Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Oxymoron

2010-05-21T13:52:14Z

PatrickP: Oxymorons that express a criticism (fix link)

'''Oxymoron''' is a figure of speech in which two terms which are polar opposites are used together for [[rhetorical]] effect, or criticized because they are self-contradictory as in "[[pro-life]] [[Democrat]]." In the past, rhetoric and elocution were standard school subjects and students were taught long lists of technical names of figures of speech and their meaning. ''Oxymoron'' was one of these, along with ''[[simile]]'', ''[[metaphor]]'', ''[[metonymy]]'', etc. True oxymoron is relatively rare; one well-known example occurs in [[Tennyson]]'s ''Idylls of the King:''
:And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.<ref>[http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/verse/idyllsking/lancelotelaine.html Lancelot and Elaine], Tennyson, ''Idylls of the King''</ref>
Another occurs in [[Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]," when Juliet tells Romeo
:Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow.<ref>Shakespeare, ''Romeo and Juliet,'' [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.2.2.html Act II, Scene 2]</ref>
Arthur Koestler's book title, ''Darkness at Noon,'' is another example.

Among classical [[Greek]] authors, [[Sophocles]] was known for his fondness for the device.

Since the word ''oxymoron'' is derived from the Greek roots ''oxy,'' sharp, and ''moron,'' dull, it literally means "sharp-dull" and is thus itself an example of an oxymoron.

There is also a [[pun]]like form of humor which consists of observing or claiming that certain phrases are oxymorons. While not new, It was popularized by Warren Blumenfeld's 1986 book, ''Jumbo Shrimp & Other Almost Perfect Oxymorons: Contradictory Expressions That Make Absolute Sense.'' In literal fact, what is being pointed out is an amusing contradistinction.

Originally it played on the fact that many listeners remembered they been taught what an oxymoron was in school, but could not remember what it was. The context would have been something like this:

Humorist: "Jumbo shrimp?" That's an ''oxymoron.'' 
Mark: [Realizes he should know the word... his ten-grade English teacher drilled him on it... but can't quite, and is forced to ask]: A what? 
Humorist: An oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 
Mark: (Thinks about it, remember realizes that although "Jumbo shrimp" is a real expression, "shrimp" means small and "Jumbo" means large, and rolls on the ground laughing helplessly). 

The device has now become so common that the word ''oxymoron'' has come to ''mean'' this form of humor, which is entirely unrelated to the original meaning of the word. It is often employed to make a political point. It rarely reveals any actual meaning; "Military intelligence is an oxymoron" does not actually point out anything intrinsic in military structure or thinking; it merely puns on the meaning of the phrase "military intelligence" and is just a tricky way of delivering an insult.

Examples of the modern, joking usage:

* ''Heroic villain'' - Since villains are bad, calling one heroic is an oxymoron.
* ''Friendly vandal'' - A flaw similar to the one above.

Examples of modern, serious usage:

* ''Jumbo shrimp''
* ''Real nightmare''
* ''same difference''

Oxymorons that express a criticism include:

* ''Harvard Divinity School''
* ''gay charity'' (the homosexual ideology is entirely selfish)
* ''pro-life Democrat''
* ''evolutionary science''<ref>The theory of evolution is [[pseudoscience]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/][http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html][http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm]</ref>
* ''liberal Christian''<ref>[[Liberal values]] are in direct contradiction to the teachings of [[Christianity]] ([[Abortion]], [[Homosexuality]] etc).</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html Oxymorons (or Oxymora)]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Rhetorical Devices]]
[[Category:Figures of Speech]]
[[Category:Words and Phrases]]

Oxymoron

2010-05-21T13:49:01Z

PatrickP: Oxymorons that express a criticism

'''Oxymoron''' is a figure of speech in which two terms which are polar opposites are used together for [[rhetorical]] effect, or criticized because they are self-contradictory as in "[[pro-life]] [[Democrat]]." In the past, rhetoric and elocution were standard school subjects and students were taught long lists of technical names of figures of speech and their meaning. ''Oxymoron'' was one of these, along with ''[[simile]]'', ''[[metaphor]]'', ''[[metonymy]]'', etc. True oxymoron is relatively rare; one well-known example occurs in [[Tennyson]]'s ''Idylls of the King:''
:And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.<ref>[http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/verse/idyllsking/lancelotelaine.html Lancelot and Elaine], Tennyson, ''Idylls of the King''</ref>
Another occurs in [[Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]," when Juliet tells Romeo
:Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow.<ref>Shakespeare, ''Romeo and Juliet,'' [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.2.2.html Act II, Scene 2]</ref>
Arthur Koestler's book title, ''Darkness at Noon,'' is another example.

Among classical [[Greek]] authors, [[Sophocles]] was known for his fondness for the device.

Since the word ''oxymoron'' is derived from the Greek roots ''oxy,'' sharp, and ''moron,'' dull, it literally means "sharp-dull" and is thus itself an example of an oxymoron.

There is also a [[pun]]like form of humor which consists of observing or claiming that certain phrases are oxymorons. While not new, It was popularized by Warren Blumenfeld's 1986 book, ''Jumbo Shrimp & Other Almost Perfect Oxymorons: Contradictory Expressions That Make Absolute Sense.'' In literal fact, what is being pointed out is an amusing contradistinction.

Originally it played on the fact that many listeners remembered they been taught what an oxymoron was in school, but could not remember what it was. The context would have been something like this:

Humorist: "Jumbo shrimp?" That's an ''oxymoron.'' 
Mark: [Realizes he should know the word... his ten-grade English teacher drilled him on it... but can't quite, and is forced to ask]: A what? 
Humorist: An oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 
Mark: (Thinks about it, remember realizes that although "Jumbo shrimp" is a real expression, "shrimp" means small and "Jumbo" means large, and rolls on the ground laughing helplessly). 

