Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jefferson City

2007-08-31T20:52:28Z

Ozark:

'''Jefferson City''' is the capital city of [[Missouri]] and the county seat of Cole County. Its population was estimated at just under 40,000 as of 2006. [39,274] Jefferson City is the home of the [[minor league]] baseball team, the [[River City Otters]], a Triple A team associated with the [[St. Louis Cardinals]].[http://mlb.cardinals.com]

[[Category:United States Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Jefferson City

2007-08-31T20:51:38Z

Ozark:

'''Jefferson City''' is the capital city of [[Missouri]] and the county seat of Cole County. Its population was estimated at just under 40,000 as of 2006. [39,274] Jefferson City is the home of the [[minor league]] baseball team, the [[River City Otters]], a Triple A team associated with the [[St. Louis Cardinals]].

[[Category:United States Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Biblical chronology

2007-08-31T20:14:04Z

Ozark:

'''Biblical chronology''' is a measure of time with the assumption that the stories and events within the [[Bible]] are historically accurate, as well as concurrent as they are presented.

The most famous attempt at Biblical chronology reconstruction was done by [[James Ussher]], who, working from [[Genesis]], put the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C.

==See Also==

[[Biblical chronology dispute]]

[[category:Bible chronology]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-31T17:53:25Z

Ozark: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's also a simpler world back then - less to learn, less preparation, and there's also fewer opportunities to escape the class you're born in. Now, we need 12 years of primary and secondary school, just to get a mediocre, blue-collar job. Four years of university for a middle-class position, not to mention masters and PhD's. There's so much more to learn that kids can "afford" to delay learning concepts vitally needed in order to sustain themselves in the real world (i.e. responsibility) - and in today's world parents are also spending less time with their kids! Because the delayed "release" into the real world, kids nowadays are mentally younger while biologically older. (From what I've seen, those who get a job early learn responsibility and maturity much, much quicker than those who don't) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So what plays would you have them study, Pach? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: And as a corollary... should Othello, MacBeth, Odyssey, Illiad all be banned from schools as well? Lord of the Flies? All of these contain a lot of violence (and racism too). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. There must be mountains of material that is artistic, educational and wholesome. When I was at school, we did R&J, and worse still, were instructed to see the film (Zefirelli version), which led to regrettable impurity of thought. So I know whereof I speak. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the essence of any literary work is conflict, so what would you have high school students reading? I'm a librarian myself, I'm not sure there are 'mountains' of young adult literature that don't contain violence or difficult choices about sexuality. I ask again...what specific works of fiction would you assign teenagers to read? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:53, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

The Comedy of Errors

2007-08-31T17:37:54Z

Ozark:

'''A Comedy of Errors''' is a play by [[William Shakespeare]] and one of his earlier Comedies. It involves ridiculous coincidences, when two twin brothers and their twin servants are mistaken for each other. <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare, Vol. 1]], edited by William George Clarke and William Aldis Wright, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, pp. 149-169. </ref> It is the only one of Shakespeare's plays to mention [[America]].

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

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-31T17:37:07Z

Ozark: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's also a simpler world back then - less to learn, less preparation, and there's also fewer opportunities to escape the class you're born in. Now, we need 12 years of primary and secondary school, just to get a mediocre, blue-collar job. Four years of university for a middle-class position, not to mention masters and PhD's. There's so much more to learn that kids can "afford" to delay learning concepts vitally needed in order to sustain themselves in the real world (i.e. responsibility) - and in today's world parents are also spending less time with their kids! Because the delayed "release" into the real world, kids nowadays are mentally younger while biologically older. (From what I've seen, those who get a job early learn responsibility and maturity much, much quicker than those who don't) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So what plays would you have them study, Pach? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:Grover Cleveland

2007-08-31T17:36:19Z

Ozark:

==Name Controversy==
I thought that Stephen was his ''first'' name not second name. could someone clear this up? I have a book about him it says his first name was Stephen, not Grover. --[[User:Additioner]] 15:01 19 April 2007
:I can't believe he had a choice and picked 'Grover.'[[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:36, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

"He was the only Democrat elected to the Presidency in the Republican dynasty that lasted from 1850s to when Roosevelt was President." '''What happened to Woodrow Wilson? He was a Democrat who served from 1913-1921.'''

