Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality

2007-11-30T01:40:18Z

PaulH: New page: If someone wants to make the point that homosexuality is more or less common in certain societies, I'd like to see a study that's less than half a century old - and that finds a way to get...

If someone wants to make the point that homosexuality is more or less common in certain societies, I'd like to see a study that's less than half a century old - and that finds a way to get people to admit to homosexuality when legal and cultural mechanisms make that difficult, dangerous or impossible.[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 20:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality Statistics

2007-11-30T01:39:58Z

PaulH:

On might argue that the HIV statistic reveals more about the "true nature" of HIV than it does about homosexuality...[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 18:13, 29 November 2007 (EST)

That first talking point...could it have been that homosexuals in the fifties feared for their saftey (you could go to prison for homosexual acts back then) and weren't as 'out' as they are today, now that those laws have been repealed? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 29 November 2007 (EST)

If someone wants to make the point that homosexuality is more or less common in certain societies, I'd like to see a study that's less than half a century old - and that finds a way to get people to admit to homosexuality when legal and cultural mechanisms make that difficult, dangerous or impossible.[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 20:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality Statistics

2007-11-30T00:32:50Z

PaulH:

On might argue that the HIV statistic reveals more about the "true nature" of HIV than it does about homosexuality...[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 18:13, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality Statistics

2007-11-29T23:13:38Z

PaulH: New page: On might argue that first statistic reveals more about the "true nature" of HIV than it does about homosexuality...~~~~

On might argue that first statistic reveals more about the "true nature" of HIV than it does about homosexuality...[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 18:13, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Free trade

2007-11-29T17:35:36Z

PaulH:

'''Free trade''' is a term meaning unregulated trade between nations without [[tariffs]] or quotas placed on the goods exchanged. This is generally a positive thing as it allows countries with an [[absolute advantage]], such as [[China]] with its cheap labor, to cooperate with its neighbors and produce more goods than either country could in isolation.

Free trade is controversial because it can have undesired side effects, such as a massive loss of manufacturing jobs by the wealthier trading partner though a mechanism known as [[offshoring]] those jobs to a trading partner having cheaper labor. In economics, this is known as a [[market correction]].

Free trade also raises moral issues, such as the use by a nation of slave labor. In addition, free trade can increase the importation of undesired, concealed illegal [[drugs]]{{fact}}.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Karaoke

2007-11-29T16:22:55Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Daisuke.jpg|thumb|Inoue in his Kobe bar band days (1970)]]
'''Karaoke''' from Japanese: ''kara'' empty, and ''ōke'', short for ''ōkesutora'' [[orchestra]] (meaning ''without orchestra''). It is a form of entertainment involving the use of a musical device that plays instrumental accompaniments; vocals are provided by a live person (amateur [[singer]]) with a microphone. Typically, this is performed in front of a group of people, with the aid of scrolling words flashing on a monitor.

Some people agree that Karaoke started in [[Kobe]]. Despite karaoke's worldwide popularity, the man who invented it, Ig Nobel Prize winner [[Daisuke Inoue]] has made little profit as he failed to patent the machine. [http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/inoue1.html]

::''The fad spread into bars and restaurants and, even if the person singing wasn’t very good, they were applauded at the end. Some people would sing lots of songs and some would only sing one but karaoke brought the people at the venue together in a whole new way.'' [http://nj.essortment.com/historyofkar_rezh.htm]

== See also ==

*[[Ig Nobel Prize]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990224535.html Japanese inventor loses patent to songbox]

[[Category:Music]]

Karaoke

2007-11-29T16:22:36Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Daisuke.jpg|thumb|Inoue in his Kobe bar band days (1970)]]
'''Karaoke''' from Japanese: ''kara'' empty, and ''ōke'', short for ''ōkesutora'' [[orchestra]] (meaning ''without orchestra''). It is a form of entertainment involving the use of a musical device that plays instrumental accompaniments; vocals are provided by a live person (amateur [[singer]]) with a microphone. Typically, this is performed in front of a group of people, with the aid of scrolling words flashing on a monitor.

Some people agree that Karaoke started in [[Kobe]]. Despite karaoke's worldwide popularity, the man who invented it, Ig Nobel Prize winner [[Daisuke Inoue]] has makde little profit as he failed to patent the machine. [http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/inoue1.html]

::''The fad spread into bars and restaurants and, even if the person singing wasn’t very good, they were applauded at the end. Some people would sing lots of songs and some would only sing one but karaoke brought the people at the venue together in a whole new way.'' [http://nj.essortment.com/historyofkar_rezh.htm]

== See also ==

*[[Ig Nobel Prize]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990224535.html Japanese inventor loses patent to songbox]

[[Category:Music]]

Salem Witch Trials

2007-11-29T16:19:48Z

PaulH:

In May-October 1692, in the town of [[Salem]], in [[Massachusetts]] Bay Colony, several girls who were listening to the [[voodoo]] tales of a [[West Indian]] [[slave]], [[Tituba]], said they were possessed by [[devil]]s. They then proceeded to accuse three innocent women of witchcraft.

Under the [[Puritan]] rule of the colony at the time, the existence of [[witch]]es was accepted as clear fact on scriptural grounds. In accordance with [[Exodus]] 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," witchcraft was criminalized and considered a capital offense.

These women were brought to trial and, under pressure, stated the names of others who were working together to possess the girls. The Puritans governing Salem then saw this as an opportunity to use the legal procedure of court trials to identify and uncover the ways of the occult. Public trials were held and testimony was elicited in an attempt to bring forth the workings of the devil.

These three women, along with sixteen others who were were accused of witchcraft were hanged. Nearly 150 were imprisoned. Those who had reservations about the proceedings often found themselves to be accused. It is interesting to note that to avoid hanging, all the accused had to do was admit their guilt, but many refused. The refusal to admit guilt to save their lives may be attributed to the sturdy Puritan-based morality of the community at the time. One man would not even dignify the proceedings by entering a plea and was pressed to death. <ref>
Five men were convicted and hanged, and one man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death for refusing to cooperate with the court. [http://www.salemwitchmuseum.com/education/faq.shtml] </ref>

After many executions, a change in the rule of evidence for these trials excluded "spectral evidence," which was testimony by afflicted persons that they had been visited by a suspect's specter. With that change the subsequent trials resulted overwhelmingly in acquittals rather than convictions, and the later pardons were issued for several of those who had been convicted.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Ironically, due to the notoriety of the trial that has survived to this day, tourist influence has now made Salem known for a high density of [[occult]]-themed shops.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:History]]

English and British Queen mothers

2007-11-29T02:41:55Z

PaulH:

A Queen Mother is a person satisfying the following criteria:

*She is the mother of the current monarch.
*She has been Queen
*If there is a king, he is married; if he is not, she is referred to as the Queen, not the Queen Mother.

A Queen Mother retains the title of Her Majesty that she enjoyed as Queen, but there is no further coronation ceremony to reflect her changed status.

For centuries, there was no Queen Mother in England. For most of the time in the [[Twentieth century|twentieth Century]], there was; three people had that title. As discussed below, it is not clear when there will be one again in England.

== List ==

* April to June 1483 [[Elizabeth Woodville]]

* 1649 or 1660-1669 [[Henrietta Maria]]

* 1910-1925 [[Princess Alexandra of Denmark]] (though she preferred not to use the title)
* 1936-1952 [[Mary of Teck]]
* 1952-2002 [[Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon]]; her fifty years is by far the longest ever that anyone has held the title.

== History ==

=== House of York ===

'''[[Edward V]]''' was king only during April to June 1483. His mother, [[Elizabeth Woodville]], was Queen Mother during this time. She was ex-Queen Mother until her death in [[1492]].

=== Tudors ===

There were no Queen Mothers during Tudor times.

While [[Henry VII]]'s mother, [[Margaret Beaufort]], was alive throughout his reign (and outlived him by two months), she was never Queen hence could not be Queen Mother. [[Henry VIII]]'s mother, [[Elizabeth of York]], died in [[1503]] while he did not become king until [[1509]].

The wives of [[Henry VIII]] who were the mothers of '''[[Edward VI]]''', '''[[Mary I of England|Mary]]''' and '''[[Elizabeth I]]''' all predeceased him so there were no Queen Mothers in their reigns. His last wife, [[Catherine Parr]], outlived him by over a year but was not the mother of any of them. She ceased to be a queen on her re-marriage after Henry's death.

=== Stuarts ===

There was only one Queen Mother in this period.

[[James I]]'s mother [[Mary Queen of Scots]] was never Queen of England.

[[Charles I]]'s mother [[Anne of Denmark]] died in [[1616]], before he succeeded.

[[Charles II]]'s mother [[Henrietta Maria]] became Queen Mother when Charles became King. Some would argue that this was in [[1649]], when Charles I was executed; most would say that it was in [[1660]], at the restoration of the monarchy. She died in [[1669]], before the accession of Charles' brother [[James II]], so there was no Queen Mother in that reign.

[[William III]]: his mother Mary, daughter of Charles I, was never Queen of England and anyway she died before he became King.

[[Mary II]] and [[Queen Anne]]: their mother (James II's first wife Anne) was never Queen (she died before James II succeeded) and was of course dead before they succeeded.

=== Early Hanoverians ===

There were no Queen Mothers among the early Hanoverians.

[[George I]]'s mother died before he succeeded. (Had she not died, she would have been Queen in her own right, since his claim to the British throne was through her.)

[[George II]]'s mother, [[Sophia Dorothea of Celle]], died before he succeeded. In any case, she was never regarded as Queen, since his father George I had divorced her before he became King of England. His wife, [[Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach]], died in [[1737]], during his reign. In any case, she was the grandmother of the next king, George III, rather than his mother.

Under '''[[George III]]''', there was no queen mother. His father had been [[Prince of Wales]] but never king, so after his father's death his mother was always called the Dowager Princess of Wales.

