Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-06-23T23:46:33Z

MarcoT: /* English Literature */

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-06-23T22:38:06Z

MarcoT: /* English Literature */

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

World War II

2010-06-23T15:31:42Z

MarcoT: Minor fixes

{{World War 2
| image =WWII collage.JPG
| conflict =
| date =1931-1945
| location =Europe North and eastern Africa Eastern Asia
| combatant1 ='''Allies''' [[Great Britain]] [[France]] [[Soviet Union]] [[China]] [[United States]]
| combatant2 ='''Axis''' [[Nazi Germany]] [[Italy]] [[Japan]]
| commander1 =
| commander2 =
| strength1 =
| strength2 =
| casualties1 =
| casualties2 =
}}
'''World War II''' was a global set of conflicts, beginning in 1931 in Asia, 1935 in Africa, and 1939 in Europe, all lasting until 1945, in which the [[Allies|Allied powers]] (led after the Fall of France by the [[British Commonwealth]], and including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], the [[Republic of China]], and many other nations), totally defeated the [[Axis Powers]] (led by [[Third Reich|Nazi Germany]], and including [[Italy]], and [[Japan]]). Although Japan's war against China began in 1937, the main conflict started in September 1939 when Germany invaded [[Poland]] (with support from the Soviets); [[Britain]] and [[French Third Republic|France]] then declared war on Germany.

The conflict was the deadliest in human history with estimated deaths ranging from 50 million to over 70 million soldiers and civilians.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second</ref> It ended with the Soviet Union dominant in Eastern Europe, and the U.S. and its allies dominant in Western Europe, setting the stage for the [[Cold War]].
==Causes==
:''See: [[Causes of World War II]]''

==War Begins in Europe==
[[Image:Communazi Peace Pact.jpg|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], Poland was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]
:''See also: [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]]''

In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WWII started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as a defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.

The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.
On September 17, 1939, Poland was invaded from the east by Hitler’s ally, Josef Stalin.

In 1939-1940, eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia were invaded and annexed into the Soviet Union proper.

==War in the West==
[[Image:Caen_sniper.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A Canadian soldier in the ruins of Caen, 9 July 1944]]
Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Sitskreig|Phoney War]]. May 10 1940 marked the end of any accusation of a phony war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British and French troops were routed and evacuated mainland Europe at [[Dunkirk]]. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,<ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.</ref>, their alliances with fascist Italy, and an expansionist Japan, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that Britain had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the seemingly foolish decision of the relatively weak Britain to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway and acquire Norway's coastline and ports for the German Navy. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], potentially crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. The operation was successful, but losses were heavy, especially to the [[Kriegsmarine]]. This was soon followed by the British troops invited by [[Iceland]] and American occupation of [[Greenland]]. (The need to prevent any increase in the range of German air activity, brought about the occupation of these lands - and of the Azores at the request of the Portuguese Government.)

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. From 10th July to the end of October the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and London Polish exile pilots, and the use of [[radar]] and its associated early warning system had forced a rethink of German tactics. It was the first significant setback for the Germans in the War. They now concentrated on the great population centers, especially London, hoping that huge civilian casualties would weaken morale and lead to a lessening of the war effort by the populace. The period that followed, popularly known as [[the Blitz]], lasted into May 1941. Around 40,000 civilians and civil defense workers died; but it failed in its objective and Hitler began concentrating on the impending invasion of Russia

With the pressure off their airbases the RAF was now able to increase its nightly raids on industrial sites in Germany and occupied lands. Because of the inability to correctly target these sites, the raids soon turned into “area bombing”, and German civilian casualties rose. These raids were to reach further into Germany as the war progressed and were greatly increased when American bombers began their sorties.

==Finnish Wars==

The Soviet Union invaded [[Finland]], a neutral, on November 30 1939. This conflict came to be known as the "Winter War". Despite the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army, the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control. Outside powers (including the U.S.) considered intervention to help Finland; only a little aid trickled in and Finland was forced to sue for peace. The peace treaty signed in March 1940 favored the Soviets, but they paid heavily for their victory with 200,000 dead. Finland lost 25,000 dead, and had to absorb 400,000 refugees from areas turned over to the Soviets. In 1941 Finland joined Germany in attacking the Soviets, in the "Continuation War" (1941-44), but lost again. An armistice in Sept. 1944 stabilized the border, using March 1940 lines; in addition Finland had to pay heavy reparations and had to remain neutral in the [[Cold War]].<ref> Roger R. Reese, "Lessons of the Winter War: a Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940," ''Journal of Military History'' 2008 72(3): 825-852 </ref>

==Soviet-German War==
1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin was repeatedly informed by his own spies and anti-German countries that Germany was about to attack; he rejected the accurate reports and paid dearly for the blunder.

In June--behind schedule because of diversions in the Balkans--the Germans launched their massive war against the Soviet Union (known as the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia). It was by far the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive phase of World War II. Outside observers in the first few months figured that Germany would win easily. But the Nazi armies were split three ways, logistics became worse and worse as distances grew, and none met their objective by the time the extreme Russian winter of 1941-42 set in. Blitzkrieg had failed against the Soviets, and the Germans lacked the resources to fight a long war against a country with such vast areas and so many more people. The Luftwaffe, which promised to overcome the slowness of ground travel, failed to provide adequate support and was soon matched and outnumbered by the Soviet air force.<ref> The best studies of this theater are by [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=glantz+david&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= David Glantz]</ref>

Finally, after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, in which nearly 25% of the German forces on the Eastern Front were defeated, the Soviets began a massive, steady counter-attack. After a time of comparatively slow progress, the brilliant Soviet officer, Konstantin Rokossovsky, engineered "Operation Bagration", named-so after the Napoleonic Russian hero. The operation was extremely successful for the Soviets, leading to around 600,000 Soviet casualties and over 500,000 German casualties, including over 60,000 German vehicles and tanks. Even the Germans' best officer, Erich von Manstein, couldn't turn the situation around. Finally, in 1945, Soviet troops stormed Berlin, and forced Nazi Germany into capitulation.

==Far East==

After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese juggernaut seemed unstoppable. In the south, they conquered the [[Philippines]], the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, and extended their reach as far as the Solomon Islands. In the west, they seized [[Burma]] and the vital port at [[Rangoon]], and even attacked British forces at [[Ceylon]]. The Japanese empire now reached as far as [[Wake Island]] in the east and the [[Aleutian Islands]] to the north. Attacks on Japanese targets, including the Doolittle raid, boasted American morale, but did little material damage. In May 1942, Japanese forces were finally halted at the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]], which cost the Americans a precious [[aircraft carrier]], but saved southern [[New Guinea]]. At the [[Battle of Midway]] a month later, the Japanese lost four of their best carriers, suffering a blow to their sea power from which they never recovered.

The Americans took the offensive in August with a landing on the island of [[Guadalcanal]]. The overall American offensive strategy was two-pronged. Forces in the south advanced up the Solomon island chain and New Guinea, while in the central Pacific, Marines took island after island, including [[Battle of Tarawa|Tarawa]], Eniwetok, [[Saipan]], and [[Guam]]. The two lines of attack came together at the Philippines.

Integral to the strategy was the policy of island hopping. Many Japanese strongholds were bypassed, allowing the American forces to concentrate on more strategically significant islands. For example, [[Truk]] and Rabaul were home to major Japanese air and naval bases, but once the bases were neutralized, there was no reason to take on the troops there. This policy not only saved thousands of American (and Japanese) lives, it shortened the war by at least several months.

The American invasion of the Philippines took place in late October of 1944 when Marines landed on Leyte Island. A few days later, the US Navy shattered what was left of Japanese naval power in the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. The Japanese fought hard, however, and Leyte took two months to secure. When the Americans landed on the other islands, they found the troops there equally unwilling to retreat, but with American superiority in almost every area, the outcome was never really in doubt. [[Manila]] was captured by March, and the American position had become solid enough that leaders could start preparing for the final stage: [[Operation Downfall|the invasion of Japan]]. The first step was taken when the island of [[Okinawa]] was captured in June after two months of heavy fighting. Operation Olympic, the invasion of [[Kyushu]], was scheduled for November 1945, followed by Operation Coronet, the invasion of [[Honshu]], in March of 1946.

The Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike, were expected to put up a fierce defense. Army Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]] believed that Japan would fight to the last man, and insisted on preparing for a land invasion of Japan with an army of 2,000,000 men anticipating a tremendous number of casualties. Some analysts estimated the number of projected casualties from Operation Olympic alone at 250,000 dead and wounded.<ref>Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy, by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref> For this reason, Washington begged the Soviet to invade Japanese possessions on the mainland.

[[Image:Ww2-asia usma.edu pic.gif|thumb|300px|left|Time Line of Pacific War]]

==Japanese capitulation==
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay piloted by Paul Tibbet, dropped an atomic bomb (now called a nuclear weapon) on [[Hiroshima]]. Japan did not respond, so on August 9, Bocks Car, a B-29 piloted by Frederick C. Bock dropped the second atomic bomb.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, in reponse to urgent American requests. It invaded Manchuria and Korea; the Japanese army disintegrated. It was no longer possible for the Imprial Army to defend the Emperor. On August 20 the Japanese government told Washington it was ready to accept the proposed terms, with the understanding the Emperor would remain on the throne and would not be hung as a war criminal. Washington agreed, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On September 2, 1945, the Japanese Emperor formally surrendered all Japanese forces to the Allies in a famous ceremony aboard the battleship ''Missouri'' in Tokyo Bay. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Effects of war on empires==

*[[Iron Curtain]]
:The Red army conquered practically everything east of the "Iron Curtain," destroying independent national governments and making them all subservient to Moscow. The US grudgingly tolerated this imperialism until 1947, when it was Greece's turn. Then the US drew the line and adopted a policy of [[containment]]. Because of the geography of war, [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Albania]] escaped the Red Army. They fell under the control of independent Communists--Yugoslavia received American support, and Albania turned to Red China for help against the Soviets.

*[[British Empire]]
:The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which soon gave up India, as well as Pakistan, Ceylon and many of its other colonies).

* French Empire
:France saluted its overseas Empire as the savior of France, and wanted control back. That led to nasty large scale civil wars in Algeria and Vietnam, which France lost.

*the Netherlands and Indonesia
:The Dutch returned to the [[Dutch East Indies]] to face an insurrection they could not handle. Dutch acknowledged in 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]], a non-Communist state.

*Supremacy of the USA in the Western World
:The war left the U.S. with a vastly stronger economy than anyone else. To save on budget deficits the military was demobilized, but the long-term strategy was in confusion after Roosevelt's death.

==See also==
===Land war===
[[Image:Bradley.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' Dec. 4, 1944]]
* [[Battle of the Bulge]], Dec. 1944
* [[Battle of Okinawa]], spring 1945
* [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], 1937-45
* [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], US general
* [[Omar Bradley]], US general
* [[George S. Patton, Jr.]], US general
===Air war===
* [[Luftwaffe]], German air force
* [[World War II in the Air]]
* [[Bombing of Japan]]
* [[Bombing of Germany]]
===Naval===
* [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]], Dec. 1941
* [[Battle of Midway]], June 1942
* [[Chester W. Nimitz]], US Admiral

===Homefronts===
* [[Holocaust]], killing the Jews

===leaders===
* [[Charles de Gaulle]], France
* [[Adolf Hitler]], Germany
* [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], US
* [[Winston Churchill]], Britain
* [[Joseph Stalin]], Russia
* [[Chiang Kai-shek]], China
* [[Benito Mussolini]], Italy
* [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], Canada
* [[John Curtin]], Australia

==Further reading==
For a more detailed guide, see [[Bibliography of World War II]]

* Dear, I. C. B. and M. R. D. Foot, eds. ''Oxford Companion to World War II'' (in Britain titled ''Oxford Companion to the Second World War'' (2005; 2nd ed. 2009). the best reference book; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-World-War-II/dp/019280670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236549909&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Times Atlas of the Second World War'' (1995)
* Weinberg, Gerhard L. ''A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II'', (1994) the best overall view of the war.

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

== External Links ==
* United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
*[http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html Kursk: The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II], by Roberto R. Padilla II
* [http://encyc.org/WorldWarII World War II - Encyc]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Homosexual Agenda

2010-06-23T14:42:30Z

MarcoT: Undo revision 789573 by HellNoBHO (Talk)

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''homosexual agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association.

Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement,

:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref>

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise -- is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref>

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref>

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref>

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== Specific goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Destroying Christian morals
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]</ref>
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]</ref>
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref>
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref>
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref>
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref>
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref>
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has,

*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners;

*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress;

*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage,

*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.

*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref>

=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree the use of deceptive psychological tactics in order to gain or coerce acceptance of homosexuality, these has been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.

Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref>

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref>

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

The charge of "[[homophobia]]" has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref>

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated, Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.

Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

===Influence in the Academic World===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

*Soliciting donations
*Encouraging email activism
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref>

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]]. Outside of the [[United States]], [[Iran]] is notable for their exemplary policy of executing known or suspected homosexuals.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*"[[Homophobia]]"
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Sarah Palin

2010-06-23T14:41:34Z

MarcoT: Undo revision 789572 by HellNoBHO (Talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Sarah Palin
|image=Sarah Palin.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Todd Palin]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=11th
|state=Alaska
|terms=December 4, 2006 - July 26, 2009
|preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Sean Parnell]]
}}
{{Officeholder/mayor
|number=
|city=Wasilla, Alaska
|terms=1996–2002
|preceded=John Stein
|former=y
|succeeded=Diane Keller
}}
}}

'''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is a [[conservative]] [[Republican Party|Republican]] who served as the 11th [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] from 2006 through 2009. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref> Executive power was transferred to [[Lieutenant Governor]] [[Sean Parnell]].
Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]],<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref> and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.

She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]] and a prominent spokesperson for [[special needs]] children. She favors more competition in health care and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], having served in Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.

Her memoir ''[[Going Rogue]]'' was published in November 2009, with Palin drawing large crowds to book signing occasions around the country. She comments regularly on public affairs through her Facebook page, criticizing the "death panels" of the health care reform program and praising President Obama's pro-war speech upon receiving the Nobel Peace prize in Dec. 2009. She will appear on the [[Fox News Channel]] programming on a regular basis as part of a multi-year deal.<ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|250px|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]

Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> after graduating in 1982. She went on to college, after attending several institutions she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987.

She worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.

Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, formerly worked at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"<ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref><ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, September 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref> Bristol has since gone on to promote abstinence as a realistic choice for teenagers, stating, "[A]bstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat5025.html</ref>

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. In a similar vein, Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfil a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.<ref>[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]</ref>

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing and Alaska history.<ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

===Resignation===
In July of 2009, Governor Palin shocked Alaska and the nation with her announcement that she would resign her office effective July 26, 2009. She explained:
{{Cquote|My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.<ref>[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php Executive Column: Palin's resignation announcement]</ref>}}

==Record as Governor==
===Energy and Oil===

A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that develops policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

As governor of Alaska in Jan. 2009, Palin announced support for [[Alternative energy]] programs as she proposed a statewide energy plan that called for 50% of Alaska's power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025.<ref> Dan Joling, "Palin unveils state energy goals," [http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/657216.html ''Anchorage Daily News'' Jan. 16, 2009]</ref>

====Reaction to BP Oil Spill====

Palin has pointed out how environmentalists are responsible for locking up safer drilling areas on dry land, effectively forcing offshore drilling to become the preferred mode of acquiring oil, thus inviting crisis like the BP spill.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nysun.com/editorials/sarah-palins-way-of-thinking/86988/|work=[[The New York Sun]]|format=HTML|title=Sarah Palin’s Way of Thinking|date=June 5th 2010|language=English|quote=Governor Palin’s point will, we predict, become only more logical in the face of the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon. And she will increasingly come to be seen as having a clear way of thinking. She thinks like an economist. She understands that policies have consequences. If one wants, as the environmentalists have been doing for a decade, to restrict onshore drilling, it is going to incent offshore drilling.}}</ref>

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a [[Preemptive war|preemptive]] strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten.<ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator.<ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.”<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner.<ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote.<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref>

A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

[[Image:Mccainpalin.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Sarah Palin vice presidential announcement, 08/29/08.]] On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref> The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democrat Responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias. Palin "kept Joe Biden on the defensive" and "ended up dominating [the debate]".<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

Palin is a lightning rod to the established [[liberal]] women's movement. She, like many high profile conservative females, has taken much abuse from the left. Palin has been forced to set up a legal defense fund to help pay for fees related to an onslaught of ethic complaints, which are always frivolous.<ref>[http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18738 Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people"] CNN</ref> Because she is retiring from being governor of Alaska, the anti-American liberals pat themselves on the back in glee. Liberals still fail to understand that she is ''the'' typical conservative that the majority of Americans identify with. Her principles and her outlook on Americanism is a model for all future leaders.

Palin said of the people who have filed the complaints:
{{cquote| '''Those are the folks who want to tell me, they want to tell you, to sit down and shut up. We will not do that. I just can't, because I love my state. I love my country.''' }}

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people."<ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

When asked during an interview with liberal media pundit Katie Couric what newspapers and magazines Palin read (a classic [[Liberal trap]]), Palin fumbled and was unable to name any particular news source because of the side-swipe. This added fuel to charges that she was not qualified to run for Vice President, when in fact she was clearly qualified by her service as governor. Palin charges back at Couric and other liberal media attacks in her book [[Going Rogue]].

==Palin in 2012==
Palin is a celebrity with a large, enthusiastic base on the right that is ready to work for her in Republican primaries. She has been coy about announcing plans for 2012, but she is well positioned for a presidential run, assuming she can raise the $50+ million required to campaign effectively. Given her personal charisma and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory.<ref>[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]</ref>

==SarahPAC==

On January 27, 2009 Palin formed the political action committee (PAC) SarahPAC. The organization supports "energy independence and reform" and will endorse candidates who "share Governor Palin’s ideas and goals."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azCCxotgdG1E&refer=home</ref>

==Beliefs==
Palin believes in [[Real America]] and has referred to it often in her speeches.

Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the [[Pledge of Allegiance]]? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|Theory of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationism belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> [[Saturday Night Live]] likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|right|150px]]
Sarah Palin was baptized as a [[Roman Catholic]] and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church.<ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and attended the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

==Popularity==
Palin earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and nearly matched Obama's acceptance speech<ref>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/palin-triggers-rnc-ratings-spike/</ref>, gaining unprecedented attention. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with [[Joe Biden]] had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14201.html</ref> Also, her brief appearance on Saturday Night Live in October 2008 gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight in the East Coast Market.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref>

==Publications==

Sarah Palin's [[memoir]], published by HarperCollins: ''[[Going Rogue: An American Life]]'' (November 2009)<ref>[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/10/01/amazing-palin%E2%80%99s-book-number-one-on-both-amazon-and-barnes-unprecedented/ Amazing: Palin’s book number one on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller list, Audacity of Hypocrisy, October 1, 2009]</ref><ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111709/content/01125120.guest.html Rush Interviews Governor Sarah Palin], ''RushLimbaugh.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref><ref>Robert Shaffer. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'], ''FOXNews.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref> ISBN 0061939897
Palin has decided that her book royalties will be donated to families of Ft. Hood victims. ''"I'm joining the efforts of many others by donating my royalties from the book sales during our stop at Fort Hood to the families of the victims whose lives have been forever changed by the tragic events."''

{{conservatism}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008
*[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=&w=MA== I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin] National Review Online

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}
[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Rush Limbaugh

2010-06-23T13:56:00Z

MarcoT: Added the name of the British Newspaper quoted in the article.

[[Image:RushLimbaugh 1.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]
'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is an extremely popular American [[conservative]] radio talk show host and author. Limbaugh has risen to the top of the ratings charts as an intensely conservative voice in a talk radio media environment dominated by conservatives. In his sharp criticisms of the [[Obama Administration]] Limbaugh has been characterized as one of the ''de facto'' leaders of the opposition. Historians compare his role to Walter Winchell, a radio commentator of the 1930s-1950s era.{{Fact}} He has been ranked by ''The Daily Telegraph'', a popular UK newspaper, as the second most influential conservative.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html The most influential US conservatives]</ref>

== Radio ==
Limbaugh started young. By the age of seventeen, he was already a dedicated disc jockey, hosting a radio show in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He dropped out of college after his freshman year to pursue work full-time as a DJ, and got his big break in 1984, when KFBK in Sacramento hired him to host a talk show that reveled in controversy about conservative politics. His program was widely syndicated and by 1994 he was the number one talk-show host in the country. In 2001, he re-negotiated his contract for eight more years, for $285 million, a radio record. Surgery overcame a disease that left him nearly deaf in 2001.

Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its incisive criticism of the follies of liberalism. He is often at odds with liberal activist [[Al Franken]], who wrote a book entitled ''"Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot". Limbaugh habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as having "talent on loan from God". Sensitive about his own schooling, he ridicules the college educated as the "Arts & Croissant Crowd."

Limbaugh's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 16 million listeners weekly, making him the #1 radio talk show host in America.
<ref>[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Talkers magazine online</ref> In July 2008, Rush announced "he has renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of his show 'many years into the future.'" <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326 Rush Renews Contract], ''[[Human Events]]'', July, 2, 2008</ref>
== Politics ==
Limbaugh endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008</ref> He was often critical of [[John McCain]] during the Republican primaries, but supported him in the general election.

Limbaugh has warned against false prophets, telling his audience in 1996 that, "You are being manipulated in a way that I find very bothersome." "Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He's a populist."<ref>See [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/us/politics-on-the-air-radio-talk-show-host-fears-for-true-conservatism-s-fate.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Robin Toner, "Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate," ''New York Times'' Feb. 23, 1996]</ref>.
===Obama to Fail===
Limbaugh made national headlines when he was asked to write 400 words for a newspaper column about Obama's plans. He said he didn't need 400 words, he needed just four: "I hope he fails." He was immediately attacked by the Obama White House and liberal pundits as an unpatriotic obstructionist. Limbaugh expounded his view in the show's [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html transcript]; if Obama is for socialist policies and against capitalist policies, of course Limbaugh could not support those policies, and hoped he would fail. <ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html Limbaugh radio show transcript.]</ref>

Limbaugh addressed [[CPAC]] and further discussed his stance that generated so much attention. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/limbaugh-leader-obama-chief-staff-calls-talk-host-barrier-progress/ Limbaugh the Leader? Obama Chief of Staff] Fox News, March 01, 2009</ref> {{cquote| ''"Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. ... The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So where is it -- what is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"'' }}

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose comments were "incendiary" and "ugly," and Limbaugh counterattacked Steele's fitness to run the party. A Gallup poll in May 2009 on who was the main voice of the GOP found Limbaugh leading the pack at 13%, with Steele trailing at 1%.

==Audience==
Limbaugh's fans enjoy his bluster and bombast, but behind it there is a substantive defense of a coherent political philosophy. He makes politics engaging and entertaining, producing an audience more eager to seek out other sources of information. Limbaugh "dittoheads" consume more print news than do non-listeners. Like Fox News viewers, Limbaugh fans are more likely to tune in to presidential debates. Far from making people cynical or indifferent toward public affairs, Limbaugh reinforces his audience's disposition to participate in the political process.<ref>Jamieson and Cappella (2008) </ref>

Conservative Republicans are in his audience, but educational attainment, family income, and race do not predict who listens. Listening to Limbaugh is significantly correlated with public affairs information. He is not merely an entertainer and people who listen to him regularly are very well informed on public affairs. However, his radio audience is smaller than the TV audiences of conservative commentators [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]].<ref> Stephen Earl Bennett, " Who Listens to Rush Limbaugh's Radio Program and the Relationship Between Listening to Limbaugh and Knowledge of Public Affairs, 1994-2006," ''Journal of Radio & Audio Media,'' May 2009, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p66-82, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>
== Poking fun at Obama liberals==
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC's "Hardball" that Obama was "sort of God."

Asking rhetorically what [[God]] has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate." <ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100717 Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate] WND, June 10, 2009</ref> He went on to say "God does not think he's Obama," and "Liberals love Obama." Limbaugh explained more differences, "Another difference is that God only demands to be worshiped once a week," and "God asks for only 10 percent of your money", and "God gives you freedom to live your life as you choose."

== Victim of a Democratic prosecutor's witchhunt ==

On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref> after Democratic prosecutors illegally siezed private medical records<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/hottopics/Rush_Limbaugh.shtml </ref> in a blatant misuse of the criminal justice system to discredit Limbaugh.

== Sports ==

Limbaugh is an avid sports fan, particularly football. He briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received widespread criticism.

{{cquote|''' ''"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."'' '''}}

After McNabb's response, "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal," significant pressure was put upon Limbaugh to resign. <ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

== Other Media Work ==

The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Rush occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the [[Wall Street Journal]].

== The Harry Reid Letter ==
On October 2, 2007, Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] wrote a letter to Mark P. Mays, President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications, who is Limbaugh's chief patron. In it Senator Reid essentially demanded that Mays order Limbaugh to apologize for remarks he made concerning "phony soldiers."<ref name=ReidText>Reid, Harry, ''et al.'' "[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699 Letter to Mark P. Mays of Clear Channel Communications]." [http://reid.senate.gov/ Electronic Office of US Senator Harry Reid], October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 19, 2007.</ref> A ''phony soldier'' is someone who is not a soldier at all but is pretending to be one, especially in a public forum. Such activity is unlawful, and the faker whose activity prompted Limbaugh's attacks has since been convicted and punished.<ref name=PhonySoldier>Limbaugh, Rush. "[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story]." ''[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh Official Site]'', accessed December 25, 2007.</ref> This letter was co-signed by nearly all Democratic senators. In a speech in Philadelphia on October 11th, Limbaugh announced plans to sell the original letter on eBay in a charity auction. The proceeds went to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. The letter sold for $2.1 million and Limbaugh matched the winning amount with a total of $4.2 million being donated. <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/420889/harry_reidrush_limbaugh_letter_nets.html</ref>

== Quotes ==
* "You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993

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

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Rush Limbaugh|Articles about '''Rush Limbaugh''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Rush Derangement Syndrome]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
*[http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919 Rush's 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech], ''C-SPAN'', February 28, 2009
==Further reading==
* Gordon, Scott. ''Rush Limbaugh: An Oral & Media Biography'' (2009). 258pp quotes and comments by his friends and enemies.
* Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Joseph N. Cappella. ''Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment'' (2008) balanced analysis by scholars; compares Limbaugh with Fox and ''Wall Street Journal'' [http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261865854&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Warner Bros. Entertainment

2010-06-23T00:53:49Z

MarcoT: Changed "4 immigrant brothers" to "four immigrant brothers".

'''Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.''' is an important and influential [[movie]] studio based in [[Burbank, California]]. It was founded in 1918 by its namesakes, four immigrant brothers from [[Poland]]. It is now a part of the giant media conglomerate [[Time Warner]].

Warner Bros. is famous for many films it made during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, such as ''[[Casablanca (film, 1942)|Casablanca]]'' and the first full-length film with audible dialogue, ''[[The Jazz Singer]]''. It is also famous for its [[Looney Tunes]] and [[Merrie Melodies]] cartoon series.

[[DC Comics]] is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Warner Bros.

[[Category: Movie Studios]]

Liberal tricks

2010-06-23T00:51:15Z

MarcoT: Tried to improve punctuation and style; changed the wording of one sentence or two, without altering their meaning. This article, in my opinion, still needs stylistic changes.

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

# Try to draw a [[conservative]] in to saying or doing something which can then be dishonestly twisted to cast him in a bad light.
# So as not to show his true beliefs of supporting evil infanticide and taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], [[Barack Obama]] insists he is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/16/obama-and-mccain-try-to-woo-conservative-voters-at-forum/ Obama, McCain’s Abortion Positions Contrast Sharply at Faith Forum] Fox News, August 16, 2008.</ref>
# Inserting a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?!"
# Distracting and disrupting reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage.
# Making arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself<ref>. For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# Pretending that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable.<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# Exaggerating praise for fellow liberals.<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref>
# Pretending that atheism equals intelligence.
# In court decisions, holding in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[Liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriending]] you so that you become liberal. (Conversely, why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# Citing "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue.
# Citing "it doesn't hurt to try!" (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as premarital sex, worshiping other gods/many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion).
# Claiming that because everyone else supposedly believes in something, therefore it must be right.
# Claiming that your [[parent]]s aren't cool; that [[Hollywood values]] are cool; that [[professor values]] are brilliant; and that you must blindly follow your government.
# There is a shortage of everything we want.
# [[Prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated.
# [[children|Kids]] are getting smarter than old folks.
# Smearing your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation.
# Calling someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' that happens to have a different skin color.
# Demonizing [[conservative]]s and pretending they don't care about regular people.
# If you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# Believing the poor are blameless because they have nothing and the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# Accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# In discounting other point of views, [[liberals]] use comparisons of other known "wrong actions" to justify their supposed correct stance. <ref>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/07/hanson-earth-at-crisis-point/ , AFP Hansen, Earth At A Crisis Point, April 7, 2008</ref>
# Inserting false information, usually lewd into a respected work or group of works.
# Defending the assuration that democrats.com is not affiliated with the [[Democratic]] party. (We are told as an independent website, Democrats do not control the views of democrats.com.)
# Claiming expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty<ref>Liberals often cited physicists who had no training or expertise in engineering for their baseless, illogical criticisms of [[SDI]].</ref>
# Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".
# Pretending [[affirmative action]] is the best way to fill positions, including [[Affirmative action president|President of the U.S.]]
# Fearing the wrath of voters this election cycle, Democrats have decided not to block offshore drilling bans renewed each October. After the election, [[Americans]] get sucker-punched because restoring the ban on new offshore [[oil drilling]] leases “will be a top priority for discussion next year.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36268 Democrat Leader: Restoring Offshore Drilling Ban a ‘Top Priority’ for Next Year] CNSNews, September 24, 2008</ref>
# Saying "If you believe that abortion is murder, don't have one!" as if abortion isn't undisputably the murder of a human being.
# Supporting classlessness while pretending to care about the preservation of world culture.
# Finding a diverse individual to be appealing or “cool” until they learn that the individual does not conform to their liberal agenda.
# Claiming open-mindedness as a disguise for immorality. Such is a typical liberal claim regarding drug/alcohol abuse, promiscuity, etc.
# Defending the lives of heinous criminals (by opposing capital punishment) while encouraging murder of unborn children (by supporting infanticide, known today as abortion).

(please add to the list)

== Example ==

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

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

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #17 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}

Munich Accords

2010-06-23T00:42:00Z

MarcoT:

The '''Munich Conference''' took place between the 28th and 30th of September, 1938 when the [[U.S.S.R.|Soviet Union]], [[Germany]], [[Britain]], [[France]], and [[Italy]] met to decide how to cope with [[Germany]]’s aggression in [[Czechoslovakia]] during the [[Sudeten crisis]]. The partecipating states decided to enforce a treaty where they would allow Germany to eliminate the boundaries of the [[Versailles Treaty]] and annex the [[Sudetenland]]. It was also agreed that the [[government]] of [[Poland]] would be protected and a boundary was set over which Germany would not be allowed to cross without risking full scale [[war]]. The Munich Treaty reflected the policy of [[Appeasement]] which the western powers were pursuing towards Nazi Germany.

Germany's land seizure in Czechoslovakia was allowed to stand uncontested. Czechoslovakia was not given a say in this decision. [[Neville Chamberlain]], the [[Prime Minister]] of Britain at that time, is best known for his role in piecing together the treaty and buying what he believed would have been "peace in our time".

As Nazi Germany increased its aggression towards Czechoslovakia through infiltration and [[subversion (political)|subversion]] (including support of the pro-Nazi Sudeten German Party of [[Konrad Henlein]] and its terrorist offshoots) <ref>International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-54-22.html Fifty-Fourth Day: Friday, 8th February, 1946], Page 207.</ref>, Under Secretary of State [[Sumner Welles]] claimed over the radio that President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] had sent a personal message to [[Mussolini]]<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr13.htm President Roosevelt to the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) with a Message to Mussolini], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427).</ref> and one to [[Hitler]] begging him to intervene and that, on this request, Mussolini had done so. As a result, Hitler had halted his soldiers and sent an invitation to Chamberlain to come to Munich. Five days later, Secretary of War [[Harry Woodring]] made the same claim. And the White House secretariat put out a record of all the messages from the President synchronized with the events in Munich to prove that Roosevelt had turned the scales for peace. Later, in the 1940 campaign, [[Republican]] presidential challenger [[Wendell Willkie]] charged that Roosevelt had boasted of his part in the appeasement of Hitler. Secretary Hull denied this at the time, however Hull later admitted that Roosevelt did indeed send a "message to Mussolini" and one to Hitler<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler)], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427-428).</ref> encouraging negotiations. Hull wrote "whether the actions taken by the President brought about these results it is impossible to say. But undoubtedly they exercised considerable influence." Hull produced a letter from King George VI to the President saying "I have little doubt that your efforts contributed largely to the result." <ref>Cordell Hull, ''Memoirs,'' New York Times, January 26 to March 6, 1948.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Western betrayal]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Treaties]]

Munich Accords

2010-06-23T00:41:18Z

MarcoT:

The '''Munich Conference''' took place between the 28th and 30th of September, 1938 when [[U.S.S.R.|the Soviet Union]], [[Germany]], [[Britain]], [[France]], and [[Italy]] met to decide how to cope with [[Germany]]’s aggression in [[Czechoslovakia]] during the [[Sudeten crisis]]. The partecipating states decided to enforce a treaty where they would allow Germany to eliminate the boundaries of the [[Versailles Treaty]] and annex the [[Sudetenland]]. It was also agreed that the [[government]] of [[Poland]] would be protected and a boundary was set over which Germany would not be allowed to cross without risking full scale [[war]]. The Munich Treaty reflected the policy of [[Appeasement]] which the western powers were pursuing towards Nazi Germany.

Germany's land seizure in Czechoslovakia was allowed to stand uncontested. Czechoslovakia was not given a say in this decision. [[Neville Chamberlain]], the [[Prime Minister]] of Britain at that time, is best known for his role in piecing together the treaty and buying what he believed would have been "peace in our time".

As Nazi Germany increased its aggression towards Czechoslovakia through infiltration and [[subversion (political)|subversion]] (including support of the pro-Nazi Sudeten German Party of [[Konrad Henlein]] and its terrorist offshoots) <ref>International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-54-22.html Fifty-Fourth Day: Friday, 8th February, 1946], Page 207.</ref>, Under Secretary of State [[Sumner Welles]] claimed over the radio that President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] had sent a personal message to [[Mussolini]]<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr13.htm President Roosevelt to the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) with a Message to Mussolini], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427).</ref> and one to [[Hitler]] begging him to intervene and that, on this request, Mussolini had done so. As a result, Hitler had halted his soldiers and sent an invitation to Chamberlain to come to Munich. Five days later, Secretary of War [[Harry Woodring]] made the same claim. And the White House secretariat put out a record of all the messages from the President synchronized with the events in Munich to prove that Roosevelt had turned the scales for peace. Later, in the 1940 campaign, [[Republican]] presidential challenger [[Wendell Willkie]] charged that Roosevelt had boasted of his part in the appeasement of Hitler. Secretary Hull denied this at the time, however Hull later admitted that Roosevelt did indeed send a "message to Mussolini" and one to Hitler<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler)], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427-428).</ref> encouraging negotiations. Hull wrote "whether the actions taken by the President brought about these results it is impossible to say. But undoubtedly they exercised considerable influence." Hull produced a letter from King George VI to the President saying "I have little doubt that your efforts contributed largely to the result." <ref>Cordell Hull, ''Memoirs,'' New York Times, January 26 to March 6, 1948.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Western betrayal]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Treaties]]

Munich Accords

2010-06-23T00:40:49Z

MarcoT: Changed wording and corrected inaccuracies (e.g. not all nations intervening in the Conference were in the League of Nations; the USSR wasn't)

The '''Munich Conference''' took place between the 28th and 30th of September, 1938 when [[U.S.S.R.|Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Britain]], [[France]], and [[Italy]] met to decide how to cope with [[Germany]]’s aggression in [[Czechoslovakia]] during the [[Sudeten crisis]]. The partecipating states decided to enforce a treaty where they would allow Germany to eliminate the boundaries of the [[Versailles Treaty]] and annex the [[Sudetenland]]. It was also agreed that the [[government]] of [[Poland]] would be protected and a boundary was set over which Germany would not be allowed to cross without risking full scale [[war]]. The Munich Treaty reflected the policy of [[Appeasement]] which the western powers were pursuing towards Nazi Germany.

Germany's land seizure in Czechoslovakia was allowed to stand uncontested. Czechoslovakia was not given a say in this decision. [[Neville Chamberlain]], the [[Prime Minister]] of Britain at that time, is best known for his role in piecing together the treaty and buying what he believed would have been "peace in our time".

As Nazi Germany increased its aggression towards Czechoslovakia through infiltration and [[subversion (political)|subversion]] (including support of the pro-Nazi Sudeten German Party of [[Konrad Henlein]] and its terrorist offshoots) <ref>International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-54-22.html Fifty-Fourth Day: Friday, 8th February, 1946], Page 207.</ref>, Under Secretary of State [[Sumner Welles]] claimed over the radio that President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] had sent a personal message to [[Mussolini]]<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr13.htm President Roosevelt to the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) with a Message to Mussolini], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427).</ref> and one to [[Hitler]] begging him to intervene and that, on this request, Mussolini had done so. As a result, Hitler had halted his soldiers and sent an invitation to Chamberlain to come to Munich. Five days later, Secretary of War [[Harry Woodring]] made the same claim. And the White House secretariat put out a record of all the messages from the President synchronized with the events in Munich to prove that Roosevelt had turned the scales for peace. Later, in the 1940 campaign, [[Republican]] presidential challenger [[Wendell Willkie]] charged that Roosevelt had boasted of his part in the appeasement of Hitler. Secretary Hull denied this at the time, however Hull later admitted that Roosevelt did indeed send a "message to Mussolini" and one to Hitler<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/fdr14.htm President Roosevelt to the Chancellor of Germany (Hitler)], Telegram, September 27 1938, U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, ''Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941'' (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943, pp. 427-428).</ref> encouraging negotiations. Hull wrote "whether the actions taken by the President brought about these results it is impossible to say. But undoubtedly they exercised considerable influence." Hull produced a letter from King George VI to the President saying "I have little doubt that your efforts contributed largely to the result." <ref>Cordell Hull, ''Memoirs,'' New York Times, January 26 to March 6, 1948.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Western betrayal]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Treaties]]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2010-06-22T19:06:06Z

MarcoT: /* English Literature */

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Economy

2010-06-22T12:14:23Z

MarcoT: Changed wording to reflect the fact that an economy is not based on money BY DEFINITION. The article still needs improving and expanding.

An '''economy''' is the system of producing, distributing and consuming goods and services; virtually all modern economies are based on [[money]]. Before the invention of [[currency]], most economies were based on [[barter]]. Various economic systems exist and have existed around the [[world]].

== See also ==
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Communism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/economy/ What Liberals Say - Category: Economy], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Economics]]

Francisco Pizarro

2010-06-22T12:05:01Z

MarcoT: Fixed spelling.

[[Image:FranciscoPizarro.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Francisco Pizarro''' (1471-1541) was a Spanish conquistador who led the conquest of [[Peru]], betraying and eventually killing their emperor, [[Atahualpa]]. The ancient Peru city of Cuzco was completely destroyed and replaced with the city of [[Lima]]. While in Peru, Pizarro also discovered the greatest silver mine in the Americas, the vast majority of which was traded with [[China]], whose economy was based on silver. Like Cortes' conquests, Pizarro's conquests were facilitated by the use of [[horse]]s, superior weapons, and devastating European diseases like [[smallpox]], against which the Incans had no immunity.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pizarro, Francisco}}
{{Nb_explorers}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

[[Category:Age of Exploration]]
[[Category:Conquerors]]

Olive

2010-06-22T11:59:47Z

MarcoT: Fixed the page.

