David Bernstein described his experience at the very [[liberal]] [[Yale]] law school:<ref>http://volokh.com/posts/1130872867.shtml</ref>

:[A] classmate of mine told me ... that a significant number of my Yale classmates shunned me [first semester] because of "what you said in [first semester] Contracts class." I responded that I don't remember saying anything all that controversial--after all, we didn't discuss abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, or any other especially hot button issues in Contracts class, and my views on such issues were not especially out of the mainstream at Yale, anyway. My classmate responded, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "yes, but you kept saying that contracts should be enforced."

[[Image:David Clarke.jpg|right|thumb|Sheriff David Clarke]]
African American sheriff David Clarke explains how [[liberals]] ostracize black [[conservatives]]:<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_heralds.html</ref>

:Clarke argues — plausibly — that President Bush should give him and other black conservatives a platform to boost their credibility and exposure. Black ministers call him furtively to express support but explain that they can't do so publicly. "People are watching what will happen to me; they want assurance that they can survive. It's going to require individuals to develop courage to buck the plantation politics, because it's not fun to be ostracized by one's own people."

One college student in relatively neutral [[Pennsylvania]] observed:<ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/teenscene/s_555216.html</ref>

:I think a lot of young Republicans are afraid of being ostracized by fellow classmates and professors if they are open about their political opinions, since most people regard the majority of college students and professors as being liberal.

In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neil]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]].

Besides the loss of a friendship if you display disapproval of the liberal [[belief]] system, if a liberal knows you are a well known [[conservative]], they may wish you and your family die a horrible death. However, if you change by discounting your past conservative relationships / principles, they would embrace and reward you with '''liberal friendship'''. e.g. Press Secretary Scott McClellan of the Bush administration was hated by liberals just for working in the administration. After leaving his position and writing a book publically criticizing President Bush, the typical left leaning media sources actually defended him.<ref>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/ , Salon.com In Defese Of Scott McClellan, May 29, 2008</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Liberal bias in grading]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Professor values]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Chat room

2008-07-13T22:20:23Z

JJacob: added info

A '''chat room''' is a term that refers to virtual rooms on cyberspace where multiple people can [[communicate]] together in a real time setting. Although chat rooms usually involve a [[keyboard]] and [[typing]], it is not uncommon for chat rooms to be set up for [[voice]] and [[webcam]] communication as well.

[[Category: Communication]]