=== Later Hanoverians ===

There were no Queen Mothers in the [[nineteenth century]]. Since George III's wife predeceased him, there was no Queen Mother in the reigns of his sons '''[[George IV]]''' or '''[[William IV]]'''.

'''[[Queen Victoria]]'s''' mother had not been queen, so was not entitled to be Queen Mother. She expected to have the title, but Victoria (who was not very fond of her) made it clear that she would not. William IV's widow [[Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen]] lived until [[1849]], but as she was not Victoria's mother she could not be Queen Mother either.

=== [[Twentieth century]] ===

Obviously, '''[[Edward VII]]''' did not become king until his mother Queen Victoria died, so there was no Queen Mother in his reign. On his death in [[1910]], his wife, [[Princess Alexandra of Denmark]], became Queen Mother to [[George V]] until her own death in [[1925]].

When [[Edward VIII]] became king in [[1936]], he had no wife, so his mother, [[Mary of Teck]], remained Queen. On his abdication, she became Queen Mother to [[George VI]]. On his death in [[1952]] she became an ex-Queen Mother.

The mother of [[Elizabeth II]], [[Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon]], was Queen Mother from 1952 until her death in 2002.

== Future Queen Mothers? ==

There is little likelihood that there will be another Queen Mother in the near future. If [[Queen Elizabeth II]] decides to abdicate in favour of her son [[Charles, Prince of Wales]], it is likely that she would be given the title of Queen Mother, but there is no precedent for this. Otherwise, assuming that Charles succeeds he will have no living mother. If he is then succeeded by either of his sons, they will have no living mother either. Assuming that whoever succeeds Charles marries and has a child, and that his wife outlives him, she will become Queen Mother when that child succeeds.

It is possible that if someone else succeeds, then an existing member of the Royal family could become Queen Mother. For example, if the [[Earl of Wessex]] or [[Duke of Gloucester]] succeeds to the throne, and is then outlived by his wife and succeeded by his own child, she would be Queen Mother. However, neither scenario is very likely.

[[category:biographies]]

Global warming debate

2007-11-29T02:39:13Z

PaulH:

A '''[[global warming]] debate''': [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM] ($4.95 to download: "Free Trial" available.)

[[Category:Global Warming]]

USS Constitution

2007-11-29T02:02:09Z

PaulH: No wood is "indestructible"

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300"
|-----
| colspan="2" align="center" | [[Image:Ussconstitution.JPG|thumb|right|300px|USS ''Constitution'']]
|-----
! style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;" | Career
! style="background:navy;align:right;" | [[Image:15 star Jack.PNG|48px|USN Jack]]
|-----
| Launched: || 21 October 1797
|-----
| Commissioned: || 5 May 1798
|-----
| Current status:
| In commission, open to the public
|-----
! colspan="2" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;" | Specifications
|-----
| Displacement: || 1,576t
|-----
| Dimensions: || 175 ft x 44.3ft x 13.9ft
|-----
| Armament:
| 32-24pdr 22-42pdr carronades 1-long 18pdr
|-----
| Complement: || 420 officers and crew
|}
'''USS ''Constitution''''', one of the original six ships of the fledgling [[United States Navy]] and the only surviving one, is a three-masted sail frigate of 44 guns opened to the public at the former Boston Navy Yard in Massachusetts. ''Constitution'' bears the distinction of having the most ship-to-ship victories of any ship in the Navy; one of which earned for her the name "Old Ironsides" after sailors observed cannonshot bouncing off her hull.

==Construction==
''Constitution'', one of six frigates authorized by act of Congress, approved March 27, 1794, was designed by [[Joshua Humphreys]] and built at Hartt's Shipyard, Boston, Massachusetts, under the supervision of George Claghorn with Captain Samuel Nicholson as inspector. She was launched on October 21, 1797 and christened by Captain James Sever. Into the trim frigate's construction went timbers from states ranging from Maine to Georgia (her principle frames were made from [[Georgia live oak]], a very dense, durable and resilient wood), while the copper sheeting and bolts on her hull was supplied by [[Paul Revere]]. A ship of beauty, power, and speed thus was fashioned as a national expression of growing naval interest, and a symbol auguring the dedication, courage, and achievement of American fighting men and ships.

==First years==
''Constitution'' put to sea on July, 23 1798, commanded by Captain Samuel Nicholson, the first of many illustrious commanding officers. Following patrols along the eastern seaboard she became flagship on the Santo Domingo station, making several captures during the [[Quasi-War]] with [[France]], including the 24-gun ''Niger'', the ''Spencer'', and the letter-of-marque ''Sandwich''. At war's end, Constitution returned to the Charleston Navy Yard where she was placed in ordinary.

In 1803 amid growing demand for tribute and increasing seizures by the [[Barbary pirates]], ''Constitution'' was recommissioned under Captain [[Edward Preble]] and sailed as flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron on August 14. Preble took command of the squadron and vigorously brought the war to [[Tripoli]], executing well-laid plans with brilliant success. On ''Constitution's'' decks tactics for destroying the captured frigate, ''Philadelphia'', were laid as well as those for blockading and assaulting the fortifications of Tripoli. The small United States fleet on August 3-7, 1804 bombarded the enemy's ships and shore batteries with telling results.

Commodore [[Samuel Barron]] and later Captain [[John Rodgers]] were next to command the squadron and ''Constitution'', continuing to blockade and take prizes. Naval action thus generated a favorable climate for the negotiation of peace terms with Algiers, ending for a time our tribute payments. After the Tunisians agreed to similar terms in August, ''Constitution'' spent 2 years patrolling in maintenance of the peace. She sailed for home under Captain Hugh Campbell and arrived Boston in November 1807. Placed out of commission, the frigate was repaired in the succeeding 2 years.

==[[War of 1812]]==
In August 1809 she was recommissioned and became flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron, and in 1810 [[Isaac Hull]] was appointed her captain. The following year she carried U.S. Minister, Joel Barlow, to France and returned to Washington in March 1812 for overhaul. War with Britain impended and ''Constitution'' was readied for action. On June 20, 1812 the declaration of war was read to her assembled crew and on July 12 she took the sea rejoin the squadron of Commodore John Rodgers.

On July 17 ''Constitution'' sighted five ships in company; supposing them to be Rodger's squadron, Hull attempted to join up. By the following morning, however, the group was identified as a powerful British squadron which included the frigates ''Guerriere'' and ''Shannon''. The wind failed, becalming within range of the enemy who opened fire. Disaster threatened until Captain Hull astutely towed, wetted sails, and kedged to draw the ship slowly ahead of her pursuers. For 2 days all hands were on deck in this desperate and successful attempt at escape, a splendid example of resolute command, superior seamanship, and indefatigable effort.

===HMS ''Guerriere''===
[[Image:Cornepainting.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''In Action'', depicting the battle between USS ''Constitution'' and HMS ''Guerriere'', by Michel Felice Corne (1812). This painting was one of four of the battle done under the direction of Captain Isaac Hull.]]
During the war, ''Constitution'' ran the blockade at Boston on seven occasions and made five cruises ranging from Halifax, Nova Scotia, south to Guiana and east to [[Portugal]]. She captured, burned, or sent in as prizes nine merchantmen and five ships of war. Departing Boston on August 2 she sailed to the coast of Nova Scotia, where she captured and destroyed two British trading ships. Cruising off the Gulf of St. Lawrence on 19 August, she caught sight of ''Guerriere'', one of the ships which nearly captured her several weeks before. ''Guerriere'' opened the action, pouring out shot which fell harmlessly into the sea or glanced ineffectively from the hull of ''Constitution''; one of the cheering crew was heard to exclaim "Huzzah! Her sides are made of iron!" As the ships drew aside each other, Hull gave the command to fire and successive broadsides razed ''Guerriere's'' mizzen mast, damaging her foremast, and cut away most of her rigging. ''Guerriere's'' bowsprit fouled the lee rigging of ''Constitution'', and both sides attempted to board, but the heavy seas prevented it. As the ships separated ''Guerriere'' fired point blank into the cabin of ''Constitution'' and set it on fire, but the flames were quickly extinguished. ''Guerriere's'' foremast and mainmast went by the board and she was left a helpless hulk.

The flag of ''Guerriere'' was struck in surrender and when the Americans boarded her they found her in such a crippled condition that they had to transfer the prisoners and burn her. Rather than accept his sword, Hull asked Captain James Dacres to call in a friendly bet they had made some years before when both ships lay in at Madiera, and Dacres gave him his hat. It was a dramatic victory for America and for ''Constitution''. In this battle of only half an hour the United States "rose to the rank of a first-class power"; the country was fired with fresh confidence and courage, and ''Constitution'' gained her sobriquet "Old Ironsides".

===HMS ''Java''===
''Constitution'', now under the command of Captain [[William Bainbridge]], stood out from Boston on October 26. On December 29, 1812 she added to her conquest the British 38-gun frigate, ''Java'', whom she engaged off the coast of Brazil. Despite loss of her wheel early in the fighting, Constitution fought well. Her superior gunnery shattered the enemy's rigging, eventually dismasting ''Java'', and mortally wounding her captain. Java was so badly damaged that she, too, had to be burned. The seemingly invincible "Old Ironsides" returned to Boston late in February for refitting and her wounded commander was relieved by Captain [[Charles Stewart]].

''Constitution'' departed on December 31 for a cruise in the [[Windward Islands]]. On February 15 she seized and destroyed the schooner, ''Pictou'', and 9 days later chased the schooner, ''Pique'', who escaped. She also captured three small merchantmen on this cruise, characteristically successful despite a close pursuit by two British frigates along the coast of Massachusetts. ''Constitution'' moored safely at Boston only to be bottled up for nearly 9 months by the vigorous British blockade.