[[Image:Olives.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Several types of olives at a market]]
The '''olive''' is the [[fruit]] of the olive [[tree]] (''Olea europaea'') and is an important part of the [[agriculture]] and culinary tradition of many countries in the Mediterranean region. <ref>http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/olive.html</ref>

It is unclear how long olives have been domesticated, but references to olives in the ''[[Iliad]]'' indicate that they have likely been farmed since at least around 800 to 900 BC. <ref>Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Le monde d'Homère, Perrin 2000, p19</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fruits]]

Hydrogen bomb

2010-06-22T11:45:37Z

MarcoT: Minor typo fixed.

[[Image:Hbomb.jpg|right|200px]]
The '''hydrogen bomb''' (H-Bomb), is far more powerful and deadly than the [[atomic bomb]] that was dropped on [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]] to end [[World War II]]. In 1950, President [[Harry Truman]] started a program to develop the H-Bomb and it became the major weapon of the [[Cold War]], though it was never used.

Developed first by the [[United States of America]], the viability of the H-bomb was proven with a massive detonation in 1952 by the USA on an [[atoll]] of the [[Marshall Islands]] in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. The H-bomb consists of the release of massive energy when hydrogen atoms are fused together at very high temperature and pressure to form helium nuclei. The scientists instrumental in its development were the Hungarian immigrant [[Edward Teller]] and Polish immigrant [[Stanislaw Ulam]]. In 1956, the United States successfully detonated an H-bomb after being dropped from a military aircraft.

In 1953, the [[Soviet Union]] was the first to produce an explosion which made use of nuclear fusion, greatly alarming the United States which had hoped to retain its nuclear lead indefinitely. However, this Soviet device was a huge ground-based installation rather than a deliverable weapon. It was not a "true" fusion bomb because the main use of the fusion reaction was not to produce explosive energy, but to produce a neutron flux which had the effect of boosting the fission reaction. That is, most of the explosive energy came from nuclear fission. The Soviet Union later developed a bomb similar to the Teller-Ulam design, and its scientists claimed to have invented it independently of the American bomb.

Subsequently India, Pakistan, Great Britain, France, China, and South Africa have all developed their own hydrogen bombs, although South Africa has since dismantled its programme after negotiations with the international community. Negotiations between the US and Russia have also drastically cut both those nations' arsenals, although both retain very large nuclear stockpile. Israel is also widely suspected to maintain a small nuclear arsenal, though the government has never confirmed or denied these reports. This is known in Israel as the "policy of deliberate ambiguity". The US maintained a similar policy throughout the [[Cold War]], whereby it would "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" the specific deployment of nuclear weapons. However, this differs from Israeli policy; Israel neither confirms or denies possessing nuclear weapons, while the U.S. policy merely did not disclose the specific locations of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly, the Japanese were the first 'victims' of the H-bomb. A fishing boat was near the site of a test, and the fishermen received a severe amount of radiation, returning home very sick. Their catch was unloaded and sent to the market, causing a slump in the fish market, as no-one knew which of the fish were contaminated and thus refrained from buying fish for a while. <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2592990 Atomic Bomb Health Benefits Documented]</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Weapons]]
[[Category:Cold War]]

Talk:Russia

2010-06-12T16:10:56Z

MarcoT:

I don't think Russian Federation belongs in the Cat:Former countries; it is the offical name of the Russia today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Do you mean to say Russia was not a constituent of the USSR? Or that the Russian Federation as constituted in 1993 (IIRC) is not the successor to the Russian Soviet Federated Social Republic?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::Russian Federation is its name today (unless the Vladimar Putin, as the article says, heads a defunct state). It was alwasy refered to as the Russian Federation even in Soviet times, although its formal name was Russian Soviet Federated Social Republic (or something like that). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion of Edit ==
I accept the reversion of the previous edit by CharlesACE if it was actually stolen from another source, without said source being credited for it. However, not all of the changes were unwelcome. The GDP data are outdated; according to the CIA world factbook, Russian GDP for 2009 was 1.2 trillion (at the official exchange rate) or 2.1 trillion (purchasing power parity).
GDP per capita, in PPP, was 15,100$. The estimated nuclear force, however, should not be 15,000 warheads, but much lower than that; on May 13th, 2010, Russia was reportedly considering revealing its nuclear stockpile data. Until it does, I suggest not inserting any actual number to this article.
Finally, I'm for removing the "one of" in the industry paragraph: I don't see any other former Soviet Republic which could compete with Russia in industrialization, and I think Russia can safely be considered the most industrialized ex-Soviet state.
Would it be ok if I made the suggested changes to the article, without reinserting the apparently stolen "History" section?
--[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 12:10, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2010-06-12T12:48:44Z

MarcoT: /* 3:14 */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six thousand years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six thousand years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)
:::I reverted it back. The reason is simple: it is ''only that verse'' in which a secular scientist, theologian, or atheist has a problem with concerning a 24-hour period. It has to do with creation vs. evolution, and these people expect ''that'' verse - and only that verse - to mean an unlimited amount of time, citing the oft-quoted "a day to God is as a thousand years." With that logic in mind, how much time did Moses spend in the Wilderness? Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, so if he meant one thing when God was involved with the Creation, then he meant the same thing while traveling in the Wilderness. So was it forty years, or 14,600,000 years? After Moses died, his protegie Joshua took up the leadership, and circled Jericho for a week...or did they circle the town for 7,000 years? Did Jonah spend three days or three thousand years inside that whale? Did Jesus spend 40,000 years being tempted by Satan? A "day" in the Bible means exactly 24 hours; nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Before I begin, I apologize for the length of my response. Hopefully it isn't difficult to read. If it would be helpful for me to edit some of the post for clarity, I'd be happy to do so...

::Karajou - Are you implying that I must be a secular scientist, theologian or atheist if I attempt to provide evidence for a claim? Respectfully, if this is the case you are sorely mistaken. In addition, I hasten to add that in my opinion my argument does not involve creation vs. evolution, only the evidence that my claim can be valid, while still maintaining His word. More on that later.

::On the whole, you bring up an excellent point which I did not consider at the time of my initial justification. For this, I apologize. However, I don't believe your argument is definitive, and I still believe that both viewpoints should be considered for further debate. As such, I will not change anything until a final decision has been agreed upon.

::In my opinion, there are two essential areas where your response is lacking. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, higher latitudes experience longer or shorted solar days based on the season. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the Hebrew calendar took this into account and adjusted the observation of days accordingly in these parts of the world. Naturally, this system would have been in affect at the time Genesis was written. However, it certainly wouldn't have been in effect at the dawn of creation. Those who eventually created the calendar would have had to adopt these rules to account for the fact that one day (sunset to sunset) in the far north during the summer or winter would equal 60-70 days in Jerusalem during the same period. Again, this was a construct of mortals, not God. In my opinion, the notion of God '''designing''' and '''creating''' a World in which time would eventually be experienced by His people differently based on where they were located on it does not seem plausible. I know this doesn't sound like a good reponse but stay with me because it leads into my second point.

::As we know from Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 when he led the Jews out of Egypt in the year 1446 BC and lived for 120 years, meaning he was born in 1526 BC and died in 1406 BC. We also know that Adam was created in the first year of the Jewish calendar, and we are currently in the 5770th year, meaning that the time between the creation of man and Moses's birth is around 2234 years (I know they aren't equivalent or congruent systems but for the purposes of this discussion, I believe they should suffice). During these 2200+ years, the Lord lowered the average lifespan from infinity (Enoch has not died) to 120 (Genesis 6:3), with many figures prior to this event living well into their ninth century, including Adam who died at the age of 930.

::This being said, I'm fairly certain that by the time of Moses, civilizations had moved far enough north that a midnight sun would have been observed for weeks or months on end. Assuming that these civilizations had followed the Hebrew Calendar, this would have meant that one "solar day", as observed by these peoples, would have been the equivalent of 60-70 days as observed by Moses in the same period, while he was writting Genesis. According to your claim, Moses states one day of creation was the equivalent of one of our solar 24-hr day. If this is true, Moses - and therefore God - seems to have overlooked the fact that His concept of time doesn't apply to all of His subjects.

::Now, this may not seem like a significant issue. It is true, there may be one or more aspects that I overlooked, which I welcome you or someone else to mention. In the absence of these considerations, however, my argument on this point is simple:

:::-- If God intended His word to apply to everyone made in His image, why wouldn't he create a World where everyone followed the same word, i.e. observing the Sabbath at the same time as people in other parts of the world?

:::--Why would He rather create a universe where adjustments or decrees needed to be made by mortal human beings, after the fact? Though I don't wish to be guilty of blasphemy, to be frank, my understanding of the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent God of Abraham would not allow for such an oversight to be possible.

::Given this, I feel that it is implausible that Moses intended a day in Creation to be the equivalent of a solar day. Instead, I prefer to believe what is stated in the Book of Jubilees (4:29-31):

:::''"...that he [Adam] lacked 70 years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die."''

::Without going into any further detail (my fingers are starting to hurt from all the typing :-)), this would mean that Adam died in the same day of his creation, paving the road for everything that followed and NOT affecting Creationism theory, as you mentioned in your response. As for why we observe time as we do, I feel it is similar to what God did when he lowered the average age on two occasions (the first already mentioned above and the second from 120 years to 70-80 years as per Psalms 90:10), speeding up time in the process. In other words, if we take the average lifespan in the time of Methuselah (969 years in his case or slightly less than one day of Creation) and compare it to the average lifespan of today (70-80 years), you can make a plausible inference as to why the 1000 year theory is valid.

::Of course, no one including myself can know for sure if this is the definitive truth. Nevertheless, given the considerations I have just presented, I hope that you and everyone else affected by this issue can agree that a discussion is worth pursuing, instead of merely appealing to blind faith.

::Note: I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. I'm quite new at this and am still trying to get acquainted. Also, there are probably some sources that should have been mentioned. It was not a deliberate act, I was simply trying to save time. If you would like, I will be happy to post links. I look forward to your response, as well as anyone else willing to offer their views on this important matter. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 19:45, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:I agree, to "eat dust" makes more sense to me as well. But of course the original poster can explain his reasons for using "dry-powder food" before any change is made. --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 08:48, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

== Will vs Shall ==

I suggest replacing "shall" with "will"; after all the purpose of this project is to use more modern language, and "shall" is increasingly becoming obsolete. Furthermore, this change would improve internal consistency, as "will" is used in other instances. So I suggest replacing every instance of "shall" (e.g. 1:6, 1:11) with the more commonly used "will". --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 08:32, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2010-06-12T12:32:41Z

MarcoT:

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six thousand years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six thousand years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)
:::I reverted it back. The reason is simple: it is ''only that verse'' in which a secular scientist, theologian, or atheist has a problem with concerning a 24-hour period. It has to do with creation vs. evolution, and these people expect ''that'' verse - and only that verse - to mean an unlimited amount of time, citing the oft-quoted "a day to God is as a thousand years." With that logic in mind, how much time did Moses spend in the Wilderness? Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, so if he meant one thing when God was involved with the Creation, then he meant the same thing while traveling in the Wilderness. So was it forty years, or 14,600,000 years? After Moses died, his protegie Joshua took up the leadership, and circled Jericho for a week...or did they circle the town for 7,000 years? Did Jonah spend three days or three thousand years inside that whale? Did Jesus spend 40,000 years being tempted by Satan? A "day" in the Bible means exactly 24 hours; nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Before I begin, I apologize for the length of my response. Hopefully it isn't difficult to read. If it would be helpful for me to edit some of the post for clarity, I'd be happy to do so...

::Karajou - Are you implying that I must be a secular scientist, theologian or atheist if I attempt to provide evidence for a claim? Respectfully, if this is the case you are sorely mistaken. In addition, I hasten to add that in my opinion my argument does not involve creation vs. evolution, only the evidence that my claim can be valid, while still maintaining His word. More on that later.

::On the whole, you bring up an excellent point which I did not consider at the time of my initial justification. For this, I apologize. However, I don't believe your argument is definitive, and I still believe that both viewpoints should be considered for further debate. As such, I will not change anything until a final decision has been agreed upon.

::In my opinion, there are two essential areas where your response is lacking. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, higher latitudes experience longer or shorted solar days based on the season. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the Hebrew calendar took this into account and adjusted the observation of days accordingly in these parts of the world. Naturally, this system would have been in affect at the time Genesis was written. However, it certainly wouldn't have been in effect at the dawn of creation. Those who eventually created the calendar would have had to adopt these rules to account for the fact that one day (sunset to sunset) in the far north during the summer or winter would equal 60-70 days in Jerusalem during the same period. Again, this was a construct of mortals, not God. In my opinion, the notion of God '''designing''' and '''creating''' a World in which time would eventually be experienced by His people differently based on where they were located on it does not seem plausible. I know this doesn't sound like a good reponse but stay with me because it leads into my second point.

::As we know from Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 when he led the Jews out of Egypt in the year 1446 BC and lived for 120 years, meaning he was born in 1526 BC and died in 1406 BC. We also know that Adam was created in the first year of the Jewish calendar, and we are currently in the 5770th year, meaning that the time between the creation of man and Moses's birth is around 2234 years (I know they aren't equivalent or congruent systems but for the purposes of this discussion, I believe they should suffice). During these 2200+ years, the Lord lowered the average lifespan from infinity (Enoch has not died) to 120 (Genesis 6:3), with many figures prior to this event living well into their ninth century, including Adam who died at the age of 930.

::This being said, I'm fairly certain that by the time of Moses, civilizations had moved far enough north that a midnight sun would have been observed for weeks or months on end. Assuming that these civilizations had followed the Hebrew Calendar, this would have meant that one "solar day", as observed by these peoples, would have been the equivalent of 60-70 days as observed by Moses in the same period, while he was writting Genesis. According to your claim, Moses states one day of creation was the equivalent of one of our solar 24-hr day. If this is true, Moses - and therefore God - seems to have overlooked the fact that His concept of time doesn't apply to all of His subjects.

::Now, this may not seem like a significant issue. It is true, there may be one or more aspects that I overlooked, which I welcome you or someone else to mention. In the absence of these considerations, however, my argument on this point is simple:

:::-- If God intended His word to apply to everyone made in His image, why wouldn't he create a World where everyone followed the same word, i.e. observing the Sabbath at the same time as people in other parts of the world?

:::--Why would He rather create a universe where adjustments or decrees needed to be made by mortal human beings, after the fact? Though I don't wish to be guilty of blasphemy, to be frank, my understanding of the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent God of Abraham would not allow for such an oversight to be possible.

::Given this, I feel that it is implausible that Moses intended a day in Creation to be the equivalent of a solar day. Instead, I prefer to believe what is stated in the Book of Jubilees (4:29-31):

:::''"...that he [Adam] lacked 70 years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die."''

::Without going into any further detail (my fingers are starting to hurt from all the typing :-)), this would mean that Adam died in the same day of his creation, paving the road for everything that followed and NOT affecting Creationism theory, as you mentioned in your response. As for why we observe time as we do, I feel it is similar to what God did when he lowered the average age on two occasions (the first already mentioned above and the second from 120 years to 70-80 years as per Psalms 90:10), speeding up time in the process. In other words, if we take the average lifespan in the time of Methuselah (969 years in his case or slightly less than one day of Creation) and compare it to the average lifespan of today (70-80 years), you can make a plausible inference as to why the 1000 year theory is valid.

::Of course, no one including myself can know for sure if this is the definitive truth. Nevertheless, given the considerations I have just presented, I hope that you and everyone else affected by this issue can agree that a discussion is worth pursuing, instead of merely appealing to blind faith.

::Note: I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. I'm quite new at this and am still trying to get acquainted. Also, there are probably some sources that should have been mentioned. It was not a deliberate act, I was simply trying to save time. If you would like, I will be happy to post links. I look forward to your response, as well as anyone else willing to offer their views on this important matter. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 19:45, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

== Will vs Shall ==

I suggest replacing "shall" with "will"; after all the purpose of this project is to use more modern language, and "shall" is increasingly becoming obsolete. Furthermore, this change would improve internal consistency, as "will" is used in other instances. So I suggest replacing every instance of "shall" (e.g. 1:6, 1:11) with the more commonly used "will". --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 08:32, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Damocles

2010-06-11T21:42:25Z

MarcoT:

I put back the "more at ''σπάθη'', "sabre"" phrase; the reason for it is that Damocles may have been more a legend than a real figure, and the "sabre" reference is possibly what his name is based on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Do you have a reference for this? From what I know "Damocles" means something like "Fame of the people", and there are not many common consonants between DaMoCLeS and SPaTHe (sabre)... they seem to be completely different, unrelated words to me. --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 17:29, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
:I did the article some months ago, and I think the reference came from a Greek-English translator; I've never heard of the "fame to the people" before, but I could be wrong in this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Try this site: [http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon] δαμόκλειος σπάθη damokleios spathi; the sword is related to his name in this case, so it looks like I'm clearly wrong in this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:37, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Here is a link to an etymological website: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Damocles --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 17:42, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Damocles

2010-06-11T21:29:50Z

MarcoT:

Damocles

2010-06-11T21:23:38Z

MarcoT: Removed comma.

[[File:Sword-of-damocles.jpg|right|250px|thumb|''Sword of Damocles'' by Felix Auvray]]
'''Damocles''' (Greek: ''Δαμοκλῆς'') was a legendary courtier during the reign of the 4th century B.C. tyrant [[Dionysius II]] of Syracuse, who offered to change places with the king for a day, only to discover that with unbridled luxury and rule comes the threat of imminent death.

==History==
The evidence for Damocles - if indeed he may have lived at all - comes from the Roman politician and philosopher [[Cicero]]. In his ''Tusculan disputations'' he wrote that Dionysius was surrounded by flatterers, and during a banquet one of them, Damocles, stated that he was impressed with the extravagance and the magnificence, and impressed upon all that no one else could have been as fortunate. Dionysius then asks a pointed question:
:''"'So, Damocles, since this life delights you, do you wish to taste it yourself and make trial of my fortune?"''
Eagerly, Damocles accepts the offer and is made king for a day. According to Cicero, Dionysius gave orders that
:''"the man be placed on a golden couch covered with a most beautiful woven rug, embroidered with splendid works; he adorned many sideboards with chased silver and gold; then he gave orders that chosen boys of outstanding beauty should stand by his table and that they, watching for a sign from Damocles, should attentively wait on him; there were unguents and garlands; perfumes were burning; tables were piled up with the most select foods."''<ref>http://www.livius.org/sh-si/sicily/sicily_t11.html Translation of Cicero's account</ref>
As he is enjoying himself he sees the other object of the king's order: a sword hanging over his head, attached to the ceiling by a horsehair. Forgetting about the material wealth before him, Damocles begged the king to be excused; "Are you surprised?" said Dionysius. "I came to power by violence, and I have many enemies. Every day that I rule this city, my life is in as much danger as yours is at this moment."

Near the ancient site of Syracuse is a cave carved out of a hillside by prisoners of Dionysius, who were also "housed" within the cave itself while they worked on it. This "Ear of Dionysius" as it is called has acoustics so fine that someone standing outside of it could hear the prisoners' conversations within, and report anyone making plots against the king. <ref>http://www.research.ibm.com/DAMOCLES/html_files/damocles.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Damocles

2010-06-11T21:23:22Z

MarcoT: The introductory phrase made it look as if it had been taken directly from an etymological dictionary; I removed the reference "(more at ''σπάθη'', "sabre")"

[[File:Sword-of-damocles.jpg|right|250px|thumb|''Sword of Damocles'' by Felix Auvray]]
'''Damocles''' (Greek: ''Δαμοκλῆς''), was a legendary courtier during the reign of the 4th century B.C. tyrant [[Dionysius II]] of Syracuse, who offered to change places with the king for a day, only to discover that with unbridled luxury and rule comes the threat of imminent death.