The device has now become so common that the word ''oxymoron'' has come to ''mean'' this form of humor, which is entirely unrelated to the original meaning of the word. It is often employed to make a political point. It rarely reveals any actual meaning; "Military intelligence is an oxymoron" does not actually point out anything intrinsic in military structure or thinking; it merely puns on the meaning of the phrase "military intelligence" and is just a tricky way of delivering an insult.

Examples of the modern, joking usage:

* ''Heroic villain'' - Since villains are bad, calling one heroic is an oxymoron.
* ''Friendly vandal'' - A flaw similar to the one above.

Examples of modern, serious usage:

* ''Jumbo shrimp''
* ''Real nightmare''
* ''same difference''

Oxymorons that express a criticism include:

* ''Harvard Divinity School''
* ''gay charity'' (the homosexual ideology is entirely selfish)
* ''pro-life Democrat''
* ''evolutionary science''<ref>The theory of evolution is [[pseudoscience]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/][http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html][http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm]</ref>
* ''liberal Christian''<ref>Most [[liberal beliefs]] are in direct contradiction to the teachings of [[Christianity]] ([[Abortion]], [[Homosexuality]] etc).</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html Oxymorons (or Oxymora)]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Rhetorical Devices]]
[[Category:Figures of Speech]]
[[Category:Words and Phrases]]

Talk:Confirmation bias

2010-05-19T17:31:11Z

PatrickP: Censorship?

This is an interesting term but I think calling out specific groups as having this trait (i.e. evolutionists and global warming advocates) is unncessary. It is a blank cheque for any group to apply to anyone who disagrees; Young earthers versus old earthers; Evolutionists versus intelligent design; Agnostics versus any diety based religion. This "encylopedia" article serves nothing but to offer a backhanded critizism.

:If you don't think evolutionists use confirmation bias, I suggest you look at some of the works of [[Richard Dawkins]] and others like him. As for the global warmists, didn't you hear about the scandal from the Climate Research Unit? [[User:PatrickP|PatrickP]] 20:15, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Where did I say that they do not? I am saying most groups will do so, including evolutionists. There are examples all across the board for any of the groups I mentioned. The page may be better formatted if the initial paragraph was simply an explanation of the term and then sub-sections can be added targeting specific groups.

::I have read and re-read the article, and I really can't understand what you object to. Do you feel that such examples should be censored? [[User:PatrickP|PatrickP]] 13:31, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

User:PatrickP

2010-05-19T15:19:47Z

PatrickP: New page

I am Patrick, just a Mr Average, but I like to help out where I can!

Oxymoron

2010-05-19T15:17:17Z

PatrickP: added example with refs

'''Oxymoron''' is a figure of speech in which two terms which are polar opposites are used together for [[rhetorical]] effect, or criticized because they are self-contradictory as in "[[pro-life]] [[Democrat]]." In the past, rhetoric and elocution were standard school subjects and students were taught long lists of technical names of figures of speech and their meaning. ''Oxymoron'' was one of these, along with ''[[simile]]'', ''[[metaphor]]'', ''[[metonymy]]'', etc. True oxymoron is relatively rare; one well-known example occurs in [[Tennyson]]'s ''Idylls of the King:''
:And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.<ref>[http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/verse/idyllsking/lancelotelaine.html Lancelot and Elaine], Tennyson, ''Idylls of the King''</ref>
Another occurs in [[Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]," when Juliet tells Romeo
:Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow.<ref>Shakespeare, ''Romeo and Juliet,'' [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.2.2.html Act II, Scene 2]</ref>
Arthur Koestler's book title, ''Darkness at Noon,'' is another example.

Among classical [[Greek]] authors, [[Sophocles]] was known for his fondness for the device.

Since the word ''oxymoron'' is derived from the Greek roots ''oxy,'' sharp, and ''moron,'' dull, it literally means "sharp-dull" and is thus itself an example of an oxymoron.

There is also a [[pun]]like form of humor which consists of observing or claiming that certain phrases are oxymorons. While not new, It was popularized by Warren Blumenfeld's 1986 book, ''Jumbo Shrimp & Other Almost Perfect Oxymorons: Contradictory Expressions That Make Absolute Sense.'' In literal fact, what is being pointed out is an amusing contradistinction.

Originally it played on the fact that many listeners remembered they been taught what an oxymoron was in school, but could not remember what it was. The context would have been something like this:

Humorist: "Jumbo shrimp?" That's an ''oxymoron.'' 
Mark: [Realizes he should know the word... his ten-grade English teacher drilled him on it... but can't quite, and is forced to ask]: A what? 
Humorist: An oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 
Mark: (Thinks about it, remember realizes that although "Jumbo shrimp" is a real expression, "shrimp" means small and "Jumbo" means large, and rolls on the ground laughing helplessly). 

The device has now become so common that the word ''oxymoron'' has come to ''mean'' this form of humor, which is entirely unrelated to the original meaning of the word. It is often employed to make a political point. It rarely reveals any actual meaning; "Military intelligence is an oxymoron" does not actually point out anything intrinsic in military structure or thinking; it merely puns on the meaning of the phrase "military intelligence" and is just a tricky way of delivering an insult.

Examples of the modern, joking usage:

* ''Heroic villain'' - Since villains are bad, calling one heroic is an oxymoron.
* ''Friendly vandal'' - A flaw similar to the one above.

Examples of modern, serious usage:

* ''Jumbo shrimp''
* ''Real nightmare''
* ''same difference''

Oxymorons that express a criticism include:

* ''Harvard Divinity School''
* ''gay charity'' (the homosexual ideology is entirely selfish)
* ''pro-life Democrat''
* ''evolutionary science''<ref>The theory of evolution is [[pseudoscience]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/][http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html][http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm]</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html Oxymorons (or Oxymora)]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Rhetorical Devices]]
[[Category:Figures of Speech]]
[[Category:Words and Phrases]]

Contradiction in terms

2010-05-19T15:08:28Z

PatrickP: Redirected page to Oxymoron

#Redirect [[Oxymoron]]

Talk:Gulf of Mexico oil spill

2010-05-19T12:27:15Z

PatrickP: Categorical exclusion

It is high time Obama care about the environment like the Republicans do and end unsafe offshore drilling once and for all. [[User:JohnLeDeux|JohnLeDeux]] 21:26, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

== Marc Antony said that Cesar was ambitious ==

This statement is factual correct. But it makes the knowledgeable laugh, and it misleads those who don't have any further knowledge of ''Julius Cesar''.

