Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?

2012-03-29T19:04:20Z

JoshuaB: I'm sold

==Body Doubles==
Castro was well known to have body doubles available in case of an emergency. Seeing as he was in such poor health a few years ago, and is now well enough to see the Pope, it is only logical to conclude that it probably isn't the same guy.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dead-castros-body-double-looking-moderately-healthy/

[[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:29, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:The beard in the photos released today for the purported Fidel Castro is also slightly different from Castro's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::So you can't think of any seriously ill person who recovered somewhat in a mere six years? Sorry, this is daft. What evidence would it take to convince some people that Castro is still alive? Is there ''anything'' that won't be dismissed as a fake?

::People can shrink several inches as they age, by the way. Castro was 6'3" when he was young; Ratzinger is 5'7" NOW. And my beard is slightly different to how it was last week because I trimmed it on Saturday, like I do every week, to look smart in church. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:40, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, the Pope would have shrunk by more than Castro, I think. And do you think the shape of a nose changes from sloping slightly upward to sloping downward in just a few years?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::What I think is that the nose in these photos is exactly the same shape as the nose in a 2003 photo of Castro. As for the pope, as I said he is 5'7" ''now''. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:46, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Castro has a long history of using body doubles. It is unlikely that Havana would simply stop using them once he died. Or perhaps you think that the Cuban government wants Castro-lookalikes roaming the streets of Havana! Ridiculous! [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:50, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::I don't see why not. The main reason that dictators use body doubles is to hide their movements or act as a decoy for potential assassins. Neither of these uses is much help to a dead man. The fact is that there is no evidence ''whatsoever'' that Castro is dead, but multiple photos and videos of him and records of several meetings in the last two years with individuals including the pope and the president of Brazil. Sure, they ''could'' all be body doubles, but you can say the same for anyone. Actors also use body doubles. I can claim right now that Clint Eastwood died in 1968 and every appearance by him since then has really been a body double. By your criteria, how are you going to disprove it? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:55, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::If you display a photo of a man a half-foot shorter than Clint Eastwood with a differently shaped nose, and lacking in other facial features, as the Miami Herald just published with respect to the alleged Fidel Castro, then that would disprove it. Surely you're not claiming that photo identification is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::I don't see this difference in nose shape you're talking about and in the photos it's clear that Castro is several inches taller than Ratzinger. I've checked several photos of Castro and his various facial markings look identical to those in the latest photos. In any case there's no evidence that Castro is dead and I don't understand your insistence that he is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:13, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The man in the picture looks like Fidel Castro to me. He seems quite hunched over, which would explain why he doesn't tower over the pope.
:::::::Additionally, it must be quite hard to find a lookalike for an 80-year-old. Cuba is not a large or wealthy country, so how many 80-year-olds could they possibly have to choose from? The probability that they would have a plausible Castro lookalike capable of fooling the pope and his retinue seems low to me - perhaps less than 1%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:49, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Straight from ''Weekly World News'' ==

Could a communistic state pull such a stunt? Maybe. But there are many obstacles:
*How many conspirators are there? Nurses, doctors, make-up artists etc.
*You give power to a random character, something dictators don't like very much. And you allow this character to meet the pope!

Aschlafly, this claim is as sane as the claim that ''Elvis is ALIVE!!!1!1!'' - and your case isn't any more convincing! In fact, you are looking like a lunatic quoting from ''[http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/22008/castro-flees-cuba-for-america/ Weekly World News]''. You had a hunch, and no reasonable evidence in the world will change your position! What does this say about your open-mindedness? This is almost as bad as your stance against physical reality at [[E=mc²]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Height ==

To me Castro looks significantly taller, easily the difference between 6'3" and 5'7". Look at the picture of both men seated: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/03/28/15/16/86-OZ0Nk.St.55.jpg . The standing photos are consistent with tall older men whose posture begins to deteriorate. I can't speak to the other inconsistencies but I think we should be wary of [[confirmation bias]].[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:36, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Yes ==

[[User:FrancisB52|FrancisB52]] 14:13, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== No ==

I am not convinced that the real Fidel Castro is dead. With that said, to assume it is him and not question it, is to remain closed-minded and spoon-fed. Secretive groups like Communists, I think the phrase is Trust but Verify. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:41, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's certainly ''possible'' that Castro is dead and it would be closed-minded to rule it out completely, but let's face it: there's no actual reason to think he is and for a dead guy he's not exactly been shy about his public appearances the last couple of years. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:52, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Mysteries abound... ==
[[Image:ASchlafly.JPG|thumb|left|A verified photo of the real Andy Schlafly]]
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|left|A photo of someone alleging to be Andy Schlafly at Columbia University]]
Notice how in the second photo that the purported Schlafly is thinner, graying, and looks more like Bill Nye the Science Guy than the real Andy Schlafly. How long has this imposter been running Conservapedia? Were liberals so desperate to silence the truth of Conservapedia that they had poor Andy taken out and this crude stand-in has been left in his place? As further proof, look as the purported "Andy's" editing pattern recently. The fake Andy makes wild unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of science and common sense, is this a ploy to discredit Conservapedia? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 15:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-21T18:09:58Z

JoshuaB: /* Neutrinos do not travel faster than light */ The money is in the answers.

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
 Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-18T05:57:11Z

JoshuaB: /* Neutrinos do not travel faster than light */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-17T17:33:21Z

JoshuaB: /* Neutrinos do not travel faster than light */

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-17T03:28:56Z

JoshuaB: Seperated references from unsourced notes.

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref group="note">See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The orbital radius of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref><ref>creation.com/moon&search=123233422queery=10101001.php</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref group="note">If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.<ref group="note">Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note"/>
== References ==

{{Reflist}}

{{Relativity}}
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-03-17T02:47:00Z

JoshuaB:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Title
!Description

|-
|''Real Time with Bill Maher''
|Politcal talk show that typically features a liberally slanted panel. Routinely mocks conservatives and conservative values. Maher himself smears conservative women in a vulgar and sexist manner.

|-
|''Family Guy'' (1999 -)
|
|-
|''Modern Family''
|
|-
|''GCB'' (2012 -)
|
|-
|''Glenn Martin DDS'' (2009-2011)
|
|-
|''RuPaul's Drag Race''
|
|-
|''DeGrassi: The Boiling Point''
|
|-
|''All American Muslim'' (2011-2012)
|-
|''The View''
|
|-
|''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' (1996-)
|
|-
|''American Dad''
|
|-
|''Pretty Little Liars''
|
|-
|''Skins'' (2011)
|
|-
|''Jersey Shore''
|
|-
|''Drawn Together''
|
|-
|''Jackass''
|
|-
|''The Colbert Report''
|
|-
|''Countdown with Keith Olbermann''
|
|}
Please add to this list!

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category:Television]]

Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-03-17T02:46:29Z

JoshuaB:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Title
!Description

|-
|''Real Time with Bill Maher''
|Politcal talk show that typically features a liberally slanted panel. Routinely mocks conservative and conservative values. Maher himself smear conservative women in a vulgar and sexist manner.

|-
|''Family Guy'' (1999 -)
|
|-
|''Modern Family''
|
|-
|''GCB'' (2012 -)
|
|-
|''Glenn Martin DDS'' (2009-2011)
|
|-
|''RuPaul's Drag Race''
|
|-
|''DeGrassi: The Boiling Point''
|
|-
|''All American Muslim'' (2011-2012)
|-
|''The View''
|
|-
|''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' (1996-)
|
|-
|''American Dad''
|
|-
|''Pretty Little Liars''
|
|-
|''Skins'' (2011)
|
|-
|''Jersey Shore''
|
|-
|''Drawn Together''
|
|-
|''Jackass''
|
|-
|''The Colbert Report''
|
|-
|''Countdown with Keith Olbermann''
|
|}
Please add to this list!

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category:Television]]

Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-03-17T02:45:01Z

JoshuaB: Table formatted

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Title
!Description

|-
|''Real Time with Bill Maher''
|

|-
|''Family Guy'' (1999 -)
|
|-
|''Modern Family''
|
|-
|''GCB'' (2012 -)
|
|-
|''Glenn Martin DDS'' (2009-2011)
|
|-
|''RuPaul's Drag Race''
|
|-
|''DeGrassi: The Boiling Point''
|
|-
|''All American Muslim'' (2011-2012)
|-
|''The View''
|
|-
|''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' (1996-)
|
|-
|''American Dad''
|
|-
|''Pretty Little Liars''
|
|-
|''Skins'' (2011)
|
|-
|''Jersey Shore''
|
|-
|''Drawn Together''
|
|-
|''Jackass''
|
|-
|''The Colbert Report''
|
|-
|''Countdown with Keith Olbermann''
|
|}
Please add to this list!

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category:Television]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2012-03-17T01:27:57Z

JoshuaB:

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

::Aye. They got rid of money. TOS was actually started off as a protest of war and the US involvement in foreign affairs. That's why the "Prime Directive" is to not interfere with other cultures. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 20:38, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

: I could and should write a major critique of Star Trek as not only being anti-Conservative but anti-American. Also anti-Common Sense. Star Trek has many episodes that cater to the worries of the Left, from overpopulation to gay rights, but more so is that it is the future according to the Left. This is their idealized vision of the future. Where there is no famine, no poverty, no greed. Everyone works to "better oneself." What they don't explain is how and why. Liberalism, in various forms, is replete throughout the franchise. I could easily do an article about it. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:00, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Watch "The Trouble with Tribbles" and then tell me if they still used money or not. Harry Mudd is the epitome of greed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:24, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== King Of the Hill ==

Definitely conservative...its definitely the most realistic modern cartoon show and the Hill family is Republican (but not demonized for being so). [[User:RichDunbar|RichDunbar]] 23:50, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Storage Wars ==

Emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== ''Pawn Stars'' ==

While it does prove the free market prevails, the show contains a great deal of profanity.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:04, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative humour ==

I am sorry if this is a silly (or repeated) question but how do you define conservative humour? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:My personal definition is humor that shows the irony and extreme folly in following [[liberal values|liberal beliefs]]. [[Conservative humor and satire resources|There's a lot of good stuff out there]]. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:28, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::Examples of conservative humor would include poking fun of [[political correctness]], demonstrating contradictions in liberal beliefs, establishing some accountability for liberal falsehoods, and overcoming liberal censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:03, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

==The Office==
I am not sure about this one. While Ryan is clearly a caricature of liberal hypocrite, the show is still mocking conservatives like Dwight and Angela (who is an conservative hypocrite). The best presented characters (Jim & Pam) are clearly liberals.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 23:43, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:We all know Steve Carell used to work on [[The Daily Show]], right?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::The lame ''Daily Show'' would never permit the conservative humor that Carell portrayed on ''The Office''. Could that be why he left the Daily Show for the Office???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Okey Dokey.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:45, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I would not be surprised to learn it if Steve Carell made more per episode of the office while he was on that show than he did his entire tenure at the daily show. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:14, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I thought that Jim was the main character. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:43, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I truly believe that this is a pro-liberal show. As DrDean said, Jim, a liberal, is the main character and he is depicted as a pretty nice guy.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:43, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

''The Office'' portrays homosexuality in a positive light and goes as far as to promote it (clear example: [http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-3/59065/gay-witch-hunt/episode-301/59066/ NBC.com] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0859444/ IMDb], an episode that includes a homosexual looking directly at the camera and saying "Kids, sometimes it pays to be gay.") --[[User:Ty|Ty]] 17:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Also, the early episodes do indeed indulge in "political correctness." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Day The very second episode] covers the subject, where Michael offends everyone and makes everybody uncomfortable because he keeps talking about race and holds others to racial stereotypes. The whole episode is about him being insensitive to other cultures and how it's bad. I'd also like to point out that Ricky Gervais, the creator of the original The Office and one of the big brains behind the American series is an atheist and probable liberal, and likely had much influence over development. Particularly in the earlier episodes.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you for refreshing our memories, Camille. The piece Gervais wrote in ''The Wall Street Journal'' of December 22, 2010 says it all: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031640102154156.html Why I Do Not Believe in a God] ("In a provocative essay at Christmas, a British writer and comedian explains why he remains an avowed atheist").--[[User:Ty|Ty]] 17:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Antiques Roadshow ==

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93814&page=1 Here is all I found on the fraud scandal]. A couple of dealers on the show were using their fame to acquire antiques below price. There are many dealers on the show. I suggest Antiques Roadshow be reinstated.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 11:54, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I couldn't fit it into the edit summary but apparently many of them would bring around objects that they already owned and have associates bring them in posing as their owners and give them high appraisals on air as well. I think that it should be removed from the list all together myself. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I see. I am a bit of a fan of the show. May I ask for a citation, please?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Undercover-Rescue-Worlds-Treasures/dp/0307461483/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 this book]--[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::@%#^#@ Every time I want to learn something I always have to read a book. Well, I'll take your word for it. I'm broke, and my library is far away.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The idea has already been discussed and you at least approved of a move. I further contributed that the show was created as a protest against the US' involvement in the Vietnam War. Roddenberry believed that the US should not be involved in the affairs of other countries as shown in the Prime Directive.[http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive]. It is also quite progressive in many ways including questioning values of all levels. The economy in Star Trek is entirely nonexistent with no money and exchanges instead fulfilled on the promise of self-betterment. I can go on if you like. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 22:12, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

:The views of a creator of a show are almost irrelevant. The point is what the show became, and your comments do not fully address the reasons given for its inclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

==7th Heaven==

I disagree. Although I'm grateful to have '''any Christian family at all''' portrayed on TV, it seemed more like liberal Christianity to me.

I watched the first 8 shows on DVD. In one show, the sister asks her brother to teach her how to kiss (on the lips), which is as near to [[incest]] as I've seen on TV as I can ever remember. In another show, they reprise the "black church burning" hoax.

I'd say it was a liberal feminist view of a protestant minister and his family. The mom was clearly the head of household and ruler of the roost. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:23, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== The funniest skits on SNL... ==
Isn't that getting really subjective? Funniest by who's standard? Yours? Are you the official gatekeeper for "conservative humor"? This whole entry is definitely more blog-like than encyclopedic. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:27, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-17T00:35:40Z

JoshuaB: Removed neutrino FTL counterexample per talk page

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The orbital radius of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref><ref>creation.com/moon&search=123233422queery=10101001.php</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.<ref>Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-03-16T22:14:11Z

JoshuaB: Created page with "I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --~~~~"

I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 18:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-16T22:10:29Z

JoshuaB:

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originaly broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

Sex

2012-03-15T03:39:23Z

JoshuaB: removed pointless link that just redirects back to this article.

'''Sex''' is the attribute of being either [[male]] or [[female]], categories which reflect biological reproductive functions.
The female sex is defined as the one which produces the larger [[gamete]] (the egg) and which typically bears the offspring. In contrast, the male sex has a smaller gamete (sperm) and rarely bears offspring.

Sex can also refer to sexual intercourse, the physical act of reproduction, also known as "sexual relations" or "having sex."

In some animals, sex may be assigned to specific structures rather than the entire organism. Earthworms, for example, are normally [[hermaphrodites]].

