https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=TadghOB 2026-10-01T03:10:29Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychosocial&diff=678929 2009-06-27T23:14:47Z

<p>TadghOB: spelling</p> <hr /> <div>'''Psychosocial''' is defined by [[Merriam-Webster]] online dictionary as something &quot;involving both [[psychology|psychological]] and social aspects.&lt;ref&gt;http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosocial&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Psychology]]<br /> [[Category:Sociology]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Health_care&diff=678921 2009-06-27T22:16:38Z

<p>TadghOB: /* External links */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Health care''' is the prevention, treatment, and management of [[illness]] and the preservation of mental and physical [[well being]]. It usually involves [[preventive medicine]] as well as [[drugs]] and [[surgery]].<br /> <br /> In the [[United States of America]], people pay for health care using [[insurance]]. In other countries throughout the world, the government raises taxes in order to provide &quot;[[socialized medicine]]&quot;. This has the effect of generally less efficient health care, as well as providing a disincentive to work.<br /> <br /> ==Politics of health care==<br /> <br /> [[Robert Moffitt]] said:<br /> *Liberal candidates generally embrace expanding government programs. Expanding government control over the financing and delivery of medical services will guarantee even bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and increasingly detailed regulations governing the delivery of care. Conservative candidates generally emphasize the need to re-energize the market and make individuals and families the key decision-makers in the system. [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/couricandco/entry3152298.shtml]<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> *[[Health insurance]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427 ''Denver Post'', Debunking Canadian Health Care, 7/6/2009].<br /> *[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0627/1224249653984.html ''Irish Times'', Apartheid Nature of our Health System, 27/6/2009].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Medicine]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Health_care&diff=678877 2009-06-27T19:13:44Z

<p>TadghOB: /* See also */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Health care''' is the prevention, treatment, and management of [[illness]] and the preservation of mental and physical [[well being]]. It usually involved [[preventive medicine]] as well as [[drugs]] and [[surgery]].<br /> <br /> In the [[United States of America]], people pay for health care using [[insurance]]. In other countries throughout the world, the government raises taxes in order to provide &quot;[[socialized medicine]]&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Politics of health care==<br /> <br /> [[Robert Moffitt]] said:<br /> *Liberal candidates generally embrace expanding government programs. Expanding government control over the financing and delivery of medical services will guarantee even bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and increasingly detailed regulations governing the delivery of care. Conservative candidates generally emphasize the need to re-energize the market and make individuals and families the key decision-makers in the system. [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/couricandco/entry3152298.shtml]<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> *[[health insurance]]<br /> *[http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427 ''Denver Post'', Debunking Canadian Health Care, 6/7/2009].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Medicine]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Health_care&diff=678876 2009-06-27T19:13:25Z

<p>TadghOB: /* See also */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Health care''' is the prevention, treatment, and management of [[illness]] and the preservation of mental and physical [[well being]]. It usually involved [[preventive medicine]] as well as [[drugs]] and [[surgery]].<br /> <br /> In the [[United States of America]], people pay for health care using [[insurance]]. In other countries throughout the world, the government raises taxes in order to provide &quot;[[socialized medicine]]&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Politics of health care==<br /> <br /> [[Robert Moffitt]] said:<br /> *Liberal candidates generally embrace expanding government programs. Expanding government control over the financing and delivery of medical services will guarantee even bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and increasingly detailed regulations governing the delivery of care. Conservative candidates generally emphasize the need to re-energize the market and make individuals and families the key decision-makers in the system. [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/couricandco/entry3152298.shtml]<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> *[[health insurance]]<br /> *[http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427 ''Denver Post'', Debunking Canadian Health Care, 6/7/2009.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Medicine]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Commonly_misspelled_words&diff=678873 2009-06-27T19:08:09Z