Reading such a statement in an encyclopedia where you expect truthful entries is confusing at best, deceitful at worst. If I read this sentence in a wiki, I would think that someone made a bad joke and revert it.

Why? Because, though Marc Antony uttered these words (at least in [[Shakespeare]]'s work), he was just quoting Brute. It wasn't his own opinion. How do we know this? By reading the rest of the great speech. So, he quoted words which stated the opposite of what he thought.

Now, I read: ''Nobel Laurette [sic] in Economics, Dr. Paul Krugman, who has been highly critical of Obama economic policy wrote in his regular New York Times opinion column, Conscience of a Liberal, "The oil spill is Obama's fault."''

The reader of this line is lead to believe that Paul Krugman thinks that the oil spill is Obama's fault. But is this the case? Obviously not, as Krugman goes on: ''No, I haven’t lost my mind — that’s not what I believe. But you know that’s what the talk-show hosts will be saying soon, if they haven’t already started. The only question is what the story will be.''

So, Krugman is ''quoting'' some - though only imagined - talk-show hosts. And omitting this in the article is au par with stating ''Marc Antony said that Cesar was ambitious'' - misleading at best, deceitful at worst, ridiculous to those who read Krugman's column.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:So Krugman was saying "I told you so" for not listening to him and distancing himself further from Obama apologists? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:11, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::Paul Krugman states the the claim "The oil spill is Obama's fault" is not his opinion, so, he thinks that such a claim is wrong. It's beyond me how this can be accidently misinterpreted.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:52, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
:::So in Krugman's regular Opinion Column published on the Opinion page where Krugman says the oil spill is Obama's fault is not his opinion. ooookayyyyy..... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:02, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
::::I think what FrankC is saying is trying to say is that, despite the title, the article is not Krugman accusing Obama.[[User:DrRaymondL|DrRaymondL]] 14:50, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Oh, you mean the ''New York Times'' is not a Reliable Source? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]]
::::::I see that RobSmith has readded the Krugman blurb despite being shown that Krugman does not believe that the Oil Spill is Obama's fault. Prior revisions were reworded to show the actual context of the article but RobSmith reverted that also. Can we get a final ruling from perhaps Mr. Schlafly on this because this is just plain deceitful. I don't even see why Krugman's opinion is even relevant considering the plethora of evidence in the article that shows Obama's poor response.[[User:Ameda|ameda]] 19:42, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::This has been an ongoing battle between Obama & Krugman before Obama was even elected. See [http://mydd.com/2007/12/7/obama-attacking-paul-krugmans-credibility Obama attacking Krugman's credibility] for example with a link to the source at barackobama.com, "[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php trashing the credibility of Paul Krugman]." There's stuff on the White House webserver as well. It's all typical liberal doublespeak; who knows what any of it means replete with the blame-rush-limbaugh claptrap. Facts are, Krugman wrote in the NYT it's Obama's fault. Even that measures up to WP's reliable source & verifiability standards. We know that, they're employing those same standards in its Conservapedia entry at this very moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: No one is saying you're wrong about Krugman arguing with Obama, just that in that article he does not blame Obama for the spill. On the contrary, he believes the opposite. To make a metaphor, using the article in this way would be the equivalent of saying a patriot quoting a terrorist who said "America is evil" hates America also. [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 20:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::According to the website Environmental Economics, [http://www.env-econ.net/2010/05/krugman-was-correct.html Krugman was correct.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::In that article I believe they are saying that Krugman's points which he said he disagreed with are correct. Please read Krugman's actual article: '''he is not saying it is Obama's fault, so bringing up his article in this is deceitful!'''[[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:14, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::The points have been made, I tried my hand at correcting it but RobSmith seems to want it and since he is an admin. I suggest we defer to him for now and either let it stand or get the opinions of other admins. This page is quickly going to be nothing but talk, back and forth, back and forth, repeating the same stuff with nothing new or productive. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:25, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Alright, I understand and agree, I just felt uncomfortable leaving something so misleading alone. And sorry about my most recent edit in the article, I guess I must have slipped and highlighted a lot more than I intended! But anyway, is there a way for the issue to be arbitrated, because I'm gonna follow you by leaving it alone for now. [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:34, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
(unindent) Ok, let's summarize. In an article Krugman wrote entitled, ''The oil spill is Obama's fault'', Krugman did not really say the oil spill is Obama's fault, but Krugman lacks credibility per Robert Gibbs, barackobama.com, and whitehouse.gov. Is this an accurate synopsis? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:40, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
*It's not a question of ''credibility'' or ''reliable sources'', it's a question of ''reading comprehension''! Paul Krugman expects his readers to be able to spot some basic literary techniques, like irony or satire. As he is writing an '''opinion piece''' - and not an article in the news section - he can take even greater liberties in their use. If many readers failed to recognize his intention, it would be Krugman's fault, and he would have to change his stile. If just a single reader doesn't get it, well, perhaps the reader should chose a not so challenging newspaper to read...
*Still, Conservapedia's article creates the impression that Paul Krugman thinks that the oil spill was Obama's fault. That's false, and it should be corrected.
:[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:56, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::Let me start by saying, don't worry, I'm not going to delete the reference in the article, I've learned my lesson and I'm sure there is a civil way we can resolve this. FrankC, I'd like to give Rob the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply did not have enough time to fully read the article, especially since he's the admin here. It is true, however, that in it's first sentence the article makes Krugman's opinion clear, that he does not believe what the title says. Therefore, I really do feel that either the reference should be changed to include Krugman's view, or, more preferably, simply deleted (why, after all, should someone reading this article be sent to someone trying to claim Obama is innocent?) Thanks, and hopefully we can come to a resolution everyone agrees on.[[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 09:05, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