==Norms of social conduct==
{{main|Gender roles}}

"Sex" defines what is biologically present, whereas "gender" defines what society expects of persons of different sexes. The distinction is important in law, as it tends to forbid discrimination on the basis of either, e.g. effeminate men cannot be fired for not acting according to their "gender". In other areas the distinction is primarily important for more abstracted social and legal arguments, rather than everyday use.

The term ''sex'' is often used to denote the activity of sexual relations, and as such it is subject to laws of social conduct.

==Sexual morality in the Bible==
From the beginning, [[God]] created the male and female as uniquely compatible and complimentary, and only joined them in the sanctified sexual union of marriage.<ref>Gn. 1:27,27; 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:8-12; Eph. 5:31</ref> All sexual relations with others outside that bond are revealed to be [[sexual immorality|fornication]], which is unconditionally (regardless of motive or circumstance) prohibited and condemned.<ref>Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24; Lv. 19:29; 21:9; Dt. 22:13-30; Num. 25:1; Jdg. 8:33; 2Chrn. 21:11; Prov. 7:10-12; Hos. 1:2; Ezek. 6:9; 16:17,36; 20:7,18; 23:7; Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 6:16; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.</ref>

In the Bible a ''harlot'' or ''whore'' ([[KJV]]) was a woman who had sex before marriage, including prostitutes.<ref>Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24 Num. 25:1</ref> If a man engaged in such with a single woman, he was required to marry her for life, while the [[death penalty]] was mandated for the man (or both if consensual) for engaging in sexual relations with a woman who was betrothed (contracted to marry) to another, or for a woman who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, and her husband objected upon discovering otherwise.<ref>Dt. 22:13-29</ref> Likewise, spiritual fornication was that of infidelity to God in making an idol to be one's god,<ref>Ezek. 6:9; 23:30; 37:23</ref> with Israel being covenantally "married" to God.<ref>Jer. 3:14; Ezek. 16:8</ref>

In the [[Gospel of Mark]] 7:20-23 (cf. Mt. 15:19), Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that proceed out of the heart include fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage. While broader descriptions exist (i.e. "the bed of love": Ezek. 23:17) sexual intercourse is what is usually indicated (by euphemisms) in laws against illicit sex, yet it is generally held that this is not limited to such, but prohibits all sexual eroticism outside marriage (in which it is exclusively sanctioned: Prov. 5:15-20: SoS), and which all "uncleanness" <ref>Rm. 1:24; Eph. 5:3</ref> covers.<ref>Adam Clarke, [[Matthew Henry]], John Wesley, Eph. 5:3; Albert Barnes, Rm. 1:24</ref>

Though [[polygamy|more than one wife]] was allowed in the Old Testament, and even [[concubine]]s were wives <ref>Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3</ref>, the Lord Jesus restored that to the original standard of one man and one woman, for life (though most understand the fornication clause as allowing [[divorce]] in the case of marital infidelity, as fornication can include [[adultery]]<ref>[http://www.enterhisrest.org/articles/divorce_remarriage.pdf DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE UNDER GOD By L. S. Boardman]</ref>). In so doing, (Mt. 19:4-9) Jesus defined the male and the female as constituting the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together", and which, along with other verses, excludes [[same-sex marriage]] or other sexual unions. {{Main|Homosexuality and biblical interpretation}}

==See also==
*[[Grammar]] for a discussion of grammatical gender

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

[[category:biology]]
[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[category:Bible]]

Talk:Law of Large Numbers

2012-03-15T03:33:35Z

JoshuaB: /* The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution */

==The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution==
You can't apply the Law of Large Numbers to a time series with a trend. That's just bad math, not a counterexample! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:11, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

:The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations.
::Man. This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. So I'm not going to because I'll get 90/10'ed out the door. It's like an infinite manifold of wrongness. Just know this, you are applying probability theory -a theory you only partially understand- to evolution, a theory you completely don't understand. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:48, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

I will explain why I believe that the law of large numbers is not a good (and probably, to be honest, misleading) counterexample to evolution:
Evolutionists would argue that the hypotheses of the law of large numbers (that the random variables are independent and identically distributed) are not satisfied. I understand that the concept of i.i.d. is technical and difficult to explain, but it is nevertheless essential to the theorem. As an example, take the sample space <math>\{H, T\}</math> corresponding to flipping a fair coin once, and for each positive integer <math>i</math>, let <math>X_i</math> equal 1 if the outcome is <math>H</math> and 0 if the outcome is <math>T</math>. In other words, if the outcome is <math>H</math>, then <math>X_1 = X_2 = \cdots = 1</math>, and if the outcome is <math>T</math>, then <math>X_1 = X_2 = \cdots =0</math>. Note that <math>X_1, X_2, \ldots</math> are all Bernoulli random variables with parameter <math>p=\frac{1}{2}</math>, so they are identically distributed. However, it is clear that the law of large numbers does not hold, as <math>\frac{X_1 + \cdots + X_n}{n}</math> is always either 1 or 0. Therefore, independence is an essential hypothesis. In general, time series are not independent (imagine the Dow Jones index where the closing values are always independent and seeing the index go from 13000 one day to 175 the next!).

Random variables must be functions to the real numbers, so it is ambiguous what the statement "populations of species can randomly drift away from their 'mean'" is intended to mean without a quantification. Nevertheless, using height as a characteristic to measure for the sake of argument, it is clear why the law of large numbers does not hold. If we observe the height of a randomly selected member of a population each year, the observations are random variables. Nevertheless, evolutionists would provide two explanations for why the law of large numbers does not hold in this experiment. First, evolutionists would argue that factors like [[genetic drift]] allow for the events of one time period to affect the height distribution of a population in future time periods. Second, evolutionists would suggest that trends in random height suggest precisely the conclusion that the distribution of population heights is changing with each year, indicating that the random variables are not identically distributed. This suggests precisely the conclusion that the population is changing over time. By the way, looking at the statement of the weak law of large numbers, it is clear that if the random variables are not identically distributed (especially if they do not have the same mean), then the "mean" <math>\mu</math> in the statement of the theorem is completely meaningless, mathematically. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:06, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

:Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of random genetic drift -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
::I'll give it a try. The law of large numbers requires the sample observations (such as heights) to come from the same distribution. Trends are seen in the heights over time. Evolutionists would argue that this may suggest that the distribution of heights in the population (and thus the population) is, in fact, changing over time (which would make the law of large numbers inapplicable to these observations). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:24, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

::Andy, you ever hear of something called a "one-way hash function"? It's a cryptographic (or loosely mathematical) term for something that's easy to solve in one direction, but a real pain to solve in reverse. Sort of like cubing versus finding the cube route. Anyway, you're laying out a one-way hash argument. Your statement is simple, but the disproof would require more effort than I'm willing to expend. But in brief, the human race may have a mean height, weight, skin tone... or whatever. If you take measurements at random intervals you will find that the mean is gradually changing, not that populations are gravitating back towards the original mean. And what do we call a change over time? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:33, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-03-15T02:20:29Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 968360 by XFiles (talk)vandalsim

'''''The Missouri caucuses will be on March 17, and then Puerto Rico holds its primary on March 18. After that, Illinois will hold its [[GOP]] primary March 20.'''''.<ref>For the primary schedule, see http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/</ref> The next (and as of now last) '''''Republican debate''''' is scheduled for March 19.<ref>[http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/ 2012 Primary Debate Schedule]</ref>

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is currently over 8% (and real unemployment much higher) only 9 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]''''' - but beware of tallies that show the Florida delegates as winner-take-all when [[Republican Party]] rules prohibited that prior to April 1 and Gingrich has indicated he will challenge it.

'''It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of the Republican delegates before June 2012'''. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), will be winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts.<ref>http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184</ref> '''Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all'''; New York will only be winner take all if one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if none of the final four candidates can gain a majority of the delegates; in the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, although it is common for politicians to say that but decide differently later. Jeb knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney.
|Moved to #1 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after several ballots at the convention. Romney's weak performance on Feb. 7th make him look less formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Preferred by [[RINO]]s and heavily favored by the Establishment; has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Big money backs Romney in a big way, enabling him to benefit from millions of dollars in negative ads against his opponents, especially Newt Gingrich. Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate-to-liberal Republicans, such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]]. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll.
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by foreign policy [[hawks]] [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]]. Romney has been strong in most of the debates and in national polling but has rarely exceeded 50% of the vote in any state. The majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17. He is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia where he lives. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. He carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday, so the opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt may be slipping away. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if neither Mitt, Newt, nor Rick Santorum can win a majority of delegates. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary, so his only chance is to be selected at the [[Republican National Convention]]. But he may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint appeared to show interest again, before announcing in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Green Party]]
|[[Roseanne Barr]]
|Was critical of [[Barack Obama]] in 2008 while she supported [[Hillary Clinton]] for the [[Democrat Party]] nomination and [[Cynthia McKinney]] in the general election. Supporter of the [[Occupy Wall Street]] protests. Threatened rich people with either "re-education" or execution.
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Law of Large Numbers

2012-03-15T00:48:34Z

JoshuaB: /* The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution */

Talk:War on Women

2012-03-14T23:20:34Z

JoshuaB: intro sentence is wrong

This seems an awful lot like an unproven, accusatory conspiracy theory--similar to the 9/11 attacks. I can guarantee that, even if the Democratic Party did something like this, they wouldn't have given it your nickname of the "War on Women". {{unsigned|User:JLefkowitz}}
:Yes, a conspiracy theory. I knew the Democrats were incapable of playing political cards.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:34, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
== Intro sentence wrong ==
The article starts with "''"War on Women" is a campaign narrative crafted and promoted by the Democratic Party for the 2012 election cycle.''" The term predates the current election cycle. As far as I can tell Democrats have been using the term for the last 5-6 years. They use the phrase every time the GOP makes an effort to curtail legal abortions, resist democratic proposals for increased contraception funding, or attempt to defund groups like Planned Parenthood. It's not a new phenomenon. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:20, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Vox Day

2012-03-14T18:25:29Z

JoshuaB: again

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|right|130px|Thomas Beale ]]
'''Theodore Beale''', commonly known by the pen name '''Vox Day''', is an author, [[conservative]] political commentator and computer game designer. Mr. Beale authored the work ''Irrational Atheist''. In addition, Theodore Beale is also a member of [[Mensa]], a club for individuals that scored in the top ninety-eight percentile on intelligence tests and like to boast about it.

== PZ Myers' refusal to debate Vox Day ==
The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] declares concerning the intellectual [[Sloth (sin)|slothfulness]] of [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]]:
{{cquote|PZ Myers dismisses Vox Day’s book ''The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens'' while admitting to only having read a few chapters.

Yet, he refuses to debate Vox Day on the existence of God, or evolution for that matter (Myers being a professor of biology) based on dismissing a book he barely read (yes, it is merely a lame excuse which he peppered with a barrage of emotive ad hominems) — see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-emotively-vociferous-intellectually-mute</ref>}}

==Name==
"Vox Day" is presumably a play on the [[Latin]] expression ''vox dei'', meaning "the voice of God". By using this nom de plume, Beale implies that he presumes to speak on God's behalf, while also showing off his knowledge of ancient languages and pun-making ability.

== Books ==
* ''Irrational atheist''
== External links ==
*[http://www.voxday.net/ Voxday.net]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Conservatism]]

Vox Day

2012-03-14T18:23:21Z

JoshuaB: corrected name

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|right|130px|Thomas Beale ]]
'''Theodore Beale''', commonly known by the pen name '''Vox Day''', is an author, [[conservative]] political commentator and computer game designer. Mr. Beale authored the work ''Irrational Atheist''. In addition, Thomas Beale is also a member of [[Mensa]], a club for individuals that scored in the top ninety-eight percentile on intelligence tests and like to boast about it.

== PZ Myers' refusal to debate Vox Day ==
The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] declares concerning the intellectual [[Sloth (sin)|slothfulness]] of [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]]:
{{cquote|PZ Myers dismisses Vox Day’s book ''The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens'' while admitting to only having read a few chapters.

Yet, he refuses to debate Vox Day on the existence of God, or evolution for that matter (Myers being a professor of biology) based on dismissing a book he barely read (yes, it is merely a lame excuse which he peppered with a barrage of emotive ad hominems) — see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate].<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-emotively-vociferous-intellectually-mute</ref>}}

==Name==
"Vox Day" is presumably a play on the [[Latin]] expression ''vox dei'', meaning "the voice of God". By using this nom de plume, Beale implies that he presumes to speak on God's behalf, while also showing off his knowledge of ancient languages and pun-making ability.

== Books ==
* ''Irrational atheist''
== External links ==
*[http://www.voxday.net/ Voxday.net]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Conservatism]]

Homosexuality in animals myth

2012-03-14T17:53:09Z

JoshuaB: fixed station id

[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|120px|left|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] - Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]].]]
The '''homosexuality in animals myth''' refers to the current interest on whether [[homosexual]] behavior is or is not [[zoology|zoologically]] "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL] </ref>

[[Creation Ministries International]] wrote on this subject of whether or not there is [[homosexuality]] in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of [[cannibalism]] and rape in the animal kingdom, but that [[Morality|doesn’t make it right]] for humans."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774</ref> While some animals (like the [[lion]]) eat their young, neither supporters or opponents of "[[gay rights]]" have used this as an argument in favor of [[infanticide]] or [[cannibalism]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html</ref> Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.

A 1996 article published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
{{Cquote|Although homosexual behavior is very common in the [[animal]] world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.}}
[[Image:Apardo.gif|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Antonio Pardo Caballos]]]]
In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, [[Spain]], wrote:
{{Cquote|Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the [[reproduction|reproductive]] instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.<ref name="narth">http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html</ref>}}

[[National Geographic]] somewhat favors that homosexual behavior occurs in animals although their article leaves the question open.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html</ref> The scientific claims of National Geographic are certainly open to dispute, however. For example, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the [[Archaeoraptor]] was a large embarrassment to [[National Geographic]] and National Geographic's judgment in scientific matters is certainly open to debate given the Archaeoraptor episode.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4273news4-11-2000.asp</ref> In addition, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling", cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.

Despite the hotly contested nature of homosexuality in animals, ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. In addition to the famed "gay penguins" [[Roy and Silo]] at the [[Central Park]] Zoo in [[Manhattan]] there has been a supposed homosexual animal photo and video gallery in the zoo in [[Oslo]], [[Norway]], featuring [[flamingo]]es and [[giraffe]]s, among other allegedly gay animals.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm BBC] Oslo gay animal show draws crowds</ref>
[[File:371748873 6f3fec68eb.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|In July of 2009, an alleged homosexual penguin in a California zoo was debunked.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-penguin-flies-straight.html</ref> ]]
However, in July of 2009, an alleged homosexual penguin in a California zoo was debunked. [[Peter LaBarbera]] reported:
{{Cquote|San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTVU reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTVU.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “[[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-gay]]” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader [[Wayne Besen]] cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>}}
===Homosexuality in Animals Myth, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===
''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning [[homosexuality]]. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[Creationism|creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref>

==See also==
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Roy and Silo]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/090715 'Gay' Penguin Flies Straight] by [[Matt Barber]]
*[http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/german-zoo-forces-gay-vultures-to-mate-with-females/19734614?test=latestnews German Zoo Forces Gay Vultures to Mate With Females]

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

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Liberal Myths]]

Richard Owen

2012-03-14T05:26:46Z

JoshuaB: imrpoved a bit

'''Richard Owen''' (20 July 1804 – 18 December 1892) was an English [[biologist]] and among the first [[paleontology|paleontologists]]. He best known for coining the word [[dinosaur]], meaning "terrible lizard" in Latin. He also was a [[creationist]], and heavily criticized [[Charles Darwin]], using dinosaurs as evidence against [[evolution]].