Okay, I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::also: "as a result of the Democratic failure to win the American Civil War." - WHAT? The democrats at the time all were in the south, and had they "won the civil war" the south would have won. I realize that we're trying to keep this as a conservative type thing here, but thats just weird lunacy. I'm removind that part of the sentence. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:18, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually James, that has nothing to do with trying to keep it conservative. It has to do with a vandal who tried to write in a form to make it seem conservatively ridiculous, as you have noted. I'm afraid the article is still a bit of a minefield with similar imbedded instances. Thank you for helping to clear one up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Good point, I'll keep an eye out for such lunacy in the future.[[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 11:04, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::You didn't catch it all. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:24, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:South Africa

2007-08-30T20:39:58Z

Ozark: /* INFORMAL COMMENT MADE ON THE CRIME EXPO SOUTH AFRICA . NET WEBSITE REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH */

Thanks for allowing conservative postings!

Thanks for not deleting posts, like done by Wikipedia!

Thanks for allowing the posting of the truth.
==Reverted material==
All this material has been removed from the main page, and the sources must be vetted for content before reinclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Criticism by the informal media in South Africa ===

It is widely believed that the South African Government controlls the South African Media. Dr. Snuki Zikalala, the chief of SABC news and a members of the ruling ANC Government, is controlling the content of the news on the SABC. [http://www.news24.com/Rapport/Hoofartikels/0,,752-800_2013532,00.html]

The Freedom of Expression Institute(FXI) is seriously concerned about the state of media freedom in South Africa [http://www.fxi.org.za/pages/Home%20Page/Breaking%20News/PR_worldpressfreeday.html] According to the formal media in South Africa "Freedom of expression has limits." [http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/insight/insight__columnists/&articleid=264715] This is used as an excuse to censor news which is not politically correct, or which does not serve the ruling political party's (political) agendas.

Therefore the public does not have access to uncencored news and information. The informal media is filling this gap by allowing individuals to post unedited information. The informal media (blogs) serves as an outlet for all of those individuals that have the need to say what they really think about the situation in South Africa, or any other topic. [http://crimexposouthafrica.net/crimexp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1558&Itemid=2]

The official South African media criticised the informal media, and questioned its proffessionalism, but some bloggers are actually reporters, or they have worked as reporters in the formal media. Some bloggers are highly intelligent, qualified and degreed, they run their our own successful companies and are well informed on the political situation in South Africa. [http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/2007/05/taking-bull-out-of-bullard.html]

The formal media selects the information it wants to publish. When letters are received from the public, only certain letters are published. Not all letters can be published due to a lack of space in a newspaper, but this is not the case with the informal media. Furthermore the formal media selects which letters it wants to publish, according to the political affiliation or agendas of the newspaper. It may deliberately cencor certain individuals or political views, or any other comments on any subject it doesn't support. Distorted points of view can also be provided by selectively deleting sections of any letter or comments made by an individuals. It is easy for the informal media to expose politicians which are protected (even supported) by the mainstream media. Therefore politicians are against the informal media.

The informal media provided the individual with the means to express themselves, and for others to take note.

[[Why South Africa Sucks]] is one of the most popular South African Internet Blogs, critical of the [[crime]], [[Corruption]] & [[Genocide]] in South Africa. It was started on 13 Nov 2006. It recorded 222,006 hits since inception. There are 4 persons contributing to Articles on Why South Africa Sucks.[http://www.southafricasucks.blogspot.com/] They are:

* Knorrig
* Eli the Bearded
* The Uhuru Guru
* The Real Realist

Other websites in the informal media is also critical of the government. The mainstream media tries to ignore these websites. They refuse to refer to them.

The website [[African Crisis]] reports on issues critical to South Africa. [http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Home.php]

Other informal websites critical of the situation in South Africa is:
* '''[[Crime Expo South Africa]] . Net''' [http://www.crimexposouthafrica.net/]

* '''[[The Right Perspective]]''' [http://www.therightperspectivepodcastblog.blogspot.com/]

The informal media in South Africa is not only critical about the situation in the country, but it also provide information on a wide range of subjects & differnt points of view.

____

== INFORMAL COMMENT MADE ON THE CRIME EXPO SOUTH AFRICA . NET WEBSITE REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH ==

Freedom of speech
written by a guest, May 14, 2007

Real freedom of speech can only exist in a free society.
This is not the case in SA. This has never been the case in the past and I believe that real freedom of opinion will become even more dangerous in future. Example Zimbabwe.

The way I feel about what is happening in this place cannot be expressed publicly with my name attached to it. I cannot even openly say what I think except in a small circle of trusted friends.