===HMS ''Cyane'' and HMS ''Levant''===
Near the end of 1814, the British Admiralty, stunned by the losses of several British frigates to more powerful American ships in single action battles (in addition to the losses of ''Guerriere'' and ''Jave'', ''Macedonian'' was lost to USS ''United States'', and the sloops ''Wasp'' and ''Hornet'' took British prizes off England), ordered their ships not to engage with the Americans unless they had a two-to-one advantage.

In December 1814 ''Constitution'' braved the forces of the enemy, and headed southeast. She seized the merchant brig ''Lord Nelson'' and later captured ''Susannah'' with a rich cargo on February 16, 1815. Four days later she gave close chase to the frigate ''Cyane'' and the sloop ''Levant'' bound for the West Indies. ''Constitution'' opened the action firing broadsides; as the contestants drew apart she maneuvered adroitly between the two, fighting each separately and avoiding raking by either. In less than an hour ''Cyane'' struck her colors and soon thereafter ''Levant'' surrendered. Sailing in company with her prizes, ''Constitution'' encountered a British squadron which gave chase but was able to retake only ''Levant''. En route to New York, she received confirmation of the ratification of peace terms and on May 15 arrived, confident in her success as protector of freedom of the seas.

==After the war==
Ordered to Boston, she was placed in ordinary for 6 years, undergoing extensive repair. In May 1821 she returned to commission, serving as flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron, under Commodore Jacob Jones, and guarding United States shipping until 1823. A second cruise on that station lasted from 1823 through July 1828, with a succession of commanding officers including Captains [[Thomas Macdonough]] and Daniel Patterson.

A survey in 1830 disclosed ''Constitution'' to be unseaworthy. Congress, considering the projected cost of repairs, relegated her for sale or scrapping. Public sentiment, engendered partly by the dramatization of her history in [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]]' memorable poem, elicited instead an appropriation of money for reconstruction which was begun in 1833 at Boston, where once again she was captained by the redoubtable Isaac Hull.

==Later years==
Returned to commissioned status in 1835, she served well in the ensuing 20 years in a variety of missions. In March 1835 she sailed to France where she embarked the U.S. Minister to France, Edward Livingston, for return to the States. In August she entered upon a 3-year tour as flagship of Commodore Jesse Elliott in the Mediterranean protecting trade and maintaining good relations. She served as flagship for the South Pacific Squadron from 1839 to 1841; and for the home station from November 1842 to February 1843. In March 1844 she began a memorable 30-month circumnavigation of the globe while under the command of Captain John Percival.

The fall of 1848 brought a resumption of duty as flagship of the Mediterranean Squadron, Commodore W. C. Bolton. Decommissioned briefly in 1851 she sailed under Captain John Rudd in 1852 to patrol the west coast of Africa in quest of slavers until June 1855.

Five years of decommissioned status followed. In August 1860 she was assigned to train midshipmen at Annapolis, and during Civil War at Newport, R.I. Among her commanding officers in this period are listed Lieutenant Commanders [[David D. Porter]], and [[George Dewey]].

In 1871 ''Constitution'' underwent rebuilding at Philadelphia; she was commissioned again in July 1877 to transport goods to the Paris Exposition.

Once more she returned to duty as a training ship, cruising from the West Indies to Nova Scotia with her youthful crews. In January 1882 she was placed out of commission and in 1884 was towed to Portsmouth, New Hampshire to become a receiving ship. Celebration of her centennial year brought her to Boston in 1897 where she was retained in decommissioned status.

A public grateful for her protective services once again rescued her from imminent destruction in 1905 and she was thereafter partially restored for use as a national museum. Twenty years later, complete renovation was initiated with the financial support of numerous patriotic organizations and school children.

On 1 December 1917, ''Constitution'' was renamed ''Old Constitution'' to permit her original name to be assigned to a projected battle cruiser. Given first to CC-1 (renamed ''Lexington''), then to CC-5 (originally named ''Ranger''), the name ''Constitution'' was restored to "Old Ironsides" on July 24, 1925, after the battle cruiser program had been canceled under the [[Washington Naval Treaty]]. ''Constitution'' (CC-5) was some 13.4 percent complete at the time of her cancellation.

On July 1, 1931, amid a 21-gun salute, ''Constitution'' was recommissioned. The following day she sailed on a triumphant tour of 90 United States ports along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, where thousands of Americans saw at first hand one of history's greatest fighting ships. On May 7, 1934 she returned to Boston Harbor, the site of her building. Classified IX-21 on January 8, 1941, Constitution remains in commission today, the oldest ship on the Navy List, proud and worthy representative of the Navy's great days of fighting sail, and symbol of the courage and patriotic service of generations of Americans at sea where much of the Nation's destiny will always lie.

==''Old Ironsides'', by Oliver Wendell Holmes==
:''Ay, tear her tattered ensign down!''
:''Long has it waved on high,''
:''And many an eye has danced to see''
:''That banner in the sky;''
:''Beneath it rung the battle shout,''
:''And burst the cannon's roar;--''
:''The meteor of the ocean air''
:''Shall sweep the clouds no more!''

:''Her deck, once red with heroes' blood,''
:''Where knelt the vanquished foe,''
:''When winds were hurrying o'er the flood''
:''And waves were white below,''
:''No more shall feel the victor's tread,''
:''Or know the conquered knee;--''
:''The harpies of the shore shall pluck''
:''The eagle of the sea!''

:''Oh, better that her shattered hulk''
:''Should sink beneath the wave;''
:''Her thunders shook the mighty deep,''
:''And there should be her grave;''
:''Nail to the mast her holy flag,''
:''Set every threadbare sail,''
:''And give her to the God of storms,--''
:''The lightning of the gale!''

==references==
*[http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/ USS ''Constitution'' official website]
*[http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/old_ironsides.html Poetry Archive on "Old Ironsides"]
*[http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/ USS ''Constitution'' Museum]
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const1.htm Battle records posted by U.S. Naval Historical Center]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c13/constitution.htm]}}

[[Category:Warships|Constitution, USS]][[Category: War of 1812]]

National Organization for Women

2007-11-29T01:36:09Z

PaulH:

The '''National Organization for Women''' (NOW) is an [[American]] [[liberal]] [[feminist]] organization. NOW was founded in 1966 and their purpose is to ''take action to bring [[women]] into full participation in [[society]] — sharing [[equal rights]], responsibilities and opportunities with [[men]], while living free from [[discrimination]].'' <ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

"NOW lobbies for [[feminist]] [[legislation]], organizes protest rallies, initiates [[lawsuit]]s, and always backs [[Democratic Party]] [[candidate]]s and proposals. The NOW agenda supports all [[abortion]] rights including [[Partial birth abortion|partial- birth abortion]], [[gay]] and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Homosexual rights advocacy|rights]], worldwide [[legalization]] of [[prostitution]], and unrestricted access to [[pornography]] in [[library|libraries]]." "According to the guide, 'NOW revels in attacking [[Christianity]] and [[traditional values]], [[conservative]] ideas and men,' with [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[Jerry Falwell]] and [[Promise Keepers]] their favorite targets." <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/nov02/02-11-13.shtml Why The Democrats Are The Way They Are], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 13, 2002</ref>

==NOW's Top Six Priority Issues==
#Advancing Reproductive Freedom - NOW supports access to abortion and birth control
#Promoting Diversity & Ending [[Racism]]
#Stopping Violence Against Women - NOW supports I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, S. 2279).
#Winning Lesbian Rights - NOW supports rights for Lesbians and [[same-sex marriage|equal marriage]]
#Achieving Constitutional Equality - NOW supports the [[Women's Equality Amendment]]
#Ensuring Economic Justice <ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

==NOW and the MSM==
"[[Tammy Bruce]] also noted how, as a NOW chapter president, any agenda she wanted was easily advanced by major newspapers. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/12092 Former NOW Chapter President Exposes Left's Media Agenda], Justin McCarthy, [[NewsBusters]], April 17, 2007</ref>

[[Tamron Hall]] from [[MSNBC]] participated in Events for NOW. <ref>[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/28/msnbcs-tamron-hall-ive-participated-events-now MSNBC's Tamron Hall: I've Participated in Events for NOW], Mark Finkelstein, [[NewsBusters]], August 28, 2007</ref>

==I-VAWA==
I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02279: S. 2279]). I-VAWA would create a new Office of Women's Global Initiatives that would control all foreign domestic-violence programs and funds in the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security. <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/nov07/07-11-28.html Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 28, 2007</ref>

==Women's Equality Amendment==
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced the Women's Equality Amendment in 2007. Leaders from NOW, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and other feminist groups united with members of Congress to launch the joint resolutions.
Other members of Congress taking the lead on the new Women's Equality Amendment include: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.). <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/070612amendment.html New Push for Women's Constitutional Equality], June 12, 2007</ref>

==NOW vs Walmart==
NOW has always been a leader in the fight against Wal-Mart's employment practices and marketing of products allegedly produced by sweatshop labor. and tells shoppers "that every dime spent at Wal-Mart hurts a woman somewhere in this world." <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/walmart_bigboxday_main.html Emergency Contraception Action at Wal-Mart]</ref>

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

==External; Links==
*http://www.now.org/ Official Website

[[category:liberal activists]]

Imperialism

2007-11-29T01:21:36Z

PaulH:

Imperialism is one nation exerting political control over another people in order to gain political and economic power. Between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, European powers colonized all of the Americas, most of Africa and large parts of Asia. The Muslim Empire, which covered the Middle East and parts of Africa and Europe, existed from the seventh to the tenth centuries. In both European and Islamic imperialism, religion and the desire to convert local populations to Christianity or Islam was an important motivating factor in imperial desires, along with economic and political motivations; hence, the term "God, gold and glory" has often been used to describe imperialist motivations.

Empires typically follow four patterns in their imperialism:

1. Establish [[colonies]], like the British colonies in America, whereby the European power had direct influence or control over the colonies. Colonies can be settler colonies, which involve the displacement of local populations and resettling the land with people from the colonial country (as was the case in British North America, Kenya and Rhodesia) or the management of the country by a relatively small number of people without the migration of settlers, as was the case in India. Also, non-settler colonies could be ruled in the French model of direct rule over the colonized, or the British indirect rule model, where local groups were co-opted to deal with local populations.