[[Thomas Huxley]] (known as "Darwin's Bulldog") embarked on a vicious smear campaign against Owen in an attempt to discredit him.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Owen, Richard}}

[[Category:Paleontology]]

Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2012-03-14T01:05:11Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 968203 by BrianAcdonald (talk)

== Yes ==

He does, but He doesn't intervene with modern times. Tim Tebow's 316 yards is just a coincidence, and there isn't much reason to think otherwise. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:55, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:If God has a sense of humor, then it seems highly implausible that He would not intervene to enjoy the humor. Under your view, what would God find funny if not by intervention?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Obviously, God is infinitely great, a sense of humor is a good quality. If He was lacking it, He wouldn't be infinitely great. Therefore he must have not only a sense of humor, but an infinitely great and perfect sense of humor. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 14:04, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

*[[User:FrancisB52|FrancisB52]] 16:01, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course God has a sense of humor. Archbishop Fulton Sheen did an episode on that in his show Life is Worth Living, and you can look it up on YouTube (look for Fulton Sheen Divine Sense of Humor). Humor is a recognition of the Truth, and pointing that out. So, of course God has a great sense of humor. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:57, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== No ==

== Not applicable ==

God is not a human being and is above human psychological traits. The "logic" argument appears to create God in the image of man, which verges on the blasphemous. The argument is fallacious: Just replace "sense of humor" with some less pleasant traits, like "Man has to relieve himself regularly in the bathroom. Does God have to go to the bathroom?" Obviously not! As regards the history argument, you should read the comedies of [[Aristophanes]], written around 400 BC. They are very funny! --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:09, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Emotions like humor are not physical. God surely does have other emotions like love, anger, sorrow, joy, etc., and man has them as well after being created in God's image.

:Pre-Christian Greek "humor" tends to be very simple, and barely funny by today's more sophisticated standards as developed by the Christian world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:34, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== Atilla the Hun ==

I had no idea this guy was a leading political leader! Which elections did he run in? Which party did he belong to? - was it the Democrats? Just joking - this article is supposed to be about a sense of humour. By the way, watch the British comedy 'The thick of it' if you want to fully appreciate political humour. On second thoughts maybe 'yes minister' might be more your style - it's less sweary. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:13, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Politics is a broader concept than [[democracy]]. Or do you think that [[Julius Caesar]] was not a political leader?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Here's the last known clip of Julius Caesar meeting a voter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw He he [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:33, 10 March 2012 (EST)

::Of course he was a political leader, but I hadn't realised that Atilla was an atheist. I would have expected him to worship whatever pagan gods the Huns worshipped at the time. Very few non-Christians at that time would have been atheists; or is there a specific reference to support Atilla's atheism?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:33, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Note that Conservapedia's own Attila the Hun article says that he "relied on seers and "gods"".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:34, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation.
:''This doesn't even make sense.''
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''
*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

'''Each point is addressed below''':

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''

::No, this would deny many other emotions that God sure does have: love, joy, sorrow, anger, etc., all documented in the Bible.

*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation
:''This doesn't even make sense.''

::A non-response requires no answer, but humor developed immensely along with Christianity, and arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity.
::"[humor]arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity." - Ever read any Aristophanes? Or Plautus?--[[User:MihailD|MihailD]] 16:41, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''

::Again, a non-response requires no answer. Are you claiming something about his sense of humor?

*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''

::That doesn't merit a response either.

*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''

::You have to explain yourself better if you want a response.

*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

::The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:29, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:::"The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small." Well, let's see. A QB is going to throw for some number of yards between 0 and (say) 600 and complete somewhere between 0 and (say) 40 passes. Given how Tebow was used last year, the range is probably much smaller for each, but let's go with that. So the odds of coincidentally completing 10 passes for 316 yards is (at most) 1 in 24,000. Then we'd have to divide that by the number of other verses he's had on his eye black (there are at least two: Proverbs 3:5-6[http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2009/09/tebow-draws-more-attention-for-eyeblack-messages.html] and Philippians 4:13 [http://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-tebow-explains-why-he-tebows-uses-bible-verses-70824/]). So now we're down to at most 1 in 8,000. We could stop there, but I'd probably divide by the number of NFL games he's started (1 in 571) or at least the number of playoff games he's started (1 in 4,000). I suppose it's open to interpretations, but I wouldn't call that "vanishingly small" and think it's well within the realm of coincidence. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:07, 11 March 2012 (EST)

::::Your analysis is interesting, but does not include the small likelihood of the Broncos making the playoffs and defeating America's most (or second most) popular team, the Steelers - and thereby generating the enormous publicity. That probability alone was probably only 1 in 1000. Using your 1 in 24,000 likelihood for throwing for 10 passes for 316 yards, the overall probability of what happened is less than 1 in a million - far less than a reasonable coincidence. The other verses, by the way, do not compare with [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]] in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::But the question remains: what is so funny about something being unlikely? I think most people, atheists and Christians alike, would call such a statistical anomaly striking rather than funny. As far as the other examples are concerned: if that is supposed to be God's repertoire, I am afraid He would make a lousy stand-up comedian. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 10:46, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Perhaps it takes a good sense of humor to appreciate it. Some (other than God) do take sports games very, very seriously, but to most people they are a source of entertainment and amusement. Cal Berkeley's unlikely last-second victory over John Elway's Stanford team in 1981 or 1982, with the repeated laterals on the final kick-off return, was very serious to some (including Elway and the players), but was replayed repeatedly on television for amusement rather than serious news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem with using this sort of probability computation for this sort of coincidence to determine whether it arose due to chance is that you are doing it ''ex post''. To borrow an example from John Allen Paulos's ''Innumeracy'', it would be nonsense to look at a bridge hand of 13 cards from a deck of 52, conclude that the probability of that particular hand's having been dealt is less than 1 over 600 billion, and therefore conclude that it must not have arisen due to chance. Seeing a coincidence and then trying to examine after the fact what the probability would have been for such a coincidence to occur to illustrate miraculous behavior is a classic example of the [[sharpshooter fallacy]]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:00, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, I just want to make sure I understand correctly: The duck-billed platypus was designed to amuse us, red autumn foliage was designed to impress us with its breath-taking beauty, Tebow's 316 yard pass was guided to promote John 3:16. Fine. On the other hand, last year's tsunami was entirely due to entropy, right? No humorous message there? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:25, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? Revisited... ==
Mr. Schlafly, for some reason you chose to respond to my post to basically state that my post... wasn't worth... responding to... huh? Anyway, to cut to the chase, I'm not sure what's creating this "mystery" for you. The Bible contains several examples of God laughing which, to me, would seem like case closed. So instead of writing an article cataloging God's humor as expressed in scripture, you instead trot out a list of dubious claims. I think the only true mystery here is why you wrote this article. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:06, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Umberto Eco ==

This is a key question in the novel ''The Name of the Rose'' by Umberto Eco. There is a faction of monks who insist that Jesus never laughed, since if He had a sense of humor it would destroy their particular interpretation of the Gospels. I'd recommend that novel to anyone interested in this topic.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
:It's been ages since I read that book, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that their argument was based on a flimsy argument from silence. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:43, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
::Yes I think so, but my point is that some people historically have considered the question of God's sense of humor (or lack of it) a crucial theological question. I doubt Eco made the idea up out of nothing. So this discussion has a fine pedigree.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:04, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Scripture as a guide ==

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Using this as a guide, God's blandest humor is funnier than the planet's most celebrated comedian. Personally, I think it will be challenging to document emotions. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:44, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Critical comments ==

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:Same logic: man is horny, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God is horny.
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:That brutally cold weather must have caused great discomfort to (and probably the death of) quite a few homeless people, which makes this a sick divine joke. After all, it wasn't their fault that the region they happened to live in promotes the global warming hoax. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:38, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't think it is a mystery of whether or not God has a sense of humor ==

I don't think it is a mystery of whether or not God has a sense of humor as can be readily seen through this verse of the Bible: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." - Psalm 2:4 (KJV)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
:As always, the Bible is the best source. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:37, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
::There are other reasons to laugh than humor, though. This sounds more like a laugh of defiance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

TCP/IP

2012-03-14T00:36:35Z

JoshuaB:

'''Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol''' ('''TCP/IP''') is the set of [[Protocol|protocols]] developed by the [[United States Department of Defense]] in the 1970s. TCP/IP supports the construction of internetworks. <ref>http://jimmyjohnston.org/notes/networking/ccnax1mod2.pdf</ref> TCP/IP saw very little use outside of government facilities and public universities until the commercialization of the internet began in the early 1990's. At that time TCP/IP slowly replaced the, then dominant, [[Novell]] [[NetWare]] IPX/SPX protocol.

=== TCP ===
Transmission control protocol is the standard for most Internet services. It is used in conjunction with the Internet Protocol. TCP manages the individual converations between web servers and web clients through ensuring that packets reach their intended destinations. TCP enables reliable communication by dividing HTTP messages into segments.<ref>http://cisco.netacad.net/</ref>

=== IP ===
Internet protocol, documented in RFC 791, operates under the network layer in the TCP/IP stack offering a connectionless internetwork service. It provides features such as addressing, type-of-service specification, fragmentation and reassembly and security.

== See also ==
*[[WAN]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Networking]]

Political scandals

2012-03-13T23:48:05Z

JoshuaB: /* Examples */ fixed spelling and state and wikified

'''Political scandals''' are instances when conduct of a [[public official]] brings great discredit and [[embarrassment]] to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* September/October 2005: House Majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) was indicted on September 28th on the counts of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law with two of his co-workers. Delay was charged of conspiring to use illegal corporate campaign contributions in the 2002 congressional elections. The indictment prompted Delay to step-down from his position as House Majority leader. On October 19th of 2005, Delay was issued an arrest warrent by a Travis County and was processed at the Fort Bend County Jail. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101900789.html]
* August 2007: On August 28th, [[Larry Craig]] (R-Minn.) pleaded guilty to a disorderely conduct charge after his arrest for solicitation of sexual contact in an airport bathroom stall.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294927,00.html]
* February, 2008: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor [[Kwame Kilpatrick]] charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]
* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]
* October, 2008: ABC News reveals Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney had an affair with an aide and then paid her $121,000 to keep her quiet and avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit. The Florida congressman won his seat in 2006 while promising to return morals and family values to Washington in the aftermath of the resignation of former Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438161,00.html]

[[category:political Terms]]

Third rail

2012-03-13T23:43:53Z

JoshuaB:

A '''third rail''' is the [[railway track|rail]] of a three-rail [[electric railway]] line separated to the two rails (the running rails) which carry trains, that carries the current to power the trains.
[[electricity|Electric]] trains on such a system have a "shoe" that contacts the third rail to collect the current, which is returned in one of the two running rails.
Some [[railway]]s have a fourth rail for the return of the current.

[[Voltage]] in the third rail is typically 600-1500 volts DC (direct current), so touching it while grounded usually proves fatal.

The "'''third rail'''" of politics is an issue so potent and one-sided that no politician dares challenge the traditional view.
[[Social Security]] and other benefits for [[senior citizens]], who vote in greater proportion to other age groups, represent the classic third rail of politics.

The term derives from the railway use.

[[Category: Railroads]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2012-03-13T23:36:07Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 968195 by Backkkk (talk)

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2012-03-13T18:13:01Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 968106 by EliasVGriff (talk) vandalism

{{Officeholder
|name=Ronald Wilson Reagan
|image=Reagan large 4.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Jane Wyman Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=40th
|terms=January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|vp=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Jimmy Carter]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=33rd
|state=California
|terms=January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975
|preceded=Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr.
|former=y
|succeeded=Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
}}
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004), served as the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989. He was the 33rd Governor of [[California]] (1967–1975), following a successful career in film and television. He has been widely recognized as one of the greatest American Presidents and the main inspiration for the conservative movement from the 1970s to the present.

Reagan was an intellectual leader of American conservatism, and succeeded in moving the nation to the right in terms of reducing federal regulation and lowering taxes--and indeed in promoting the conviction that government was the problem and private enterprise the solution. He cut taxes but despite his proposals, spending and the federal deficit went up. After a short sharp recession early in his first term, the economy was strong by 1984. Proclaiming "It's Morning Again in America", Reagan carried 49 of 50 states to win reelection. He moved the [[Supreme Court]] and the federal courts to the right with his appointments.

Reagan's supply-side economic policies were based on the libertarian ideas of [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. "Reaganomics" was based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with "[[Blue Dog]]" (conservative) Democrats to overcome the apparent majority led by Democratic Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]].

In foreign affairs Reagan rejected détente with the [[Soviet Union]], but not with [[China]]. His massive defense buildup forced the Soviets to confront their crumbling financial base. He rejected the legitimacy of Communism and in the [[Reagan Doctrine]] systematically challenged and eventually destroyed Soviet strength in the Third World. After 1986 the new leadership of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] who tried desperately to rescue Communism by cutting its losses; they came to terms with Reagan; the Communist empire collapsed in 1989 a few months after Reagan left office, and Communism was abolished (and Gorbachev repudiated) by Russia in 1991. Reagan is thus credited with achieving victory in the Cold War.<ref> Knopf (2004)</ref>

Always distrustful of nuclear weapons, Reagan proposed SDI, a space-based system to defend against nuclear missiles. The inability of the Soviet Union to match this new technological breakthrough forced it to agree to Reagan's terms for ending the Cold War. In leading the rollback of Communism in Europe, he battled powerful liberal forces that called instead for détente (peaceful relations) with Communism. As the Soviet system faltered and Gorbachev accepted Reagan's terms, ensured an unprecedented level of nuclear disarmament. His signature phrase in dealing with Communists was "trust, but verify."

In his most famous challenges to Communism, Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and gave the Soviets the American terms for ending the Cold War: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Soviets were forced to agree, and watched their empire collapse overnight in late 1989, a few months after Reagan was succeeded as president by his Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]].

As a great communicator, and leader of the Republican party, he added a new base of "Reagan Democrats" (blue collar workers who were social conservatives), religious evangelicals, and neoconservative intellectuals; his success became the model for Republicans into the 21st century.