The Sucs blog serves as an outlet for all of those that have the need to say what they really think about the f*ck*d up situation in this country with a government openly supporting the criminal in some cases where it suites them. Hate speech, but of course only in one direction, is openly practiced by government officials high up and they do all in their power to kill the culture of certain population groups.

On this site I can add my comment but I have to be very careful with my choice of words and I have to make sure not to be too critical.

On the Sucs blog I can add my comment saying exactly what I think and using a nickname of choice.

I think there is a real need for blogs where very disappointed and very angry South Africans can freely comment!

Nick

This note was made in the comment section. [http://crimexposouthafrica.net/crimexp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1558&Itemid=2] {{unsigned|John99}}

==A perfect article==

Since this has been blocked for months, I take it this is the definitive article on South Africa, and never needs to be changed, including the many typos. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked==

Why is this page blocked? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:There has been some question regarding blogs as sources for alleged "genocide" in South Africa. Ask [[User:DanH]] to unlock, and if he's unavailable momentarily I may be able to help. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== This cannot be allowed to stand if C-pedia wants to retain credibility. ==

Genocide in South Africa

The African National Congress is promoting Genocide against the boer in South Africa. [3]. 1860 Farmers were killed in South Africa since 1994. 400,000 Afrikaners are destitute and starving in South Africa.

There is also a believe that there is a conspiricy to kill white people on a massive scale after the death of Nelson Mandela. One of the operations planned entails 70,000 armed black men "being transported to the Johannesburg city center within an hour" in taxicabs to attack whites. The plans are variously dubbed "Operation Vula," "Night of the Long Knives," "Operation White Clean-up," "Operation Iron Eagle" and "Red October campaign." [4]

The victims of this ongoing onslaught are invariably elderly, law-abiding, god-fearing whites, murdered in cold blood, in ways that beggar belief. For the edification of racism spotters in the West, "Carte Blanche" ought to have pointed out that their assailants are always black. [5]

Someone please remove this passage ASAP. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are problems with this article. We need a level headed investigator to check out the sources of these claims, and clean up the article if necessary. The claims are inflammitory, OTOH we don't wish to dismiss them out of hand. Is there an editor willing to check out the sourcing and let us know? One claim the original author states is censorship of South African and other mainstream media. So if someone is willing to see if any portion of the these claims can be verified by another more reputable source, it will be appreciated.

:Any volunteers? Then the page can be unlcoked. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:49, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

What would you count as a "more reputable source?" The total dearth of reports on the subject by any major news agency, African or Western? The total dearth of reports from the UN, the African Union, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International? This stuff only exists on the marginal websites cited in the article, and in no mainstream reputable source. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 10:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:That is precisely what has to be checked out. The blogs cite various crimes which have occurred, which are hyped into a policy of genocide. It is not surprising that two things exist, (1) crimes against persons in South Africa, and (2) corruption in any governmental institution. Further, it is not surprising that mainstream media sources do not sensationalize Black on White crime in post-apartheid South Africa.

:We need an unbiased editor to investigate if certain crimes committed in South Africa which may or may not be racially motived are (a) being fully investigated and prosecuted by the South African government,and (b) being reported by South African or other sources whose credentials are unbiased. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

As I said, there is nothing there. It's hard to prove a negative: Nobody is reporting on this stuff - not All Africa News, none of the South African papers, not the Council for Foreign Relations [http://www.cfr.org/region/156/south_africa.html], not the BBC, not the NYT, not Fox News, not Le Monde, none of the papers from South Africa's neighbours, none of the African or Western human rights groups. Nobody. Surely C-Pedia does not allow blogs as a refernve Please unlock or take it down. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 11:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Genocide Watch [http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutus/aboutus.htm] reports "Over 1000 Boer Farmers In South Africa Have Been Murdered Since 1991" in a 2002 report. [http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm] This appears to be a reputable organization. And the figure, "over 1000", is in keeping with the claim of 1860.

:Clearly, a minority feels its being targeted and victimized, so the claims need to be investigated for veracity. If the claims are hyped or exaggerated, that reflects on the credibility of the claimants, and portions, if not all, can be dismissed. If on the other hand, government corruptuion and media bias are ignoring a travesty of justice being perpetrated on a voiceless minority, there may be elements of material suitable for this mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

look, Rob, what can I tell you - it ain't there except in the blogosphere. If that's good enough for you and for the wiki writ large, so be it. But there's not a single credible source to back up these horrible - and in my opinion racist - allegations. The onus of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, and I don't believe that any reasonable person would concede that the case is made. I have volunteered, as you asked. I have found nothing in any reputable print or online source that justifies allowing these claims to stand. If that's not good enough for you, what can I say? I'm just appalled that blogs are considered encyclopedic in this particular case. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 11:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:What is not reputable about this organization? [http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutus/aboutus.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I've already checked that one out, and in their country watch section, they have a link to one story - ONE story - from last year, carried on ONE news service and not anywhere else. Not enough to validate the claims being made here. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:It would be nice to see some links. And where did Genocide Watch get it's story from ? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