2. Establish [[protectorates]], whereby the region has its own government and is an independent country, but is protected by a larger country. Puerto Rico and Guam today would be an example of that, as they are protected by the United States.

3. An even less direct form of imperialism was “spheres of influence,” in which the European country had special trading privileges over the region.

4. Finally, there was “economic imperialism,” whereby the outside influence was exerted not by a country but by a private business over a region.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Ten</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Same-sex marriage

2007-11-29T01:06:34Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".]]
Same-sex marriage is currently among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows homosexual unions under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

__TOC__

It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", which is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under the state's Constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

Same sex marriage is legal in five countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Belgium]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref> [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref> According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Attack on Pearl Harbor

2007-11-29T01:02:26Z

PaulH:

[[Image:pearlharborattack.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Battleship ''[[USS Arizona]]'' burns after her magazine was hit by a Japanese bomb.]]
'''The Attack on Pearl Harbor''' was a military air strike by the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] on the morning of December 7, 1941, that was designed to cripple the U.S. Fleet, enabling Japan to have free and unfettered access to much of the western [[Pacific Ocean]] and Southeast [[Asia]]. The attack resulted in the United States declaring war against Japan and the other [[Axis]] powers the next day.

==Prelude==
The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over [[China]] drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered [[Manchuria]], which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with [[Nazi Germany]] in the [[Axis]] Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, and embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific. Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]] sought to make America's economic policy ambiguous so that Japan might be deterred by fear of sanctions not yet imposed and won by hopes of concessions not yet granted. Such a policy obtained Roosevelt's explicit approval while at the same time it more aggressive elements in Japan to take control.

Roosevelt accepted a plan for economic sanctions presented by Treasury Assistant [[Harry Dexter White]]. On July 26, 1941, a full scale economic blockade was implemented, all Japanese financial assets in the U.S. were frozen and trade virtually ended between the two countries. Japan found itself in a position where its oil reserves would be exhausted in two years, its aluminum reserves in seven months. The chief of the Navy told the emperor that if Japan resorted to war, it would be very doubtful that it could win. The Japanese Cabinet sought desperately to reach an agreement in Washington. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8935656 Soviet penetration of the U.S. gets fresh look], Allan H Ryskind, ''Human Events'', Jan 29, 2001. Review of Romerstein and Breindel, ''The Venona Secrets''.</ref>

Because Japan was poor in natural resources, its government viewed these steps, especially the embargo on oil, as a threat to the nation's survival. Japan's leaders responded by resolving to seize the resource-rich territories of Southeast Asia, even though that move would certainly result in war with the United States. A proposal by Japanese Premier [[Fumimaro Konoe]] for a personal meeting with Roosevelt was rejected. Hull abandoned all thought of a truce with Japan and put in final shape an ultimatum. Hull's use of harsh, demanding language only strengthened the position of the war party in Tokyo. Ambassador Nomura found it impossible to reach an agreement because the demands were extreme. <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pgs. 735 - 741. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

On the 25th of November, U.S. Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]] had stated the problem as one of "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot." <ref>As Stimson explained: "In spite of the risk involved... in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors." Stimson's Testimony quoted in Basil Rauch, Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor (New York: Creative Age, 1950), p. 473.</ref> Secretary Hull solved the problem the next day. This was the conclusion of the Army Pearl Harbor Board when it reported that the Hull note "touched the button that started the war." <ref>Pearl Harbor Attack. Part 39, p. 137. [http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_3c.html]</ref>

It is significant that in the ten-point ultimatum sent to Japan on November 26, 1941, eight of the drastic demands were written by [[Harry Dexter White]]. In other words, Harry Dexter White, an agent of the Soviet Union, helped in a decisive way to draft the ultimatum that provoked war between Japan and the United States. This was the primary aim of Soviet [[foreign policy]] to advance the interests of the [[Comintern]] and the Soviet Union in the Far East <ref>Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony Kubek, Dallas Texas, Teaching Publishing Company, 1959, pg. 19. Dr. Anthony Kubek was the Editor of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]], Report on the ''Morgenthau Diaries''. The records of the Morgenthau Diary Study, 1953-65 consist largely of copies of portions of memorandums, correspondence, transcripts of meetings, and other records preserved by Secretary Morgenthau in order to document his tenure. The original records are in the custody of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY. In 1965, the SISS issued a two volume committee print entitled Morgenthau Diary (China), Edited by Dr. Anthony Kubek, containing entries from the records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China. According to Dr. Kubek, the subcommittee wanted to produce a documentary history on the subject and "also indicate the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by non-elected officials," specifically Harry Dexter White. White was a major figure in Senator William Jenner's investigation of interlocking subversion in Government departments in 1953. The bipartisan investigation lasted for twelve years, and the Subcommittee's Report took another two years to write. [http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html#103] Dr. Kubek also is a recognized expert on the subject of U.S. Naval Intelligence's Operation Magic, the effort to crack Japanese diplomatic ciphers. [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch2_bibl.pdf] 

Kubek writing in 1959 during the interwar period between the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]], two "hot wars" in the "cold war," concluded: "The United States destroyed the one power that was able to check the flow of that Red tide in the Far East. ...The present Soviet military might, which threatens our national security, is the direct product of billions of [[lend-lease]] aid, coddling of Communists in high places in the American Government and failure to understand the basic drives of world [[Communism]]. ...Never before in our history was Presidential leadership so devoid of vision and never before had the mistakes of our Chief Executive been so fraught with peril to our nation."</ref>

==Japanese plan==
The problem with the plan was the danger posed by the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]], commander of the Japanese fleet, devised a plan to immobilize the U.S. fleet at the outset of the war with a surprise attack.

The key elements in Yamamoto's plans were meticulous preparation, the achievement of surprise, and the use of aircraft carriers and naval aviation on an unprecedented scale. In the spring of 1941, Japanese carrier pilots began training in the special tactics called for by the Pearl Harbor attack plan.

In October 1941 the naval general staff gave final approval to Yamamoto's plan, which called for the formation of an attack force commanded by Vice Admiral [[Chuichi Nagumo]]. It centered around six heavy aircraft carriers accompanied by 24 supporting vessels. A separate group of submarines was to sink any American warships which escaped the Japanese carrier force.

Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the [[Kurile Islands]] and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on November 26, 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn on December 7, 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor; on November 28, Admiral Kimmel sent USS ''Enterprise'' under Rear Admiral William Halsey to deliver Marine Corps fighter planes to [[Wake Island]]. On December 4 ''Enterprise'' delivered the aircraft and on December 7 the task force was on its way back to Pearl Harbor. On December 5, Admiral Kimmel sent the USS ''Lexington'' with a task force under Rear Admiral Newton to deliver 25 scout bombers to [[Midway Island]]. The last Pacific carrier, USS ''Saratoga'', had left Pearl Harbor for upkeep and repairs on the West Coast.
==The attack==
At 6:00 a.m. on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 181 planes composed of torpedo bombers, dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters. Even as they winged south, some elements of U.S. forces on Oahu realized there was something different about this Sunday morning.

In the hours before dawn, U.S. Navy vessels spotted an unidentified submarine periscope near the entrance to Pearl Harbor. It was attacked and reported sunk by the destroyer USS ''Ward'' (DD-139) and a patrol plane. At 0700, an alert operator of an Army radar station at Opana spotted the approaching first wave of the attack force. The officers to whom those reports were relayed did not consider them significant enough to take action. The report of the submarine sinking was handled routinely, and the radar sighting was passed off as an approaching group of American planes due to arrive that morning.

The Japanese aircrews achieved complete surprise when they hit American ships and military installations on Oahu shortly before 0800. They attacked military airfields at the same time they hit the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The Navy air bases at Ford Island and Kaneohe Bay, the Marine airfield at Ewa and the Army Air Corps fields at Bellows, Wheeler and Hickam were all bombed and strafed as other elements of the attacking force began their assaults on the ships moored in Pearl Harbor. The purpose of the simultaneous attacks was to destroy the American planes before they could rise to intercept the Japanese.
[[Image:pearlharbor.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Destroyer USS ''Shaw'' explodes during the second wave.]]
Of the more than 90 ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor, the primary targets were the eight battleships anchored there. seven were moored on Battleship Row along the southeast shore of Ford Island while USS ''Pennsylvania'' (BB-38) lay in drydock across the channel. Within the first minutes of the attack all the battleships adjacent to Ford Island had taken bomb and or torpedo hits. USS ''West Virginia'' (BB-48) sank quickly. USS ''Oklahoma'' (BB-37) rolled over and capsized. At about 0810 USS ''Arizona'' (BB-39) was mortally wounded by an armor-piercing bomb which ignited the ship's forward ammunition magazine. The resulting explosion and fire killed 1,177 crewmen, the greatest loss of life on any ship that day and about half the total number of Americans killed. USS ''California'' (BB-44), USS ''Maryland'' (BB-46), USS ''Tennessee'' (BB-43) and USS ''Nevada'' (BB-36) also suffered varying degrees of damage in the first half hour of the raid.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 0830. At that time ''Nevada'', despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, ''Nevada'' beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.
==Aftermath==
When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces have paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships ''Arizona'', ''California'', ''Maryland'', ''Nevada'', ''Oklahoma'', ''Pennsylvania'', ''Tennessee'', and ''West Virginia''; cruisers ''Helena'' (CL-50), ''Honolulu'' (CL-48), and ''Raleigh'' (CL-7); the destroyers ''Cassin'' (DD-372), ''Downes'' (DD-375), ''Helm'' (DD-388), and ''Shaw'' (DD-373); seaplane tender ''Curtiss'' (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) ''Utah'' (AG-16); repair ship ''Vestal'' (AR-4); minelayer ''Oglala'' (CM-4); tug ''Sotoyomo'' (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before they had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not a strategic victory. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in [[World War II]]. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (''Arizona'', ''Oklahoma'' and ''Utah''). Most importantly, the shock and anger caused by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor united a divided nation and was translated into a wholehearted commitment to victory in World War II.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-4.htm Battle reports from the individual commands on December 7, 1941]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm]}}

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Military]]

Talk:Global warming debate

2007-11-29T00:56:08Z

PaulH: New page: If the entirety of the article is going to be a link, is there anyway to at least make it a link to something other than a "free trial offer/buy this article" page? ~~~~

If the entirety of the article is going to be a link, is there anyway to at least make it a link to something other than a "free trial offer/buy this article" page? [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 19:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Media hype

2007-11-28T21:08:22Z

PaulH:

Perhaps a better definition than "raising awareness" would be:

:a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/04/12/the_media_and_global_warming]

I don't know what "raising awareness" means, but as a religious man I'm familiar with [[indoctrination]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 28 November 2007 (EST)

George Will - people still read him? Instead of looking to someone like Will, why not use a dictionary definition to establish the meaning of the term and then go out into the wider world for example. Sorry to hear that you consider your religious teachings to be "indoctrination," too.[[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 16:08, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Media hype

2007-11-28T20:46:45Z

PaulH: Define the term, at least?