==History==
The evidence for Damocles - if indeed he may have lived at all - comes from the Roman politician and philosopher [[Cicero]]. In his ''Tusculan disputations'' he wrote that Dionysius was surrounded by flatterers, and during a banquet one of them, Damocles, stated that he was impressed with the extravagance and the magnificence, and impressed upon all that no one else could have been as fortunate. Dionysius then asks a pointed question:
:''"'So, Damocles, since this life delights you, do you wish to taste it yourself and make trial of my fortune?"''
Eagerly, Damocles accepts the offer and is made king for a day. According to Cicero, Dionysius gave orders that
:''"the man be placed on a golden couch covered with a most beautiful woven rug, embroidered with splendid works; he adorned many sideboards with chased silver and gold; then he gave orders that chosen boys of outstanding beauty should stand by his table and that they, watching for a sign from Damocles, should attentively wait on him; there were unguents and garlands; perfumes were burning; tables were piled up with the most select foods."''<ref>http://www.livius.org/sh-si/sicily/sicily_t11.html Translation of Cicero's account</ref>
As he is enjoying himself he sees the other object of the king's order: a sword hanging over his head, attached to the ceiling by a horsehair. Forgetting about the material wealth before him, Damocles begged the king to be excused; "Are you surprised?" said Dionysius. "I came to power by violence, and I have many enemies. Every day that I rule this city, my life is in as much danger as yours is at this moment."

Near the ancient site of Syracuse is a cave carved out of a hillside by prisoners of Dionysius, who were also "housed" within the cave itself while they worked on it. This "Ear of Dionysius" as it is called has acoustics so fine that someone standing outside of it could hear the prisoners' conversations within, and report anyone making plots against the king. <ref>http://www.research.ibm.com/DAMOCLES/html_files/damocles.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Joseph Stalin

2010-06-10T20:45:32Z

MarcoT:

"forced women to work in factories just like men" - Is the intent of this to say that women should not be working in factories and/or holding jobs that men hold? I would think that idea is somewhat ''passe'' now. The fragment should be removed from the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: The statement is factual and I see no reason to delete. The reader can decide for himself whether forcing women to work in factories just like men is a good thing. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I would think that anyone would agree that coercing anyone to work isn't a good thing. But the "just like men" part is opinion, not fact. That is what should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Stalin's death==
''Following a stroke on 1 March 1953, Stalin died ''

Stalin may have actually been assassinated by other members of the Politburo who feared another 1938 style-purge growing out of the Doctor's Plot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Odd conclusion==
The article says,

:''Most of this, however, was pure propaganda ... Soviet growth was impressive. Between 1929 and 1937, 8,000 factories were constructed, average GDP growth was around 10%''

Which of those two statements is true? Was it "pure propaganda," or a successful campaign of industrial development? -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 12:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Purges ==

I removed someone's addition of the subplot of Stalin's Okhranka file because it was tangential to the overview of the purges and too specific for this article. It should form its own entry if valid.

:I would suggest, if you think it is important, not to remove accurate additional information added by RobS, a sysop, and instead perhaps give it a sub-head, instead of just dumping enlightening information, that goes to their state of mind. Do you have some suggestions for this, other than making an entirely new article on this deal? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==Motives==

Xgood, please work with me to develop your ideas on Stalin's motives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Tsaritsyn spelled wrong in the introduction==
It currently says ''Tsaritsen'', while correctly the town is spelled ''Tsaritsyn'' or ''Tsaritsin'' (''Царицин'' in Russian).[[User:SimonW|SimonW]] 11:53, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Lead ==

There should be an end parenthesis after his name in Cyrillic, and the Cyrillic name shouldn't be italicized (though I'm not entirely sure on the latter point). --[[User:SamY|sam(m)y]] 13:27, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:<s>Also, although it's more common to transliterate the Cyrillic letters de and zhe as two distinct letters, the name "Джугашвили" is more often rendered with a J in English (i.e., Jugashvili). --[[User:SamY|sam(m)y]] 13:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)</s>

== Additional Information ==

I'm studying the period in history at the moment-- most notably, the differences between Lenin and Stalin. Could I add, for example, that Stalin was a hardline believer in family values, as he altered the soviet school system to reflect this? Or could I add that he re-initiated the persecution of homosexuals?

I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, I'm honestly not sure whether to add these things-- they're facts, but they're elements of conservative ideology that you might not want associated with Stalin. -- Dollfuss.

*I would say you need to study at greater length, rather than post something so absurd. This is the danger of all students, reading something that might be factual, and accepting it as "truth" when in reading more, understanding more, one would realize that is isn't really the truth at all. Many things, in one context can be truthful, however taken in the greater, historical context, have entirely a different meaning or truth. "Persecution" of Homosexuals, given the times and overwhelming world view of the time, wasn't persecution as we know it today. You cannot judge historical events in today's accepted context. That is called revisionist history. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

==[[Simon Sebag Montefiore]]==
I am really rather surprised that no one has used Simon Sebag Montefiore's recent bestseller "Young Stalin" as a source for this article. There are a large number of urban legends about Stalin's life prior to 1917. For more than a decade, Mr. Montefiore has been examining thousands of pages of formerly classified documents and memoirs from the former Soviet Union. He has also tracked down and interviewed the descendants of the many illegitimate children who Stalin fathered prior to the Revolution. It is all there in black and white, including how and why Stalin lost his faith in the Christian God, the Atheistic subculture which he encouraged in the seminary in Tbilisi, and the many criminal activities which he used to finance Lenin's Bolsheviks. It is a vital source which should be used extensively by conservative historians, as it reveals just how and why the Bolsheviks defeated both the Tsar's Secret Police and the Provisional Government of Aleksandr Kerensky. If we are to compete successfully with Wikipedia, we must not deal in urban legends. Unfortunately, the Stalin article here seems to have been doing exactly that. [[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 17:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

*Well, you are an editor here, no? Propose what you would like added, post it here, and if no objection, move on to adding the bits to the article, with citation, of course. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

**Well, for one thing, the section describing Stalin as an Okhrana informant definitely needs a complete overhaul. Mr. Sebag Montefiore deals at length with this in his book. He cites both the evidence for and against the rumors of Stalin's Okhrana ties. At the time of his alleged "treason," Stalin was actually one of the Bolshevik movement's top intelligence men and was charged with trying to ''recruit Okhrana men'' as informants. According to Montefiore, the Okhrana ordered the agents Stalin approached to feed him false information in hopes of creating an internal war within the Bolshevik Movement. This, and the subsequent exposal of Okhrana spy Roman Malinovsky, made Stalin so unspeakably paranoid that decades after the Revolution he was still certain that he was surrounded by traitors. This was the ''real'' reason for the Purge of 1937. [[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 22:14, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Possible Quotes to be Added==
* "Before your eyes, rises the hero of [[Gogol]]'s story who, in a fit of abberation, imagined that he was the King of [[Spain]]. Such is the fate of all megalomaniacs."
--Joseph Stalin, ''Proletariatis Brdzola'', August 1905. Quoted by Simon Sebag Montefiore, ''Young Stalin'', page 376.[[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 19:14, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

* "God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just... I'll lend you a book and you'll see."
--A teenaged Stalin after reading ''The Origin of Species'' by [[Charles Darwin]]. Quoted by Simon Sebag Montefiore, ''Young Stalin'', page 49.[[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 19:30, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

* "Comrade Koba told you that we were against you and demanded your sacking from the Committee, but I promise you nothing of the sort happened and everything Koba told you was a malicious lie! Yes: a calumny to discredit us! I just wonder at the man's impudence. I know how worthless he is, but I didn't expect such 'courage.' But it turns out that he'll use any means if he thinks the ends justify them. The end in this case - the ambition - is to present himself as a great man before the nation. But... God didn't grant him the right gifts, so he has to resort to intrigues, lies and other 'bagatelles.' Such a filthy person wanted to pollute our sacred mission with sewage!"
--Georgian [[Menshevik]] Noe Khomeriki in a 1904 letter to a member of the Social Democratic Central Committee for the Caucausus region. Simon Sebag Montefiore, ''Young Stalin'', page 125.[[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 19:30, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

*"Does Djilas, who is himself a writer, not know what human suffering and the human heart are? Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?"
--In response to complaints about the rapes and looting commited by the [[Red Army]] during the [[Second World War]]. [[Milovan Djilas]], ''Conversations with Stalin'', page 95.[[User:Kingstowngalway|Kingstowngalway]] 09:03, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

== Last name ==

Stalin's real last name was Dzhugashvili, it was edited out but it should be put back. Right now, the article states that his real name was "Josif Vissarionovich", which means "Josif son of Vissarion"; Vissarionovich isn't the first of two last names, it's a patronym, and as such it cannot replace the last name. --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 16:45, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

Leaning Tower of Pisa

2010-06-08T22:13:18Z

MarcoT:

[[Image:Tower of Pisa.jpg|right|thumb|The Leaning Tower of Pisa]]

The '''Leaning Tower of Pisa''' is the ''campanile'' (bell tower) belonging to the [[Cathedral]] of the [[Italy|Italian]] city of [[Pisa]], constructed during the 12th to 14th centuries. The tower attracts millions of tourists each year. Despite its architectural beauty it's most famous for the fact that it leans at an angle due to sandy soil under the foundation. The tower's angle was increasing over time and there was a very real threat of the tower toppling completely. A major project was begun in 1989 <ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/1284771.html</ref> to restore it to it's 1838 angle of 13.5 ft from the vertical. The tower was secured with massive steel cables while sandy soil was removed from under the foundation and concrete was injected into the resulting space. The tower was closed to the public for 12 years during the restoration. The new foundation is expected to halt further leaning for the next 300 years, perhaps longer.

==See also==

*[[World treasures]]

[[Category:Tourist Attractions]][[Category:Italy]]

==References==

<references />

Leaning Tower of Pisa

2010-06-08T22:11:09Z

MarcoT:

The Merchant of Venice

2010-06-03T10:27:15Z

MarcoT: /* Lines and Quotes */

'''''The Merchant of Venice''''' is a play by [[William Shakespeare]] written in approximately 1596. <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: Vol. 1]], by William George Clarke and William Aldis Wright, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952, pp. 406-433. </ref> It is well-known for the dramatic character of Shylock, a Jewish money-lender.

==Synopsis==
The play opens with the melancholy merchant of Venice, Antonio. His close, yet poor, friend, Bassanio asks him for financial assistance so that he can court the fair Portia of Belmont. Antonio reveals that he has little money because all his investments are on the seas. Nevertheless, he gives Bassanio permission to use his credit to attain a loan. Bassanio tries to procure money from the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. Before that time, Antonio had mocked and thwarted Shylock on many occasions. Nonetheless, Shylock puts on a show of willingness and (seemingly in jest) writes a bond that says if Antonio fails to pay on time, gives him legal right to a pound of Antonio's flesh. Antonio confidently accepts, knowing his ventures return a month before the bond becomes due.

Bassanio travels to Belmont to attempt to win Portia. Before he died, Portia's father devised a test for every suitor who desired to marry Portia. He made three caskets made of [[gold]], [[silver]] and [[lead]]. Each suitor would look at the hints on the caskets and guess. Two of Portia's suitors, the Princes of [[Morocco]] and Arragon chose the wrong caskets. Bassanio correctly chooses the lead casket and marries Portia. However, all of Antonio's ventures fail and Shylock demands the payment. Antonio is unable and Shylock demands the law.

Bassanio travels quickly to Venice and secretly, Portia disguises as a Law Clerk and follows after him. The Duke of Venice holds court and tries to dissuade Shylock from taking vengeance. Bassanio offers to pay back the debt many times over. However, Shylock refuses. Portia, disguised as a law clerk defends Antonio, but admits Shylock's case is legally sound. Shylock almost kills Antonio, but before Shylock can strike, Portia stops him. Using the letter of the bond, she says that it gives Shylock no right to shed Antonio's blood! She also finds him guilty of trying to malevolent purpose against Antonio and Venice itself. Half of Shylock's land is given to the state and the other half to Antonio. Antonio shows mercy and allows him to keep half his property on condition that he converts to [[Christianity]]. Shylock only answer is "I am content."

Bassanio is grateful to the clerk for defending Antonio and offers him any gift he desires. Portia asks for his ring. Bassanio protests, but Antonio convinces him to relinquish his ring. Portia returns to Belmont ahead of Bassanio. She pretends to be greatly offended of giving away the ring, but later reveals how she actually was the law clerk. She also reveals that not all of Antonio's ventures failed, but also that some are still on their way.

==Characters==
'''The Duke of Venice''' judges the trial of Shylock and Antonio.

'''The Prince of Morocco''' is a suitor of Portia, who incorrectly guesses the gold casket.

'''The Prince of Arragon''' is another suitor of Portia, who incorrectly guesses the silver casket.

'''Antonio''' is a merchant of Venice and close friend to Bassanio and enemy to Shylock. Shylock almost kills him, but he is saved and gives mercy to Shylock in return.

'''Bassanio''' is a poor friend of Antonio, who often relied upon his friend for money. He wins and marries the Lady Portia, but is tricked by her, when she is disguised, into giving away his ring.

'''Salanio & Salarino''' are two friends of Antonio.

'''Gratiano''' is a close friend to Bassanio, who goes to Belmont and marries Portia's maid. He too is tricked into giving away his ring to his wife, while she is disguised as a clerk.

'''Lorenzo''' is another friend to Bassanio, who elopes with Shylock's daughter, Jessica. Shylock is required to provide him with all his possessions after he dies by Antonio.

'''Shylcok''' a Jewish money-lender and deep enemy of Antonio. He tricks Antonio into a dangerous bond, but in court the tables are turned on him and he is forced to convert.

'''Tubal''' a Jewish friend of Shylock.

'''Launcelot Gobbo''' is a servant of Shylock, who switches to Bassanio's service.

'''Old Gobbo''' is Launcelot's blind father.

'''Portia''' is a fair lady of Belmont, who is sought after by numerous men. She is won by Bassanio and saves Antonio from death by foiling Shylock's claim to revenge. She also plays a trick on her husband.

'''Nerissa''' is Portia's servant, that marries Gratiano and follows her mistress' example by playing a trick on him.

'''Jessica''' is the daughter to Shylock, who willingly runs away with Lorenzo.

==Film Versions==
The Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare's darker comedies is another play often on film. An older version was made in 1973, starring [[Laurence Olivier]] as Shylock and Jeremy Brett as Bassanio.

A newer R-rated version was released in 2004, starring [[Al Pacino]] in the role of Shylock.

==Lines and Quotes==
"All that glitters is not gold; 
Often have you heard that told." -Scroll in the Gold Casket, (Act II, Scene 7)

"If it feeds nothing else it will feed my revenge." -Shylock, (Act III, Scene 1)

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, 
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with 
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject 
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, 
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer 
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? 
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, 
do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? 
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that." 
-Shylock, (Act III, Scene 1)

"Tell me where is fancy bred, 
Or in the heart or in the head?" -Song in Belmont, (Act III, Scene 2)

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd, 
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven 
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; 
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes" -Portia, (Act IV, Scene 1)

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[William Shakespeare]]

==External Links==
Open Source Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=merchantvenice]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Merchant of Venice, The}}

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Hamlet

2010-06-03T10:19:46Z

MarcoT: /* Quotes and Lines */

'''''Hamlet''''', perhaps [[William Shakespeare]]'s most famous play, was written {{years ago|1600}} years ago. It is a [[tragedy]] about incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].

The title character is the son of a murdered king, who appears in ghostly form to the young prince.<ref>[[Harold Bloom]]: "When we first encounter him, Hamlet is a university student who is not being permitted to return to his studies. He does not appear to be more than twenty years old, yet in Act V he is revealed to be at least thirty, after a passage of a few weeks at most." [http://www.princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html]</ref> The dead king accuses his brother, Claudius, (young Hamlet's uncle) of murdering him.

As Prince Hamlet investigates, he faces a conspiracy involving schoolmates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; [[Ophelia]]'s father [[Polonius]]; and even his own mother.

Hamlet's quest to avenge his father's murder destroys his own life and the lives of everyone close to him but a visiting college friend (Horatio).

Under normal circumstances, it would be [[treason]]ous to make any accusations of the king. It is only because of Hamlet's position as the son of the Queen that he is able to voice his suspicions. That, and his pretense of being "mad with grief" over his father's recent death. He betrays his suspicions in front of his mother and (step)father in an angry tirade and is watched closely from then on.

Polonious, the king's adviser, thinks that Hamlet is behaving strangely out of his love for Ophelia and orders her to break off her relationship with Hamlet.

Hamlet wonders why his mother would betray her husband and marry his brother only two months after his death. He grows indecisive ("To be or not to be") and unsure about the ghost's story. He comes up with an idea to stage a pantomime play to confirm or deny the story.
[[Image:Ophelia 1894.jpg|right|thumb|''Ophelia'' by John William Waterhouse.]]
:"The play's the thing / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

During the play, he makes a nuisance of himself, commenting on the action and teasing Ophelia with [[double-entendre]]s, but he gets confirmation of the ghost's accusation when the King sees a scene showing a man poisoned in his his sleep and clasping the widow in an adulterous embrace. The King orders them to stop the play and storms out.

Hamlet confronts his mother (Queen Gertrude) in her bedroom, not knowing that the king's adviser Polonius is hidden behind a wall hanging. Hearing a movement, Hamlet kills the hidden spy; when he discovers that it is his girl friend's father, he hides the body in another part of the castle.

Ophelia, already upset over the sudden end of the courtship, becomes distraught after learning Hamlet has killed her father and drowns herself.

Hamlet's only friend in the play, his school friend [[Horatio]], is the only major character who is not killed. When Hamlet is behaving strangely (it might not be an act), he tells Horatio, "I am only mad north by northwest" and "There's a method to my madness".

==Synopsis==

Hamlet's friends among the castle guards see a ghost that looks like the dead king.
The King announces his wedding to Gertrude, widow of King Hamlet and father of Prince Hamlet. Her attempts to cheer him up fall flat, and in a soliloquy he accuses her of incest. His friends tell him about the ghost.
Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. He tells his sister Ophelia not to get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship.
Hamlet goes and sees the ghost, who tells him the new king murdered him. He tells Hamlet to avenge his death but not to hurt Gertrude. Hamlet doesn't tell his friends what he heard.
Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, and Ophelia tells her father that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.
The King and Queen send two schoolfriends of Hamlet to spy on him. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet comes in and starts insulting Polonius. The schoolmates come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. Actors come in, and Hamlet has Polonious hire them. The famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him, so he has the idea of using a play to prove the King's guilt. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet then goes to his mother's quarters, at the request of his friends. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius. After the verbal assault, the Queen realizes her own foolishness and vows to no longer sleep with the King.

==Movies==
Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)

Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.

Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia.

Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams.

The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect<ref> "This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]</ref>
as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.

The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.

While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.

==History==
Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.<ref>David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.</ref>

==References in Popular Culture==
In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.

The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with "Pull Me Under", a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.

==Quotes and Lines==
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." 
-Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." 
-Polonius, Act II, Scene 2

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." 
-Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2

"I am but mad by north-north-west." 
-Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2

"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." 
-Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2

"To be, or not to be: that is the question. 
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer 
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, 
And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; 
No more; and by a sleep say we end 
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks 
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation 
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; 
To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; 
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, 
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, 
Must give us pause: there's the respect 
That makes calamity of so long life; 
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, 
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, 
The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns 
That patient merit of the unworthy takes, 
When he himself might his quietus make 
With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, 
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, 
But that the dread of something under death, — 
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn 
No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, 
And makes us rather bear those ills we have 
Than fly to others we know naught of? 
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; 
And thus the native hue of resolution 
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; 
And enterprises of great pith and moment, 
With this regard, their currents turn awry, 
And lose the name of action." 
-Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 
-Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2

"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;" 
-Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1

"O, I die, Horatio." 
-Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2

"The rest is silence." 
-Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2

"Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" 
-Horatio, Act V, Scene 2

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&feature=PlayList&p=20048A7C541C941C&index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode
*Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]
[[Category:Ghost Stories]]

Macbeth

2010-06-03T10:05:08Z

MarcoT:

'''''Macbeth''''' is a [[tragedy]] written by [[William Shakespeare]], set in Scotland. Although a tragedy the main character becomes a usurper, who at the end of the play is deposed. This play is thought to have been written around 1606.