== Drilling ==

I'm a bit puzzled by one matter in this article, which I really feel needs improvement (I, personally, have reasons to be concerned with this situation, and quite frankly I'm pretty frustrated at the administration's response to it.) However, this article seems to take the stance that oil drilling is bad and that approving drilling was what Obama did wrong. Considering that drilling is what will help us get off of foreign oil and is considered good on most other Conservapedia articles, this article could certainly benefit from shifting Obama's error from approving drilling to failing to respond, since, as of now, the article simply seems hypocritical. [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 00:35, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

:What Obama did was be the cynical, corrupt Chicago politician he is and quietly approve the operating of the platform, without ensuring that proper safety guidelines were implemented. It blew up in his face, so to speak. All kinds of drilling are never 100% safe, be it drilling for oil on land or sea, or natural gas. ''Risk is always a factor''. Given the vast amounts of oil and gas we all use, the number of wells drilled, and their exceptional safety record, no one can honestly claim they have presented too great of risk. If the article implies otherwise, I am certain that is something the authors will correct in short order, so readers are clear on what happened. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:51, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

I am completely in favor of drilling in order to take advantage of our own reserves, but this must be done correctly and according to the laws in place to avoid this kind of disaster. What I am NOT in favor of is a president taking thousands of dollars from British Petroleum and then taking the unique step of granting them a ''categorical exclusion'' from the impact assessments required by law. [[User:PatrickP|PatrickP]] 08:27, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-19T00:45:43Z

PatrickP: add ref

The '''Conservapedia Scorecard''' is an objective and honest evaluation of groups or websites that call themselves [[conservative]] or have many conservative members, supporters or visitors. As politics is always changing, the most recent statements or actions of the groups will receive the greatest weighting. Criteria will include whom they invite as speakers at their conventions, what they say about current events, what cases they file briefs in, and how effective they are.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Group
!Profile of Guest Speakers/Contributors
!Recent Positions
|-
|[[NRA]]
|[[Neoconservative]] speakers featured rather than strong [[conservatives]] like [[Marco Rubio]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Jim DeMint]]<ref>May 2010 convention, held in Charlotte, NC.</ref>
|Supported pro-same-sex marriage candidate Dede Scozzafava rather than Doug Hoffman for Congress in early 2010, and supported [[RINO]] [[Bob Bennett]] (both were defeated by huge margins)
|-
|[[CPAC]]
|Strong representation by [[libertarian]]s, but thin on [[pro-life]] and traditional marriage issues
|Does not take positions but [[Ron Paul]] won the straw poll in 2010 and [[Jim DeMint]] had the highest approval rating as a speaker
|-
|[[FRC]]
|
|
|-
|[[Cato]]
|Strongly against [[Big Government]], but weak on traditional [[conservative]] values; voicing no objection to [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4724</ref>
|Somewhat taken in by the [[homosexual agenda]] with their opposition to the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379</ref> One of the few to file an [[amicus brief]] against the [[global warming]] hoax in ''Comer v. Murphy Oil'', pending before the [[Fifth Circuit]] ''en banc''.
|-
|[[Federalist Society]]
|Increasingly avoids socially conservative speakers, and features neoconservatives instead
|Constantly challenge the [[liberal bias]] in law and academia. Agree that [[ObamaCare]] is unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1503/pub_detail.asp</ref>
|-
|[[National Right to Life]]
|
|
|-
|[[Drudge Report]]
|Somewhat neoconservative and Hollywood centric, although outspoken against liberal policies and deceit.
|Broke the [[Bill Clinton]] sex scandal at a time of massive [[censorship]] from the [[liberal media]]<ref>http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/17/20020117_175502_ml.htm</ref>, although disappointingly quiet on social issues such as [[homosexuality]] and [[gun control]].
|-
|[[Newsmax]]
|
|
|-
|[[WorldNetDaily]]
|Sensible, [[logic]]al, [[Christian]] [[conservative]] contributors prevail.
|Continues to call for [[Obama]] to release his birth certificate. Publishes material contradicting the [[pseudoscience]]s of [[global warming]] and [[evolution]] that other outlets [[censor]]. But also tends to take neoconservative positions, such as supporting not-so-conservative [[Michael McConnell]] for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
|-
|}

(please add to the list)

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Candidates, 2012]]

{{Conservapedia}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-19T00:44:13Z

PatrickP: Drudge report

The '''Conservapedia Scorecard''' is an objective and honest evaluation of groups or websites that call themselves [[conservative]] or have many conservative members, supporters or visitors. As politics is always changing, the most recent statements or actions of the groups will receive the greatest weighting. Criteria will include whom they invite as speakers at their conventions, what they say about current events, what cases they file briefs in, and how effective they are.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Group
!Profile of Guest Speakers/Contributors
!Recent Positions
|-
|[[NRA]]
|[[Neoconservative]] speakers featured rather than strong [[conservatives]] like [[Marco Rubio]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Jim DeMint]]<ref>May 2010 convention, held in Charlotte, NC.</ref>
|Supported pro-same-sex marriage candidate Dede Scozzafava rather than Doug Hoffman for Congress in early 2010, and supported [[RINO]] [[Bob Bennett]] (both were defeated by huge margins)
|-
|[[CPAC]]
|Strong representation by [[libertarian]]s, but thin on [[pro-life]] and traditional marriage issues
|Does not take positions but [[Ron Paul]] won the straw poll in 2010 and [[Jim DeMint]] had the highest approval rating as a speaker
|-
|[[FRC]]
|
|
|-
|[[Cato]]
|Strongly against [[Big Government]], but weak on traditional [[conservative]] values; voicing no objection to [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4724</ref>
|Somewhat taken in by the [[homosexual agenda]] with their opposition to the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379</ref> One of the few to file an [[amicus brief]] against the [[global warming]] hoax in ''Comer v. Murphy Oil'', pending before the [[Fifth Circuit]] ''en banc''.
|-
|[[Federalist Society]]
|Increasingly avoids socially conservative speakers, and features neoconservatives instead
|Constantly challenge the [[liberal bias]] in law and academia. Agree that [[ObamaCare]] is unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1503/pub_detail.asp</ref>
|-
|[[National Right to Life]]
|
|
|-
|[[Drudge Report]]
|Somewhat neoconservative and Hollywood centric, although outspoken against liberal policies and deceit.
|Broke the [[Bill Clinton]] sex scandal at a time of massive [[censorship]] from the [[liberal media]], although disappointingly quiet on social issues such as [[homosexuality]] and [[gun control]]
|-
|[[Newsmax]]
|
|
|-
|[[WorldNetDaily]]
|Sensible, [[logic]]al, [[Christian]] [[conservative]] contributors prevail.
|Continues to call for [[Obama]] to release his birth certificate. Publishes material contradicting the [[pseudoscience]]s of [[global warming]] and [[evolution]] that other outlets [[censor]]. But also tends to take neoconservative positions, such as supporting not-so-conservative [[Michael McConnell]] for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
|-
|}