Media hype is the process through which extensive media coverage increases public awareness of a certain topic or issue. Former ccience editor Tim Radford of ''The Guardian'' ... "admitted at a recent conference that he and his fellow science journalists hype [[stem cell research]] to sell more newspapers." [http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003065.html]

Talk:Consensus science

2007-11-28T20:43:29Z

PaulH: New page: Look, I'm new here, *but* - is cobbling together a few quotes by a popular novelist with little in terms of explanation or context really an encyclopedia article? ~~~~

Look, I'm new here, *but* - is cobbling together a few quotes by a popular novelist with little in terms of explanation or context really an encyclopedia article? [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 15:43, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Theism

2007-11-28T18:03:42Z

PaulH:

'''Theism''' is the belief in a [[Deity]] or deities. According to the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'', theism more narrowly means belief in a deity that is both [[immanence|immanent]] in the world, but also [[transcendence|transcendent]], and is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm]

The opposite of theism is [[atheism]], which denies the existence of God. There is also [[agnosticism]], which is a lack of belief either way.

Variations of theism include [[polytheism]] (many gods, contrasted to [[monotheism]], one god), [[pantheism]] (all is God), [[panentheism]] (all is in God), and depending who you ask, [[deism]] (God made the Universe but then ceased to interact with it), [[polydeism]] (many Gods made the Universe but then abandoned it), [[pandeism]] (God made the Universe by becoming it), and [[panendeism]] (God made the Universe by partially becoming it). Some do not consider the deistic variations to relate to theism at all because they refer to an absent God (although the God of pandeism and panendeism is immanent, but non-interfering).

Variations of polytheism include [[monolatry]] (belief in many Gods, but worship of only one), [[henotheism]] (belief in many Gods of which one is supreme), and [[kathenotheism]] (belief in many Gods, but worship of only one at a time, because one is supreme at a time).

4 The tenuousness of the theistic position

Mother Teresa, in her later years began to doubt the existence of God.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html</ref> Many Holocaust survivors became atheists after the extreme the lived through because they realized their experience is incompatible with a kind and loving God.

5 Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Theism

Natural disasters and other horrific events tend to make people more religious and thank God for sparing them. Obvious the dead mother of three was a vile heretic who deserved to die.

6Theism and Fascism

Despite protestations to the contrary theism has been intricately linked with the fascist movement, providing intellectual underpinning for its rejection of reason, antisemitism and strict obedience and moral underpinnings, supporting dictators as stalwart defenders of the faith against communism.<ref>http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm</ref> In addition the churches were the base at which theists launched their assault against civil rights, women rights and birth control. Fortunately the action of communists and secularists from the American Communist Party and the ACLU respectively helped push forward the case from civil rights in the United States.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_communist.html</ref>

7 Criticism of Theism

7.3 Theism and Mass Murder

The ground is stained with the blood of the millions killed in the name of theism. Notorious examples include the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch hunts, the Holocaust<ref>http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html</ref>, suppression of birth control and anesthetics, the Partition of India and the ensuing wars<ref>http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html</ref>, The Sri Lankan civil war, The Yugoslavian civil war and many others. Although not all wars are caused by theism, many are.

7.5 Immoral Views

In comparison to atheists, theists are more likely to believe that the following are acceptable:

eternal torment, scapegoating, cannibalism, fascism, totalitarianism, theocracies, stoning, blasphemy laws, blue laws, prohibition and random violence against strangers for no reason other then they are different. They also believe that their views are above question no matter how many innocents are hurt, the most notorious example being witch burning and birth control suppression.

8 Reasonable Explanations of Theism

1 Fear of Death
2 Desire to Conform
3 Desire to Abdicate responsibility
4 Hope for reward
5 It feels good
6 Tradition
7 Unaware of Alternatives
8 The voices in your head

19 Other Well Known Proponents of Theism

1 [[Jesus Christ]]
2 Gandhi
3 Adolf Hitler <ref>http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html</ref>
4 [[Francisco Franco]]
5 Mussolini
6 St Francis
7 Henry the Sixth
8 Queen Isabella
9 Montezuma
10 Tojo
11 Mother Teresa
12 Vlad the Impaler
13 Pope Urban
14 Moses
15 [[Slobodan Milosovich]]

21 Quotes regarding theism

Religion is regarded by the people as true, the wise as false and the rulers as useful.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

Theism by defintion contridicts the central premises of conservativism and thus the two are incompatible. The belief in a supernatural creater contridicts the belief people are responsible for their actions, the belief in ethical relativism (God isn't bound by the same rules and neither are religious rituals), the denial of truth, reality and science (it's "metaphorically" true), the implicit statism (he's watching you) and finally its rejection of capitalism and the free market with its ban on ursury. While it is possible to be a good person and a theist, it is not possible to e a theist and a consistant conservative.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_communist.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html

[[Category:Religion]]

Nation of Islam

2007-11-28T17:42:45Z

PaulH:

The '''Nation of Islam''' ('''NOI''') is a [[racist]] [[African-American|black]] hate group, whose positions are based on radical [[Islam]]ic philosophies. Its current leader is [[Louis Farrakhan]].

==Philosophy==
Unlike mainstream Islam, which traces its roots to [[Abraham]] like [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], NOI has a race-based philosophy. They believe that black people are racially superior to other races, and that the "blue-eyed devils" (whites) were selectively bred from blacks by an evil black scientist named Yakub, whose work supposedly took hundreds of years for him and his disciples to fully whiten his creations, with the intent to enslave the black race. According to [[Malcolm X]]'s autobiography, on his pilgrimage to [[Mecca]], the Muslims there were shocked to learn of the Yakub doctrine.

NOI is also [[anti-Semitic|antisemitic]], criticizing Jews for controlling the U.S. government and the economy. It is classified as a [[hate group]] by [[SPLC]].

Many mainstream Muslims regard NOI as a [[cult]] and not a true Islamic denomination. In fact, many of them refer to NOI pejoratively as '''Farrakhanism''', after Louis Farrakhan.

==Notable members==
*[[Elijah Muhammad]]
*[[Louis Farrakhan]]
*[[Malcolm X]] (Later broke away from NOI and became a mainstream [[Muslim]], changing his name to ''Malcolm Shabazz''.)

[[Category: Hate groups]]
[[Category: Islam]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-11-28T17:39:58Z

PaulH:

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Pervez Musharraf

2007-11-28T17:29:38Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Pervez Musharraf.jpg|right]]
'''Pervez Musharraf''' (b. Delhi on August 11, 1943) became [[President]] of [[Pakistan]], via a [[coup]] on October 12, 1999. He is considered a key ally of the [[United States]] in the fight against global [[terrorism]].

Musharraf stepped down as Pakistan's military commander November 28, 2007, giving way to successor Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_on_re_as/pakistan]

::''General Pervez Musharraf, the second of three brothers, was born in Delhi on August 11, 1943. His parents chose to settle in [[Karachi]] after the creation of Pakistan. He comes from a middle-class family, his father having worked for the foreign ministry. He spent his early years in [[Turkey]], from 1949 to 1956, owing to his father, the late Syed Musharrafu-ud-din’s deputation in [[Ankara]]. He is fluent in Turkish and claims that [[Kamal Ataturk]] is his hero.'' <ref> [http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P029 Gen. Pervez Musharraf] </ref>

::Musharraf began his military career in 1964. He ''was promoted to the rank of General on 7th October 1998 and appointed Chief of Army Staff. He was given the additional charge of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee on 9th April 1999 which he relinquished in October 2001. He performed his duties as the Chief Executive of Pakistan from 12 th October 1999 to the time he became President. He is now the COAS and the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.''<ref> [http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/ Biography General Pervez Musharraf]</ref>

Musharraf is married to Begum Sehba. They have two children, Ayla and Bilal, and both are married. They have two granddaughters from Ayla; a grandson and a granddaughter from Bilal.

== See also ==

*[[Benazir Bhutto]]
*[[India]]

<gallery>
Image:Musharraf 1.jpg|Musharraf and his wife Sehba
Image:Musharraf 2.jpg|Musharraf and his wife Sehba
Image:Musharraf 3.jpg|Secretary Rice with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
Image:Musharraf 4.jpg|President Bush and President Pervez Musharraf

</gallery>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Musharraf, Pervez}}

[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:Pakistan]]

Rejection of science

2007-11-28T17:20:38Z

PaulH:

When [[science]] and [[ideology]] collide, many advocates simply discard science altogether or engage in [[deception]] campaigns which obscure what science actually says; see [[junk science]].