==Synopsis==
The play opens with the defeat of the rebel Macdonwald, thane of cawdor to Macbeth. Shortly after, three witches meet Macbeth and another general, Banquo, predicting Macbeth would be the new thane of cawdor, and then the King. Later, King Duncan meets Macbeth and makes him thane of cawdor, but declares his son, Malcolm, his heir. Macbeth returns to his wife, Lady Macbeth, who learns of the prophecy by the witches. When the King comes for a feast in Macbeth's castle, Lady Macbeth urges Macbeth to murder the King. Macbeth, reluctantly drawn forward by ambition, murders the King. When the death of the King is discovered, Malcolm is suspicious and flees for his life in England. Macbeth's way to the throne is cleared. As King, he brings desolation to Scotland. He kills and butchers anyone in his way. He murders Banquo, because of a prophecy by the witches that Banquo's descendants will become King. Macbeth also is wary of Macduff, and murders Macduff's household. However, Malcolm soon returns to Scotland with an army. Macduff kills Macbeth and Malcolm is made King of Scotland.

==Characters==

'''Macbeth:''' A General in King Duncan's army. He is persuaded by his wife to murder Duncan, King of Scotland. He in effect becomes King, however it is a hollow victory. He soon loses any friends (who he didn't murder) and a rebellion is raised against him. He dies at the hands of MacDuff during a sword fight.

'''Lady Macbeth:''' The ambitious wife of Macbeth. She convinces Macbeth to murder King Duncan. During the play she grows more and more guilty, eventually going insane. She dies of guilt.

'''The Witches:''' Three Witches (as their name implies) who tell Macbeth that he will become King. They also tell him of his fall.

'''Banquo:''' A noble general in the Army serving with Macbeth. Macbeth murders him in fear of revolt. Banquo appears several times after as a ghost.

'''King Duncan:''' The King of Scotland. He lodges at Macbeth's castle and is murdered there.

'''Malcolm:''' The son of King Duncan. When his father dies, he goes to England for refuge. He returns later on with an army that defeats Macbeth's forces.

'''Macduff:''' A Lord loyal to Malcom. His family is slaughtered while he is away becomes bereaved. He goes to Macbeth and kills him before declaring Malcolm King.

==Lines and Quotes==
"Is this a dagger which I see before me," -Macbeth (Act II, Scene 1)

"Double, double, toil and trouble; 
Fire burn and cauldron bubble" -The Witches (Act IV, Scene 1)

"Out, out brief candle! 
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player 
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage 
And then is heard no more. It is a tale 
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, 
Signifying nothing." 
-Macbeth (Act V, Scene 5)

==Adaptations==
''Macbeth'' has been adapted to the [[opera]] stage four times, most famously by [[Giuseppe Verdi]] in 1847. There have been no fewer than 17 film adaptations, the first being Stuart Blackton's 1908 silent film, and also include [[Orson Welles]]' 1948 version and [[Roman Polanski]]'s from 1971. [[Akira Kurosawa]] changed the setting to feudal [[Japan]] in his 1957 film ''Throne of Blood'', often considered one of his greatest works.

==External Links==
Open Source Shakespeare - Macbeth [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=macbeth]

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Evolution syndrome

2010-06-02T16:57:58Z

MarcoT: Corrected some language, and added a couple of points

'''Evolution [[syndrome]]''' is the tendency of some people to insist compulsively that human [[evolution]] from animals ''must'' somehow be true, and to spend nearly all of their time pushing that belief on others. It is reflected on the [[internet]] by people who devote over 90% of their edits and postings to pushing their belief in evolution and insisting on [[censoring]] or demonizing alternative views of the issue. They are particularly against teaching any alternative theories to children in school, sometimes claiming that this will harm children's critical thinking. A childish insistence on [[last wordism]] is a common characteristic of evolution syndrome.

Sufferers of evolution syndrome tend to be college students or graduates who wanted to excel in math or physics, but lacked the ability or work ethic to do so. They are frustrated "wannabees" with respect to academic recognition. But they find that [[liberals]] will praise their intelligence if they promote evolution. This is analogous to a struggling ball player deceitfully turning to steroids to enhance his performance, and thereby make it to the "Big Leagues."

Evolution syndrome blinds its victims to the logical fallacy of their [[materialism]]: if human senses have merely evolved, then it is to be expected that human senses have not developed to the point of being able to detect all of reality. Much of reality would still be "unseen" to an evolving human. Yet victims of evolution syndrome insist that there is nothing unseen, and no [[God]].

The primary effect of evolution syndrome is to keep its victims away from learning the [[Bible]]. Victims of this syndrome claim to be educated, yet justify their complete ignorance about the Bible in their slavish commitment to their evolution belief system.

Characteristics of evolution syndrome include:

*Frequent use of jargon such as "[[quote mining]]," "moving the goalposts," and "fundie"
*A tendency to be easily amused by [[deceit]]
*An utter lack of [[open-mindedness]]
*A superficiality or pseudo-intellectualism
*A lack of critical thinking
*Over-reliance on name-calling
*Ruthlessly demanding "provable fact" by the other side while themselves insisting on unproven theories
*Utter intolerance for [[Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed|other positions in science]]
*A complete lack of curiosity and knowledge about anything that might contradict [[materialism]], such as [[migration]] and [[homing]]
*A complete ignorance about the [[Bible]], even for its historical value, and even though evolutionists pretend to be learned
*A tendency to be irrational atheists
*A tendency to favour non-democratic political ideals such as [[socialism]]
*An over-reliance on academic authority

Evolution syndrome particularly afflicts people who have some educational background without having the intellectual depth of more accomplished peers. They are like minor league baseball players who take steroids to try to get to the major leagues: they think that harping on evolution will gain them credibility they lack based on their intellect. Evolution syndrome can be seen on [[wiki]]s, [[Usenet]] groups, faculty positions below full professorships, and some less selective doctoral programs.

There is a high incidence of [[atheism]] among this group and indeed, many if not most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome. Whether atheism is a cause of evolution syndrome or vice-versa is still to be discovered, but the number of [[Theistic_evolution|theistic Evolutionists]] suggest that the link is not absolute.

Keeping an open mind, not obsessing about one's own views, and avoiding the insistence that others should share in one's view are key to avoiding evolution syndrome.

== See Also ==

*[[Richard Dawkins]]

*[[Evolution]]

*[[Atheism]]

[[category: Syndromes]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Tuscany

2010-06-02T10:05:00Z

MarcoT:

'''Tuscany''' is an administrative region of central [[Italy]]. Its largest city is [[Florence]]. Tuscany and particularly Florence, [[Pisa]] and [[Siena]] became economical and cultural centres during the [[Renaissance]], and produced many of the greatest artists of that period. The poet [[Dante]] was a Florentine, and made the region's politics and history a theme of his ''[[Divine Comedy]]''; due partly to that work's enormous influence, the Tuscan dialect became the basis of the modern [[Italian]] language.
[[Category:Italy]]

Pope

2010-06-02T09:57:51Z

MarcoT: Fixed a header

'''The Pope''' (from Greek papas, father) is the head of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. His Catholic titles include being the Bishop of Rome, where he is the successor of [[Saint Peter|St. Peter]]. The Pope is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.<ref> Until 1870 he also was the secular ruler of an independent country in central Italy, the Papal States. Since 1929 the Pope rules Vatican City, an independent country inside the city of Rome.</ref> ''Pontifex summus'' is a title of dignity. He appoints all the cardinals and bishops, but otherwise has limited control over them. Catholics consider him infallible in certain proclamations, and cite the Bible:
:''Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock (Cepha) I will build my Church.'' Matthew 16:17-19. ''Be the shepherd of my sheep.'' John 21:16.

The Pope ecclesiastical jury is called the [[Holy See]]. Since 1059 The Pope has always been chosen by the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church meeting in secret. When they have not reached a decision they burn the ballots and black smoke emerges; when a pope is chosen the smoke is white.

[[Image:XVI.jpg|right|His Holiness Benedict XVI|thumb]]

== Insignia ==
* '''Tiara'''
The popes 'Tiara' or triple crown is used to cover up his face. He needs to do this because he is ashamed of covering up all the molestation that catholics love o-so-much.

No pope has worn an actual triple tiara since [[Pope Paul VI]] at the end of the [[Second Vatican Council]] in 1965.

*'''cock n balls'''
The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops, use the bent pastoral staff, but only his erect penis, which in his spare time he enjoys stuffing in small children or dogs. This custom was introduced before the reign of [[Pope Innocent III]] (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15).

* '''Pallium'''

He further uses the [[pallium]] at all ecclesiastical functions, and not under the same restrictions as do the [[archbishop]]s on whom he has conferred it.
<ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm The Pope] Catholic Encyclopedia </ref>

* '''Fisherman's Ring'''
It is a gold ring decorated with a depiction of St. Peter in a boat casting his net.

== Benedict XVI ==
[[Image:BENEDETTO XVI.jpg|right]]
Today the Pope is [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. On May 11, 2007 he [[canonized]] [[Brazil]]'s first native-born [[saint]]. During the ceremonies he said that today's world "needs transparent lives, clear souls, pure minds"; Christians, must resist the temptation to think of their lives as "mere objects of pleasure."

''Gerald Fogarty, a [[Jesuit]] priest and professor at the University of Virginia, said that some Catholics were disappointed with Ratzinger's selection because he symbolized the conservative side of the church's ideological split, especially in the United States''.<ref> [http://www.cfr.org/publication/10595/ Benedict XVI: Conservative]</ref>

== Controversy ==

The Pope is claimed to be infallible in matters of doctrine (see [[Dictatus Papae]]). The concept of [[Papal Infallibility]] (1870) is used to proclaim articles of faith, which are essential to adhere to be considered a Catholic. These articles are therefore considered to be a Dogmatic definition. Such pronouncements are rare, and the concept does not mean that Catholics are to believe everything that the Pope says is correct. The last issue was asserting the [[Assumption of Mary]].

[[The First Vatican Council]], of 1870, anathematized all who dispute the Pope's primacy of honor and of jurisdiction (it is lawful to discuss the precise nature of that primacy, provided that such discussion does not violate the terms of the Council's Dogmatic Constitution). [[The Second Vatican Council]] of 1965 '''modified''' many of the dictates of 1870.

Critics of the papacy claim that past Popes who claimed successorship to St. Peter, such as [[Pope Callixtus III]] and [[Pope Alexander VI]] from the Borgia family, were so corrupt as to be unfit to wield power. An just and loving [[God]], they claim, would not have given those people the powers claimed for them by the Catholic Church. Opponents of these critics reply that even the worst Popes failed to wreck the traditions of mass brainwashing, abuse of power, and child molestation.

==History==
The '''history of the papacy''' is a major factor in European history, especially the Middle Ages.

The Pope has been the head of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] for over 1600 years. The Eastern orthodox churches reject his claims to primacy. Even more vigorously the Protestant Reformation reject the Papacy and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. As a secular leaders the Popes controlled Rome and the Papal States in central Italy until 1870, and especially in the 16th century were notable patrons of the arts, turning St. Peter's Church in Rome into an architectural wonder, especially notable for the artwork in its Sistine Chapel.<ref> Famous patrons of the arts include Sixtus IV (1471-1484), [[Julius II]] (1503-1513), and Clement VII (1523-1534)</ref>

Since 1929 the Pope controls only the small Vatican city-state (located inside Rome), but has diplomatic relations with most nations. The Pope's power comes from his appointment of all the bishops in the Catholic Church, and from his ability (since 1870) to proclaim a theological doctrine infallibly. The history of the Popes is interwoven with the history of the Catholic Church and the history of Europe. In terms of personalities and morality, the 262 Popes were saints and sinners who ranged very widely indeed.<ref>They were all men. The story of Joan who disguised herself as a man and became Pope sometime between 850 and 1050 was exposed as a false myth in 1650, but still circulates. Kelly (1998) 331-32. </ref>In recent centuries most have been holy men and in recent decades they have been linguists able to speak to Catholics in many languages. In recent centuries most Popes have been scions of Italian nobility; notable exceptions are Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) the first Polish Pope, and Benedict XVI (2005- ) the first German since 1523.

===Traditions===
Catholic tradition argues that Christ told Peter to found a church, and that he built one in Rome, that all Popes descend from him, and the bishop of Rome has divine authority to rule over the Church. Protestants say the Biblical texts are too short and obscure to bear the weight of an elaborate infrastructure that was erected many centuries after Christ, and that the Papacy interferes with the direct relationship between Christ and the sinner. Indeed, the history of the [[Reformation]] is the history of the rejection of the Papacy, while the history of the [[Counter-Reformation]] is the history of its reform and partial restoration to power using moral authority, diplomacy, and orders such as the [[Jesuits]].

====Biblical texts====
Catholics emphasize that Jesus told [[Simon Peter]]:
:thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.<ref>Gospel of Matthew: Chapter 16, Verse 18; see also 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, [[1 Peter]] 2:5–6, and Revelations 21:14.</ref>

Peter (and Paul) did found a church in Rome in 42 A.D. and served as the bishop for 25 years until 67 A.D. when he was martyred. However, as Duffy points out, "wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve."<ref> Duffy, p. 2</ref> That is, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Western Roman Empire was not established for several centuries, and even then was rejected by eastern bishops who formed the Eastern Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

===Early history to 350===

===Early Middle Ages: 350-1000===

===Late Middle Ages: 1000-1500===
The 14th century was the scene of dramatic humiliations that reduced the secular power and religious prestige of the of the papacy. The French king made his man Pope and moved the papal court to Avignon in France, 1309-1377. During the "Babylonian Captivity" of the papacy, seven French popes were seen as mere tools of France. Avignon was not a holy city, like Rome, and the men there were scarcely concerned with holiness; the papal entourage demanded bribes and fees to deal with terns of thousands of petitions that flooded in. As the paperwork and expenses multiplied and the prestige of the Papacy slipped.<ref> Ullmann (2002) p. 287</ref> The return to Rome in 1378 was followed by an even greater catastrophe. A split between French and Italian factions in the Curia resulted in the "Great Schism" of 1378-1417, during which Rome and Avignon each had their own series of popes, who claimed legitimacy and authority over the church. After enormous confusion the decision was made to appeal to a church council. The Council of Constance healed the schism in 1415.

The Council issued the decree ''Sacrosancta,'' (April 1415) asserting that in matters touching the faith and the unification and reform of the Church, a general council stood above all other authority, including papal. Another decree ''Frequens,'' (October 1417) tried to set controls on the pope and cardinals and proposed that a new council meet within five years and be convened regularly every ten years thereafter. The Church was on the verge of a constritutional revolution that would have shifted power from the pope to the bishops. However the papal forces fought back and by defeating the Council of Basel (1431-1449) regained control.

It took years to rebuild the neglected infrastructure of the city of Rome. The papacy never regained the secular power it had lost, and the loosened religious authority allowed an opening for radical reformers such as [[John Wycliffe]] and the Hussites.

===Reformation and Counter-Reformation: 1500-1700===
Frommel (1986) shows the popes did not provide a coordinated policy for Roman urban development. Rather, they had their own building agendas, driven by an egocentric spontaneity to outdo predecessors and eternalize family glory. Their agendas did reflect papal prominence in the city and created an imperial aura.

===1700-1815===
The Pope confronted [[Gallicanism]] in France, which reduced the Pope's power over the bishops. The Gallican argument was that the pope was supreme in spiritual matters, but that temporal affairs were the province of the government. The main issue was the selection of bishops, who had powerful temporal roles in terms of ownership of lands and churches. "Royal Gallicanism" emphasized the powers of the king. "Ecclesiatical Gallicanism" emphasized the powers of the bishops vis-a-vis the pope.
====French Revolution====
Much worse was the [[French Revolution]] in the 1790s, which disestablished the Church, forced many priests and bishops into exile, and seized vast landholdings.

====Napoleon====
Religion had been a major issue during the [[French Revolution]], and Napoleon resolved most of the outstanding problems. Thereby he moved the clergy and large numbers of devout Catholics from hostility to the government to support for him. The Catholic system was reestablished by the [[Concordat of 1801]] (signed with Pope [[Pius VII]]), so that church life returned to normal; the church lands were not restored, but the Jesuits were allowed back in and the bitter fights between the government and Church ended. Protestants and atheists were tolerated.<ref> Donald Sutherland. ''The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order'' (2003) ch 11</ref>

===1815 to 1914===
====Pius VII====
Pius VII (1800-23) was stripped of powers by [[Napoleon]] but made a striking comeback after Napoleon's fall in 1815. Pius VII was a deeply religious Benedictine, and a theologian; he lived simply and avoided nepotism. His unusually able Secretary of State Cardinal Consalvi won the restoration to the Pope of most of the territories in Italy which Napoleon had seized. He reinvigorated numerous monastic orders and helped create new societies for men and women, especially those engaged in teaching and missionary work.
Most important was the restoration of the Jesuits in 1814; they had been suppressed in most countries. They grew larger and even more influential in the 19th century.

====Conservatism====
After 1800 the Papacy became the center of conservatism in Europe in reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution and its admirers. The Papacy recognized that throughout Europe millions of peasants and poor folk were devoted to the saints and traditions of the Church; the Popes responded energetically by promoting new Marian devotions (such as the rosary). Rome had fallen into disrepair and Pius VII began the restoration of the city's artistic glories, an enterprise that continues into the 21st century. <ref> Kelly (1999); Duffy (2006); Latourette (1958) vol 1. </ref> Much like other heads of state, popes can have political leanings, which tend to be conservative, especially on issues of abortion. However, on some issues popes have been known to hold more liberal opinions; for example, Pope John Paul II was against the coalition action to free Iraq from tyranny.

====Ultramontane vs Gallican====
The "ultramontane" tendency in the Church centralized more power and authority in the Papacy. It was opposed by the "Gallican" tendency, especially in France, to give national churches more control over their affairs. The ultramontine forces generally won out, especially with the declaration of papal infallability at the First Vatican Council in 1870. The ultramontane forces cited the old doctrines of [[Robert Bellarmine]] (1542-1621) and [[Francisco de Suárez]] (1548-1617) to bolster the papal claim to absolute power in spiritual matters.

Gallicanism in France was damaged by the rise of ultramontanism in the 1850s and the devotional revolution that shifted piety to devotions sponsored by Rome. Gallicanism was officially suppressed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, which established the paramount authority of the pope as a matter of dogma. However informal manifestations of Gallicanism continue in some countries, especially China. In Canada, the Irish clergy fought for ultramontanism against the French clergy, who were Gallican. The [[Catholicism in Ireland|Irish]] won out with the support of the Vatican.

After Vatican II, 1962-65, the multiple and often confused controversy over papal authority and infallibility ended quietly.

====Facing Modernity====
Despite dire predictions, the Church adapted to modernity in its own way and increased its role in people's lives in the 19th century. The Church escaped irrelevance by using the same means as did emerging nation-states; establishing more administrative and doctrinal centralization in Rome; establishing a homogeneous culture, aided especially by universal use of Latin; promoting new rites and folk devotions, especially those focused on Mary and other favored saints; promoting pilgrimages to holy sites; encouraging clergy to endorse and lead regional nationalist movements that focused on historic languages and cultures; creating many new teaching orders and establishing Catholic schools and colleges; supporting intellectuals and publishing houses; enhancing papal power; and cultivating an image of both theologiocal canonical and moral superiority. Of special importance was the missionary activity, based especially in Germany, that was in competition with Protestant missions in China, India, Africa and other non-Christain lands. The Jesuits proved highly adept at promoting the Papal cause. The Pope thereby became less symbolic and more powerful. There was internal dissent among some Catholic intellectuals, such as historian [[Lord Acton]] in Britain and theologian Ignaz von Döllinger in Germany, who opposed the declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility.

====Facing Liberalism====
Burns (1990) takes a sociological perspective on the Papacy's long battle with liberalism. He shows how the papacy, in reaction to the rise of the liberal states of the 19th and 20th centuries, gradually reformulated Catholic ideology within the limited autonomy they possessed and carefully subordinated social and political issues to more purely religious and moral issues as they constructed an ideological opposition to liberalism.