(please add to the list)

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Candidates, 2012]]

{{Conservapedia}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

Talk:Confirmation bias

2010-05-19T00:15:28Z

PatrickP: I disagree

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-17T20:44:43Z

PatrickP: WorldNetDaily - info & fixed wikilink

The '''Conservapedia Scorecard''' is an objective and honest evaluation of groups or websites that call themselves [[conservative]] or have many conservative members, supporters or visitors. As politics is always changing, the most recent statements or actions of the groups will receive the greatest weighting. Criteria will include whom they invite as speakers at their conventions, what they say about current events, what cases they file briefs in, and how effective they are.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Group
!Profile of Guest Speakers/Contributors
!Recent Positions
|-
|[[NRA]]
|[[Neoconservative]] speakers featured rather than strong [[conservatives]] like [[Marco Rubio]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Jim DeMint]]<ref>May 2010 convention, held in Charlotte, NC.</ref>
|Supported pro-same-sex marriage candidate Dede Scozzafava rather than Doug Hoffman for Congress in early 2010, and supported [[RINO]] [[Bob Bennett]] (both were defeated by huge margins)
|-
|[[CPAC]]
|Strong representation by [[libertarian]]s, but thin on [[pro-life]] and traditional marriage issues
|Does not take positions but [[Ron Paul]] won the straw poll in 2010 and [[Jim DeMint]] had the highest approval rating as a speaker
|-
|[[FRC]]
|
|
|-
|[[Cato]]
|Strongly against [[Big Government]], but weak on traditional [[conservative]] values; voicing no objection to [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4724</ref>
|Somewhat taken in by the [[homosexual agenda]] with their opposition to the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379</ref> One of the few to file an [[amicus brief]] against the [[global warming]] hoax in ''Comer v. Murphy Oil'', pending before the [[Fifth Circuit]] ''en banc''.
|-
|[[Federalist Society]]
|Increasingly avoids socially conservative speakers, and features neoconservatives instead
|Constantly challenge the [[liberal bias]] in law and academia. Agree that [[ObamaCare]] is unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1503/pub_detail.asp</ref>
|-
|[[National Right to Life]]
|
|
|-
|[[Drudge Report]]
|
|
|-
|[[Newsmax]]
|
|
|-
|[[WorldNetDaily]]
|Sensible, [[logic]]al, [[Christian]] [[conservative]] contributors prevail.
|Continues to call for [[Obama]] to release his birth certificate. Publishes material contradicting the [[pseudoscience]]s of [[global warming]] and [[evolution]] that other outlets [[censor]].
|-
|}

(please add to the list)

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Candidates, 2012]]

{{Conservapedia}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

Socialism

2010-05-17T20:34:38Z

PatrickP: Undo revision 779010 by Chidorimen (Talk) Please don't remove information without discussion

'''Socialism''', [[liberals]] will say, is an economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref>. Because some businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>

When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. ''Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism.'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref>

In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=

Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, community organizers, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.

Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref>
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as feudalism, monopoly, cartels, etc.

But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to free market economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that [[free market]] economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.

The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power.
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing Marx wanted to remove from the economy was the Profit Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!

=Types of Socialism=

There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.

==Leninism==
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]

Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by Lenin and practiced in the pre-Stalin Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.

Though Bolshevik Russia was far more prosperous than its former Tsardom, Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrowal of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of Stalinism, the violent, totalitarian belief that went entirely against Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] has been much more successful, leading to high [[social equity]] and a burgeoning economy, as well as general [[content]]. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.{{fact}}

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''

The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref>

However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9)
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}

While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19)

Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref>

In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed.

As one critic of modern-day socialism states:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-17T20:25:36Z

PatrickP: more Cato

The '''Conservapedia Scorecard''' is an objective and honest evaluation of groups or websites that call themselves [[conservative]] or have many conservative members, supporters or visitors. As politics is always changing, the most recent statements or actions of the groups will receive the greatest weighting. Criteria will include whom they invite as speakers at their conventions, what they say about current events, what cases they file briefs in, and how effective they are.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Group
!Profile of Guest Speakers/Contributors
!Recent Positions
|-
|[[NRA]]
|[[Neoconservative]] speakers featured rather than strong [[conservatives]] like [[Marco Rubio]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Jim DeMint]]<ref>May 2010 convention, held in Charlotte, NC.</ref>
|Supported pro-same-sex marriage candidate Dede Scozzafava rather than Doug Hoffman for Congress in early 2010, and supported [[RINO]] [[Bob Bennett]] (both were defeated by huge margins)
|-
|[[CPAC]]
|Strong representation by [[libertarian]]s, but thin on [[pro-life]] and traditional marriage issues
|Does not take positions but [[Ron Paul]] won the straw poll in 2010 and [[Jim DeMint]] had the highest approval rating as a speaker
|-
|[[FRC]]
|
|
|-
|[[Cato]]
|Strongly against [[Big Government]], but weak on traditional [[conservative]] values; voicing no objection to [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4724</ref>
|Somewhat taken in by the [[homosexual agenda]] with their opposition to the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]].<ref>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379</ref> One of the few to file an [[amicus brief]] against the [[global warming]] hoax in ''Comer v. Murphy Oil'', pending before the [[Fifth Circuit]] ''en banc''.
|-
|[[Federalist Society]]
|Increasingly avoids socially conservative speakers, and features neoconservatives instead
|Constantly challenge the [[liberal bias]] in law and academia. Agree that [[ObamaCare]] is unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1503/pub_detail.asp</ref>
|-
|[[National Right to Life]]
|
|
|-
|[[Drudge Report]]
|
|
|-
|[[Newsmax]]
|
|
|-
|[[Worldnet Daily]]
|
|
|-
|}