GW - country page for South Africa: [http://www.genocidewatch.org/news/SOUTHAFRICA.htm]
The story it links to - which NEVER mentions the terms "genocide," "democide," or "ethnocide": [http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1878534,00.html] [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 11:58, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:So, (A) we need a definition or standard of genocide or democide; and (B) the figure of 311 homicides per 100,000 ethnic Boers is roughly three times the national average of homicide in the United States; Genocide Watch states, "by 2001 (1,000/45,000*100=) 2.2 percent of ethno-European farmers had already been murdered." Further, these do not appear to be random attacks, rather youth being incited by, as ''WorldNetDaily'' reports, the current South African Head of Government. These are indeed serious charges. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, Rob, in my little world, if I want to discuss human rights abuses in Africa, I stick with the African Union, HRW, AI, the UN, African newspapers from the country in question and its neighbours, the AllAfrica news wire, the ICG, ReliefWeb, and possibly BBC, the Times of London, NYT, Le Monde, Agence France-Presse, Foreign Affairs, and the International Herald Tribune for a Western media perspective. You don't seem to be interested in the fact that these sources have precious little to say on the topic. What is WorldNetDaily? I'm sure Genocide Watch means well, but it seems to be a web-only phenomenon that cobbles together stories but doesn't get cited all that often by human rights groups. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and your sysop status means you de facto win the argument. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 12:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Any while you're debating this, the poorly-written, pooly-sourced, un gramatical accusations are still on the page. Meanwhile, no one else can add anything else about S. Africa. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably ungrammatical cause the author is a Dutch speaking Boer. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The Children's Story

2007-08-30T20:34:12Z

Ozark: new page

''The Children's Story'' was a novella by [[James Clavell]], author of the [[Shogun (novel)|Shogun]] series of books. It was first published in [[1981]] and later made into a movie. All action takes place in a [[public school]] classroom after the [[United States]] has been conqurered by a nameless foreign power. The teacher is replaced with someone appointed by the new rulers. In the course of one morning, the teacher easily brainwashes the children into accepting the new order of things, as children are open to new ideas and simple bribery.

Clavell, a naturalized American citizen, wrote the story in response to an incident with his young daughter. He realized her teacher had taught her to recite the [[Pledge of Allegiance]], even though she had no idea what most of the words meant. Clavell authored ''The Children's Story'' as a caution against runaway displays of patriotism and blind obedience to the government.

[http://mywebpages.comcast.net/llefler/clavell.htm Text in full]

Talk:Grover Cleveland

2007-08-30T20:24:31Z

Ozark:

==Name Controversy==
I thought that Stephen was his ''first'' name not second name. could someone clear this up? I have a book about him it says his first name was Stephen, not Grover. --[[User:Additioner]] 15:01 19 April 2007

"He was the only Democrat elected to the Presidency in the Republican dynasty that lasted from 1850s to when Roosevelt was President." '''What happened to Woodrow Wilson? He was a Democrat who served from 1913-1921.'''

Okay, I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::also: "as a result of the Democratic failure to win the American Civil War." - WHAT? The democrats at the time all were in the south, and had they "won the civil war" the south would have won. I realize that we're trying to keep this as a conservative type thing here, but thats just weird lunacy. I'm removind that part of the sentence. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 18:18, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually James, that has nothing to do with trying to keep it conservative. It has to do with a vandal who tried to write in a form to make it seem conservatively ridiculous, as you have noted. I'm afraid the article is still a bit of a minefield with similar imbedded instances. Thank you for helping to clear one up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Good point, I'll keep an eye out for such lunacy in the future.[[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 11:04, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::You didn't catch it all. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:24, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Lunar Society

2007-08-30T20:20:02Z

Ozark:

The Lunar Society was a private club of scientists, industrialists, philosophers and free thinkers that met in [[Birmingham]], [[England]], between 1765 and 1813. They met once a month on the full moon, hence their name, and they jokingly called themselves 'lunatics'. Membership included:

*Matthew Boulton, inventor of the modern factory system of production
*James Watt, inventor of the steam engine
*Erasmus Darwin, physician, poet and natural philosopher
*Joseph Priestly, scientist, discoverer of oxygen
*Josiah Wedgwood, pottery manufacturer
*Benjamin Franklin, scientist and politician

And many others. The society was largely responsible for starting the Industrial Revolution.{{fact}} They also dabbled in politics, and as upholders of the rights of man put their support behind those other two great revolutions of the late 18th century, the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:industry]]

Defeatism

2007-08-28T20:28:00Z

Ozark:

'''Defeatism''' is acceptance of defeat without struggle. In everyday use, defeatism has negative connotation and is often linked to treason and pessimism. However, defeatism can have positive connotations. Defeatists tend to follow a reality-based view of the world as opposed to triumphallists who have a faith-based view of the world.

The term is commonly used in the context of war: a soldier can be a defeatist if he or she refuses to fight because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason. The term can also be used in other fields, like politics, sport, psychology and philosophy. The term originates from France during World War I.{{fact}}
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Valium

2007-08-28T20:27:20Z

Ozark: New page: A highly technical scientific article without a single source or reference. ~~~~

A highly technical scientific article without a single source or reference. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-28T20:26:04Z

Ozark:

Larry Craig

2007-08-28T17:05:20Z

Ozark: typo

'''Larry Craig''' has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested by an officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. The officer alleged that Craig looked through a restroom stall door for two minutes and tapped his toes several times as a signal.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html CNN]</ref> Despite pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct charge stemming from that incident, Craig denies the allegations and has since said that he regrets pleading guilty.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]

Curly Howard

2007-08-28T17:04:51Z

Ozark: ref

'''Jerome Lester Horwitz''' (1903-1952) was a [[Jewish]] American writer, philosopher, and actor. His works had an [[existential]] bent to them, often making fun of inane and commonplace situations. Horwitz died in California from a [[stroke]].<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0397219/ Biography]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Larry Craig

2007-08-28T17:04:03Z

Ozark: new ref

'''Larry Craig''' has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested by an officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. The officer alleged that Craig looking through a restroom stall door for two minutes and tapped his toes several times as a signal.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html CNN]</ref> Despite pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct charge stemming from that incident, Craig denies the allegations and has since said that he regrets pleading guilty.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]

Minimum wage

2007-08-28T17:00:44Z

Ozark: walmart pays minimum wage

'''Minimum wage''' refers to the lowest legal wage that an employer may pay their workers. More than 90% of countries in the world have minimum wage laws. Economic conservatives tend to oppose increases in the minimum wage on the grounds that in a free market, the price of labor, like any other commodity, should be set by negotiations between the buyer and seller without undue interference from the state, so they should also be allowed to keep slaves. Economic liberals disagree with this view of labor as a commodity because they believe it dehumanizes laborers by permitting companies to pay employees less than necessary to live a decent life, support a family, etc. Even without legislation, the minimum wage as of 2007 is far below the lowest wage paid by most large companies.{{fact}}

The minimum wage in the United states was most recently raised to $5.85/hr, on July 24, 2007, in a bill created by California Representative George Miller and signed into law by [[George W. Bush]]. At this rate, a person working a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year at minimum wage earns $12,168.00 for the year.

A complementary device is a [[maximum wage]].

[[category:economics]][[category:politics]][[category:law]]

NASCAR

2007-08-28T16:59:33Z

Ozark:

'''NASCAR''' is an acronym that stands for '''National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing''', a sanctioning body for stock car racing in [[United States of America|America]] ranging all the way from local dirt track racing on up to the national Nextel Cup Series. NASCAR is currently developing the Nextel Cup Series into a major American [[sport]], along with taking their brand international with their second-teir series, the Busch Series. Despite these efforts, though, NASCAR still has strong roots in the American Southeast, which is its primary fanbase, and so it is a staple of [[Conservative#Conservatives in the United States|conservative American]] life.{{fact}}

==History==
NASCAR was founded on in 1948 by William "Bill" France Sr. in Daytona Beach, [[Florida]], as a response to issues with the disorganized nature of stock car racing at the time. Over the next two-plus decades, France would successfully organize stock car racing into divisions, with the top one originally being known as "strictly stock", for how the almost entirely all-American cars were not allowed to be modified. When that rule was relaxed later on, the top division was renamed the "Grand National". Most races of the early days were run on short oval tracks of the American Southeast, although with some exceptions, notably Darlington Raceway in Darlington, [[South Carolina]] and then Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, which became NASCAR's premier track in 1959 after repleacing the actual sandy beach that had previously been used.