In Germany in the 1840s the ultramontane movement used mass meetings and pilgrimages to combat the growth of liberalism and modernism. However the abnti-clerical liberal press attacked these mass meetings, and in response a large number of Catholic newspapers emerged in Germany starting in the 1840s. To ensure their own survival, these newspapers championed the liberal idea of press freedom. In addition, local clubs were established to mobilize the Catholic working class. These clubs tried to end discrimination against ordinary Catholics by working to establish freedom of religion and freedom of thought and by entering the electoral process. With the unification of Germany in 1870, the new nation faced the problems of consolidation, one of which was secularization. The laws dealing with secularization opened a poltical battle between Bismark and the Protestants and liberals on one side, and the Catholics on the other, called the "Kulturkampf." The Catholics organized their own political parties and protected their interests by voting as a bloc into the 1930s, when the Nazis closed down all other parties.
====Syllabus of Errors====
The [[Syllabus of Errors]] of Pope [[Pius IX]] in 1864 rejected the liberal doctrines of the modern world.<ref> see text at [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm]</ref> It denounced pantheism, naturalism, nationalism, indifferentism, socialism, communism, freemasonry, and other modern views. The Pope claimed for the Catholic Church total control over science and culture. The liberals viewed this as a declaration of war by the Church on modern civilization. Its repercussions within France, the U.S., Britain and other countries were resounding, nearly destroying the liberal Catholic movement and furnishing a powerful weapon to the anticlerical faction, or (in the U.S.) to anti-Catholic Protestants. Opponents stressed the Papacy had become intolerant and medieval and largely political in nature.<ref> Latourette (1958) vol 1 ch. 6</ref>

====Freemasons====
In many countries the Church faced off against the Freemasons, a secret society that was politically active in numerous countries. The Papacy coordinated a counterattack. For example in Brazil, the religious question in the 1870s centered on the Masonic controversy and the struggle between regalist and ultramontane forces. One method of counterattack was to found Catholic universities. Thus Mgr. Ignace Bourget, second bishop of Montreal, Canada, founded Laval University, as a Catholic reaction to a liberal and secularist outburst in Quebec. Bourget said the university would be the principal instrument for "wresting the elite from the clutches of liberalism."

====Women====
Camp (1990) traces the treatment of women. In the late 19th century the papacy began to revise its public teachings about the proper role of women in the Church and society. From Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) to Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), papal social pronouncements reveal an evolution in attitudes toward a woman's proper "place" from the view that women are passive subordinates to men in all spheres of life to the current teaching that lay and clerical women are equal but complementary partners with men in religious, political, economic, and social endeavors. However, the papacy has remained firm in the conviction that ordination to the priesthood is for men only.

===Since 1914===
Student and youth groups were formed in major countries, with Papal blessing. For example the French Federation of Catholic Students (FFEC) was formed in 1922 to keep college graduates within the orbit of the Church, shield them from hostile ideological and political influences, and deepen their spiritual experience. It was a conservative movement, ultramontane in outlook; and boasted 16,000 members in 1939. During the Vichy years 1940-42 it was politically active at first in support of Vichy before being won over by nationalist ideology at the instigation of spiritual leaders and joining the underground resistance movement.

John XXIII (1958-63) enjoyed uniformly favorable, if sometimes puzzled, treatment from the English-language media. Initially, the focus was on his wit and warm personality. His unexpected calling of Vatican Council II and his major encyclicals - ''Mater et Magistra'' and ''Pacem in Terris'' - transformed his image into that of a bold innovator. In the end, it was his concern for world peace at the height of the Cold War and his effort to reach beyond Catholics to address all people of good will that won Pope John XXIII universal praise and affection.

====Holocaust issues====
Coppa (2005) reassesses the attitudes and policies toward Nazi racism of Pope Pius XI (1922-1939). Although Pius XI accepted and practiced religious anti-Judaism, he consistently opposed racial anti-Semitism on theological grounds throughout his papacy. As a result, he resisted the course of accommodation and conciliation favored by others within the Catholic Church, including Eugenio Pacelli (1876-1958), who served as papal secretary of state from 1930 prior to succeeding Pius XI as Pope Pius XII in 1939. Between 1933 and 1939 Pius XI waged a campaign against Nazi and Fascist racism and anti-Semitism that included public speeches and published condemnations denouncing the division of humanity on the basis of race as well as the commission of a "secret" encyclical on the incompatibility of racism and Catholicism that remained unpublished until 1995. His confrontational stance therefore sharply contrasted with the silence of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust.

== External links ==

*[http://www.cwnews.com/index.cfm Catholic World News] Conservative updates and commentary.
*[http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/viewmessaggi.aspx?f=65482&idd=431&p=97 Papa Ratzinger Forum]
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html?inline=nyt-per Times Topics] Benedict XVI in ''The New York Times''

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* ''Catholic Encyclopedia,'' "The Pope" (1913) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm online edition] many articles on related topics
* Coppa, Frank J., ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy.'' Greenwood, 1998. 473 pp.
* Duffy, Eamon. ''Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes,'' (3rd ed 2006), 496pp; Yale University Press; heavily illustrated history by leading Catholic scholar
* LaDue, William J. ''The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy.'' Orbis Books, 1999. 374 pp.
* Levillain, Philippe, ed. ''The Papacy: An Encyclopedia.'' Routledge, 2001. 1780 pp.
* ''New Catholic 'Encyclopedia'' (1967), numerous articles
* Steimer, Bruno and Parker, Michael G., ed. ''Dictionary of Popes and the Papacy.'' Crossroad, 2001. 278 pp.

===Specialized studies===
* Baumgartner, Frederic J. ''Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elections.'' Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 272 pp.
* Brown, Peter. ''The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 AD'' (2002), 640pp
* Ralph J. Capio; "The Papacy: A Case Study in Organizational Longevity," ''Journal of European Studies,'' Vol. 26, 1996. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002278435 online edition]
* Carlen, Claudia. ed. ''Papal Pronouncements, a Guide, 1740-1978: Vol. 1: Benedict XIV to Paul VI.'' and ''Papal Pronouncements, a Guide, 1740-1978: Vol. 2: Paul VI to John Paul I.'' Pierian, 1990.
* Chadwick, Owen. ''The Popes and European Revolution.'' Oxford U. Press, 1981. 646 pp.
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in the Eighteenth Century'' (1964)
* Daniel-Rops, Henri. ''The Church in an Age of Revolution'' (1965).
* Frommel, Christoph L. "Papal Policy: The Planning Of Rome During The Renaissance." ''Journal Of Interdisciplinary History,'' 1986 17(1): 39-65. Issn: 0022-1953 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Hales, E. E. Y. ''Revolution and Papacy, 1769-1846,'' (1960)
* Logan, F. Donald. ''A History of the Church in the Middle Ages.'' 2002. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102805754# online edition]
* Mullett, Michael A. ''The Catholic Reformation,'' (1999), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102890994 online edition]
* Pastor, Ludwig von. ''History of the Popes From the Close of the Middle Ages'', (1894-1930), 16 vol, older Catholic history [http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&lr=&q=pastor+history+popes&as_brr=1 online from books.google.com]
* Ullmann, Walter. ''A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages,'' (2002), 393pp, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107602176 online edition]
* Wright, A. D. ''The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution 1564-1789.'' Longman, 2000. 335 pp.

===Specific Popes===
* ''Catholic Encyclopedia,'' "The Pope" (1913) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm online edition] many articles on all the Popes and related topics
* Collins, Jeffrey. ''Papacy and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Rome: Pius VI and the Arts.'' Cambridge U. Press, 2004. 355 pp.
* Coppa, Frank J., ed. ''Great Popes through History: An Encyclopedia.'' Greenwood, 2002. 600 pp.
* Gouwens, Kenneth and Reiss, Sheryl E., ed. ''The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture.'' Ashgate, 2005. 437 pp.
* Kelly, J.N.D. ''The Oxford Dictionary of Popes'' (1988). 349pp; scholarly short biographies; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54850171 online edition]

===Since 1815===
* Burns, Gene. "The Politics of Ideology: The Papal Struggle with Liberalism." ''American Journal of Sociology,'' 1990 95(5): 1123-1152. Issn: 0002-9602 fulltext: in Jstor and Ebsco
* Camp, Richard L. "From Passive Subordination To Complementary Partnership: The Papal Conception of a Woman's Place in Church and Society since 1878." ''Catholic Historical Review,'' 1990 76(3): 506-525. Issn: 0008-8080 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Chadwick, Owen. ''A History of the Popes, 1830-1914.'' (1998), 616pp; a standard recent history. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=12355195 online edition],
* Coppa, Frank J. ''The Modern Papacy since 1789.'' Longman, 1998. 296 pp.
* Coppa, Frank J. "Between Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism, Pius XI's Response to the Nazi Persecution of the Jews: Precursor to Pius XII's "Silence"?" ''Journal of Church and State'' 2005 47(1): 63-89. Issn: 0021-969x Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Gillis, Chester, ed. ''The Political Papacy: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Their Influence.'' Paradigm, 2006. 208 pp.
* Holland, Joe. ''Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age 1740-1958.'' Paulist Press, 2003. 404 pp.
* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries'' 5 Vol'' (1958), a detailed history of Chritianity 1800-1950 by a fair-minded Protestant scholar. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101463833 vol 1 online edition]
* Packard, Jerrold M. ''Peter's Kingdom: Inside the Papal City.'' Scribner's, 1985. 352 pp.
* Pollard, John F. ''Money and the Rise of the Modern Papacy: Financing the Vatican, 1850-1950.'' Cambridge U. Press, 2005. 265 pp.
* Rittner, Carol and Roth, John K., ed. ''Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.'' Leicester U. Press, 2002. 291 pp.

== References ==

<references/>

==List of Popes==

Following the name of each Pope is the year of their accession.
[[File:Papa Benedetto XVI PD WC.jpg|thumb|330px|Pope Benedict XVI]]
#[[Saint Peter]] (30?)
#[[Pope Linus]] (67)
#[[Pope Anacletus]] (76)
#[[Pope Clement I]] (88)
#[[Pope Evaristus]] (97)
#[[Pope Alexander I]] (105)
#[[Pope Sixtus I]] (115)
#[[Pope Telesphorus]] (125)
#[[Pope Hyginus]] (136)
#[[Pope Pius I]] (140)
#[[Pope Anicetus]] (155)
#[[Pope Soter]] (166)
#[[Pope Eleuterus]] (175)
#[[Pope Victor I]] (189)
#[[Pope Zephyrinus]] (199)
#[[Pope Callixtus I]] (217)
#[[Pope Urban I]] (222)
#[[Pope Pontian]] (230)
#[[Pope Anterus]] (235)
#[[Pope Fabian]] (236)
#[[Pope Cornelius]] (251)
#[[Pope Lucius I]] (253)
#[[Pope Stephen I]] (254)
#[[Pope Sixtus II]] (257)
#Pope Dionysius (259)
#Pope Felix I (269)
#Pope Eutychian (275)
#Pope Caius (283)
#Pope Marcellinus(296)
#Pope Marcellus I (308)
#Pope Eusebius (309)
#Pope Miltiades (311)
#Pope Sylvester I (314)
#Pope Mark (336)
#Pope Julius I (337)
#Pope Liberius (352)
#Pope Damasus I (366)
#Pope Siricius (384)
#Pope Anastasius I (399)
#Pope Innocent I (401)
#Pope Zosimus (417)
#Pope Boniface I (418)
#Pope Celestine I (422)
#Pope Sixtus III (432)
#[[Pope Leo I]] (440)
#Pope Hilarius (461)
#Pope Simplicius (468)
#Pope Felix III (483)
#Pope Gelasius I (492)
#Pope Anastasius II (496)
#Pope Symmachus (498)
#Pope Hormisdas (514)
#Pope John I, Martyr (523)
#Pope Felix IV (526)
#Pope Boniface II (530)
#Pope John II (533)
#Pope Agapetus I (535)
#Pope Silverius, Marytr (536)
#Pope Vigilius (537)
#Pope Pelagius I (556)
#Pope John III (561)
#Pope Benedict I (575)
#Pope Pelagius II (579)
#[[Gregory the Great|Pope Gregory I]] (590)
#Pope Sabinian (604)
#Pope Boniface III (607)
#Pope Boniface IV (608)
#Pope Adeodatus I (615)
#Pope Boniface V (619)
#Pope Honorius I (625)
#Pope Severinus (640)
#Pope John IV (640)
#Pope Theodore I (642)
#Pope Martin I, Marytr (649)
#Pope Eugene I (654)
#Pope Vitalian (657)
#Pope Adeodatus II (672)
#Pope Donus (676)
#Pope Agatho (678)
#Pope Leo II (682)
#Pope Benedict II (684)
#Pope John V (685)
#Pope Conon (686)
#Pope Sergius I (687)
#Pope John VI (701)
#Pope John VII (705)
#Pope Sisinnius (706)
#Pope Constantine (708)
#Pope Gregory II (715)
#Pope Gregory III (731)
#Pope Zachary (741)
#Pope Stephen II (752)
#Pope Paul I (757)
#Pope Stephen III (768)
#Pope Adrian I (772)
#Pope Leo III (795)
#Pope Stephen IV (816)
#Pope Paschal I (817)
#Pope Eugene II (824)
#Pope Valentine (827)
#Pope Gregory IV (827)
#Pope Sergius II (844)
#Pope Leo IV (847)
#Pope Benedict III (855)
#Pope Nicholas I (858)
#Pope Adrian II (867)
#Pope John VIII (872)
#Pope Marinus I (882)
#Pope Adrian III (884)
#Pope Stephen V (885)
#Pope [[Formosus]] (891)
#Pope Boniface VI (896)
#Pope Stephen VI (896)
#Pope Romanus (897)
#Pope Theodore II (897)
#Pope John IX (898)
#Pope Benedict IV (900)
#Pope Leo V (903)
#Pope Sergius III (904)
#Pope Anastasius III (911)
#Pope Landus (914)
#Pope John X (914)
#Pope Leo VI (928)
#[[Pope Stephen VII]] (928)
#Pope John XI (931)
#Pope Leo VII (936)
#Pope Stephen VIII (939)
#Pope Marinus II (942)
#Pope Agapetus II (946)
#Pope John XII (955)
#Pope Leo VIII (963)
#Pope Benedict V (964)
#Pope John XIII (965)
#Pope Benedict VI (973)
#Pope Benedict VII (974)
#Pope John XIV (983)
#Pope John XV (985)
#Pope Gregory V (996)
#Pope Sylvester II (999)
#Pope John XVII (1003)
#Pope John XVIII (1004)
#Pope Sergius IV (1009)
#Pope Benedict VIII (1012)
#Pope John XIX (1024)
#Pope Benedict IX (1032)
#Pope Sylvester III (1045)
#Pope Benedict IX (1045)
#Pope Gregory VI (1045)
#Pope Clement II (1046)
#Pope Benedict IX (1047)
#Pope Damasus II (1048)
#Pope Leo IX (1049)
#Pope Victor II (1055)
#Pope Stephen IX (1057)
#Pope Nicholas II (1059)
#Pope Alexander II (1061)
#[[Pope Gregory VII]] (1073)
#Pope Victor III (1086)
#[[Pope Urban II]] (1088)
#Pope Paschal II (1099)
#Pope Gelasius II (1118)
#Pope Callixtus II (1119)
#Pope Honorius II (1124)
#Pope Innocent II (1130)
#Pope Celestine II (1143)
#Pope Lucius II (1144)
#Pope Eugene III (1145)
#Pope Anastasius IV (1153)
#[[Pope Adrian IV]] (1154)
#Pope Alexander III (1159)
#Pope Lucius III (1181)
#Pope Urban III (1185)
#Pope Gregory VIII (1187)
#Pope Clement III (1187)
#Pope Celestine III (1191)
#Pope Innocent III (1198)
#Pope Honorius III (1216)
#Pope Gregory IX (1227)
#Pope Celestine IV (1241)
#Pope Innocent IV (1243)
#Pope Alexander IV (1254)
#Pope Urban IV (1261)
#Pope Clement IV (1265)
#Pope Gregory X (1271)
#Pope Innocent V (1276)
#Pope Adrian V (1276)
#Pope John XXI (1276)
#Pope Nicholas III (1277)
#Pope Martin IV (1281)
#Pope Honorius IV (1285)
#Pope Nicholas IV (1288)
#Pope Celestine V (1294)
#Pope Boniface VIII (1294)
#Pope Benedict XI (1303)
#Pope Clement V (1305)
#Pope John XXII (1316)
#Pope Benedict XII (1334)
#Pope Clement VI (1342)
#Pope Innocent VI (1352)
#Pope Urban V (1362)
#Pope Gregory XI (1370)
#Pope Urban VI (1378)
#Pope Boniface IX (1389)
#Pope Innocent VII (1404)
#Pope Gregory XII (1406)
#Pope Martin V (1417)
#Pope Eugene IV (1431)
#Pope Nicholas V (1447)
#Pope Callixtus III (1455)
#Pope Pius II (1458)
#Pope Paul II (1464)
#Pope Sixtus IV (1471)
#Pope Innocent VIII (1484)
#[[Pope Alexander VI]] (1492)
#Pope Pius III (1503)
#Pope [[Julius II]] (1503)
#Pope Leo X (1513)
#Pope Adrian VI (1522)
#Pope Clement VII (1523)
#Pope Paul III (1534)
#Pope Julius III (1550)
#Pope Marcellus II (1555)
#Pope Paul IV (1555)
#Pope Pius IV (1559)
#Pope Pius V (1566)
#[[Pope Gregory XIII]] (1572)
#Pope Sixtus V (1572)
#Pope Urban VII (1585)
#Pope Gregory XIV (1590)
#Pope Innocent IX (1591)
#Pope Clement VIII (1592)
#Pope Leo XI (1602)
#Pope Paul V (1605)
#Pope Gregory XV (1621)
#Pope Urban VIII (1623)
#Pope Innocent X (1644)
#Pope Alexander VII (1655)
#Pope Clement IX (1667)
#Pope Clement X (1670)
#Pope Innocent XI (1676)
#Pope Alexander VIII (1689)
#Pope Innocent XII (1691)
#Pope Clement XI (1700)
#Pope Innocent XIII (1721)
#Pope Benedict XIII (1724)
#Pope Clement XII (1730)
#Pope Benedict XIV (1740)
#Pope Clement XIII (1758)
#Pope Clement XIV (1769)
#Pope Pius VI (1775)
#Pope Pius VII (1800)
#Pope Leo XII (1823)
#Pope Pius VIII (1829)
#Pope Gregory XVI (1831)
#[[Pope Pius IX]] (1846)
#Pope Leo XIII (1878)
#[[Pope Pius X]] (1903)
#[[Pope Benedict XV]] (1914)
#[[Pius XI]] (1922)
#[[Pope Pius XII]] (1939)
#[[Pope John XXIII]] (1958)
#[[Pope Paul VI]] (1963)
#[[Pope John Paul I]] (1978)
#[[Pope John Paul II]] (1978)
#[[Pope Benedict XVI]] (2007)

[[Category:Catholic Church]]
[[Category:Popes|Popes]]
[[Category:Renaissance]]

Talk:Benefits of capitalism

2010-06-01T20:19:08Z

MarcoT: Created page with '== A couple of suggestions == Good start! However, these are some changes I'd make to improve the article: 1. Point one and seven are redundant; I'd remove point 1 completely,…'

== A couple of suggestions ==

Good start! However, these are some changes I'd make to improve the article:

1. Point one and seven are redundant; I'd remove point 1 completely, and make point 7 the new point n.1. In addition, point 7 should be rephrased in my opinion, to avoid repetitions.

2. In point two, a sentence could be added stating how the encouragement of personal enterprise and ingenuity normally leads to more advanced scientific progress. If you expand on it, it could be made a separate point altogether.

I didn't make the changes myself as I am not the original author of this article and I wanted to have some feedback first :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 16:19, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Superpower

2010-06-01T19:37:16Z

MarcoT: Reason for the change: "xenophobia" is a strong fear of ALL foreigners; the problems in Europe are much more specific than this, and are not so universal.

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]].

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [[India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] are however considered to possess the ''potential'' of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century. At this time, strong antipathies between some its members and the lack of a common foreign policy, let alone a real political unity prevents the [[European Union]] from achieving anything close to Superpower status.

[[category:Cold War]]

Superpower

2010-06-01T17:56:13Z

MarcoT:

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]].

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [[India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] and the [[European Union]] are however considered to possess the potential of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century.

[[category:Cold War]]

Superpower

2010-06-01T17:55:17Z

MarcoT:

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]].

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [[India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] and [[The European Union]] are however considered to possess the potential of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century.