Not only was Ronald Reagan a smart individual on the surface, he also contributed many new [[insight]]s to the general public not yet available before.<ref>Tear Down This Wall, Laffer Curve, etc. See [[conservative insights]]</ref>

== Reagan's Conservatism ==
In a speech, immediately after assuming the presidency in 1981, he outlined his philosophy to his compatriots. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length:

*It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, [[Frank Meyer]], was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The [communist] God That Failed,'' and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

*It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

*Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. <ref>[http://acuf.org/issues/issue13/040606news.asp Ronald Reagan's Conservative Legacy, ACUF]</ref>

==Early Life==
[[File:Reagan_graduation.jpg|right|160px|thumb| 1932 photo taken after his graduation from Eureka College]]
Reagan was born in Tampico, [[Illinois]], the second son of John (Jack) Edward and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The family finally settled in Dixon, Illinois in 1920 after years of moving from town to town. Jack Reagan nicknamed his younger son “Dutch", claiming he looked like “a fat little Dutchman.”<ref> http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html</ref> Reagan's father was a working class Irish Catholic, and an active Democrat. Unemployed during the [[Great Depression]], Jack Reagan held a minor position in the [[WPA]] during the [[New Deal]]. Reagan recalled numerous alcoholic episodes that cost his father many job opportunities. Nelle Reagan, a devout member of the [[Disciples of Christ]], greatly influenced her son, who remained a lifelong Protestant.

He attended [[Eureka College]], a small Disciples school where he developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in campus politics, sports and theater. Reagan was a member of the football and track teams, the basketball cheerleading squad, captain of the swimming team, yearbook editor and was elected student body president. Reagan was a political liberal at that point and led a student revolt against the college president. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan helped organize a student strike. He received his degree in economics in 1932.

To pay for college, Reagan worked many low wage jobs such as cooking hamburgers and washing tables. He also worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on the Rock River in Dixon for seven summers, where he saved seventy-seven swimmers from drowning.<ref> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/ Timeline of Ronald Reagan’s Life</ref>

After college Reagan became a radio sports announcer in Iowa. Although he was originally only hired to announce the [[University of Iowa]] football games, he became so popular in the Midwest he began covering Chicago Cubs baseball games at Wrigley Field. He also wrote sports columns in the Des Moines ‘’Dispatch’’.

===Reagan as Disciple===
Reagan took religious values into the presidency that he learned from his [[Disciples of Christ]] background at home and at Eureka College, a Disciples school. He was strongly influenced by Ben Hill Cleaver, the minister of the First Christian Church<ref>The formal name of the denomination is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).</ref> in Dixon, Illinois, during the 1920s, and by Reagan's mother, Nelle, an active member of the church. At many points the positions taken by the Disciples Church of Reagan's youth coincided with the words, if not the beliefs of the latter-day Reagan. These positions included faith in Providence, the association of America's mission with God's will, belief in progress, trust in the work ethic and admiration for those who achieved wealth, an uncomfortableness with literature and art that questioned the family or challenged notions of proper sexual behavior, the presumption that poverty is an individual problem best left to charity rather than the state, sensitivity to problems involving alcohol and drugs, and reticence to use government to protect civil rights for minorities. Reagan's experiences in the church and with the Cleavers provided early training in public speaking and offered a way of learning in which acting played a central part. Reagan's use of the jeremiad and his fusing of Judeo-Christianity and patriotism into a civil religion also have their roots in this early period. For her part, Nelle was a pillar of the church and the one who provided stability to the shaky Reagan family when the head was drunkard and a poor provider. She helped spark her son's interest in acting and believed the stage could be a force for noble purposes.<ref> Stephen Vaughn, "The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(1): 109-127. 0360-4918 </Ref>

==Hollywood==
[[File:Reagan1953.jpg|thumb|left|250px|1953 film starring Reagan and Dorothy Malone]]
In 1937 Reagan traveled to [[Hollywood]] to cover the Chicago Cubs's spring training games and look at prospects in the film industry. Warner Brothers studio offered him a one year contract with a starting salary of $200 a week. He then became famous starring in numerous "B" movies, where he typically played a supporting character rather then the leading role. In 1941 Reagan gave a well received performance in the [[Academy Award|Oscar]] nominated film ''Kings Row''. During the war Reagan was in the Air Force; he was assigned to make training films. He resumed his Hollywood career on release in 1946.

Reagan's movie career faded in the late 1940s but he made a successful transition to television, especially as a host, and became a celebrity on the speakers' circuit. He traveled the country as a motivation speaker for General Electric, attracting highly appreciative audiences for his polished, witty speeches based on a wide reading in current events and libertarian economic principles. Reagan also starred in the 1960s television series Death Valley Days. By 1964 he had appeared in over 50 films.

===Union president===
Reagan jumped into union politics, and was elected to five terms as president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], a labor union for movie actors and part of the [[AFL]]. As SAG President he traveled across the country giving speeches on behalf of actors. Until the 1950s Reagan was an avid liberal Democrat who strongly supported the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and the [[Fair Deal]] of [[Harry S. Truman]]. He often campaigned on behalf of the [[New Deal Coalition]]. There was talk of running Reagan for president of the AFL itself.<ref> Ronald Reagan, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743400259/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&keywords=truman ''An American Life'' (1990) p 132]</ref>

Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], a bastion of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. In 1947 he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement."

While remaining a Democrat Reagan became increasingly conservative in the 1950s. After actively supporting [[Richard Nixon]]'s campaign for president in 1960, Reagan switched political parties and officially became a Republican in 1962. He realized that he had diverged greatly from the tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party.

[[Image:Reagantheater.jpg‎|right|thumb|225px|Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater. 1954-62.]]

==1964==

Conservatives nationwide saw Reagan as their new star when his campaigning for Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 was better received than Goldwater's own speeches. He raised an unprecedented eight million dollars for Goldwater. Despite Goldwater's defeat, Reagan's 1964 "[[Time for Choosing]]" speech helped launch his political career and made him became a probable candidate for governor of California.

==Governor of California (1967-1975)==

[[Image:Reagangovernor.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan at the Victory celebration for California Governor at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, California 11/8/66.]] In the 1966 gubernatorial campaign, conservatives generally supported Reagan over George Christopher, the Republican mayor of [[San Francisco]]. Reagan defeated Christopher, and incumbent [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] [[Pat Brown]] in the general election, taking fifty-three of California's fifty-eight counties. Reagan's strategists wanted to emphasize libertarian support for smaller government and less taxation, as the state verged on a revolt against high property taxes. As student and black unrest exploded in the headlines, Reagan's call for [[Law and order]] won the votes of former liberals. Reagan's victory marked the end of New Deal liberalism in California.<ref> Dallek, Matthew. "Liberalism Overthrown." ''American Heritage'' (1996) 47(6): 39+ Fulltext online at Ebsco </ref>

Reagan inherited an enormous budget deficit from the Brown administration. In his first year as Governor, Reagan froze government spending and cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. At the end of his two terms the $194 million deficit had been transformed into a $550 million dollar surplus. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' editorialized, "We exaggerate very little when we say that Reagan has saved the state from bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980</ref>

When coming into office there was a growing number of anarchist protesters at the University California at Berkeley over the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]. The protests would become violent. Reagan sent the state police and later the national guard to handle the riots. It allowed him to showcase his populist themes of morality, [[Law and order]], strong leadership, and defense of traditional values. Reagan was reelected in 1970, after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators. Reagan's handling of this crisis helped to make him into a national politician known for strength and courage. <ref> Gerard DeGroot, "Reagan's Rise." ''History Today'' (1995) 45(9): 31-36. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext online at Ebsco</ref>

Governor Reagan briefly tested the presidential waters in 1968, but drew back when he saw [[Richard Nixon]]'s strength.

Welfare spending was a major issue in the 1970 election; with 10% of the nation's population, California had 16% of its welfare recipients. Reagan promised to cut the welfare spending by rooting out fraud and abuse, by requiring recipients to take jobs, and by collecting from dead-beat fathers. Democrats in the legislature supported a much more liberal bill, which advocated the welfare rights of the poor. Reagan personally worked out a compromise that passed and won considerable praise and some criticism. Its savings to taxpayers proved small, but it represented an important political achievement for both parties. Reagan benefited as well, emerging from the compromise as a more experienced and effective politician.<ref> Burbank (1991)</ref>

Reagan supported and signed laws to liberalize [[abortion]] in California (before the Supreme Court issued ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''), but later turned strongly against abortion.

Reagan's gubernatorial style, which carried over into his presidency, was expansive in looking only at the big picture, and choosing talented staffers who were given the power to handle all the details. Reagan seldom paid attention to the minute details of his own policies. Reagan was a powerful communicator, through press conferences and public appearances, with an uncanny knack for precise timing to make the maximum impact.<ref> Hamilton and Biggart, (1984); Ritter (1992)</ref>

Liberals across the country were puzzled by Reagan, and decided that he was a weak reactionary who would be easy to defeat if he ran for president. California liberals explained they were all wrong, that Reagan was the most formidable Republican since Eisenhower.

In 1970, he was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by liberal Democrat [[Jerry Brown]].

===Highlights as governor===
*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

==Presidential Campaigns==

===1976===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

After [[Richard Nixon]]'s resignation in 1974, the weak [[Gerald Ford]] became president, and Reagan challenged him in the 1976 Republican Party primaries. The main issue was détente with the Soviets as promoted by Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]]. Ford won the first 13 primaries, then Reagan came roaring back. He criticized the federal government and politicians for being too large, too powerful, and too involved in American society. Reagan, however, named liberal eastern Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Control of the convention came down to the Mississippi delegation, which swung the nomination to Ford. However, given how difficult it is to run against an incumbent President in a Primary, Reagan's campaign was surprisingly strong. After Ford was defeated in the general election, Reagan retired to his ranch in California and continued to give speeches across the country. There was little doubt that Reagan was the dominant Republican for the next election, and he easily won the nomination in 1980.

===1980===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

Before the general election, Reagan faced a Republican primary challenge from the more moderate [[George H. W. Bush]]. Bush was highly established and respected as having served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ambassador to People's Republic of China and the United Nations, former chairman of the National Republican Committee, and two-term Congressman from [[Texas]]. Bush referred to Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics." After Bush won a surprising victory in the [[Iowa]] State primary, Reagan surged ahead after he outwitted Bush in the New Hampshire debate. He later won the primary, and ironically named George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

Reagan was able to crusade against the failures of incumbent Democrat, President [[Jimmy Carter]]. There was runaway [[stagflation]], soaring [[interest rates]], persistent [[unemployment]], a series of humiliations abroad, and a weakened [[military]] in the face of growing Soviet superpower. As Reagan put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." The most pressing foreign policy crisis was that [[Iran]]ian President [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] was holding fifty- two Americans hostage. All of Carter's diplomatic attempts had failed.

Reagan feared that the [[Soviet Union]]'s military had become much more powerful then the United States'. He proposed stronger defense systems and a larger military. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war. A liberal Republican [[John Anderson]] ran a third party campaign which received 7% of the popular vote. Reagan won a landslide victory - receiving 51% of the popular vote and winning 44 of 50 states. In the 20th century, only two presidents received a larger electoral majority: Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. <ref>[http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm Biography of U.S. President Ronald Reagan]</ref> His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. The election marked the last hurrah of the New Deal era, the final collapse of the [[New Deal Coalition]] and indeed the end of liberalism as a coherent policy.<ref> Busch 2005</ref>

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|right|thumb|325px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. On that same day Ayatollah released the hostages after keeping them in captivity for 444 days.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

Reagan rebuffed liberals who complained he was killing the New Deal. Noting that he voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, as well as Truman in 1948, Reagan said he was trying to repeal the "[[Great Society]]'' enacted by liberals in the mid-1960s.<ref>David Gergen, [http://books.google.com/books?id=68rBxuO7EsMC&pg=PA351&dq=reagan+%22great+society%22+roosevelt+truman&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES ''Eyewitness to Power'' (2000) p 351]</ref>

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Ronald Reagan
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[George H.W. Bush]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Alexander Haig]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1982-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Donald Regan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[James Baker]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Nicholas Brady]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[Frank C. Carlucci]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[William Smith]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[Edwin Meese III]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Richard Thornburgh]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of the Interior]]
| [[James G. Watt]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[William P. Clark, Jr.]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Donald Hodel]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[John Rusling Block]]
| 1981-1986
|-
|
| [[Richard E. Lyng]]
| 1986-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Howard M. Baldrige, Jr.]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[C. William Verity, Jr.]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Raymond J. Donovan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William E. Brock]]
| 1985–1987
|-
|
| [[Ann Dore McLaughlin]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Richard S. Schweiker]]
| 1981–1983
|-
|
| [[Margaret Heckler]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Otis R. Bowen]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Terrel Bell]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William Bennett]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Lauro Cavazos]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Drew Lewis]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[Elizabeth Dole]]
| 1983-1987
|-
|
| [[James H. Burnley IV]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James B. Edwards]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[Donald Paul Hodel]]
| 1982-1985
|-
|
| [[John S. Herrington]]
| 1985-1989
|-
|}

===Assassination Attempt===

On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot near the heart after giving a routine speech.<ref> The assassin was [[John Hinckley]], a mentally disturbed man who didn't shoot Reagan for political reasons, but instead did to impress an actress he had never met.</ref> Surgeons at George Washington University Hospital saved his life and despite his age he recovered quickly. White House Press Secretary [[James Brady]] was shot in the head, became permanently disabled; Brady then became an icon of the anti-gun movement.

The assassination attempt came at a critical moment and disarmed the opposition in Congress, enabling Reagan to pass his major legislation even though the Democrats controlled the House.

===1984 Reelection===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1984]]''

In 1984, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8%. of the popular vote. <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1984 National Archives]</ref> <ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984 Leip, David: 1984 Presidential Election Results.]</ref>

During his second term, he helped end the Cold War with the help of Margaret Thatcher and some assistance from Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by their not being able to compete with defense spending.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]]
As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "[[Reaganomics]]." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

====PATCO Strike====
[[File:Time-8-17-81.jpg|thumb|250px| ''Time'' Aug 17, 1981. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html read story]]]On 3 August 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job. PATCO had supported Reagan in the 1980 election but now was making exorbitant demands regarding high raises, early retirement, and reduced hours. The Federal Aviation Administration made a generous offer but PATCO said no and called a strike. PATCO assumed it would shut down all air traffic and paralyze the economy, forcing the government to surrender, but they misjudged Ronald Reagan. Under federal law, the strike was illegal. Reagan ordered the strikers as a group to return to work. Some returned but most did not; he ordered individual strikers to return, and again most refused. Reagan was ready; secretly the Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis had readied military replacements. It was the first time in over 50 years in a major strike that replacements were used. Two days later, the president fired 11,000 strikers, and they never were rehired. The planes were flying and labor unions suffered their worst defeat since the 1920s. Reagan's dramatic action energized corporations to resist union demands, and sped up the rapid decline in union membership and the political power of union bosses.<ref>"Turbulence in the Tower," [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html ''Time'' Aug. 17, 1981]; Paul L. Butterworth, et al., "More than a Labor Dispute: The PATCO Strike of 1981," ''Essays in Economic & Business History'' 2005 23:125-139</ref>

===Social Security Reform 1983===
Mounting concerns that rising Social Security benefits were causing a long-term deficit and were growing too fast resulted in a bipartisan compromise in 1983. Brokered by conservative [[Alan Greenspan]] and liberal [[Claude Pepper]], the agreement lowered benefits over the next 75 years and brought the system into balance. Key provisions included a gradual increase over 25 years in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to take account of longer life expectancy. (People could retire younger, but at a reduced rate of benefits.) Millions of people were added to the system, especially employees of state governments and of nonprofit organizations.<ref> 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (1983) [http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html online version]; "Claude Pepper and Social Security Reform - 1981-1983," [http://www.claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/webexhibits/socialsecurityreform/socialsecurityreform1981to1983.htm online exhibit]; Paul Charles Light, ''Artful Work: The Politics of Social Security Reform'' (1985)</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, he named little-known Arizona judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Liberals, who had been ready for a knock-down battle, were stunned and meekly voted for her. Some Pro-Life groups were worried about her abortion position, which was unknown. She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated conservative judge [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. Senate liberals attacked Bork as being too conservative. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] criticized him, saying,
:''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

The U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. Reagan turned to the much less controversial Californian [[Anthony Kennedy]] he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on drugs", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in television advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use dropped from 33% of high-school seniors in 1980 to 12% in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==

===Strategic Defense Initiative===

Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars were spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, the main goal was achieved of forcing the Soviets to realize they could no longer compete in the Cold War.