(please add to the list)

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Candidates, 2012]]

{{Conservapedia}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]

Gulf of Mexico oil spill

2010-05-17T15:42:47Z

PatrickP: Undo revision 778960 by EJHall (Talk) Revert trolling

[[File:DeepWateroilrigfire.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, April 21, 2010 (U.S. Coast Guard)]]
[[File:043010ap oil slick 800.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Oil slick near the Mississippi River delta on 29 April 2010 (NASA)]]
On 31 March 2010 [[President Barack Obama]] announced the resumption of domestic offshore oil drilling at Andrews Air Force Base outside [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociatedPress#p/u/6/mA7RAfHN-wo Obama Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling,] ''[[Associated Press]],'' 31 March 2010. Retrieved from [[Youtube]] 9 May 2010.</ref> The President's actions have been labeled, "a decision to endanger our coastal [[ecosystem]]s with the risk of catastrophic oil spills."<ref>[http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/04/30/president_obama_committed_to_endangering President Obama must reinstate moratorium on offshore drilling,] [[Greenpeace]] USA blogs, 30 Apr 2010.</ref> Defending the decision, the President remarked "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref><ref>Video: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/flashback_obama_says_oil_rigs_today_dont_generally_cause_spills.html Obama Says "Oil Rigs Today Don't Generally Cause Spills"], 2 April 2010. Retrieved from RealClearPolitics.com 12 May 2010.</ref>

According to the ''New York Times'' Obama "said several times during his [[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign|presidential campaign]] that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his [[State of the Union]] address<ref>[http://www.c-span.org/Executive/State-of-the-Union.aspx Barack Obama State of the Union Address 2010]. Retrieved from [[C-SPAN]].org 15 May 2010.</ref> in January [2010] that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time,] John M. Broder, ''[[New York Times]]'', March 30, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/obama_clears_way_for_oil_drill.html Obama clears way for oil drilling off U.S. coasts], Associated Press, March 31, 2010, Retrieved from nola.com 8 May 2010.</ref>

==The Obama plan ==
[[File:OCS Eastern Gulf of Mexico Strategy.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Map of expanded areas of offshore oil drilling authorized by President Obama on 31 March 2010.<ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/04/01/obama-offshore-oil-drilling-details.htm Obama Offshore Oil Drilling Details,] 1 April 2010. Retreived from About.com Guide to US Government Info 16 May 2010.</ref> ''Source: United States Department of Interior.'']]
Obama called for expanded development and production throughout the [[Gulf of Mexico]]. The [[Department of Interior]]'s Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the Gulf of Mexico contains 36-41.5 billion barrels of oil and 161-207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. According a DOI press release, Obama's plan would "expand oil and gas development and exploration" while "protecting fisheries, [[tourism]], and places off U.S. coasts that are not appropriate for development."<ref>[http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2010_03_31_release.cfm Department of Interior Press Release,] 31 March 2010.</ref>

== Deepwater Horizons ==
On [[Earth Day]] 2010, a British Petroleum-leased oil drilling rig sank to the bottom of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] two days after it exploded, creating what has been described as the "worst environmental disaster in [[American History Lectures|US history]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref> [[Secretary of the Interior]] [[Ken Salazar]] told [[CNN]] "It potentially is catastrophic," and "I think we have to prepare for the worst."<ref>[http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/gulf-oil-spill:-impossible-to-measure-impact-of-%22unprecedented-environmental-disaster%22-477603.html?tickers=BP,HAL,CAM,RIG,XLE,OIL,USO Gulf Oil Spill: Impossible to Measure Impact of "Unprecedented Environmental Disaster",] Aaron Task, May 03, 2010. Retrieved from Yahoo Finance 12 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/02/salazar-oil-spill-massive-and-a-potential-catastrophe/ Salazar: Oil spill 'massive' and a potential catastrophe,] [[CNN]], 3 May 2010.</ref>

Congressional investigators think they have identified the rigs blowout preventer as the cause of the explosion. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240323493707434.html Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer,] Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''Wall Street Journal Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The blowout preventer was leaking hydraulic fluid, had a dead battery,<ref>Ibid.</ref> and was inspected by the Obama Minerals Management Service (MMS) only two weeks before to the explosion<ref>White House Press Office, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-bp-oil-spill-gulf-coast Press Briefing on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast,] 29 April 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 12 May 2010.</ref> which killed 11 people. Blowout preventers are meant to shut off the well, and the last line of defense is a set of shear rams which cut the pipe and seal off the well.<ref>Congress Homes In on Rig's Blowout Preventer, Ben Casselman and Jennifer Levitz, ''WSJ Online,'' 13 May 2010.</ref> The MMS, the [[Obama administration]] agency that regulates offshore drilling along with the Coast Guard, is supposed to require proof that shear rams are powerful enough to shut the well. Michael Saucier, MMS's regional supervisor testified before Congress that the MMS didn't check to see if BP was compliant with the [[federal]] regulatory requirements.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