[[category:Cold War]]

Superpower

2010-06-01T17:54:41Z

MarcoT:

'''Superpower''' refers to a very powerful [[country]] in the global spectrum, often the head of a diplomatic or military [[alliance]]. The term '''hegemon''' is also sometimes used.

In modern times, the [[British Empire]] was the world's first superpower, ruling a quarter of the world during a period of 150 years. It declined in power after the [[Second World War]], during which it expended much of its resources to fight the [[Axis Powers]].

Throughout the [[Cold War]], the [[United States]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] were considered the only two superpowers. After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, America emerged as the world's lone superpower, and is to this day the only country to fulfill the criteria of that definition; [[China]], [India]], [[Brazil]], [[Russia]] and [[The European Union]] are however considered to possess the potential of obtaining superpower status in the course of the 21st Century.

[[category:Cold War]]

Battle of Waterloo

2010-06-01T17:37:28Z

MarcoT: Fixed french spellings and some inconsistencies.

[[Image:waterloo.jpg|350px|thumb|The Battle of Waterloo]]
The '''Battle of Waterloo''' took place on June 18, 1815 in Belgium. It marked the end of [[The Hundred Days]], [[Napoleon]]'s attempt at regaining power after his initial defeat and exile the previous year.

Once the [[United Kingdom]]'s 67,000-strong army, under [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington | the Duke of Wellington]], had forced a precarious stalemate against Napoleon's 73,000, [[Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher | Field Marshal Blucher]]'s Prussian forces arrived and were able to achieve decisive numerical superiority, forcing Napoleon out.

The battle marked the end of Napoleon's reign and his exile to the island of [[Saint Helena]] in the South Atlantic.

==Preliminary==
Napoleon's return from [[Elba]] marked the beginning of The Hundred Days and on March 18, 1815 he was declared an outlaw by the [[Congress of Vienna]]. This marked the mobilization of the Seventh Coalition armies. The British formed an army consisting of British, Nassau and Dutch troops. The Prussians created two armies, one under Prince Blucher and another under General Kliest with Prussian, and North German allied states. Russia assembled an army of 250,000 men under Prince Barcley de Tolly and the Austrians provided two additional armies under General Schwarzenburg and Archduke Charles. The King of Spain assembled an army placing it under English officers and began moving to the frontier.
==The Waterloo Campaign==
Napoleon began a massive call up and soon had L'Armée Du Nord (The Army of the North) prepared. The Army of the North was about 117,000 strong. This was moved with great stealth to the northern border of Belgium. In this area the British had assembled an army of some 97,000 and the Prussians another army of 105,000. Both allied armies had been spread out in an effort to be easier on the population they depended on for assistance.
===Wellington's Army===
Wellington led an multinational army that he would describe as "an infamous army, very weak and ill equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff".<ref>Longford, p.485</ref> It was in no case more than 30% British, the rest coming from the Neatherlands, Hanover, Nassau, and Brunswick. The Duke of Wellington would express reservations about the loyality of some of his troops, but in point of fact all of his troops would give outstanding performances in battle.
===The Prussian Army===
The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganization as its reserve regiments became line regiments along with many of the previous 1814 Landwehr regiments and its artillery was also reorganizing and would not perform at peak level, though its militia, the ''Landwehr'', was significantly better than other militias.<ref>Barbero, p.39</ref> It was under the command of Blücher, though in fact much of its operation was directed by his chief-of-staff, [[August von Gneisenau|Gneisenau]], who greatly distrusted Wellington.<ref>Barbero, p.21</ref> Two and a half Prussian army corps or 48,000 men, were engaged in the battle by about 18:00. (Two brigades under [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Friedrich von Bülow]], commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, [[Georg Dubislav Ludwig von Pirch|Georg von Pirch's]] II Corps and parts of [[Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Ziethen|Graf von Ziethen's]] I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)
===June 16th===
Despite the efforts at deception by the French to hide their whereabouts, the Prussians quickly understood where the French army was and proceeded to interfere with it. The Prussian 1st Corp began an all day delaying effort while the Prussian army assembled. The British army was somewhat slower to react as Wellington's spy network was either interfered with or was actively giving him disinformation. Lord Wellington did not begin assembly of his army until the evening.
====Battle of Quatre-Bras====
Marshall Ney in command of the French Army's left wing marched to Quatre-Bras and found it defended by Dutch units who were determined to hold their ground. The Prince of Orange arrived and disregarded orders to retreat, choosing to reinforce the position. Marshall Ney believing that he was facing far more troops than was the case was tentative in his attacks at first. Lord Wellington was rushing formations to assist with all speed. As evening fell the British forces outnumbered the French and the position was held.
====Battle of Ligny====
Napoleon had wished to attack the British first, but this was impossible as the Prussians were by now already assembled with 3/4 of their forces in and around the village of Ligny. In a four hour battle Napoleon would earn his last victory. The Prussian position was a strong one, but the execution of the dispositions was poor. The Prussian left was strongly held by the III Corps, but was never in danger given the marshy ground in front of it. The Prussian center and right contained the intermingled I and II Corps with the right strung out waiting for Wellington's army that would never show up. After several repulses, Napoleon launched the combinded Guard at the Prussian center. Despite several counter attacks, the center fell and the battle was won by the French. The carnage was great with 11,000 French and 22,000 Prussians lost on the field. A great deal of the Prussian losses were deserters from formations recruited from newly aqquired lands by the Kingdom of Prussia. The retreat of the Prussians was never interrupted, and was seemingly unnoticed by the French.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> By nightfall, at about 2100, almost all of the Prussian formations had left the field. On the Prussian right, Lieutenant-General [[Hans Ernest Ziethen|Ziethen's]] I Corps retreated slowly with most of its artillery, leaving a rearguard close to [[Brye]] to slow the French pursuit. On the left, Lieutenant-General [[Johann von Thielmann|Thielemann's]] III Corps retreated unharmed, leaving a strong rearguard at [[Sombreffe]]. The bulk of the rearguard held their positions until about midnight, before following the rest of the retreating army. In fact, Zieten's 1st Corps rearguard units only left the battlefield in the early morning of 17 June, as the exhausted French failed to press on.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> Napoleon, thinking Ney had already seized Quatre-Bras, ordered Ney to strike Blucher's right flank and complete the victory. But Ney's procrastination at Quatre-Bras had ruined the opportunity.<ref>Dupuy & Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, 1977, Pg. 767</ref> Pirchs II Corps followed the 1st Corp off the battlefield and Thielemans III Corps moved last with the armies various parks in tow. It should be noted that the last of III Corps was moved in the morning completely ignored. <ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> [[Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow|Von Bülow's]] IV Corps moved south of Wavre and setup strong rear guard positions for the army to quickly reasemble.<ref>Chesney, Charles C., Waterloo Lectures:A Study of the Campaign Of 1815 p136 IBSN 1428649883</ref> General Blücher was already in communications with General Wellington. Great though the victory was (as the Prussians had more men on the field than the French) it contained all the seeds for the eventual defeat at Waterloo. While the Prussians were defeated they were not routed and proceeded to calmly march off the battlefield with some units not leaving until the next morning. This left a organized and determined army ready to act against the French army.

===June 17th===
This day saw the British forces move to the Mont Saint-Jean (Waterloo) position and prepare to receive the French attack. The Prussian Army moved to the Village of Wavre with all 4 corps now assembled.

===June 18th===

[[Image:map-6.jpg]]

===Wellington's deployment===
Wellington worked his normal deployment using reverse slopes to hide the majority of his units behind the crest of the ridge that defined the British position. In addition he fortified the farm house complex of La Haye Sainte in front of his position to the right of his line. The left of the line was held by the fortified positions of Hougoumont and Papelotte. This secured the road by which Wellington expected the Prussian to arrive.<ref>Barbero, p.141, p.235</ref>

===The battle begins===
Wellington's dispatches give the start of the battle at 10am other sources would have it at 11.30am. (This will be a recurring issue throughout the battle with the actual time of events being disputed by the participents as well as by later historians.)<ref>[[Arthur Wellesley|Wellesley, Arthur]] [http://www.wtj.com/archives/wellington/1815_06f.htm Wellington's Dispatches] [[19 June]] [[1815]] </ref>

===The arrival of the Prussians IV Corps: Plancenoit===
The first Prussian corp to arrive was the IV Corps and its objective was Plancenoit as a launch point into the rear of the French positions. It was Blücher's intention to secure his left upon Frichermont using the Bois de Paris road. <ref name=Hofschroer-116>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 116</ref> Blücher and Wellington had been exchanging communications since 10:00am and had agreed to this advance on Frichermont if Wellington's centre was under attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-95>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 95</ref><ref>Chasney, Waterloo Lectures p-165</ref> General Bülow noted that Plancenoit lay open and that the time was 4:30pm.<ref name=Hofschroer-116/> At about this time the 15th Brigade IV Corps linked up with the Nassauers of Wellington's left flank with the brigade artillery, horse artillery deployed to the left in support.<ref name=Hofschroer-117>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 117</ref> Napoleon sent Lobau's Division to intercept Bülow's IV Corps. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10-battalion-strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. The 15th Brigade threw Lobau's troops out of Frichermont with a determined bayonet charge. The 15th proceeded up the Frichermont heights battering French Chasseurs with 12 pounder artillery fire and pushed on to Plancenoit. Napoleon had dispatched the entire 8 battalions of Young Guard and 2 battalions of the Old Guard to reinforce Lobau's Division. Hiller's 16th Brigade had 6 battalions available and pushed forward to attempt to take Plancenoit. The Young Guard counter-attacked and after very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit but were themselves counter-attacked and driven out.<ref name=Hofschroer-122>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 122</ref> Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village.<ref name=Hofschroer-122/> The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village.
===Prussian advance===
Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his centre in time to repulse Napoleon's attack. At the time the French Guard was being repulsed from the British centre, the Prussian I Corps was breaking through the French centre. <ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> By 19:30, the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U were now based on Hougoumont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the centre on La Haye.<ref name=Hofschroer-139>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 139</ref> The French had retaken the positions of La Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by General Durette's Division.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards La Haye and Papelotte; the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance.<ref name=Hofschroer-139/> The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was seen off after some early success. The Silesian Schützen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up in support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-140>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 140</ref> The French fell back before the renewed assault without much of an attempt at defense. At this point, the French began to seriously contest ground, attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte.<ref name=Hofschroer-140/> The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander battalion on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French out of these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled them from Fichermont.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s I Corps cavalry poured through the gap.<ref name=Hofschroer-144>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 144 </ref> Durutte's division, finding itself about to be charged by massed cavalry of Ziethen's I Corps cavalry reserve, retreated quickly from the battlefield. I Corps then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.
===The Capture of Plancenoit===
At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong, roughly the size of a French division. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies from both sides lying about.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The French Guard battalions, a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers were identified as holding the position. Virtually all of the Young Guard was now involved in the defence, along with remnants of Lobau's Division.<ref>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. ?</ref> The key to the position proved to be the woods to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's musketeer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat.<ref name=Hofschroer-144/> The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a jumbled mass from pursuing British units.<ref name=Hofschroer-145> [[#References|References]] p. 145</ref> The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and centre, were failing.<ref name=Hofschroer-145/>
===Disintegration===
The whole of the French front started to disintegrate under the general advance of Wellington's army and the Prussians following the capture of Plancenoit.<ref name=Hofschroer-146>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 146</ref> The last coherent French force consisted of two battalions of the Old Guard stationed around the inn called ''La Belle Alliance''. This was a final reserve and a personal bodyguard for Napoleon. For a time, Napoleon hoped that if they held firm, the French army could rally behind them.<ref>http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterfini.htm</ref> But as the retreat turned into a rout, they were forced to withdraw and form squares as protection against the leading elements of allied cavalry. They formed two squares, one on either side of ''La Belle Alliance''. Until he was persuaded that the battle was lost and he should leave, Napoleon commanded the square which was formed on rising ground to the (French) left of the inn.<ref>http://www.napoleonbonaparte.nl/newspaper/dedham/drouet.html</ref><ref>http://www.standin.se/fifteen15a.htm</ref> The Prussians engaged the square to the (French) right, and General Adam's Brigade charged the square on the right, forcing it to withdraw.<ref name=Hofschroer-149>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 149</ref> As dusk fell, both squares retreated away from the battlefield towards France in relatively good order, but the French artillery and everything else fell into the hands of the Allies and Prussians. The retreating Guards were surrounded by thousands of fleeing Frenchmen who were no longer part of any coherent unit. Allied cavalry harried the fleeing French until about 11:00pm. The Prussians, led by [[August von Gneisenau|General von Gneisenau]], pursued them as far as Genappe before ordering a halt. By that point, some 78 guns had been captured along with about 2,000 prisoners, including more Generals.<ref name=Hofschroer-150>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 150</ref> At Genappe, Napoleon's carriage was found abandoned still containing diamonds left in the rush. These became part of King Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's crown jewels, one Major Keller of the F/15th receiving the [[Pour le Mérite]] with oak leaves for the feat.<ref name=Hofschroer-151>Hofschröer [[#References|References]] p. 151</ref>

===Notes and conclusions===
By November 20th, 1815 the Treaty of Paris was signed bringing an end to the Hundred Days. Of the leading Generals only the Duke of Wellington would survive more than a dozen years. Blucher would pass away within 4 years; Bulow von Deniwitz would beat him to the grave. Napoleon would spend his final years writing from St. Helens railing against the failure of others that had led him to such a fate. What happened?
*Napoleon showed his old flash of brilliance assembling a large army and launching it to attack the Prussian army at Ligny. This was the French army of old, artillery moved with speed and daring to support the infantry and the Guard used in mass to seal a victory.
*What happened after defies explanation; there was not a pursuit after either Qutra Bra or Ligny of any sort worth mentioning. Instead of breath taking relentless pursuit of Jena there was a 24 hour pause. A bloodied but by no means defeated Prussian army moved with speed and deliberation to reorganize and with its less reliable elements running away it was a hard core of an army that would henceforth battle in its best traditions.
*Again the British army was allowed to move off without the slightest bother from the French. The Duke of Wellington made excellent use of the time.
*The Duke's use of reverse slopes and most of all the intelligent use of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont diverted large formations from important tasks without bothering much of the allied army.
*It was apparent that neither Marshall Grouchy nor Napoleon had any idea where the mass of the Prussian army was. Marshall Grouchy didn't have the forces available to achieve the outcome Napoleon desired and detaching him only served to keep 33,000 desperately needed men from Napoleon's main effort
*It was at the end of the Battle of Waterloo watching 3 main points of the French army positions being overrun that Napoleon understood that his days of Empire were forever over.

==Sources==
*Chesny, Charles A: Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883
*Hofschröer, Peter: ''1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory'';Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4
===Footnotes===
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Waterloo, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Giorgio Napolitano

2010-06-01T16:37:35Z

MarcoT: Created page with ''''Giorgio Napolitano''' (Naples, June 29th, 1925) is, since May 15th, 2006, the eleventh President of Italy.'

'''Giorgio Napolitano''' ([[Naples]], June 29th, 1925) is, since May 15th, 2006, the eleventh President of [[Italy]].

Italy

2010-06-01T16:30:52Z

MarcoT: I updated information and fixed factual inaccuracies.

{{Country
|name =''Repubblica Italiana''
|map =Italy rel 2004.jpg
|map2 =Italy location.png
|flag =Italyflag.gif
|arms =Italy-Emblem.png
|capital =Rome
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Italian
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Giorgio Napolitano
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Silvio Berlusconi
|pm-raw =
|area =116,340 sq mi
|pop =60,302,441 (2009)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$1.76 trillion (2009)
|gdp-pc =$30,300 (2009)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Italy''' is a country in [[Europe]], and the center of the [[Roman Empire]] until its collapse. Italian cities led the [[Renaissance]], with world-class artists such as [[Leonardo da Vinci]], [[Donatello]], [[Michelangelo]], [[Titian]], [[Tintoretto]], [[Caravaggio]], and [[Giotto]]. Major cities today include Rome, Milan, Naples (Napoli), Leghorn (Livorno), Siena, and Verona.<ref> The [[Vatican City]], the governmental center of the [[Roman Catholic Church]], lies entirely within the boundaries of the capital city, Rome. The equally tiny sovereign state of [[San Marino]] is also entirely within Italy.</ref>

==Geography==
Italy, slightly larger than [[Arizona]], is a long peninsula shaped like a boot, surrounded on the west by the Tyrrhenian Sea and on the east by the Adriatic. It is bounded by [[France]], [[Switzerland]], [[Austria]], and [[Slovenia]] to the north. The [[Apennine Mountains]] form the peninsula's backbone; the Alps form its northern boundary. The largest of its many northern lakes is Garda (143 sq mi; 370 sq km); the Po, its principal river, flows from the [[Alps]] on Italy's western border and crosses the Lombard plain to the Adriatic Sea. Several islands form part of Italy; the largest are [[Sicily]] (9,926 sq mi; 25,708 sq km) and [[Sardinia]] (9,301 sq mi; 24,090 sq km).
*Area: 301,225 sq. km. (116,303 sq. mi.); about the size of Georgia and Florida combined.
*Cities: Capital--Rome (pop. 2.8 million, 3.7 million metro). Other cities--Milan (1.3 million, 3.9 metro), Naples (975,000, 3 million metro), Turin (900,000, 2.1 million metro).
*Terrain: Mostly rugged and mountainous.
*Climate: Generally mild Mediterranean; cold northern winters.

==People==
Italy is largely homogeneous linguistically and religiously but is diverse culturally, economically, and politically. Italy has the fifth-highest population density in Europe--about 200 persons per square kilometer (490 per sq. mi.). Minority groups are small, the largest being the German-speaking people of Bolzano Province and the Slovenes around Trieste. There are also small communities of Albanian, Greek, Ladino, and French origin. Immigration has increased in recent years, however, while the Italian population is declining overall due to low birth rates. Although Roman Catholicism is the majority religion--85% of native-born citizens are nominally Catholic--all religious faiths are provided equal freedom before the law by the constitution.
*Population (November 2009 est.): Above 60.3 million.
*Annual growth rate (2007 est.): 0.01%.
*Ethnic groups: Primarily Italian, but there are small groups of German-, French-, Slovene-, and Albanian-Italians.
*Religion: Roman Catholic (majority).
*Language: Italian (official).
*Education: Years compulsory--10. Literacy--98%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.72/1,000 live births. Life expectancy--77.01 years for men; 83.07 years for women.
*Work force (24.63 million, 2006 est.): Services--63%; industry and commerce--32%; agriculture--5%. Unemployment rate is 7
===Religion===
About 87% of native-born citizens are nominally Catholic, but only 20% regularly participate in worship services.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108453.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref> Other significant Christian communities include Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assembly of God, the Confederation of Methodist and Waldensian Churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and other small Protestant groups. Non-Catholic Christian groups, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'is, and Buddhists constitute less than 5% of the population and, with the exception of Jews, are mainly foreign-born.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to add large numbers of non-Christian residents, mainly Muslims, from North Africa, South Asia, Albania, and the Middle East. The Ministry of Interior reports that there are 258 places of Islamic worship (mainly "garage" mosques) and 628 Islamic associations concentrated in Lombardy, Veneto, Lazio, Emilia Romagna, and Tuscany. The Jewish community is estimated at 30,000 and maintains synagogues in 21 cities. The most recent data indicate that approximately 14% of the population identifies itself as either atheist or agnostic. (Numbers do not add up to 100% because of overlapping categories.)

===Italy's Cultural Contributions===
Europe's Renaissance period began in Italy during the 14th and 15th centuries. Literary achievements--such as the poetry of Petrarch, Tasso, and Ariosto and the prose of Boccaccio, Machiavelli, and Castiglione--exerted a tremendous and lasting influence on the subsequent development of Western civilization, as did the painting, sculpture, and architecture contributed by giants such as da Vinci, Raphael, Botticelli, Fra Angelico, and Michelangelo.

The musical influence of Italian composers Monteverdi, Palestrina, and Vivaldi proved epochal; in the 19th century, Italian romantic opera flourished under composers Gioacchino Rossini, Giuseppe Verdi, and Giacomo Puccini. Contemporary Italian artists, writers, filmmakers, architects, composers, and designers contribute significantly to Western culture.

==Government==
Italy has been a democratic republic since June 2, 1946, when the monarchy was abolished by popular referendum. The constitution was promulgated on January 1, 1948.