The threat the Soviet Union felt from the SDI initiative forced them to negotiate an end to the arms race, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote:
:''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>
===Dealing with the Soviets===
Gorbachev, weakened by his nation's economic malaise, frightened by SDI, and committed to reforming the Soviet system before it collapsed, realized he had to end the Cold War to save Communism. Reagan proved willing to deal, but had to face three sources of criticism inside the U.S. The political right represented by the ''[[National Review]]'' and columnists such as [[George F. Will]] feared it was all a Soviet trap. Reagan used his enormous influence within the conservative movement to disarm these critics before disarming the Russians. Second were the "realists", led by Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who thought Reagan was going too far. The third group comprised segments of the intelligence community and military; they did not believe that the Soviet Union was as weak as Reagan and secretary of state, George P. Shultz, believed. Reagan, reelected in a landslide and at the peak of his power, pushed ahead with a series of agreements that effectively weakened the Soviet Empire and made it clear America had the initiative.<ref>James Mann, ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan'' (2009)</ref>

By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the Iranian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]] Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[SDI|missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one.

One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this:

{{cquote|'''''He proved he was right about the big things.'' Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet]] threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by insincere and dangerous critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). ''When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight.'' More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence.

'''''He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''''' <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>}}

[[Brian Mulroney]], the [[Canada|Canadian]] Prime Minister, Eulogized Reagan at his state funeral:
{{cquote|'''Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. ''And we know now who was right.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>}}

Former Reagan speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] paid tribute to the fallen president in a [[Wall Street Journal]] editorial. In it, Noonan noted:
{{Cquote|'''Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know-Nothing-Cowboy-Gunslinger-Dimwit. ''All presidents should be so stupid...'''''<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>}}

===Thatcher on Reagan===

Upon his death, [[Margaret Thatcher]], in very ill health from a series of strokes, insisted upon traveling to America to bid farewell to her old friend, and taped a stirring tribute to him:
{{cquote|'''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. ''When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.'''''

'''When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. ''Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.'' Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'.'''

'''But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. ''Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>}}

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|250px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential [[Medal of Freedom]]. Reagan was becoming increasingly forgetful. In November 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed in August with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity.

[[See Reagan's letter to the American people regarding his disease.]])

He died at his [[Los Angeles|Bel Air]] home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history after [[Gerald Ford]]. Reagan was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, located in Sima Valley, California, on June 11, 2004.<ref>[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/listviewf.aspx?session_args=NCrq/CB0Nbp/onw6gOr7mg==&p=LM2002EX&tx=13&h1=7&h2=3&sw=lm_exhibit&lm=libraryandmuseum&args_a=cms&args_b=32&argsb=N Exhibitions]</ref>

==Legacy==
There is growing consensus among scholars, both conservative and liberal, that he was the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan left a major imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics.<ref>"As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society'', Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. </ref>

==Family==
In 1940 Reagan married actress Jane Wyman, who won an Oscar for her 1948 movie ''Johnny Belinda''. They had three children together: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (1941-2001), who passed away from malignant [[melanoma]] within months of diagnosis, at age 60; Michael Edward Reagan(b. 1945-)<ref>Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Wyman and Reagan. See conservapedia.com: "[[Michael Reagan]]"</ref>, and Christine Reagan (June 26 & 27, 1947). She was born prematurely and survived only one day. The baby's death traumatized Wyman and she divorced Reagan in 1948.

In 1952 he married actress [[Nancy Reagan|Nancy Davis]] (b. 1921), whom he met in 1949. They remained married until his death in 2004. Together they had two children, Patricia "Patti" Ann Davis (b. 1952) and Ronald Prescott Reagan (b. 1958).

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans.]
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan played college football player [[George Gipp]] in the film ''Knute Rockne: All American'' (1940), and was affectionately known as "The Gipper" ever since.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>
*Reagan signed Proclamation 5018 declaring 1983 the [[Year of the Bible]].

== Quotes ==
*"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&pg=PA160&dq=I+have+wondered+at+times+what+the+Ten+Commandments+would+have+looked+like+if+Moses+had+run+them+through+the+US+Congress&ei=8GsPSrrnOI_CzATl8sGMCw Chapter 9 Page 160] The United States Congress by Ross M. English</ref>
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." - March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[Founding Fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - October 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993
*"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."<ref>New York Times, September 22, 1980</ref>
*"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
*"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Aug. 23, 1984<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ViUb1DLpnS4C&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=%22ever+forget+that+we+are+One+Nation+Under+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES William J. Federer, ed. ''Treasury of Presidential Quotations'' p 373</ref>
*"If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn4JEGVh-bYC&pg=PA93&dq=When+you+can%27t+make+them+see+the+light,+make+them+feel+the+heat.&ei=tvAlSsrrKZOCygS9_qycBw
Ronald Reagan: how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader‎ - Page 93] by Dinesh D'Souza</ref>
*"I, too, have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=65Sd1VzUBacC&q=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&dq=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&ei=rf5USpawCZnkygTa8LyVBw Ronald Reagan] by Office of the Federal Register</ref>
*"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=aF8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Concentrated+power+has+always+been+the+enemy+of+liberty&ei=FE6PSuHhCYuSygSV-fCzBw War and conflict quotations P.105, by Michael C. Thomsett, Jean F. Thomsett]</ref>
*"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
*"some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

==Also See==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Sutcliffe, Jane. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008) 48 pages; for elementary school; [http://books.google.com/books?id=_H_u21ebGcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' (1981).
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. (1981). Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Shirley, Craig. ''Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All'' (2005) on 1976 campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Revolution-Untold-Campaign-Started/dp/0785260498/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0700614087&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SWJK392VVCTPEDPDKJE excerpt and text search]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Reagan, Ronald. ''The Reagan Diaries: Extended Selections‎'' ed. by Douglas Brinkley (2007)
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s

====Primary sources by Reagan associates====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stockman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary

===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by [[Alfred Regnery]]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[category:1960s]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Actors]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Former Liberals]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[category:Democrats]]

Essay:Liberal Falsehoods

2012-03-12T02:44:15Z

JoshuaB: Improved

A major [[liberal]] falsehood of the mid-20th century was that intelligent life in outer space ''must'' exist, and that America should spend billions looking for it. This falsehood had political overtones in favor of nuclear disarmament, [[globalism]], [[environmentalism]], [[government spending]] and [[atheism]]. Political and Atheist leaders who supported research into extraterrestrial life, or were strong advocates that intelligent life ''must'' exist in outer space were:

[[Jimmy Carter]]
 [[Adolf Hitler]]
 [[Ronald Reagan]]
 [[Carl Sagan]]

Belief in ET's is as strong among atheists and materialists as the belief in angels and departed saints by religious believers.

==Message from Jimmy Carter==

Of the 200 million stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some – perhaps many – may have inhabited planets and spacefaring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message:

"This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope someday, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of galactic civilizations. [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=555]

==Ronald Reagan==

Even the late President [[Ronald Reagan]] was duped by this liberal falsehood<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8337299/Alien-life-and-UFOs-10-top-believers.html</ref>. While still governor of California, Reagan claimed to have seen a UFO on two separate occasions<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2650247/posts</ref>. Over the objections of staffers, Reagan (while serving as President of the United States) even worked references to extraterrestrial life into several speeches<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6PhtrRAXzU</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP1Cfpy945c&feature=fvwrel</ref>. Referring to their meeting in Geneva, Soviet premier [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] stated "At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."<ref>http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/06/was_there_ever_.html</ref>
== Other Liberal Falsehoods ==

*[[Population Bomb]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Global Warming]]
== See also ==
*[[Atheism and deception]]
== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays about Liberals]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

User talk:DMorris

2012-03-12T01:12:41Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 967871 by Bestiality (talk)

[[/Archive 1]]

User:DMorris

2012-03-12T01:12:05Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 967870 by Bestiality (talk)

*On most wikis, I am known as PCHS-NJROTC.
{{Userboxtop}}
{{User CPLeader|[[User:Aschlafly]]}}
{{User Political Compass|4.38, 4.00}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{Userbox|#CCCCFF|#FFFFFF|[[Image:Israelflag.gif|45px]]|<center>This user supports [[Israel]].</center>}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User American}}
{{User Republican}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{user McCain}}
{{user Palin}}
{{User Palin2012}}
{{User progun}}
{{User GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
{{User Wikipedian}}
[[Image:Pcproud.png]]
{{User pubschool}}
{{User Life begins|conception}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==Obamacare==
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjLNt3EMTE&feature=related Obamacare is kind of like this]

==Conservatives VS. Liberals==
American Conservatives, like myself, cherish American traditions that make this nation so great. Our founding fathers recognized the problem with large government and took great efforts to prevent our nation from becoming the same type of dictatorship that England was at the time. We support freedom of religion and the right to bear arms that the liberals and atheists try so hard to censor. We see that marriage should be between a man and a woman. American liberals have no respect for tradition, and they fail to recognize that radical changes for the worse will destroy our great nation. They label [[Christians]] as "close minded" for embracing their beliefs. Ironically, it's really the [[atheists]] and [[pagans]] who are "close minded" as they cannot tolerate Christians minding our own business. Liberals believe that capitalism, a wonderful system which is a main reason why our nation is so great, is evil, and they believe in [[communism]]. They complain about minor or even manufactured problems with our outstanding health care system, which is coveted by many foreign nations, and they falsely claim that other nations have better systems. They will never be satisfied, not even with our great American system. Liberals, in my opinion, are anti-American. In contrast, conservatives are patriots; we desire to conserve America and every traditional piece of the puzzle that makes our nation so better than the [[socialistic]] nations elsewhere.

==Privatization: It's a beautiful thing==
Here in America, we have become used to certain industries, ranging from [[landfills]] to [[public schools]] to [[transportation]], being socialized. [[Socialism]] hiders the ability for these industries to improve and prosper. Below are some of my ideas for how privatization can improve our way of life.
===Landfills===
Landfills are obsolete a lot like the health care systems in Canada, Cuba, and the United Kingdom. Private enterprise would dispose of waste in more profitable and eco-friendly ways. See [[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]
===Public Schools===
In America, our public schools are suffering as a result of being socialist. If a teacher so much as mentions God, he or she risks being the subject of great controversy should a radical atheist hears it. Furthermore, there are students more interested in causing trouble than learning in our schools. They disrupt students who are genuinely interested in learning. If public schools were privatized into a non-profit organization, great improvements could be made: [[intelligent design]] could be taught along side of [[evolution]] without atheist interference, and troublemakers could more easily be expelled from the system. Students and teachers would be free to be Christian or Jewish without having to worry about atheist complaints. It would be a capitalist system, and if the atheist minority had a problem with it, they could always homeschool their children; Christians have been doing it for quite some time.

User talk:WesleyS

2012-03-12T01:11:11Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 967869 by Bestiality (talk)

[[User talk:WesleyS/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== Morning.... ==

Would you please take a look and see if these are something we need? If not, let me know, and I will delete them. Thanks!
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Egyptian_Mythology]
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Egyptian_Deities&action=history]

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I'd say delete [[:Category:Egyptian Deities]] and place the contents in [[:Category:Egyptian Mythology]], as there are some other pages in the [[:Category:Mythology]] we can put in there as well. Essentially, almost anything that qualifies as Egyptian mythology will also be Egyptian deities. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 10:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Categegories==
Hi Wesley,
So when you have a main category and a subcategory, is it alright to use both? Example, I want to place [[Creation Care]] under the new category "Environmental Stewardship." Creation Care is already under environment. So should I just add the new category?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:02, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Why not? I don't know of any current policies against this. All it does is increase the exposure of the article. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]][[User_talk:CPWebmaster|Talk]] 21:10, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::Great! Will do then. Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:13, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::The more categories (within reason!) the easier for people to search! :-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree. In some of the larger categories (Politics, Science) it is probably best to subcategorize as much as possible without keeping the articles in the main category. Environment is, in itself, a subcategory of a larger one, Science, so placing [[Creation Care]] under both Environment and the new (sub)subcategory is fine in my book. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:11, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I moved Horatius Bonar from Cat: Sacred Music. I am trying to keep sacred music as a category for its types and forms, not for individual pieces of music, composers, hymn writers and the like. Perhaps there should be a Cat started for hymn writers...didn't I see Charles Wesley somewhere? BTW I just love ''"Categegories"''[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:Another word for the list, eh? Anyhow, your move was justified. I didn't see the other category. If we can round up enough pages for the Hymn Writers category, then by all means, go for it. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::Please make sure "Sacred Music" is under the SuperCats "Religion" and "Music", okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:45, 24 February 2009 (EST)
:::Sacred Music has been placed under "Musical Genres" and "Religious Songs". [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 22:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== Nutter ==

Do we have a "nutter" category, like for the criminally insane of terminally moronic crazies, like Phelps? Seems unfair (although fun to see them froth at the mouth whenever I re-add that category to him) to liberals to actually, really saddle them with the likes of him.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:I'm pretty sure we don't, but I'm sure there are other articles deserving of such a title elsewhere within the site. Anyone come to mind? If so, let me know and I'll throw something together. Phelp's talk page has filled out quite nicely lately, hasn't it? Lots of debating. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

==Busy day, eh?==
Lot of signings, I gather. Denver got Brian Dawkins :), best of luck with your signings. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes, very busy. Also very surprising that Philadelphia gave up 3 of their top DBs (Dawkins, Sheppard, Considine). The Steelers generally aren't very active in the free agent market, at least for big names. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 00:40, 1 March 2009 (EST)

== De-Orphaned ==

Is it really appropriate to "de-orphan" a talk page to the article in its own talk page? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 1 March 2009 (EST)
:Probably not. I was just trying to see if it worked. I'll undo it. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:57, 1 March 2009 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

Could you block that Badger fellow? He made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chemical_Ideas%2C_Salters&curid=87686&diff=634450&oldid=634446 this] interesting edit. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks, that textbook is close to my heart. I'd like to say 'muy gracias' to sound cool, but I don't know how. Alas. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:No problem. I'm actually rather unfamiliar with that particular text, but I'm sure it isn't some Communist propaganda. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 15:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::It's my textbook. Safe to say I've seen no hammer and sickle yet, but maybe they've hidden the communist message very carefully. They do have a section on Mendeleyev though, so I'll be extra vigilant. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:35, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

For catching that return vandal, Wes. I added an email block on that "psy-troll" sock of a sock RonSt. I think the average age/maturity of that vandal site is down to 12! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:Sure seems like it. The name looked too similar to yesterday's idiocy to be anyone else. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Rocky Bleier ==

[[Rocky Bleier]] is a big hero of mine also. I've thought of doing an entry about him, and even having him speak at an event. Thanks for taking more initiative than I did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly. I've had the opportunity to meet him once (easy because he and I live in Pittsburgh) and he truly is an inspirational person. Feel free to add to the page if you wish. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I may follow up and ask him to speak at an event in that area sometime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your superb work in connection with the blocks and unblocks this morning! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I'm glad it happened when I was near my desk at work. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:41, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

== Unblock ==

Thank you partners! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:59, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
:No problem. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 10:03, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

==Template unlocked==
Done. Please notify me when you're done so I can lock it again. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, it is done. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:59, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Miami done too. Sorry so long, busy tonight. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:28, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

=={{tl|age}} template==

Hi, Wesley. You've done wonderful work on categories. They say every cat has nine lives, but you've given some of our cats much more than that! ;-)

I've recently incorporated [[Template:Age]] into some of those infoboxes that we use in certain biographical articles. Would you like to team up with me and set some of these up?