As the sport grew, NASCAR underwent a transformation in the early 1970s. In 1970, NASCAR signed a title sponsorship deal with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, renaming their top division the "Winston Cup" Series, and giving the title of Grand National to the second division. Two years later, Reynolds would push NASCAR into dropping all dirt tracks and races of under 100 miles. These moves marked the beginning of NASCAR's modern era, and would be key to NASCAR's growth into the top level of American motorsport. That growth would be done without the sport's founder, though, as Bill France Sr. retired in 1970 and his son, Bill France Jr., replaced him.

Over the next nearly three decades, NASCAR would grow steadily and would expand around the country. A good portion of its growth can be attributed to the success and popularity of its two great superstars, Richard Petty and then Dale Earnhardt. Combined, these two won a grand total of fourteen Winston Cup Series Championships, along with eight Daytona 500 titles, which had become the series' premier race at the beginning of each season. Into the 1990s, the days of the two superstars began to dwindle, which can partially be attributed to the now advanved development of the still all-American cars and the fact that most races were by then run on superspeedways around the counry rather than Southeastern short tracks. Petty retired in 1992, while Earnhardt continued on into the new millennium before being tragically killed in a last-lap accident at the 2001 Daytona 500 that shocked the racing world and brought about further developments in driver safety on top of previous advances. By then, a new stock of takent had taken over the top NASCAR tier, which was renamed to the "NEXTEL Cup" in 2004 after NEXTEL Communications took over the title sponsorship from R.J. Reynolds. Top names of the new millenium came to be Jeff Gordon, who won four series titles after ironically making his debut in Petty's final race, and Dale Earnhardt Jr., the pouular son of the late Dale Sr. that achieved success by winning the Daytona 500 in 2004.

In the lower levels of NASCAR, a pickup-truck racing series sponsored by Craftsman tools in 1995. The series has been hugely successful, especially in providing appeal back to the conservative American base. In the new millennium, the now-titled Busch Series expanded internationally with races in [[Mexico]] in 2005 and one in [[Canada]] in 2007. In addition to all its regular local racing series, NASCAR also began running national series in Canada and Mexico in 2007.

==Racing Today==
Currently, the Nextel Cup runs a thirty-six race season, with forty-three cars participating in each. Most of the races are run on mid length oval tracks, but there also two races on road courses and two "restrictor place races" at tracks where the cars need to wear restrictor plates on their engines to slow down their high speeds, with one of these tracks being Daytona. Top racers currently include the previously mentioned Jeff Gordon, and Dale Earnhardt Jr., along with Gordon's teammate, Jimmie Johnson, and former Indy racer Tony Stewart. The 2007 season saw the debut of the Nextel Cup series' first foreign carmaker in many years with [[Toyota]], who had previously run the Craftsman Truck Series for a few years before joining the ranks of [[General Motors|Chevrolet]], [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]], and [[Chrysler|Dodge]]. Additionally, NASCAR also began running the "Car of Tomorrow" that it had developed, with the new model expected to be used for all races in 2008.

==Culture==
All the while, NASCAR's culture has been intricately shaped by its conservative American roots. Nowadays, it is a common activity for fans to trek to races in their RVs and tailgate on an oval track's infield. It is common for the owners to put up a tall flagpole to fly a flags of their favorite driver along with that of the [[Confederate States of America|Confederacy]]. This practice has drawn criticism as [[African Americans|African-American]] drivers have begun to enter the NASCAR ranks, but it has remained due to the strength of NASCAR's roots in the American South. Conversely, NASCAR has also made its own contributions to conservative American culture: During his 2004 reelection campaign, President [[George W. Bush]] recognized NASCAR's impact on conservative American culture by visiting the Daytona 500 to draw the votes of "NASCAR dads". Additionally, bumper stickers of a driver's car number can often be seen on the back of their fans' cars, especially the #8 of Dale Earnhardt Jr., and of course, the famous #3 of his late father, Dale Earnhardt Sr.

==References==
''The Wildest Ride: A History of NASCAR (or How a Bunch of Good Ol' Boys Built a Billion-Dollar Industry out of Wrecking Cars)'' by Joe Menzer

[[Category:Sports]]

User:Ozark

2007-08-28T16:58:44Z

Ozark: New page: It's great to be here!

It's great to be here!

Curly Howard

2007-08-28T16:58:22Z

Ozark: ref

Curly Howard

2007-08-28T16:57:31Z

Ozark: new article