Red Cross

2007-11-28T17:19:38Z

PaulH:

The '''Red Cross''' is an international organization that helps wounded and imprisoned soldiers in wartime,
and during peacetime collects medical supplies and trains nurses. The organization was founded by Jean-Henri Dunant, a [[Switzerland|Swiss]] businessman, who was deeply affected by the suffering and hardship of the wounded soldiers in the Italian war for independence. In 1862, he proposed that a worldwide group of volunteers be formed to help the wounded and imprisoned in wartime. In 1863, he suggested a gathering of nations to develop such an institute. In 1864, the Swiss government held a conference with representatives of many nations who drafted the first [[Geneva Convention]]. This convention brought the Red Cross movement into existence. The organization's symbol is a red cross on a white background, the inverse of the Swiss national [[flag]].

Owing to the religious significance of the cross, in [[Islam|Islamic]] countries the organization is known as the '''Red Crescent''' and uses the eponymous symbol. In [[Israel]], a red Star of David is used and the organization is named '''Magen David Adom''' (Hebrew: מגן דוד אדום). In religious conflict zones involving two (or more) religions the respective symbols are often used side by side.

[[category:international organizations]]
[[category:medicine]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]

Stem cell

2007-11-28T17:17:28Z

PaulH: parallelism...

'''Stem cells''' have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body.
When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or to become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a [[muscle]] cell, a [[red blood cell]], or a [[brain]] cell.
Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the [[organism]] is still alive.
*Broadly speaking, a stem cell is one that – in the course of [[cell division]] and increase in the numbers of cells – is able to reproduce itself and also mature into various specialized types of cells. The stem cell with the greatest potential (totipotential) is the fertilized [[egg cell]], which is capable of developing into a complete organism. [http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html]

==Controversy over human embryonic stem cell research==
Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. wrote:
*The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over [[biotechnology]] and [[human genetics]]: Should we use [[embryonic stem cell]]s or [[adult stem cell]]s for future medical therapies? [http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html]

==See also==

*[[stem cell research]]

[[category:Biology]]

Eoghan Harris

2007-11-28T17:15:04Z

PaulH: copyedit

'''Eoghan Harris''' is an [[Irish]] opinion columnist and scriptwriter. In the 1980s he worked for the Irish state [[television]] company RTE . At the same time he was a secret member of the [[Marxist]] [[Worker's Party of Ireland]] and worked to advance the agenda of the party using his influence in RTE.<ref>[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/political-chameleon-is-bound-to-give-upper-house-some-colour-1051978.html Political chameleon is bound to give upper house some colour]</ref> The Party supported free availability of contraceptives, [[divorce]], [[abortion]] and [[gay]] rights in addition to state control of the means of production and played an important role in moving Irish people away from [[conservative]] attitudes to divorce, [[contraception]], abortion, etc.

In 1987 he wrote a play called ''"Super Sullivan"'' which was performed at the Abbey.

== See also ==

*[[Mary McAleese]]

== References ==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Harris, Eoghan}}

[[Category:Irish People]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Biographies]]

National Catholic Register

2007-11-28T17:10:13Z

PaulH:

'''The National Catholic Register''' is the oldest national [[Roman Catholic]] [[newspaper]] in the [[United States]].

The National Catholic Register began in 1927 and is a weekly paper. The newspaper follows Catholic teachings on such subjects such as [[abortion]], [[homosexual marriage]], [[stem cells|embryonic stem-cell]] research, [[cloning]], and [[in-vitro fertilization]]. It also covers issues such as poverty and the [[death penalty]].

== External links ==
* [http://www.ncregister.com/ Online Edition]

[[Category:Newspapers]]

Daily Kos

2007-11-28T17:06:50Z

PaulH: see talk

[[Image:W masthead wads.jpg|right|frame]]
The '''Daily Kos''' is a [[Leftist|left-wing]] [[blog]] that features advertisements like "DraftGore.Com ... Sign Our Petition" with a picture of a smiling [[Al Gore]] in front of what appears to be an image of the Earth from outer space.<ref>viewed Feb. 25, 2007.</ref> It also features a picture of [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush]] with a large cartoon cowboy hat.

Entries on this blog on February 25, 2007 range from gossip (such as teaser about eviscerating coverage of [[Mitt Romney]]'s polygamist ancestors) to subjective vulgarity.

CBS News has recently suggested that supposedly liberal blogs (not necessarily the ''Daily Kos'') may be hurting their favored candidates, as they may provide some political "dirt" for the other side:<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/23/opinion/main2507660.shtml</ref>

: [A] former aide to Joe Lieberman advised the party to refuse bloggers access and "deny them jobs that confer party approval." ... [P]lenty of Democrats were upset with the netroots.

This statement on behalf of Lieberman was, of course, ironic, considering he no longer identifies with the Democratic party himself, and ran in the general election on a separate party line named "Connecticut for Lieberman," having been denied the Democratic party's nomination.

[[Bill O'Reilly]] has recently leading a campaign against the Daily Kos, and claimed that despite the fact that some Americans may disagree with its views, most of the Democratic candidates for president were at its yearly convention, the Yearly Kos, including [[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[John Edwards]]

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==External link==
* [http://www.dailykos.com/ The ''Daily Kos'']

[[category: blogs]]

Talk:Daily Kos

2007-11-28T17:05:35Z

PaulH: "Supposed"?

Words like "mindless" and "disrespectful" are opinion; they have no place in an encylcopedia entry.

== "Supposed"? ==

It's either a left wing blog or it isn't a left wing blog. Who is "supposing" that it is, anyways? Revert if you have good reason. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Condoleezza Rice

2007-11-28T15:31:43Z

PaulH: revert vandalism

[[Image:Bncjcfjuh.jpg|right|thumb|Condoleeza Rice]]
'''Condoleezza Rice''' is the 66th [[United States Secretary of State]], and the first [[African-American]] woman to hold the post. Prior to assuming her duties as Secretary of State, she served as [[National Security Advisor]] to [[President]] [[George W. Bush]]. Her objective of transformational diplomacy is to, "work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people -- and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system." As she stated at her confirmation hearing, "we must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now."<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Condoleezza_Rice.shtml Condoleezza Rice]. Newsmax.</ref>

== Earlier Life and Education ==

Dr. Rice earned her B. A. in [[politics|political]] [[science]] from the [[University of Denver]] in 1974 at age 19. The following year, she recieved her M.A. from the University of [[Notre Dame]]. She returned to the University of Denver, where she was awarded the Ph.D. in 1981. In addition to [[English]], she speaks [[Russian]], [[French]], [[German]], and [[Spanish]].

== Career In Academia ==

Condoleeza was first an Assistant Professor at [[Stanford]] (1981–1987). She eventually earned tenure, becoming an Associate Professor (1987–1993), then Professor, and later Provost.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/15/crice.html Provost].</ref> She was the first black, first woman and the youngest person to be Provost.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/black.history/stories/13.rice/index.html Hoover Institute].</ref> She was also a [[Hoover Institute]] fellow. Her primary expertise was the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Warsaw Pact]] nations.

As Provost, Dr. Rice balanced the budget, even though the deficit was said to be impossibly large, a prediction which Rice happily proved wrong. <ref>[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1999/june9/rice-69.html Stanford University].</ref>

== Career in Joint Chiefs and National Security Council ==

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From 1989 to March 1991 she directed and also directed in a senior position, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. She was also Special Assistant to the President of National Security Affairs. Rice was instrumental to help with developing Bush's and James Baker's policies to make full reunification of Germany. By 1990 she was already George H. W. Bush's principal advisor on the Soviet Union and one of his assistants for National Security Affairs. She impressed President [[George H.W. Bush]], so much, that he said to [[Gorbachev]] she "tells me everything I know about the [[Soviet Union]]."[http://dir.salon.com/story/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Rice returned to her teaching position at Stanford, although she consulted on the former USSR for many. [[Pete Wilson]] appointed her to a bipartisan committee that had been formed to draw new lines for voting. She was also in a Federal Advisory Committee on men and woman training in the Military.

She was helping George W. Bush for his victorious campaign for President in 2000, a later became a key advisor. She said in departure from the failed Clinton policies of the 1990s and an articulation of a new Bush plan at the convention speech “...America's armed forces are not a global police force. They are not the world's 911.”[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/ricetext080100.htm]

== Advising of National Security ==

On 2000, Rice was appointed National Security Advisor and no longer served at Stanford. She was the first woman ever to serve in the position. Over 2001, Rice worked with CIA Director George Tenet almost daily on terrorism and national security issues.

In early 2003, former [[First Lady]] and now Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] spoke of disarming [[Saddam Hussein]]: "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming he would have been much more forthcoming...there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." Dr. Rice repeated these sentiments in an article in the ''[[New York Times]]'' entitled ''Why We Know Iraq Is Lying,'' "instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html]

Leading up to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Rice campaigned for the incumbent president. She used this moment to state her belief that Saddam's government in Iraq contributed to the instability that produced the opportunity for a terrorist attack like the 9/11 attacks on America. At a Pittsburgh, she said "While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable, [and] was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11."

== Business ==

*Carnegie Corporation
*Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
*Charles Schwab Corporation
*Chevron Corporation
*Hewlett Packard
*Rand Corporation
*Transamerica Corporation
*William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
*KQED
*J.P. Morgan Chase
*University of Notre Dame
*San Francisco Symphony
*Center for New Generation
*California and East Menlo Park
*Vice President Boys and Girls Clubs of America of San Francisco
*National Council for Soviet and East European Studies
*Stanford Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition
*Woodrow Wilson Center

== Writings ==

*Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (1995)
*The Gorbachev Era (1986)
*The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance (1984).

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Rice, Condoleeza}}
[[Category:Educators]]
[[category:United States Government]]
==External links==
*[http://www.indepthinfo.com/condoleezza-rice/index.shtml Biography of Condoleezza Rice]

Condoleezza Rice

2007-11-28T15:26:35Z

PaulH: revert vandalism

User talk:DanH

2007-11-28T05:29:52Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|left|'''DanH''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilence against fascists, liberals, vandals & trolls.]]