Just enter the date of birth in year|month|day format in the template. For example, a person born on January 1st, 1970 would be {{age|1970|1|1}} years old. And someone born on March 22, 1984 would be {{age|1984|3|22}}.

There is a slot in a lot of the infobox templates for the age. Add it like this:
:<nowiki>age={{age|1977|8|1}}</nowiki> (Shows up as Age {{age|1977|8|1}})

Clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks, and I am willing to help. It could also work in the main areas of articles, for those lacking infoboxes. And I assume that this is for living people only? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::ROTFL!!!! Yes :-) The age template is only for living people. Otherwise Mozart would be how old now? <grin> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Final Four ==

How's your bracket look? --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 09:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
:Everyone is still intact in the Elite 8. It's only a matter of time until the upsets start pouring in. I have Louisville and North Carolina in the finals. Pitt loses to Villanova in the 8. That's what my head thinks. My heart says Pitt all the way!! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:24, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

==Sorry to see you go!==
You have been indefatigable in your efforts; and have proven that we libs cannot be all tarred with the same brush. Cheers, good luck and take care! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:46, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you, Wesley ==

You have indeed shown that someone of good intent can indeed progress here, and even flourish. Thank you for all your contributions, especially with the categories! I am locking your User page, unless you ask for it to be deleted, or until you signal wanting to return, which I hope you will do at some point. Good luck to you, you will be missed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:46, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

: WesleyS, thanks for all your efforts, and we'll miss you. It's ironic that you're leaving just as more evidence of the enormous advantages of conservative learning are coming in (see [[Talk:World History Midterm Exam]]).

: Upon reflection, I hope you'll agree that your time spent here was beneficial to others and to you. Assuming an absence of unexpected [[Parthian Shots]], you're welcome back anytime. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::Wesley, I am really sorry to see you leave. I would like to heartily thank you - both for your contributions here and friendship in general. I wish you all the best for the future and would like to think of this not so much as ''sayonara'' as ''ja mate ne''! (That is just a sneaky way to have you stay in touch, in order to receive the translation!) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 04:11, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks a lot with the rosters, man. I won't forget your kindness, you'll always be on my favorite users list (if that means anything). [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Is he back? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::He is, in a semi-retired fashion. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 15:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Extra privileges granted ==

Your account has just received blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:27, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
==Thanks!==
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my page. I hope that guy got blocked for it. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:10, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Vandals go after anybody and everybody, no matter what wiki you edit. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:41, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

User:WesleyS

2012-03-12T01:10:18Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 967868 by Bestiality (talk)

I'll officially unretire myself now, and list myself as semi-retired.

[[Image:Medal_Christmas_Campaign.jpg|frame|center|Christmas Campaign '08-'09]]

==About Me==
I am a thirtysomething guy living in [[Pennsylvania]]. I love to play music, and have the ability to play several instruments (guitar, saxophone, trumpet, piano, bass guitar). I am registered [[Democrat]], although my political compass is rather centered. I have a bachelor's degree in [[Chemistry]], with minor in [[Biology]], which I earned at the [[University of Pittsburgh]]. I currently work as a metallurgist. There was a time where it was very hard to balance my science and my religion, where one cast doubt on the other. One of my biology teachers in college brought things into perspective. He is a scientist who teaches biology (which would include evolution, which he only brushed on), but he is also an elder in his Church (Presbyterian, if I recall). Over some discussions, I was able to resolve the differences between the two extremities.

==My Focus at Conservapedia==

I will be focusing more on standardizing the pages, categories, and whatnot to make the encyclopedia more streamlined.

==Countries visited and/or lived==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; background:silver"
|- valign="center"
|
| [[Image:50_star_flag.png|USA|50px]]
|}
Pretty sheltered, no? I plan to travel, as I've recently devloped a taste for flying. I'd like to go to Japan, and a tour of Europe would be nice as well. I do, however, have quite a collection of coins from all over the world, currently at 278 countries/provinces (some now defunct, a la East Germany) and some aren't even countries yet (a la Kurdistan). I'd put up the pictures of the flags, but there are far too many, and I have work to do.

==Favorite Conservapedians==
In no particular order:
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] - the founder. Has been good to me.
*[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] - Categoric partner in crime.
*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] - great sense of humor.
*[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] - Fellow musician.
*[[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]] - the local.

{{Userboxtop|Here I Am}}
{{Userbox|blue|yellow|8100+|This user has made over 8000 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User faveband|Social Distortion}}
{{User pubschool}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User UnitedMethodist}}
{{User Democrat}}
{{User American}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

==Pages I can never find==
*[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]

==Pages to [[bookmark]]==
*[[Alternative rock]]
*[[User:WesleyS/sandbox|My sandbox]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:WesleyS}}

User talk:Jpatt

2012-03-12T01:09:52Z

JoshuaB: Undo revision 967867 by Bestiality (talk)

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Archive 2011 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]

== Blank3r ==

Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Adambro==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

: Also, Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)

== Rubio ==

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

== MPR ==

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Two issues==
*(a) Archive 107 from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index here] mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
*(b) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/108 Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108] need to be added. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:Noted--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

:You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)

== Hi redneck ==

You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)
::Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)

== Description ==

Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,

(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.

Thank you,
Sarah

:Hi Sarah, try this [[Conservapedia:About]] and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly [[Andy_Schlafly]]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)
::Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah

==Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution==
Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - [[Rdsmith]] 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012
: "all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution. [[Rdsmith]] 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012

:::Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [http://www.christianindex.org/617.article]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
::::I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)

:::::I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)

::::The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.

::::So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- [[Rdsmith]] 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012

:::::I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? [[User:HarveyG|HarveyG]] 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)

::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2012-03-11T23:06:36Z

JoshuaB:

== Yes ==

He does, but He doesn't intervene with modern times. Tim Tebow's 316 yards is just a coincidence, and there isn't much reason to think otherwise. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:55, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:If God has a sense of humor, then it seems highly implausible that He would not intervene to enjoy the humor. Under your view, what would God find funny if not by intervention?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Obviously, God is infinitely great, a sense of humor is a good quality. If He was lacking it, He wouldn't be infinitely great. Therefore he must have not only a sense of humor, but an infinitely great and perfect sense of humor. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 14:04, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

*[[User:FrancisB52|FrancisB52]] 16:01, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== No ==

== Not applicable ==

God is not a human being and is above human psychological traits. The "logic" argument appears to create God in the image of man, which verges on the blasphemous. The argument is fallacious: Just replace "sense of humor" with some less pleasant traits, like "Man has to relieve himself regularly in the bathroom. Does God have to go to the bathroom?" Obviously not! As regards the history argument, you should read the comedies of [[Aristophanes]], written around 400 BC. They are very funny! --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:09, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Emotions like humor are not physical. God surely does have other emotions like love, anger, sorrow, joy, etc., and man has them as well after being created in God's image.

:Pre-Christian Greek "humor" tends to be very simple, and barely funny by today's more sophisticated standards as developed by the Christian world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:34, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== Atilla the Hun ==

I had no idea this guy was a leading political leader! Which elections did he run in? Which party did he belong to? - was it the Democrats? Just joking - this article is supposed to be about a sense of humour. By the way, watch the British comedy 'The thick of it' if you want to fully appreciate political humour. On second thoughts maybe 'yes minister' might be more your style - it's less sweary. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:13, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:Politics is a broader concept than [[democracy]]. Or do you think that [[Julius Caesar]] was not a political leader?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Here's the last known clip of Julius Caesar meeting a voter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw He he [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:33, 10 March 2012 (EST)

== Seriously? ==

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation.
:''This doesn't even make sense.''
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''
*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

'''Each point is addressed below''':

*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''

::No, this would deny many other emotions that God sure does have: love, joy, sorrow, anger, etc., all documented in the Bible.

*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation
:''This doesn't even make sense.''

::A non-response requires no answer, but humor developed immensely along with Christianity, and arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity.

*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''

::Again, a non-response requires no answer. Are you claiming something about his sense of humor?

*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''

::That doesn't merit a response either.

*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''

::You have to explain yourself better if you want a response.

*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)

::The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:29, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:::"The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small." Well, let's see. A QB is going to throw for some number of yards between 0 and (say) 600 and complete somewhere between 0 and (say) 40 passes. Given how Tebow was used last year, the range is probably much smaller for each, but let's go with that. So the odds of coincidentally completing 10 passes for 316 yards is (at most) 1 in 24,000. Then we'd have to divide that by the number of other verses he's had on his eye black (there are at least two: Proverbs 3:5-6[http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2009/09/tebow-draws-more-attention-for-eyeblack-messages.html] and Philippians 4:13 [http://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-tebow-explains-why-he-tebows-uses-bible-verses-70824/]). So now we're down to at most 1 in 8,000. We could stop there, but I'd probably divide by the number of NFL games he's started (1 in 571) or at least the number of playoff games he's started (1 in 4,000). I suppose it's open to interpretations, but I wouldn't call that "vanishingly small" and think it's well within the realm of coincidence. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:07, 11 March 2012 (EST)

::::Your analysis is interesting, but does not include the small likelihood of the Broncos making the playoffs and defeating America's most (or second most) popular team, the Steelers - and thereby generating the enormous publicity. That probability alone was probably only 1 in 1000. Using your 1 in 24,000 likelihood for throwing for 10 passes for 316 yards, the overall probability of what happened is less than 1 in a million - far less than a reasonable coincidence. The other verses, by the way, do not compare with [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]] in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::But the question remains: what is so funny about something being unlikely? I think most people, atheists and Christians alike, would call such a statistical anomaly striking rather than funny. As far as the other examples are concerned: if that is supposed to be God's repertoire, I am afraid He would make a lousy stand-up comedian. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 10:46, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Perhaps it takes a good sense of humor to appreciate it. Some (other than God) do take sports games very, very seriously, but to most people they are a source of entertainment and amusement. Cal Berkeley's unlikely last-second victory over John Elway's Stanford team in 1981 or 1982, with the repeated laterals on the final kick-off return, was very serious to some (including Elway and the players), but was replayed repeatedly on television for amusement rather than serious news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem with using this sort of probability computation for this sort of coincidence to determine whether it arose due to chance is that you are doing it ''ex post''. To borrow an example from John Allen Paulos's ''Innumeracy'', it would be nonsense to look at a bridge hand of 13 cards from a deck of 52, conclude that the probability of that particular hand's having been dealt is less than 1 over 600 billion, and therefore conclude that it must not have arisen due to chance. Seeing a coincidence and then trying to examine after the fact what the probability would have been for such a coincidence to occur to illustrate miraculous behavior is a classic example of the [[sharpshooter fallacy]]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:00, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, I just want to make sure I understand correctly: The duck-billed platypus was designed to amuse us, red autumn foliage was designed to impress us with its breath-taking beauty, Tebow's 316 yard pass was guided to promote John 3:16. Fine. On the other hand, last year's tsunami was entirely due to entropy, right? No humorous message there? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:25, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? Revisited... ==
Mr. Schlafly, for some reason you chose to respond to my post to basically state that my post... wasn't worth... responding to... huh? Anyway, to cut to the chase, I'm not sure what's creating this "mystery" for you. The Bible contains several examples of God laughing which, to me, would seem like case closed. So instead of writing an article cataloging God's humor as expressed in scripture, you instead trot out a list of dubious claims. I think the only true mystery here is why you wrote this article. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:06, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2012-03-11T00:38:19Z

JoshuaB:

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2012-03-08T02:05:05Z

JoshuaB:

While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:

==Political==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[Frost/Nixon]]''
|2008
|R
|A liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
|
|-
|''W.''
|2008
|PG-13
|A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.
|
|-
|''Fahrenheit 9/11''
|2004
|R
|A Michael Moore movie, which distorts the tangential link between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
|
|-
|''The Motorcycle Diaries''
|2004
|
|A fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]].
|
|-
|''The Contender''
|
|
|Political movie turned into pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]].
|
|-
|''V for Vendetta''
|2005
|R
|Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
|
|-
|''Dead Man Walking''
|1995
|R
|A senseless criticism of capital punishment, with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.
|
|-
|''Nixon''
|1995
|R
|A historically inaccurate biography of Richard Nixon directed by liberal filmmaker [[Oliver Stone]].
|
|-
|''Milk''
|2008
|R
|An extremely pro-[[gay]] biography of openly homosexual politician [[Harvey Milk]].
|
|-
|''Capitalism: A Love Story''
|2009
|PG-13
|A typical Michael Moore hatchet-job where he relentlessly attacks America's capitalist economy with claims of alleged financial inequality.
|
|-
|''The China Syndrome''
|1979
|PG
|The movie depicts a meltdown of a fictional nuclear power plant. The film greatly over-hypes this risk of a nuclear meltdown and the resultant damage. This film along with the Three Mile Island incident (which occurred shortly after the film's release) are often credited for killing the nuclear power industry in America.

|}

==Social==
#''Dazed and Confused'' (1993) - Promotes promiscuity and drug abuse.
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
#''Pineapple Express'' (2008) - Shows drug abuse to be "cool".
#''Natural Born Killers'' (1996) - Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.
#''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' (2005) - Showing that [[liberals]] will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.
#''Boogie Nights'' - Made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.
#''The Social Network'' (2010) - Glorifies the gossip website [[Facebook]], which feeds narcissism and destroys marriages. Also portrays drug use and misogyny in a positive light.
#''The Day After Tomorrow'' (2004) - Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional [[climate change]].
#''The People vs. Larry Flynt'' - Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and argues that pornography is protected by the [[First Amendment]].
#''But I'm a Cheerleader'' - Portrays [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle, attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people.
#''Orgazmo'' - Portrays the porn industry in a positive light, mocks Mormons and the religiously devout.
#''Rent'' (2005) - Promotes [[homosexuality]] and transvestisism as normal lifestyle.
#''Kids'' (1996) - Pornographic film concerning five underage teenagers in New York City engaging in graphic sex, violent acts, [[drug]] use and homosexual activities.
#''Clerks'' - Filled with constant vulgar profanity. Previously rated NC-17 before being apppealed for an R rating.
#''The Kids Are All Right'' (2010) - Portrays homosexuality as normal lifestyle.