The Italian state is centralized. The prefect of each of the provinces is appointed by and answerable to the central government. In addition to the provinces, the constitution provides for 20 regions with limited governing powers. Five regions--Sardinia, Sicily, Trentino-Alto Adige, Valle d'Aosta, and Friuli-Venezia Giulia--function with special autonomy statutes. The other 15 regions were established in 1970 and vote for regional "councils." The establishment of regional governments throughout Italy has brought some decentralization to the national governmental machinery, and recent governments have devolved further powers to the regions. Many regional governments, particularly in the north of Italy, are seeking additional powers.

The 1948 constitution established a perfectly bicameral parliament (Chamber of Deputies and Senate), a separate judiciary, and an executive branch composed of a Council of Ministers (cabinet), headed by the president of the council (prime minister). The president of the republic is elected for seven years by the parliament sitting jointly with a small number of regional delegates. The president nominates the prime minister, who chooses the other ministers. The Council of Ministers--in practice composed mostly of members of parliament--must retain the confidence of both houses.

The houses of parliament are popularly and directly elected by a proportional representation system. Under 2005 legislation, the Chamber of Deputies has 630 members (12 of which are elected by Italians abroad). In addition to 315 elected members (six of which are elected by Italians abroad), the Senate includes former presidents and several other persons appointed for life according to special constitutional provisions. Both houses are elected for a maximum of five years, but either may be dissolved before the expiration of its normal term. Legislative bills may originate in either house and must be passed by a majority in both.

The Italian judicial system is based on Roman law modified by the Napoleonic code and subsequent statutes. There is only partial judicial review of legislation in the American sense. A constitutional court, which passes on the constitutionality of laws, is a post-World War II innovation. Its powers, volume, and frequency of decisions are not as extensive as those of the U.S. Supreme Court.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Giorgio Napolitano
*Prime Minister--Silvio Berlusconi
*Foreign Minister--Franco Frattini
*Minister of Defense--Ignazio La Russa
*Minister of Finance--Giulio Tremonti
*Minister of Justice--Angelino Alfano
*Minister of the Interior--Roberto Maroni

===Political Conditions===
Until recently, there had been frequent government turnovers since 1945. The dominance of the Christian Democratic (DC) party during much of the postwar period lent continuity and comparative stability to Italy's political situation.

From 1992 to 1997, Italy faced significant challenges as voters--disenchanted with past political paralysis, massive government debt, extensive corruption, and organized crime's considerable influence--demanded political, economic, and ethical reforms. In 1993 referendums, voters approved substantial changes, including moving from a proportional to a largely majoritarian electoral system and the abolishment of some ministries. However in 2005, parliament passed a new electoral law based on full proportional assignment of seats.

Major political parties, beset by scandal and loss of voter confidence, underwent far-reaching changes. The end of Soviet Communism caused a crisis on the Left, with a complex reshuffling of voters. New political forces and new alignments of power emerged in March 1994 national elections. The election saw a major turnover in the new parliament, with 452 out of 630 deputies and 213 out of 315 senators elected for the first time. The 1994 elections also swept media magnate Silvio Berlusconi--and his Freedom Pole coalition--into office as Prime Minister. Berlusconi, however, was forced to step down in January 1995 when one member of his coalition withdrew support. The Berlusconi government was succeeded by a technical government headed by Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, which fell in early 1996. New elections in 1996 brought a center-left coalition to government for the first time after World War II.

A series of center-left coalitions dominated Italy's political landscape between 1996 and 2001. In April 1996, national elections led to the victory of a center-left coalition (the Olive Tree) under the leadership of Romano Prodi. Prodi's government became the second-longest to stay in power before he narrowly lost a vote of confidence (by three votes) in October 1998. A new government was formed by Democratic Party of the Left leader and former-communist Massimo D'Alema. In April 2000, following a poor showing by his coalition in regional elections, D'Alema resigned. The succeeding center-left government, including most of the same parties, was headed by Giuliano Amato, who previously served as Prime Minister in 1992-93.

National elections, held on May 13, 2001, returned Berlusconi to power at the head of the five-party center-right Freedom House coalition, comprising the prime minister's own party, Forza Italia, the National Alliance, the Northern League, the Christian Democratic Center, and the United Christian Democrats. In April 2005, a poor showing in regional elections and dissatisfaction with the focus of the government’s program among center-right coalition members forced Prime Minister Berlusconi to resign and form a new government. The 60th government since the liberation of Italy was formed on April 23, 2005, with a new program emphasizing economic concerns. The previous Berlusconi government was the longest serving in Italy’s post-war history.

In national elections held April 9-10, 2006, Romano Prodi’s center-left Union coalition won a narrow victory over Berlusconi’s Freedom House coalition. The Union coalition includes the Democratic Party of the Left, the Daisy Party, UDEUR (Union of Democrats for Europe), Rose in the Fist (made up by Italian Social Democrats and Italian Radical Party), Communist Renewal, the Italian Communist Party, and the Greens. The Prodi government collapsed on January 24, 2008, when it lost a vote of confidence in the Senate and the Prime Minster submitted his resignation to the President.

In January 2008, the Prodi government fell when small coalition partner UDEUR withdrew support. In February, the President dissolved parliament and Silvio Berlusconi returned to power after defeating former Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni by a comfortable margin in elections on April 13-14, 2008. Berlusconi's winning coalition was composed of the People of Liberty (a union of Forza Italia and National Alliance), the Northern League, and the Movement for Autonomy. Berlusconi was sworn in as Prime Minister on May 8. Veltroni resigned as leader of the opposition in February 2009, and his deputy, Dario Franceschini, was elected new Democratic Party leader.

===Political Parties===
Italy's dramatic self-renewal transformed the political landscape between 1992 and 1997. Scandal investigations touched thousands of politicians, administrators, and businessmen; the shift from a proportional to majoritarian voting system also altered the political landscape.

Party changes were sweeping. The Christian Democratic Party dissolved; the Italian People's Party and the Christian Democratic Center emerged. Other major parties, such as the Socialists, saw support plummet. A new populist and free-market oriented movement, Forza Italia, gained wide support among moderate voters. The National Alliance broke from the neofascist Italian Social Movement. A trend toward two large coalitions--one on the center-left and the other on the center-right--emerged from the April 1995 regional elections. For the 1996 national elections, the center-left parties created the Olive Tree coalition while the center right united again under the Freedom Pole. The May 2001 elections ushered into power a refashioned center-right coalition dominated by Berlusconi's party, Forza Italia. The April 2006 elections returned the center-left to power under the eight-party Union coalition, a successor to the Olive Tree.

In October 2007, the Democrats of the Left and the Daisy parties officially merged to form the '''Democratic Party'''. Veltroni was chosen as party leader and was the center-left's candidate in the April 2008 elections.

Silvio Berlusconi launched an alliance between his Forza Italia party and Gianfranco Fini's National Alliance. The parties ran together under the '''People of Liberty''' symbol in April 2008. The election greatly simplified parliament, dramatically reducing the numbers of parties, and for the first time since World War II, leaving communist parties out of parliament. People of Liberty (37.4%) won the largest share of the vote and took power in coalition with a strengthened Northern League (8.3%) and the tiny Movement for Autonomy (1.1%). The Democratic Party scored 33.2% and ran in alliance with Italy of Values (4.4%), while the Union of the Center (5.6%) ran alone.

In March 2009, Forza Italia and National Alliance changed the People of Liberty identification from an alliance to a party. The new mass center-right party is Italy's largest party and one of the largest in Europe. Party leaders define the party as post-ideological, charismatic, and pragmatic. It is led by Berlusconi.

===Foreign Relations===
Italy was a founding member of the European Community--now the [[European Union]] (EU). Italy was admitted to the [[United Nations]] in 1955 and is a member and strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ([[NATO]]), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Council of Europe. It chaired the CSCE (the forerunner of the OSCE) in 1994, the EU from July to December 1990, January to June 1996, and July to December 2003, and the G-8 in 2001 and in 2009. Italy served a two-year term on the UN Security Council in 2007-2008.

Italy firmly supports the United Nations and its international security activities. Italy leads the UN mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and has actively participated in and deployed troops in support of UN peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Mozambique, and Timor-Leste. It provides critical support for NATO and EU operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Georgia, and Chad.

Italy, under NATO's ISAF, maintains a Provincial Reconstruction Team in the western [[Afghanistan]] province of Herat, commands RC-West, and maintains a Carabinieri police training center. Italy supports reconstruction and development assistance to the Iraqi people through humanitarian workers and other officials, particularly in Dhi Qar Province, and is a leading contributor to the NATO Training Mission-Iraq, with approximately 100 military personnel and Carabinieri police trainers. Currently almost 9,000 Italian troops are deployed, including 2,100 in Kosovo, 2,350 in Lebanon as part of UNIFIL, and over 2,600 in Afghanistan. It will send another 1000 troops for the surge in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] in 2010.

==Economy==
The Italian economy has changed dramatically since the end of World War II. From an agricultural-based economy, it has developed into an industrial state ranked as the world's sixth-largest market economy. Italy belongs to the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized nations; it is a member of the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Italy has few natural resources. With much land unsuited for farming, Italy is a net food importer. There are no substantial deposits of iron, coal, or oil. Proven natural gas reserves, mainly in the Po Valley and offshore Adriatic, constitute the country's most important mineral resource. Most raw materials needed for manufacturing and more than 80% of the country's energy sources are imported. Italy's economic strength is in the processing and the manufacturing of goods, primarily in small and medium-sized family-owned firms. Its major industries are precision machinery, motor vehicles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electric goods, and fashion and clothing.

Italy's economic growth averaged only 0.66% for the five years ending in 2005; 2006 GDP growth reached 1.9%, largely due to export growth to the Euro zone area.

Italy continues to grapple with budget deficits and high public debt--2.6% and 105.9% of GDP for 2008, respectively. Italy joined the European Monetary Union in 1998 by signing the Stability and Growth Pact, and as a condition of this Euro zone membership, Italy must keep its budget deficit beneath a 3% ceiling. The Italian Government has found it difficult to bring the budget deficit down to a level that would allow a rapid decrease of that debt. The worsening of the economic situation is expected to jeopardize this effort. The deficit is expected to grow well above the 3% ceiling in 2009 and 2010.

Italy's economic growth averaged only 0.8% in the period 2001-2008; 2008 GDP decreased 1.0%, largely due to the global economic crisis and its impact on exports and domestic demand. GDP is expected to contract further, with a huge decrease in 2009 (ranging from 2% to 3%) as the Euro zone and world economies slow.

Italy's closest trade ties are with the other countries of the European Union, with whom it conducts about 60.1% of its total trade (2007 data). Its largest EU trade partners are Germany (12.9%), France (11.4%), and the United Kingdom (5.8%). Italy continues to grapple with the effects of globalization, where China has undersold the Italian lower-end industrial product sector.

The Italian economy is also affected by a large underground economy--worth some 27% of its GDP. This production is not subject, of course, to taxation and thus remains a source of lost revenue to the local and central government.

*GDP (purchasing power parity, 2007 est.): $1.8 trillion.
*GDP per capita (purchasing power parity, 2007 est.): $31,000.
*GDP growth: 1.7% (2007); 1.9% (2006); 0.1% (2005); 0.9% (2003 est.); 0.4% (2002); 1.8% (2001).
*Natural resources: Fish and natural gas.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, rice, grapes, olives, citrus fruits, potatoes, sugar beets, soybeans beef, dairy products.
*Industry: Types--tourism, machinery, iron and steel, chemicals, food processing, textiles, motor vehicles, clothing, footwear, ceramics.
*Trade: Exports (2007 est.)--$474.8 billion f.o.b.: mechanical products, textiles and apparel, transportation equipment, metal products, chemical products, food and agricultural products. Partners (2006)--Germany 13.2%, France 12.3%, U.S. 7.5%, Spain 7.5%, U.K. 6.6%. Imports (2007 est.)--$483.6 billion f.o.b.: machinery and transport equipment, foodstuffs, ferrous and nonferrous metals, wool, cotton, energy products. Partners (2006)--Germany 17.3%, France 10.0%, Netherlands 5.7%, China 5.2%, Belgium 4.5%, Spain 4.3%.

====U.S.-Italy Economic Relations====
The United States and Italy cooperate closely on major economic issues, including within the G-8. With a large population and a high per capita income, Italy was the United States' twelfth-largest trading partner in 2008, with total bilateral trade of $51.6 billion comprised of exports to Italy totaling $15.5 billion and imports worth $36.1 billion. The U.S.'s $20.7 billion deficit with Italy in 2008 was slightly below the $20.9 billion deficit registered in 2007. Machinery and aircraft are becoming important U.S. exports. U.S. foreign direct investment in Italy at the end of 2007 exceeded $28.4 billion.

====Labor====
Unemployment is a regional issue in Italy--low in the north, high in the south. The overall national rate is at its lowest level since 1992. Chronic problems of inadequate infrastructure, corruption, and organized crime act as disincentives to investment and job creation in the south. A significant underground economy absorbs substantial numbers of people, but they work for low wages and without standard social benefits and protections. Women and youth have significantly higher rates of unemployment than do men.

Unions claim to represent 40% of the work force. Most Italian unions are grouped in four major confederations: the General Italian Confederation of Labor (CGIL), the Italian Confederation of Workers' Unions (CISL), the Italian Union of Labor (UIL), and the General Union of Labor (UGL), which together claim 35% of the work force. These confederations formerly were associated with important political parties or currents, but they have evolved into fully autonomous, professional bodies. The CGIL, CISL, and UIL are affiliated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and customarily coordinate their positions before confronting management or lobbying the government. The confederations have had an important consultative role on national social and economic issues.

====Agriculture====
Italy's agriculture is typical of the division between the agricultures of the northern and southern countries of the European Union. The northern part of Italy produces primarily grains, sugarbeets, soybeans, meat, and dairy products, while the south specializes in fruits, vegetables, olive oil, wine, and durum wheat. Even though much of its mountainous terrain is unsuitable for farming, Italy has a large work force (1.4 million) employed in farming. Most farms are small, with the average size being only seven hectares.

==History==
[[Image:Tiber.jpg|thumb|300px|The River Tiber.]]
The migrations of Indo-European peoples into Italy probably began about 2000 B.C. and continued down to 1000 B.C. From about the 9th century B.C. until it was overthrown by the Romans in the 3rd century B.C., the Etruscan civilization dominated the area. By 264 B.C. all Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul was under the leadership of Rome. For the next seven centuries, until the barbarian invasions destroyed the western Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., the history of Italy is largely the history of Rome. From 800 on, the Holy Roman Emperors, Roman Catholic popes, Normans, and Saracens all vied for control over various segments of the Italian peninsula. Numerous city-states, such as Venice and Genoa, whose political and commercial rivalries were intense, and many small principalities flourished in the late Middle Ages. Although Italy remained politically fragmented for centuries, it became the cultural center of the Western world from the 13th to the 16th century.

In 1713, after the War of the Spanish Succession, Milan, Naples, and Sardinia were handed over to the Hapsburgs of Austria, which lost some of its Italian territories in 1735. After 1800, Italy was unified by Napoléon, who crowned himself king of Italy in 1805; but with the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria once again became the dominant power in a disunited Italy. Austrian armies crushed Italian uprisings in 1820–1821 and 1831. In the 1830s, Giuseppe Mazzini, a brilliant liberal nationalist, organized the Risorgimento (Resurrection), which laid the foundation for Italian unity. Disappointed Italian patriots looked to the House of Savoy for leadership. Count Camille di Cavour (1810–1861), prime minister of Sardinia in 1852 and the architect of a united Italy, joined England and France in the Crimean War (1853–1856), and in 1859 helped France in a war against Austria, thereby obtaining Lombardy. By plebiscite in 1860, Modena, Parma, Tuscany, and the Romagna voted to join Sardinia. In 1860, Giuseppe Garibaldi conquered Sicily and Naples and turned them over to Sardinia. Victor Emmanuel II, king of Sardinia, was proclaimed king of Italy in 1861. The annexation of Venetia in 1866 and of papal Rome in 1870 marked the complete unification of peninsular Italy into one nation under a constitutional monarchy.

Italy declared its neutrality upon the outbreak of World War I on the grounds that Germany had embarked upon an offensive war. In 1915, Italy entered the war on the side of the Allies but obtained less territory than it expected in the postwar settlement. Benito (“Il Duce”) Mussolini, a former Socialist, organized discontented Italians in 1919 into the Fascist Party to “rescue Italy from Bolshevism.” He led his Black Shirts in a march on Rome and, on Oct. 28, 1922, became prime minister. He transformed Italy into a dictatorship, embarking on an expansionist foreign policy with the invasion and annexation of Ethiopia in 1935 and allying himself with Adolf Hitler in the Rome-Berlin Axis in 1936. When the Allies invaded Italy in 1943, Mussolini's dictatorship collapsed; he was executed by partisans on April 28, 1945, at Dongo on Lake Como. Following the armistice with the Allies (Sept. 3, 1943), Italy joined the war against Germany as a cobelligerent. A June 1946 plebiscite rejected monarchy and a republic was proclaimed. The peace treaty of Sept. 15, 1947, required Italian renunciation of all claims in Ethiopia and Greece and the cession of the Dodecanese islands to Greece and of five small Alpine areas to France. The Trieste area west of the new Yugoslav territory was made a free territory (until 1954, when the city and a 90-square-mile zone were transferred to Italy and the rest to Yugoslavia).

Italy became an integral member of NATO and the European Economic Community (later the [[EU]]) as it successfully rebuilt its postwar economy. A prolonged outbreak of terrorist activities by the left-wing Red Brigades threatened domestic stability in the 1970s, but by the early 1980s the terrorist groups had been suppressed. “Revolving door” governments, political instability, scandal, and corruption characterized Italian politics in the 1980s and 1990s.

Italy adopted the [[euro]] as its currency in January 1999. Treasury Secretary Carlo Ciampi, who is credited with the economic reforms that permitted Italy to enter the European Monetary Union, was elected president in May 1999. Italy joined its NATO partners in the Kosovo crisis. Aviano Air Base in northern Italy was a crucial base for launching air strikes into Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

===Silvio Berlusconi===
In June 2001, Silvio Berlusconi, a conservative billionaire, was sworn in as prime minister. He pledged to reduce unemployment, cut taxes, revamp the educational system, and reform the bureaucracy. His critics were alarmed by the apparent conflict of interest of a prime minister who also owned 90% of Italy's media. He was accused of Mafia connections and was under indictment for tax fraud and bribery. Found guilty in three out of four of his trials, he was acquitted in all of them on appeal. Several other cases are pending.

In Nov. 2002, Giulio Andreotti, who served as Italy's prime minister numerous times between 1972 and 1992, was sentenced to 24 years for ordering the Mafia to murder a journalist in 1979. At 84, however, he was deemed too old for prison.

At the end of 2003, Italian food giant Parmalat was accused of a massive accounting fraud scheme—$5 billion the company claimed was in fact nonexistent.

In April 2005, regional elections had disastrous results for Berlusconi's center-right coalition. The dismal state of the economy was blamed for the poor showing. In parliamentary elections held April 2006, the center-left Union coalition led by Romano Prodi won 49.8% of the vote and Berlusconi's House of Liberties coalition won 49.7%—a mere 25,000 vote difference. Berlusconi refused to concede and called for a recount. He eventually relented, and Prodi was given the go-ahead by the newly installed president Giorgio Napolitano to form a government. Prodi served as prime minister once before (1996–98) and also as president of the European Union. Prodi's government proved fragile almost immediately. Indeed, he submitted his resignation just nine months into his term after a key foreign-policy vote about the deployment of troops to Afghanistan and an expansion of a U. S. military base failed in the Senate. Days later, the Senate, facing the prospect of Silvio Berlusconi returning to power, narrowly passed a vote of confidence in Prodi's government. Prodi remained in office, surely to face similar obstacles in the near future.

In April 2006, Italy caught and arrested Bernardo Provenzano, the alleged boss of the Sicilian Mafia, who had eluded authorities for 42 years.

[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107658.html]

== See also ==
*[[Benito Mussolini]]
*[[Fra Angelico]]
*[[Painting Schools]]

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

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]