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

==Blocked User NW==

Sorry about that, I didn't know he was blocked yet. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Evidence of evolution==
What's with the moving my friend? It's intended to be an encyclopedic article about the subject, not an personal essay of some sort. [[User:Honestyandtruth|Honestyandtruth]] 00:00, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

== I have sent you an important email about communists and the gay conspiracy! ==

I sent one also to Rob. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Funny ==

I enjoyed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:ChavezFan&diff=324719&oldid=324649 this], and thought I'd let you know. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 16:09, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Endorse block==
I endorse to block on [[User:Maestro]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Maestro contribs]; we may have to review all these edits and consider other actions. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:32, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, thanks for unblocking me. Never thought I'd say this to a Jayhawker, but you're okay. After that whupping your football team dished out last week, you might even get this Mizzou grad to cheer for KU. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Anything to keep my mind of the Rams. Jeez...BTW, any chance on getting my user page unblocked when my probation expires? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 08:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:If he is on probation he should have the opportunity to prove his quality having his talk page open to work. Is it truth? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:37, 8 November 2007 (EST)

*Joaquin, whenever any editor is restored, their pages should be unlocked and/or re-created. If that does not happen, it is usually just a mistake. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Wes Clarke. ==

My bad on the spelling. Sorry. [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 21:50, 4 November 2007 (EST)

==[[User:Oi]]==

What, no warning? I thought you took the pledge. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:46, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:All the pledge says is I won't block for no reason. :) Also, I think "Oi" is a term associated with skinhead culture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

::Jolly good. And here's an early Christmas present for you: [[Image:Dewtree.jpg|right|thumb|For Christmas time]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you! That should last me through the season. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:06, 7 November 2007 (EST)

*Ed is like Father Christmas! How magical...a tree made from Mountain Dew cans! :P --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey Dan! So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks! (Oh, and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest, we must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]23:59, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Vandal==

Block this vandal please, thanks. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

== Go, go, go ==

42 +++++++++++++++++ a lot more... gooooooooo --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:29, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Unblock Article ==

Hi Dan, could you please unblock [[Fascism]]? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Kentucky ==

Hi, Dan, I just wanted to leave you a note about your edit to [[Kentucky]]. While Governor Fletcher lost the recent election, he still is governor. I have re-listed him as such, as his term does not end until next month. Thanks, [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That sounds accurate. We just have to remember to change it on December 11! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Will do! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== See also ==

I am sorry, but I '''do not''' agree in what you are doing in Salma and Elvis. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you for your reply. Salmas' links were discussed with TK at it's time. Elvis' are quite related as they send you to rock music. But, if you think it is better to change them let me know and I will find some ones more appropriated. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:*Joaquín, the issue was discussed with Mr.Schlafly, and the "See Also" should be as specific as possible. I think you would agree that "Rock Music" is breathtakingly broad, eh? Perhaps you could make sure they are more specific? Thank you for your patience, my friend! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:22, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::OK. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:33, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==Westboro Baptist Church==
Dan, Do you mind if we unlock [[Westboro Baptist Church]] to allow for adding some content? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Fine with me! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==MU vs. KU==

That's gotta hurt. Were you there? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 02:01, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Yep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== MASS REMOVAL??? ==

Where exactly did I "mass remove" information as you allege on my page? All I have done has been to copyedit and work on clarity and presentation. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Check the edit history - that was someone else - the paragraph in question was not there when I edited. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

User talk:DanH

2007-11-28T05:27:05Z

PaulH: MASS REMOVAL???

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-11-28T05:25:34Z

PaulH: This sentence is gramatically wrong...

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Same-sex marriage

2007-11-28T05:21:32Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".]]
Same-sex marriage is currently among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows homosexual unions under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

__TOC__

It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under the state's Constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

Same sex marriage is legal in five countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Belgium]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref> [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref> According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Georgi Zhukov

2007-11-28T04:52:49Z

PaulH:

'''Georgi Zhukov''' (1896-1974) was a military leader for the [[Soviet Union]] during [[World War II]] and afterwards.

Following the [[Battle of Khalkyn Gol]] in 1939 where his forces scored a decisive victory over the [[Japan]]ese, Zhukov was made a [[Hero of the Soviet Union]].

His forces defeated the Germans at [[Stalingrad]] in 1943 and next lifted the [[Siege of Leningrad]] in 1944. He led the final attack on Germany and the ultimate capture of [[Berlin]] in 1945. A hero, after the war he commanded the Soviet zone in occupied Germany.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Zhukov, Georgi}}
[[Category: World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Village Voice

2007-11-28T04:48:58Z

PaulH:

The '''''Village Voice''''' is a leading extreme [[liberal]] free weekly newspaper published in [[New York City]]. It spices its commentary and articles with occasional profanity and sometimes cartoons mocking [[Republican Party]] officials, such as Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Founded in 1955 in a two-bedroom apartment in [[Greenwich Village]] by Dan Wolf, Ed Fancher and Norman Mailer, the ''Village Voice'' remains one of the most influential voices of the [[American]] far [[left]]. The offices of the paper are at Cooper Square in the East Village.
[[category:media]]

Black Panther Party

2007-11-28T04:45:29Z

PaulH: copy editing

'''The Black Panther Party''' (originally named the ''The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense'') was a [[United States]]-based militant organization that operated from 1966 to 1971. The Panthers had thousands of members and spread across several major cities. In 1969, then-director of the[[FBI| Federal Bureau of Intelligence]], [[J. Edgar Hoover]], said, "The Black Panthers are the greatest threat to the internal security of [[America]].”<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/13/interviews/seale/</ref>

==History==

The Party was organized in 1966 by two [[Oakland]] college students, [[Huey Percy Newton]] and [[Bobby Seale]], to fight the [[American]] government as a "racist [and] capitalist state". The group criticized in particular the American economic structure, callinf for the government to change to a more [[communist]]ic economy. Contrary to [[civil rights]] activists such as [[Martin Luther King]], the Black Panthers called for violent action to settle racial disputes. After King's assassination in 1968, the group began to arm its members as well as provide them with [[military]] training.

The Black Panthers marched into the [[California]] state capital fully armed, leading to the arrest of some group members. Because many prominent Panther members had [[criminal]] records, the police began to confront the party's leadership. The confrontation led to the death of more then 29 police officers as well as Black Panther members.<ref>http://www.stanford.edu/group/blackpanthers/</ref> Bobby Steale, one of the founders, was arrested after the confrontation. This raid had the effect of limiting the Black Panthers' ability to function. The leaders of the now split-apart group sought asylum. This led to airline hijackings in [[Cuba]], [[Algeria]] and [[North Korea]], where they requested political asylum.

==Partnership==

The Black Panther Party carried out many organizational initiatives along with arming mmbers and rioting. They formed links with organizations such as the Peace and Freedom Party, the Poor People's March, the Brown Berets, [[Cesar Chavez]] and with other farm labor movements; the American Indian Movement; and the Young Puerto Rican Brothers.
Seales claimed that the reasons for the joining of other coalitions was because the organization was for "all power to all the people, not just black power.”<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/13/interviews/seale/</ref> They also worked with the Preventive Medical Health Care Clinics and the Breakfast for Children Program, which gave the militant group good publicity.

==Membership==

Two years after the Black Panthers, founding, in 1998, the organization counted 400 hundred members, mainly from the poor parts of Oakland. When [[Martin Luther King]] died membership grew to five thousand with over 45 chapters and branches. The organization also published a newspaper which by 1969 circulated to over 250,000 subscribers.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=bpp ATTAC TERROR Report Black Panther Party]

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Scope

2007-11-28T04:36:23Z

PaulH: Hardly encyclopedic. But had a superfluous apostrophe.

'''Scope''' is a major brand of [[antiseptic]] [[mouthwash]]. Its top competitor is [[Listerine]]. Scope is produced by [[Procter and Gamble]].

[[Category:Hygiene]]

Arab American

2007-11-28T04:27:25Z

PaulH: more copy editing

[[Image:Arab American.jpg|right]]
[[Image:Arabs.jpg|left]]
'''Arab-Americans''' are [[Americans]] of [[Arab]] ancestry. Over 4 million Americans trace their ancestry to Arab countries, and the vast majority are citizens of the United States. Over 75% are [[Christians]], many having escaped religious persecution in their homelands. Today, one-third of Arab-Americans live in [[California]], [[New York]], and [[Michigan]]. They are better-educated than the average American. The average Arab-American entrepreneur may have a higher personal and household income than a non-Arab-American counterpart in most regions of the United States. <ref>[http://www.aafusa.org/arabamericans_welleducated.htm Arab American demographics]</ref>
The overall U.S. population grew by 13% in the 1990s, while the Arab-American increased by 38%.

A majority of Arab-Americans, around 62%, originate from [[Lebanon]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]] and [[Jordan]].

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Arab-Americans have gotten more attention than they might have wished. Last year, a 15% increase across the nation in incidents of violence, discrimination and harassment against Muslims was reported.