==Schlockumentary==
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]].
# ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' (2006) - [[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
# ''Super Size Me'' (2004) - Blames obesity on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
# ''[[Religulous]]'' (2008) - "Comedian" Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.
#''[[Jesus Camp]]'' (2006) - Baselessly attacks Conservative Christianity; incited liberal vandalism of the Bible camp shown in the film.
#''Inside Job'' (2010)
#''The 11th Hour'' (2007)

==Religious==
#''Dogma'' (1999) - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.
#''The Golden Compass'' (2007) - based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.
#''Priest'' (1996) - Blatantly anti-Catholic and pro-gay.
#''The Da Vinci Code'' (2006) - Promotes the false theory that Jesus Christ married [[Mary Magdalene]].
#''Monty Python's The Meaning of Life''

please add more!
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2012-03-08T02:04:11Z

JoshuaB: /* Political */

While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:

==Political==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[Frost/Nixon]]''
|2008
|R
|A liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
|
|-
|''W.''
|2008
|PG-13
|A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.
|
|-
|''Fahrenheit 9/11''
|2004
|R
|A Michael Moore movie, which distorts the tangential link between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
|
|-
|''The Motorcycle Diaries''
|2004
|
|A fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]].
|
|-
|''The Contender''
|
|Political movie turned into pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]].
|
|-
|''V for Vendetta''
|2005
|R
|Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
|
|-
|''Dead Man Walking''
|1995
|R
|A senseless criticism of capital punishment, with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.
|
|-
|''Nixon''
|1995
|R
|A historically inaccurate biography of Richard Nixon directed by liberal filmmaker [[Oliver Stone]].
|
|-
|''Milk''
|2008
|R
|An extremely pro-[[gay]] biography of openly homosexual politician [[Harvey Milk]].
|
|-
|''Capitalism: A Love Story''
|2009
|PG-13
|A typical Michael Moore hatchet-job where he relentlessly attacks America's capitalist economy with claims of alleged financial inequality.
|
|-
|''The China Syndrome''
|1979
|PG
|The movie depicts a meltdown of a fictional nuclear power plant. The film greatly over-hypes this risk of a nuclear meltdown and the resultant damage. This film along with the Three Mile Island incident (which occurred shortly after the film's release) are often credited for killing the nuclear power industry in America.

|}

==Social==
#''Dazed and Confused'' (1993) - Promotes promiscuity and drug abuse.
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
#''Pineapple Express'' (2008) - Shows drug abuse to be "cool".
#''Natural Born Killers'' (1996) - Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.
#''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' (2005) - Showing that [[liberals]] will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.
#''Boogie Nights'' - Made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.
#''The Social Network'' (2010) - Glorifies the gossip website [[Facebook]], which feeds narcissism and destroys marriages. Also portrays drug use and misogyny in a positive light.
#''The Day After Tomorrow'' (2004) - Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional [[climate change]].
#''The People vs. Larry Flynt'' - Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and argues that pornography is protected by the [[First Amendment]].
#''But I'm a Cheerleader'' - Portrays [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle, attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people.
#''Orgazmo'' - Portrays the porn industry in a positive light, mocks Mormons and the religiously devout.
#''Rent'' (2005) - Promotes [[homosexuality]] and transvestisism as normal lifestyle.
#''Kids'' (1996) - Pornographic film concerning five underage teenagers in New York City engaging in graphic sex, violent acts, [[drug]] use and homosexual activities.
#''Clerks'' - Filled with constant vulgar profanity. Previously rated NC-17 before being apppealed for an R rating.
#''The Kids Are All Right'' (2010) - Portrays homosexuality as normal lifestyle.

==Schlockumentary==
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]].
# ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' (2006) - [[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
# ''Super Size Me'' (2004) - Blames obesity on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
# ''[[Religulous]]'' (2008) - "Comedian" Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.
#''[[Jesus Camp]]'' (2006) - Baselessly attacks Conservative Christianity; incited liberal vandalism of the Bible camp shown in the film.
#''Inside Job'' (2010)
#''The 11th Hour'' (2007)

==Religious==
#''Dogma'' (1999) - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.
#''The Golden Compass'' (2007) - based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.
#''Priest'' (1996) - Blatantly anti-Catholic and pro-gay.
#''The Da Vinci Code'' (2006) - Promotes the false theory that Jesus Christ married [[Mary Magdalene]].
#''Monty Python's The Meaning of Life''

please add more!
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2012-03-08T02:00:35Z

JoshuaB:

While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:

==Political==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[Frost/Nixon]]''
|2008
|R
|A liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
|
|-
|''W.''
|2008
|PG-13
|A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.
|
|-
|''Fahrenheit 9/11''
|2004
|R
|A Michael Moore movie, which distorts the tangential link between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
|
|-
|''The Motorcycle Diaries''
|2004
|
|A fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]].
|
|-
|''The Contender''
|
|Political movie turned into pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]].
|
|-
|''V for Vendetta''
|2005
|R
|Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
|
|-
|''Dead Man Walking''
|1995
|R
|A senseless criticism of capital punishment, with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.
|
|-
|''Nixon''
|1995
|R
|A historically inaccurate biography of Richard Nixon directed by liberal filmmaker [[Oliver Stone]].
|
|-
|''Milk''
|2008
|R
|An extremely pro-[[gay]] biography of openly homosexual politician [[Harvey Milk]].
|
|-
|''Capitalism: A Love Story''
|2009
|PG-13
|
|
|-
|''The China Syndrome''
|1979
|PG
|The movie depicts a meltdown of a fictional nuclear power plant. The film greatly over-hypes this risk of a nuclear meltdown and the resultant damage. This film along with the Three Mile Island incident (which occurred shortly after the film's release) are often credited for killing the nuclear power industry in America.

|}

==Social==
#''Dazed and Confused'' (1993) - Promotes promiscuity and drug abuse.
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
#''Pineapple Express'' (2008) - Shows drug abuse to be "cool".
#''Natural Born Killers'' (1996) - Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.
#''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' (2005) - Showing that [[liberals]] will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.
#''Boogie Nights'' - Made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.
#''The Social Network'' (2010) - Glorifies the gossip website [[Facebook]], which feeds narcissism and destroys marriages. Also portrays drug use and misogyny in a positive light.
#''The Day After Tomorrow'' (2004) - Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional [[climate change]].
#''The People vs. Larry Flynt'' - Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and argues that pornography is protected by the [[First Amendment]].
#''But I'm a Cheerleader'' - Portrays [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle, attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people.
#''Orgazmo'' - Portrays the porn industry in a positive light, mocks Mormons and the religiously devout.
#''Rent'' (2005) - Promotes [[homosexuality]] and transvestisism as normal lifestyle.
#''Kids'' (1996) - Pornographic film concerning five underage teenagers in New York City engaging in graphic sex, violent acts, [[drug]] use and homosexual activities.
#''Clerks'' - Filled with constant vulgar profanity. Previously rated NC-17 before being apppealed for an R rating.
#''The Kids Are All Right'' (2010) - Portrays homosexuality as normal lifestyle.

==Schlockumentary==
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]].
# ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' (2006) - [[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
# ''Super Size Me'' (2004) - Blames obesity on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
# ''[[Religulous]]'' (2008) - "Comedian" Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.
#''[[Jesus Camp]]'' (2006) - Baselessly attacks Conservative Christianity; incited liberal vandalism of the Bible camp shown in the film.
#''Inside Job'' (2010)
#''The 11th Hour'' (2007)

==Religious==
#''Dogma'' (1999) - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.
#''The Golden Compass'' (2007) - based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.
#''Priest'' (1996) - Blatantly anti-Catholic and pro-gay.
#''The Da Vinci Code'' (2006) - Promotes the false theory that Jesus Christ married [[Mary Magdalene]].
#''Monty Python's The Meaning of Life''

please add more!
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Talk:Best of the public

2012-03-07T05:27:38Z

JoshuaB:

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The funny thing is that while [[Linux]] shows how good The Best of the Public can be, [[Microsoft]] simultaneously shows the other end; being a company that is looked down upon by very many informaticians, while it is generally seen as the best IT company in the world. A closer look on their software, though, shows that their products are of very poor quality, and their programs would probably not be nearly as populair if it wasn't for Microsoft's monopoly in the IT market. [[User:MalP|MalP]]

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting about the Founding Fathers: they tried to ensure the Best of the Public in government. They restricted the franchise to only property owners. This was intended so that only those with intelligence and a work ethic could vote. The point was to ensure that only the best of the public could control government. This was the real check against mobocracy. A mobocracy occurs in anytime time and place where there's universal franchise.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:30, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your fascinating point about how Founders might have viewed the restriction on franchise. But the universal franchise may have made the nation more conservative in many respects. Many [[pro-lifers]], for example, would not have qualified for voting under the Founders' view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.

: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

My point was not that wealth should dictate the franchise, but that there should be qualifications, and I have alternatives to property ownership. Further, if universal franchise made the government more conservative, how do you explain the election of George Bush or Barack Obama. It's obvious that a limited franchise would result in more limited government. Take any nanny state program like social security, universal health care, or free public education, and you find that the wealthy aren't the ones who actually benefit from these programs. Only the poor can stand to benefit from these programs. Take into account also, the way our tax system is set up. The federal tax system, taxes the poor substantially less than the rich. Many Americans pay no taxes at all because they are poor. Why would the wealthy be in favor of a tax system that favors the poor over the rich. So at this point, not only is the tax system redistributing the wealth, but the government is running programs (that no one has any intention of stopping) that give goodies like education and health care to the poor. Now, if the American voters are so conservative, answer this: why does the government favor the poor so much. Better yet, tell me why poor Americans will vote for a flat tax rate, which would increase their taxes. I sincerely doubt that universal franchise has helped, and it's obvious that a qualified voter is always preferable to unqualified voter. Wealth isn't necessarily the ideal qualification, but if only rich people had been voting throughout American history, I doubt we'd have social security. The current problem is that many wealthy people have been taught to accept a particular ideology without question. When you have an open mind, it's hard to deny the wisdom of the Founding Fathers limiting the franchise. The problem is, most people have been taught from their childhood to accept universal franchise unquestionably.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:22, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:Your theory, while ostensibly using logic, doesn't match up with the data: wealthy areas tend to be very liberal. Atheists, who tend to be wealthy, want bigger government to squeeze out charity and religion.

:If wealth were such a factor in political decisions, then why did the socialistic Obama raise far more money than the more conservative McCain? Studies show that church attendance is a better predictor of voting patterns than wealth.

:The flat tax is opposed for valid reasons in addition to invalid ones. Taxing consumption can distort the free market and might increase the power of government over the free market. It would also further marginalize the states.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Remember, wealth doesn't necessarily have to be the qualification. To respond to your points though, atheists are a political minority. Nobody in politics cares about winning the atheist's vote. On the McCain question, no one liked McCain enough to support him (he was a liberal trying to beat a liberal). You still haven't refuted many of my significant arguments. The tax system favors the poor and productive, and why would the poor vote against this? If the poor are so conservative then explain while they'll vote for a tax increase.You'd probably find that the middle class is the most reliably conservative group. It's true, the wealthy and elites are part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. Why would the rich want to have a tax system where they have to pay more, or a government where their tax dollars along go to fund free government programs for the poor, it only redistributes their wealth.

But back to voter qualifications, rather than wealth, let's say military service is a qualification for voting. You have to serve as an officer for at least five years before you can vote. Voters would have intense physical training, meaning they wouldn't be adverse to suffering, they would have good education, and they would be selfless. This is simply a suggestion; I'm open to other ideas on how to limit the franchise. Universal franchise is a uniquely modern idea. Few republics of the past have accepted the idea: the greeks, the thirteen colonies.
Finally, if mobocracy is so bad, then universal franchise is obviously bad. Mobocracy occurs whenever all citizens are allowed to influence the government, even if they do it through elected representatives. Remember, I never said that wealth was the qualification, or that only the wealthy should vote, but there should be some qualification.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:03, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

: Please do ... as long as it does not dilute the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Arthur Ashe ==

Perhaps Arthur Ashe's stunning upset victory to win Wimbledon should be included next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
:Didn't he also receive a presidential medal of freedom? I may be thinking of someone else, but if so, the top civilian award might stand for something too. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:10, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
::Looks like it was awarded posthumously. I don't know too much about him since I was pretty young in '93, but so far he has my vote. (references for the medal: [http://www.nndb.com/people/228/000023159/][http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2010/04/arthur-ashe-citizen-of-the-world/] )[[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

== "The ark was built by amateurs, but professionals built the Titanic” ==

The header above is a famous quote that seems to epitomize the point of this article. [http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_ark_was_built_by_amateurs_but_professionals_built_the_titanic/ I don't know who to attribute the quote to], and I'm not sure how to incorporate it into this encyclopedic article, so I thought I'd mention it here. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 23:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Personally speaking... ==

I find that technical expertise trumps folk wisdom and nickel know-how a lot of the time. I pay a mechanic to fix my car, even though my friends and I hanging around for a couple of hours could do an adequate job, and I go to a doctor when I'm under the weather, even though I know some remedies for coughs and colds. The doctor and the mechanic have spent years learning their trade; I've got nothing on that.

:Do you think this contradicts anything in [[best of the public]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Clarence Thomas quote ==

The Thomas quote is being misunderstood in the context of this article - he's clearly saying that he believes the 'bloggers' who complain about his clerks are a little self-important - 'jumped-up' as it were, and not as well informed or educated as his clerks. His "that's the attitude you're dealing with" comment is obviously referring to the fact that their bragging about their supposed superiority annoys him, and he ''doesn't'' think that the 'bloggers' know more than his clerks. I'm new here so I didn't want to just take it out without discussion. [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 13:30, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Common Law ==

I deleted Common Law as an example because the Common Law was created by experts-judges and attorneys who received formal training in the subject, passed some sort of licensing exam, had their decisions were reviewed by peers, who were similarly trained, etc. [[User:Lawstudent|Lawstudent]] 20:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nearly all of the common law developed before there was any formal legal training or licensing exams. Many of the attorneys and judges were simply ordinary people drawn to that field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Further questions on experts ==

I'm sorry if some of this is covered above, but I haven't read through all of the comments, as there's an awful lot of them. I have a question about what constitues an expert, especially in the sports section. Don Larsen, a starting pitcher for the Yankees in the World Series, seems like as much of an expert as one can get in that field. Sure, he's not as well known as Sandy Koufax or Cy Young, but he's hardly an amateur. Likewise Tom Brady. Yeah, he was second string, as most quarterbacks are in their early careers, and if experts "undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts" then I can't see how playing football for a major college team doesn't qualify. Just because he wasn't a star from the get-go like Peyton Manning was, I don't see how his training and career in the NFL make him much different than any other player, except that his talents weren't recognized early on. If they had been, would that have somehow made him an expert? Above Einstein was dismissed because it was "potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"" I think the same could be said for Tom Brady today. The Dallas Mavericks too. They may not have had as well known players as the Lakers, but these are guys who had been playing professional basketball for years, earning millions of dollars doing so, and surely basketball had been the focus of most of their efforts in college. I'm not sure simply being an underdog can necessarily make one the best of the public rather than an expert, especially when their backgrounds are nearly identical. The musician section is also somewhat confusing. I don't see what sets some of these one hit wonders apart from other musicians in their expertise. If they had no formal musical training then I guess that would qualify them, but that's true of many (perhaps most) contemporary popular musicians. Lennon and McCartney had little, if any, formal training, they just had the basic talent to write and perform popular music. The only bands or musicians that would seem to fit the article's definition of "expert" would be ones who attended Julliard or something, or at least studied music performance or composition at some higher level. Outside of classical music, that's probably very few in this day and age, and I don't see what warrants a mention of someone like Johnny Nash over just about any other more successful musicians. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:08, 3 March 2012 (EST)

== Is this really the definition? ==
I was reading this article when this line in the intro jumped out at me: "''"Best of Public" means, in the most straightforward sense, someone who is conservative and disagrees with most experts on a particular subject.''" Is that really the most basic definition of "best of the public"? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:27, 7 March 2012 (EST)

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T04:33:13Z

JoshuaB: /* Preamble */

This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America.