Nobel Laureate in Economics, Dr. [[Paul Krugman]],<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/ Economics 2008.] Retrieved from Nobel.org 10 May 2010.</ref> who has been highly critical of Obama [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|economic policy]]<ref>[http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090331151429.aspx Krugman Garners Newsweek Cover for Left-Wing Criticism of [[Obamunism|Obamanomics,]] ] Julia A. Seymour, ''Business & Media Institute'', 3/31/09.</ref> wrote a column entitled "The oil spill is Obama's fault" in his regular ''New York Times'' opinion column, ''Conscience of a Liberal.'' <ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times '' Op-Ed, April 30, 2010,</ref>

===Slow response ===

On 23 April 2010 [[Department of Homeland Security]] officials with the [[U.S. Coast Guard]] reported the was no leak from the sunken oil rig.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-23-deepwater-horizon_N.htm Coast Guard: No oil leaking from sunken rig,] Rick Jervis, ''[[USA TODAY]]'', 23 April 2010.</ref> Administration officially estimated leakage from the sunken well at 1000 barrels per day after studying information from remotely operated vehicles.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/oil-rig-deepwater-horizon_0_n_550849.html Oil Rig, Deepwater Horizon, Leaking Into Gulf Of Mexico,] Cain Burdeau, 4 April 2010. Retrieved from the ''[[Huffington Post]],'' 15 May 2010.</ref> Later administration estimates were raised to 5000 barrels per day,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html Size of Spill in Gulf of Mexico Is Larger Than Thought,] Campbell Robertson and Leslie Kaufman, ''New York Times,'' 28 April 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2010.</ref> while [[National Public Radio]] has reported the [[Obama administration]]'s estimates may be understated by a factor of ten.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525 Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates,] Richard Harris, ''National Public Radio,'' 14 May 2010.</ref>

Federal officials did not begin burning the leaking oil off the surface of the water until one full week after the rig collapsed.<ref>http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/burning_should_have_started_a.html</ref> Louisiana Governor [[Bobby Jindal]] criticized [[President Obama]] for his slow response<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzEntQPr9OA</ref> ''The New York Times'' castigated the [[White House]] for delays and not moving quick enough, calling the evidence "damning" and declaring the Gulf oil spill a "huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action" from the [[Obama administration]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html Unanswered Questions on the Spill,] ''New York Times'' Editorial, 30 April 2010.</ref>

== British Petroleum ==
[[File:Bp-obama-logo.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A symbol that the president is responsible, Obama takes ownership of this crisis. His actions alone will be judged and cannot pass blame onto others as he has previously.]]
During the first 100 days of the [[Obama administration]], the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the [[Department of the Interior]] granted a “categorical exclusion” from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> to British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon drilling operation, according to the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> BP's exploration plan received in the Administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref>

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] received a total of $77,051 from British Petroleum<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP?view=detail&siteid=nwhwk</ref> and has taken more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP over the past 20 years than any other candidate, according to [[FEC]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref> Likewise, the independent watchdog Center for Responsive Politics noted, "the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself.”<ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>

==Environmental disaster ==

=== Attempted cleanup ===
''Wired Science'' reports the [[Obama administration]] disaster-relief agencies and BP are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Use of dispersants are said to be a public relations strategy.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/ Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative,] Brandon Keim, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from ''Wired Science'' 15 May 2010.</ref> U.S.[[Department of Homeland Security]] Secretary [[Janet Napolitano]] reported the dispersants were dropped form [[C-130]] cargo aircraft.<ref>[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-02/news/os-oil-disaster-chemical-cleanup-20100502_1_dispersant-spill-crude Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix,] Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref> Jackie Savitz of the ocean-conservation group Oceana stated the use of dispersants is only slightly less horrendous than the Gulf oil spill itself. "You're basically pouring chemicals into the ocean, which is never a good thing."<ref>Ibid.</ref> According to a 2009 [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report dispersants have not been used in the United State "because of possible long-term environmental effects, difficulties with timely and effective application, disagreement among [[scientist]]s and research data about their environmental effects, effectiveness, and [[toxic]]ity concerns" and the effects "are still unknown."<ref>Ibid.</ref> Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, executive vice president of the [[environmental]] group Ocean Conservancy, said dispersants risk damaging [[ecosystem]]s and hurting wildlife.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

The dispersant 2-BE is known to cause heath dangers to clean up workers and wildlife alike.<ref>[http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic.] Retrieved from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> 2-BE has been documented to cause the breakdown of [[red blood cell]]s, leading to blood in urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and [[bone marrow]] of humans – effects not included on the information sheet for workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The dispersant Corexit 9500 is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects to clean-up workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Lawrence Duffy of the University of Alaska claims dispersants "are more a public relations measure than a preventive one. It has an effect on our psychology because we don't see the oil slick,"<ref>Ibid.</ref> though oil particles continue to do damage.<ref>Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix, Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

Most scientists agree that Corexit 9500 will have a much larger biological effect when it reaches coastal areas teeming with wildlife.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref> Many species are being threatened at a crucial time in their life cycle.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2818588720100428 FACTBOX-Possible environmental impact of Gulf oil spill,] ''[[Reuters]]'', 28 April 2010.</ref>

=== Silverfish ===

In testing done by the U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] the dispersant Corexit 9500 was found to be extremely lethal to silverfish, a benchmark [[organism]] in [[toxic]]ity testing.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>

=== Gulf menhaden ===

Gulf menhaden are a [[specie]]s harvested mostly for fish meal and fish oil. Menhaden could be badly affected
by the spill.

=== Coral, oyster and shrimp ===

Corals, oyster and shrimp likewise are critically affected. Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programmes for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council has said, “There is a [[chemical]] [[toxic]]ity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” which "in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”<ref>Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic. Retreived from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> Shrimp were found to be extremely vulnerable to the lethal effects of the chemical dispersant Corexit 9500 used by [[Obama administration]] disaster relief agencies and BP in testing done by the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA).<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>
[[File:Slide 6569 89213 small.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Oil-covered bird struggling to stay alive]]
=== Brown pelican ===

The [[Louisiana]] state bird, the brown pelican, was removed from the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2009 and breeding season has just commenced.

=== Other bird species ===

Other species endangered by the oil spill are American oystercatcher and Wilson's plover.