<blockquote>
''In the United States, we, Arab-Americans and Muslims have been maliciously targeted, stripped of our rights, and positioned outside the constitutional framework of this country. A new COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program, FBI) has been unleashed against our homes and living rooms, as our fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters are plucked away and thrown into unknown prison cells. Thus, in a continuum of history, we stand with African Americans, Japanese Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and all others in the painful struggle for justice. From them all, we take our cue, for they are our predecessors and our partners in this long march.''
<ref>[http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda2004/iraq/arabes-eeuu_16-01-04.html Open letter from the Arab-American and Muslim Community to the US Anti-War Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Organizations like the "American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee" are working to empower Arab Americans and defend the civil rights of all people of Arab heritage in the United States. <ref>[http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=119 What is ADC?]</ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Arab-american girl.jpg|right]]
*[[Arab]]
*[[Islam]]
*[[Arabic language]]
*[[Saudi Arabia]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Ramadan]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Marcel Khalife.jpg|thumb|Marcel Khalife]]
*[http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/ Arab American National Museum]
*[http://www.aauj.edu/AAUJ_site/index.php The Arab American University]
*[http://www.aafusa.org/ American Arab Forum]
*[http://www.aaiusa.org/ Arab American Institute]
*[http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/ The Arab-American News]
*[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/12/with_holidays_a_vow_for_better_jewish_muslim_relations/ A vow for better Jewish, Muslim relations in US]
*[http://www.arabcenter.net/ Arab Center of Washington]
*[http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/american-muslims-ready-to-attack-usa/ American Muslims Ready to Attack USA?] by [[Sher Zieve]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Image:Arab demographics.jpg|Arab-American demographics]]

[[Category:Politics]]

Arab American

2007-11-28T04:26:36Z

PaulH:

[[Image:Arab American.jpg|right]]
[[Image:Arabs.jpg|left]]
'''Arab-Americans''' are [[Americans]] of [[Arab]] ancestry. Over 4 million Americans trace their ancestry to Arab countries, and the vast majority are citizens of the United States. Over 75% are [[Christians]], many having escaped religious persecution in their homelands. Today, one-third of Arab-Americans live in [[California]], [[New York]], and [[Michigan]]. They are better-educated than the average American. The average Arab-American entrepreneur may have a higher personal and household income than a non-Arab-American counterpart in most regions of the United States. <ref>[http://www.aafusa.org/arabamericans_welleducated.htm Arab American demographics]</ref>
The overall U.S. population grew 13% in the 1990s and the Arab-American up to 38%.

A majority of Arab-Americans, around 62%, originate from [[Lebanon]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]] and [[Jordan]].

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Arab-Americans have gotten more attention than they might have wished. Last year, a 15% increase across the nation in incidents of violence, discrimination and harassment against Muslims was reported.

<blockquote>
''In the United States, we, Arab-Americans and Muslims have been maliciously targeted, stripped of our rights, and positioned outside the constitutional framework of this country. A new COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program, FBI) has been unleashed against our homes and living rooms, as our fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters are plucked away and thrown into unknown prison cells. Thus, in a continuum of history, we stand with African Americans, Japanese Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and all others in the painful struggle for justice. From them all, we take our cue, for they are our predecessors and our partners in this long march.''
<ref>[http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda2004/iraq/arabes-eeuu_16-01-04.html Open letter from the Arab-American and Muslim Community to the US Anti-War Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Organizations like the "American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee" are working to empower Arab Americans and defend the civil rights of all people of Arab heritage in the United States. <ref>[http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=119 What is ADC?]</ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Arab-american girl.jpg|right]]
*[[Arab]]
*[[Islam]]
*[[Arabic language]]
*[[Saudi Arabia]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Ramadan]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Marcel Khalife.jpg|thumb|Marcel Khalife]]
*[http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/ Arab American National Museum]
*[http://www.aauj.edu/AAUJ_site/index.php The Arab American University]
*[http://www.aafusa.org/ American Arab Forum]
*[http://www.aaiusa.org/ Arab American Institute]
*[http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/ The Arab-American News]
*[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/12/with_holidays_a_vow_for_better_jewish_muslim_relations/ A vow for better Jewish, Muslim relations in US]
*[http://www.arabcenter.net/ Arab Center of Washington]
*[http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/american-muslims-ready-to-attack-usa/ American Muslims Ready to Attack USA?] by [[Sher Zieve]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Image:Arab demographics.jpg|Arab-American demographics]]

[[Category:Politics]]

Gabriel García Márquez

2007-11-28T04:23:00Z

PaulH: Not a complete sentence, copy edit

'''Gabriel García Márquez''' (b. 1928) is a Colombian Nobel Prize-winning author of novels and short stories. He spends much of his time in [[Mexico]] City.

''One Hundred Years of Solitude'' (1967), is the best-selling of all books originally written in the Spanish language (English translation by Gregory Rabassa 1970). Other important works by Marques include: ''Nobody Writes to the Colonel'' 1961, ''The Autumn of the Patriarch'' 1975, ''Chronicle of a Death Foretold'' 1981, ''Love in the Time of Cholera'' 1985, ''The General in His Labyrinth'' 1989 and ''Of Love and Other Demons'' 1994. In 2002, he published the memoir ''Vivir para contarla''.

His novel ''One Hundred Years of Solitude'' gave rise to the term "magic realism" which is a literary style originated in [[Latin America]] that combines fantastic elements with realism.

== External links ==

*[http://www.themodernword.com/gabo/ Gabriel García Márquez]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1982/ The Nobel Prize in Literature 1982]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0305781/ Gabriel García Márquez] Internet Movie Database Inc.

 
[[Image:Fuentes-Garcia Marquez-De la Fuente.jpg|thumb|300px|center|De la Fuente-[[Carlos Fuentes]]-Garcia Marquez]]

[[Category:Literature]]

Carlos Fuentes

2007-11-28T04:21:32Z

PaulH: Not a complete sentence

[[Image:Carlos Fuentes.jpg|left]]
'''Carlos Fuentes Macías ''' (born on November 11, 1928) [[Mexican]] writer. One of Mexico's best-known citizens, Fuentes received a law degree at Mexico's National Autonomous University.

Fuentes is considered one of the best-known living novelists and essayists in the Spanish-speaking world.

Some of his works include: ''La región más transparente'', Where the Air Is Clear (1959),
''La muerte de Artemio Cruz'', The Death of Artemio Cruz (1962), ''Gringo viejo'' The Old Gringo (1985) and ''Contra Bush'' (2004).

Fuentes' novel ''Gringo viejo'', the first American bestseller written by a Mexican author, was filmed as ''Old Gringo'' (1989) starring Gregory Peck and [[Jane Fonda]].

In 1999 he received the Mexican Medal "Belisario Domínguez".

== External links ==

*[http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history/jtuck/jtcfuentes.html Carlos Fuentes]
*[http://www.signandsight.com/features/361.html In praise of the novel]

[[Image:Fuentes-Garcia Marquez-De la Fuente.jpg|thumb|300px|center|De la Fuente-Fuentes-[[Gabriel García Márquez|Garcia Marquez]]]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fuentes, Carlos}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Literature]]

National Public Radio

2007-11-28T04:20:38Z

PaulH: best word

'''National Public Radio''', (NPR), is a not-for-profit organization which produces and broadcasts various [[radio]] programs including news, talk shows, and entertainment. The audience of NPR listeners has grown exponentially since the organization's inception in 1970. Currently, NPR reports that 26 million [[Americans]] tune in each week.<ref>http://www.npr.org/about/growth.html</ref> Not only does NPR boast a large weekly audience it also produces the two most listened-to radio programs on public radio: ''[[Morning Edition]]'' and ''[[All Things Considered]]''. A November 2005 Poll showed NPR to be the most trusted radio-broadcast news network in the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6282871.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/National Public Radio|Articles about '''National Public Radio''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Bobby Abreu

2007-11-28T04:18:38Z

PaulH: Superfluous apostrophe, copyedit

'''Bobby Abreu''' (born March 11, 1974 in Aragua, [[Venezuela]]) is a [[Major League Baseball]] right fielder for the [[New York Yankees]]. In his professional career he has played with the [[Houston Astros]] (1996 -1997), [[Philadelphia Phillies]] (1998-2006) and Yankees (2006 -) after the Phillies traded him to the Yankees in the middle of the 2006 season<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2534459</ref>. In 2004, Abreu won the [[Home Run Derby]] contest with a record breaking 41 total home runs. Abreu will remain with the Yankees until at least 2009, after having his 2008 option year exercised by the team on November 2, 2007.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=110029&statType=1 Career Stats]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=110029 MLB.com Players Page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Abreu, Bobby}}

[[Category:Baseball players]]
[[Category:New York Yankees Players]]

Lech Wałęsa

2007-11-28T04:16:38Z

PaulH:

'''Lech Wałęsa''' (born 1943) was a leader in [[Solidarity]], a [[Poland|Polish]] anti-Communist labour organization that arose in the port city of Gdansk in the 1980s. Poland, was at the time, a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] satellite nation. In 1980, Walesa led a strike at the Gdansk shipyard, which led to strikes throughout Poland for workers' rights. He was awarded the 1983 [[Nobel Peace Prize]] for his actions. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1983/walesa-bio.html</ref>

In 1990, he was elected president of Poland, and served until 1995.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Walsea,Lech}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]

Era of the Common Man

2007-11-28T04:10:30Z

PaulH: Incorrect capitalization, and women did not get the vote until much later.

The '''Era of the Common Man''' was the time in American history marked by significant expansion of male suffrage. Although most often associated with the government under President [[Jackson]], the Era of the Common Man began as early as the 1790s.<ref>US Government and Politics</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:United States Government]]

Entitlements

2007-11-28T04:08:29Z

PaulH: Number agreement

'''Entitlements''' are benefits which the [[government]] provides to Americans who qualify because of their age, income, and/or status.

Example include children who live below the poverty line, the disabled, and veterans.

[[Category:United States Government]]

Go

2007-11-28T04:06:50Z

PaulH:

'''Go''' is a two-player, strategic turn based board game. It originated in [[China]], probably in the third millenium BC, and is very popular in [[Japan]] and [[Korea]] as well. It didn't reach [[Europe]] and [[America]] until the end of the 19th century.

The rules of the game are quite simple, involving the placing of black and white stones on a grid, and attempting to control squares on the grid by surrounding them with stones of one's own color. Despite the simple rules, the game is strategically very deep, even more complex than [[chess]]. Unlike chess, computer programs for playing Go are considered highly inferior to most human players.<ref>[http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html "Comparison between Go and Chess"], Comparison between Go and Chess by Milton N. Bradley.</ref>.

==Reference==
<references />

[[Category:board games]]