== Preamble ==

Text that appears in '''BLUE''' is text that has been '''changed''' from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears is '''RED''' is text that has been '''removed''' from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears in '''GREEN''' is new text '''added''' to the Confederate Constitution.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|We the People of the United States, '''in Order to form a more perfect Union''', establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, '''provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare''', and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|We, the people of the Confederate States, '''each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government''', establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — '''invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God''' — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
|The CSA preamble removes the idealist goal of creating a "more perfect union", and replaces it with text simply establishing a federal government. The CSA preamble also strikes references to collectivism such as "common defense" and the unspecific "general welfare" clause. The CSA does make the effort to specifically invoke God, thus arguably founding the CSA as a Christian nation.
|}

== Article I ==
=== Section 1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|All legislative Powers herein '''granted''' shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|All legislative powers herein '''delegated''' shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|The CSA made the minor change of replacing the word "granted" with "delegated".
|}
=== Section 2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the '''United States''', and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this '''Union''', according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all '''other Persons'''. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every '''thirty''' Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the '''State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,Virginia ten, North Carolina five''', South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

 When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

 The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
|'''(1)''' The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall '''be citizens of the Confederate States,''' and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature;''' but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.'''
 '''(2)''' No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the '''Confederate States''', and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 '''(3)''' Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all '''slaves'''. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every '''fifty''' thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; '''the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six'''.

 '''(4)''' When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

 '''(5)''' The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; '''except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.'''
|1. The CSA added language that specifically restricted voting to legal citizens. While under the United States Constitution each state sets voter eligibility standards.
 2. Minor change.

 3. Changes to this section specifically mentions slaves by name, instead of by euphemism. Changes were also made to the number of citizens each member of congress would represent, which would have resulted in a much smaller body of congress. Of course member states were subtracted and added as necessary.

 4. No changes.

 5. This is the first major addition to the Confederate Constitution as it gives the states the right to impeach federally appointed court judges and other federally appointed state offices. This would make activist federal judges more responsive to the constituents they presided over.
|}

=== Section 3 ===
=== Section 4 ===
=== Section 5 ===
=== Section 6 ===
=== Section 7 ===
=== Section 8 ===
=== Section 9 ===
=== Section 10 ===

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T04:30:35Z

JoshuaB: /* Section 2 */ articel I sec. 2 completed.

This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America.

== Preamble ==

Text that appears in '''BLUE''' is text that has been changed from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears is RED is text that has been removed from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears in GREEN is new text added to the Confederate Constitution.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|We the People of the United States, '''in Order to form a more perfect Union''', establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, '''provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare''', and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|We, the people of the Confederate States, '''each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government''', establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — '''invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God''' — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
|The CSA preamble removes the idealist goal of creating a "more perfect union", and replaces it with text simply establishing a federal government. The CSA preamble also strikes references to collectivism such as "common defense" and the unspecific "general welfare" clause. The CSA does make the effort to specifically invoke God, thus arguably founding the CSA as a Christian nation.
|}
== Article I ==
=== Section 1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|All legislative Powers herein '''granted''' shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|All legislative powers herein '''delegated''' shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|The CSA made the minor change of replacing the word "granted" with "delegated".
|}
=== Section 2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the '''United States''', and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this '''Union''', according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all '''other Persons'''. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every '''thirty''' Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the '''State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,Virginia ten, North Carolina five''', South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

 When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

 The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
|'''(1)''' The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall '''be citizens of the Confederate States,''' and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature;''' but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.'''
 '''(2)''' No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the '''Confederate States''', and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 '''(3)''' Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all '''slaves'''. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every '''fifty''' thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; '''the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six'''.

 '''(4)''' When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

 '''(5)''' The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; '''except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.'''
|1. The CSA added language that specifically restricted voting to legal citizens. While under the United States Constitution each state sets voter eligibility standards.
 2. Minor change.

 3. Changes to this section specifically mentions slaves by name, instead of by euphemism. Changes were also made to the number of citizens each member of congress would represent, which would have resulted in a much smaller body of congress. Of course member states were subtracted and added as necessary.

 4. No changes.

 5. This is the first major addition to the Confederate Constitution as it gives the states the right to impeach federally appointed court judges and other federally appointed state offices. This would make activist federal judges more responsive to the constituents they presided over.
|}

=== Section 3 ===
=== Section 4 ===
=== Section 5 ===
=== Section 6 ===
=== Section 7 ===
=== Section 8 ===
=== Section 9 ===
=== Section 10 ===

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T02:10:43Z

JoshuaB: tweak format

This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America.

== Preamble ==

Text that appears in '''BLUE''' is text that has been changed from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears is RED is text that has been removed from the original United States Constitution.
 Text that appears in GREEN is new text added to the Confederate Constitution.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|We the People of the United States, '''in Order to form a more perfect Union''', establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, '''provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare''', and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|We, the people of the Confederate States, '''each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government''', establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — '''invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God''' — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
|The CSA preamble removes the idealist goal of creating a "more perfect union", and replaces it with text simply establishing a federal government. The CSA preamble also strikes references to collectivism such as "common defense" and the unspecific "general welfare" clause. The CSA does make the effort to specifically invoke God, thus arguably founding the CSA as a Christian nation.
|}
== Article I ==
=== Section 1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|All legislative Powers herein '''granted''' shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|All legislative powers herein '''delegated''' shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|The CSA made the minor change of replacing the word "granted" with "delegated".
|}
=== Section 2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

 When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

 The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
|'''(1)''' The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall '''be citizens of the Confederate States,''' and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature;''' but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.'''
 '''(2)''' No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the '''Confederate States''', and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 '''(3)''' Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all '''slaves'''. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every '''fifty''' thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six.

 '''(4)''' When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

 '''(5)''' The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; '''except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.'''
|}
=== Section 3 ===
=== Section 4 ===
=== Section 5 ===
=== Section 6 ===
=== Section 7 ===
=== Section 8 ===
=== Section 9 ===
=== Section 10 ===

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T01:39:50Z

JoshuaB: Article I

This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America.
== Preamble ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|We the People of the United States, '''in Order to form a more perfect Union''', establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, '''provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare''', and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|We, the people of the Confederate States, '''each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government''', establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — '''invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God''' — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
|The CSA preamble removes the idealist goal of creating a "more perfect union", and replaces it with text simply establishing a federal government. The CSA preamble also strikes references to collectivism such as "common defense" and the unspecific "general welfare" clause. The CSA does make the effort to specifically invoke God, thus arguably founding the CSA as a Christian nation.
|}
== Article I ==
=== Section 1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|All legislative Powers herein '''granted''' shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|All legislative powers herein '''delegated''' shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
|The CSA made the minor change of replacing the word "granted" with "delegated".
|}
=== Section 2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!USA
!CSA
!Analysis

|-
|The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

 When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

 The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
|}

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T01:28:05Z

JoshuaB: A start. Preamble

User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions

2012-03-07T00:59:26Z

JoshuaB: Created page with "This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America."

This is a draft of an essay that will compare the Constitutions of the United States of America with the Confederate States of America.

User:JoshuaB

2012-03-07T00:58:09Z

JoshuaB:

I'm a huge space buff, so I figured I'd contribute to Conservapedia by updating space related articles.
 [[User:JoshuaB/Draft of Apollo 11]]
 [[User:JoshuaB/Gold standard]]
 [[User:JoshuaB/USA vs CSA Constitutions]]

First Amendment

2012-03-07T00:23:35Z

JoshuaB: wikify

The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:
{{cquote|'''[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of [[religion]], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [[freedom of speech]], or of the [[press]]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the [[government]] for a redress of grievances.'''}}

This is generally taken as a limitation on the power of the federal government with respect to:
#[[freedom of religion]]
#[[free speech]]
#[[freedom of the press]]
#[[freedom of assembly]]
#[[activism|political activism]]

== Conservative Interpretation ==
{{cquote|'''To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: ''The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.'' --- [[Ronald Reagan]]'''}}

Liberals often focus on the "[[Establishment clause]]", arguing that because the federal government cannot endorse or establish a religion, the state must remain neutral, or even hostile towards religion. However, liberals often overlook the clause explicitly allowing for the free exercise of religion, also known as the [[Free Exercise Clause]]. Conservatives argue that this clause can be interpreted to allow much more leeway to the majority of religious Americans than liberals currently allow, and that it provides legislators with great flexibility in supporting the ends of Christian faith, as long as all other religious denominations are equally supported. The fact that [[Congress]] may pass no law establishing or respecting a particular Christian denomination provides the federal government with the freedom to support a variety of Judaeo-Christian ventures, notably the faith-based initiatives enacted under [[President Bush]].

== Liberal Violations ==
American [[liberals]] have attempted to use the so-called [[Fairness Doctrine]] and political correctness in order to silence conservative viewpoints and to promote divisive views. These ideologically-motivated attempts to limit free speech are in direct violation of the First Amendment, specifically, and, by extension, the entire U.S. [[Constitution]].
{{US amendments}}

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]

United States Constitution:Article IV

2012-03-07T00:18:15Z

JoshuaB: typos

''For the full text of the U.S. Constitution, see [[Full Text of the United States Constitution]].''

'''Article IV''' of the [[United States Constitution]] addresses relations between the states of the United States.

==Section 1==
'''Original Text'''
 ''Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.''
 '''Meaning'''
 In brief, states must honer laws and court orders from other states, even if their own state laws differ. For example, a marriage or adoption that is legal in one state must be recognized as legal in all 50 states.

==Section 2==
'''Original Text'''
 ''The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.''
 '''Text added by the 13th Amendment'''
 ''No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.''
 '''Meaning'''
 This section prevents states from discreminating against residents of another state. Section 2 also orders states to return any fugitives from justice to the state from which they are fleeing. Section 2 also gave slave owners the right to reclaim runaway slaves across state lines.

==Section 3==
'''Original Text'''
 ''New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.''

''The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.''
 '''Meaning'''
 This grants Congress the power to admit new states into the union, but prevents individual states from creating new states inside their own borders.

==Section 4==
'''Original Text'''
 ''The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.''
 '''Meaning'''
 The exact meaning of this clause is debated amongst legal scholars and is open to interpretation. Credited to James Madison, this clause is usually understood to mean that each state must be ran as a representative democracy (as opposed to a dictatorship or monarchy) and that the United States has an obligation to defend any state's government that is danger of being overthrown by violent means.

[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States History]]

War on Women

2012-03-04T01:20:39Z

JoshuaB: Updated with new information

The '''War on Women''' also known as the GOP's War on Women's Healthcare, is the false campaign narrative crafted and promoted by the [[Democratic Party]] for the 2012 election cycle.

This angle is the first reaction by any [[Planned Parenthood]] spokeswoman when confronted by scaling back public tax dollars. <ref>[http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/16/6068123-a-war-on-women-planned-parenthoods-cecile-richards-on-gops-assault-on-reproductive-rights 'A War on Women' - Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards on GOP's Assault on Reproductive Rights, Newsvine, Feb 16, 2011]</ref> Recently, [[contraception]] was made an issue by liberals during the televised presidential debates. Liberal debate hosts would pepper the candidates with meaningless contraception questions when there wasn't any public outcry. <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/node/38885 ABC's Stephanopoulos Defends Contraception Line of Questioning from Debate, MRC, January 12, 2012]</ref> Soon thereafter, [[Obamacare]] mandates that [[Catholic]] organizations provide contraception and the issue became national, with most of the public in opposition. The bottom line is that Democrats are pushing a narrative, that is -- they claim to fight for women against the anti-women GOP.

Next came conception discussions on [[Capitol Hill]]. House Democrats were livid over the GOP scheduling only men on a panel describing the issue of contraception. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-ft-myers/the-war-on-women-and-contraception The war on women and contraception, The Examiner, February 18, 2012]</ref> Many sympathetic liberals in the [[Lamestream media]] picked up the story. They did not include the fact that this was a morning hearing and that the afternoon hearing scheduled women for the panel. The Democrat narrative was framed, hearings by an uncaring GOP.

The latest issue involves yet another Democrat prop. Democrats have been pushing to have testimony from Sandra Fluke on contraception issues. Denied several days by Republicans to speak, Democrats managed to have her give public testimony. Fluke claimed it too expensive for contraception and wants the government to pay. [[Rush Limbaugh]] weighed in surmising that the Democrat prop, [[Sandra Fluke]], wants taxpayers to pay for her to have [[sex]], aka a slut. Liberals everywhere would rally around Fluke and demonized Limbaugh. [[Andrea Mitchell]] of [[MSNBC]] would interview Fluke with the headline "War on Women", <ref>[http://patdollard.com/2012/03/breaking-sandra-fluke-exposed-as-fraud-activist-possible-white-house-operative-with-video/ Breaking: Sandra Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, Possible White House Operative – With Video, PatDollard.com, March 2, 2012]</ref> decrying those mean [[Republican]]s. The DNC demanded that the Republican leadership distance themselves from Limbaugh's remarks and many have. Mr. Limbaugh would go on to issue an apology to Ms. Fluke, stating: "''My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices''".<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0303/What-Rush-Limbaugh-actually-apologized</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Political card]]
* [[Chicago-style politics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Super PAC

2012-03-03T20:14:47Z

JoshuaB:

A '''Super PAC''' is a [[political action committee]] set up independent of any particular campaign, '''''but able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in favor of the election of a candidate''''', provided the '''SuperPAC''' is completely separate from the campaign and the candidate, and not coordinated with them in any way. This is a result of the ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' decision in January 2010.

One effect of '''Super PACs''' is to reduce the relative influence of the [[lamestream media]], and enable the public to hear negative information about [[liberal]] candidates.
[[Category:politics]]