=== Sea turtles ===

As several species of sea turtles move through the Gulf during their spring nesting season, they need to surface to breathe.

==Economic impacts==

The economic impact of the [[Gulf of Mexico]] oil drilling disaster could be large and devastating to several key industries, including fishing, tourism, and transportation.<ref>[http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail18638.htm Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill,] Nariman Behravesh, 4 May 2010. Retrieved from ihsglobalinsights.com 8 May 2020.</ref>

===Employment in fishing===

Fishing<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/fishing-industry-hammered-by-gulf-oil-spill/41612D0E-B338-464D-A15E-5885B1D227D6</ref> in the Gulf of Mexico employed about 27,000 workers in [[Louisiana]] alone and second to [[Alaska]]'s fishing industry. Dockside sales are approximately $660 million. Loses to the Louisiana fishing industry could be as high as $2.5 billion.<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/insurers-brace-for-liability-hit-from-oil-spill-2010-05-05</ref>

===Tourism===

Tourism along the Gulf coast likewise could be devastated as the spill comes ashore. [[Florida]] tourism industry could lose $3 billion according to analysts at Bernstein Research.<ref>http://www.royalgazette.com/rg/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7da532730030019&sectionId=65</ref>

===Transportation===

The disruption of shipping traffic in and out of the Port of [[New Orleans]] will impact barge, container, and tanker traffic in the Mississippi Delta and along the [[Mississippi River]]. Prices of all types of commodities would affected,

=== Insurance industry ===

British Petroleum (BP), the operator on the oil drilling lease with a 65% stake, insured itself, rather than buying coverage from insurance companies. Industry analysts estimate total costs related to the oil spill clleanup and damages could exceed $14 billion. <ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6410IJ20100502 U.S. oil spill could bill could exceed $14 billion,] Tom Bergin, ''Reuters,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>

==Other Liberal Reaction==
Forthcoming

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Disasters]]

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-17T15:14:52Z

PatrickP: Fed Soc

Ye

2010-05-17T14:39:05Z

PatrickP: Undo revision 778936 by Chidorimen (Talk) Revert censorship of criticism

[[File:Kanye West.jpg|right|250px]]

'''Kanye West''' is an American [[hip hop]] musician and record producer, one of the most popular of recent times. His records have won nine [[Grammy]] awards.

== Personal Life and History ==
Kanye attracted considerable media attention in September 2005, when he appeared on a television fundraiser for [[Hurricane Katrina]] victims and famously stated "[[George W. Bush|George Bush]] doesn't care about black people."

He also created a stir when he posed for the cover of the February 2006 ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' magazine portraying [[Jesus Christ]], wearing a crown of thorns on his head with blood running down his face. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009059/</ref>

West's lyrics are sometimes considered controversial and offensive as they often contain explicit racial terms and profanity. <ref>http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/5241</ref>
<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/2/200539.shtml</ref>

Kanye's father, Ray West, a [[sociology]] professor and former member of the [[Black Panther Party]] <ref>http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/5241</ref> has stated that he does not condone the use of profanity and racial comments in Kanye's lyrics. <ref>http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/kanyes%20dad%20lashes%20out%20at%20sons%20lyrics_27_01_2006</ref>

His mother Donda, a former chair of the English department at Chicago State University who acted as Kanye's manager, died Nov 10, 2007 following a cosmetic surgery procedure. She was 58 years old. <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20159597,00.html</ref> West is engaged to be married to Alexis Phifer. <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20037945,00.html</ref>

== Criticism==
West's musical style has been the subject of criticism. He relies heavily on auto-tuning and post-production rather than personal talent. He often calls himself "the best rapper alive" but does not actually rap on the majority of his songs.
Kanye West was the subject of extreme criticism when he appeared to mock [[Jesus]] on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine and subsequently claim that he was bigger than Jesus. West, who has been rumored to be [[Muslim]] as his father (a former member of the Black Panther Party) was, caused considerable uproar with this comment and did not apologize.
West was again the subject of controversy at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where he took the microphone from country music starlet and Christian Taylor Swift while she was about to give an acceptance speech and said that she did not deserve it as much as [[Beyonce Knowles]]. This upset the 19 year old Swift and caused backlash against West from many notable celebrities and President [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. It was also speculated that this interaction was spurred by West's noted [[White Hatred]], as previously demonstrated in his 2005 "''George Bush doesn't care about black people''" comment.

==Works==
*''The College Dropout'' (2004)
*''Late Registration'' (2005)
*''Graduation'' (2007)
*''808s and Heartbreak'' (2008)

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:West Kanye}}
[[Category:Male Singers]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category: Racism]]

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-17T14:36:48Z

PatrickP: fix ref

Conservapedia Scorecard

2010-05-17T14:34:51Z

PatrickP: Cato

Free Energy

2010-05-17T14:24:10Z

PatrickP: Redirected page to Perpetual motion machine

#Redirect [[Perpetual motion machine]]

Pseudoscience

2010-05-17T14:21:39Z

PatrickP: /* Examples of pseudosciences */ added two more examples

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid science by the scientific community. Theories are typically classed as pseudoscientific if they fail the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically not falsifiable, lack objectivity, and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings. There is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", which is also sometimes used as a pejorative term.<ref>R. G. A. Dolby, ''Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World'', Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521892627, 9780521892629, 380 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xd3ylT3WTLEC&pg=PA191&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 191]</ref><ref>Brian Stableford, ''Science Fact and Science Fiction'', Published by CRC Press, 2006, ISBN 0415974607, 9780415974608, 729 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uefwmdROKTAC&pg=PA410&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 410]</ref>

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label ''pseudoscientist'' is commonly given to cranks and [[charlatans]], who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances reveal that they are really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> ]]
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Dianetics]]
*Much of the work of [[Richard Dawkins]]<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref>
*[[Environmentalism]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Free Energy]]
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Osteopathy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Transgenderism]]
*[[Ufology]]
*[[Vaccination]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]