<p>TadghOB: </p> <hr /> <div>Add words to the top or bottom of the list. No need to &lt;s&gt;alphabitize&lt;/s&gt; alphabetize them.&lt;br /&gt;<br /> ''Remember: you should not fix spelling on User, Talk, and Debate pages.''<br /> <br /> <br /> # {{misspelled|abstinance|abstinence}}<br /> # {{misspelled|accidently|accidentally}}<br /> # {{misspelled|accomodate|accommodate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|albiet|albeit}}<br /> # {{misspelled|alot|a lot}}<br /> # {{misspelled|Applachian|Appalachian}}<br /> # {{misspelled|annoint|anoint}}<br /> # {{misspelled|arguement|argument}}<br /> # {{misspelled|batallion|battalion}}<br /> # {{misspelled|brocolli|broccoli}}<br /> # {{misspelled|cemetary|cemetery}}<br /> # {{misspelled|Commmonwealth|Commonwealth}}<br /> # {{misspelled|concensus|consensus}}<br /> # {{misspelled|cooly|coolly}}<br /> # {{misspelled|counrty|country}}<br /> # {{misspelled|decieve|deceive}}<br /> # {{misspelled|definately|definitely}}<br /> # {{misspelled|desparate|desperate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|dessicate|desiccate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|developement |development}}<br /> # {{misspelled|disippate|dissipate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|dispair|despair}}<br /> # {{misspelled|drunkeness|drunkenness}}<br /> # {{misspelled|ecstacy|ecstasy}}<br /> # {{misspelled|ect.|etc.}}<br /> # {{misspelled|embarassment|embarrassment}}<br /> # {{misspelled|expresso|espresso}}<br /> # {{misspelled|excede|exceed}}<br /> # {{misspelled|existance|existence}}<br /> # {{misspelled|fictious|fictitious}}<br /> # {{misspelled|follwing|following}}<br /> # {{misspelled|fourty|forty}}<br /> # {{misspelled|goddes|goddess}}<br /> # {{misspelled|godesses|goddesses}}<br /> # {{misspelled|harrass|harass}}<br /> # {{misspelled|homeport|home port}}<br /> # {{misspelled|inadvertant|inadvertent}}<br /> # {{misspelled|independant|independent}}<br /> # {{misspelled|indispensible|indispensable}}<br /> # {{misspelled|innoculate|inoculate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|insistant|insistent}}<br /> # {{misspelled|intellegence|intelligence}}<br /> # {{misspelled|intellegent|intelligent}}<br /> # {{misspelled|irresistable|irresistible}}<br /> # {{misspelled|irritible|irritable}}<br /> # {{misspelled|liason|liaison}}<br /> # {{misspelled|liquify|liquefy}}<br /> # {{misspelled|millenium|millennium}}<br /> # {{misspelled|miniscule|minuscule}}<br /> # {{misspelled|mispell|misspell}}<br /> # {{misspelled|mispelled|misspelled}}<br /> # {{misspelled|mispelling|misspelling}}<br /> # {{misspelled|momento|memento}}<br /> # {{misspelled|ocassion|occasion}}<br /> # {{misspelled|occured|occurred}}<br /> # {{misspelled|occurence|occurrence}}<br /> # {{misspelled|occuring|occurring}}<br /> # {{misspelled|pennisula|peninsula}}<br /> # {{misspelled|persue|pursue}}<br /> # {{misspelled|prepetrator|perpetrator}}<br /> # {{misspelled|priviledge|privilege}}<br /> # {{misspelled|reccomend|recommend}}<br /> # {{misspelled|recieve|receive}}<br /> # {{misspelled|refered|referred}}<br /> # {{misspelled|relible|reliable}}<br /> # {{misspelled|rememberance|remembrance}}<br /> # {{misspelled|repitition|repetition}}<br /> # {{misspelled|sacreligious|sacrilegious}}<br /> # {{misspelled|seperate|separate}}<br /> # {{misspelled|seperated|separated}}<br /> # {{misspelled|seperates|separates}}<br /> # {{misspelled|seperation|separation}}<br /> # {{misspelled|seige|siege}}<br /> # {{misspelled|sieze|seize}}<br /> # {{misspelled|subpena|subpoena}}<br /> # {{misspelled|supersede|supercede}}<br /> # {{misspelled|symetrically|symmetrically}}<br /> # {{misspelled|teh|the}}<br /> # {{misspelled|thrity|thirty}}<br /> # {{misspelled|triumpant|triumphant}}<br /> # {{misspelled|tyrrany|tyranny}}<br /> # {{misspelled|wierd|weird}}<br /> # {{misspelled|yeild|yield}}<br /> # {{misspelled|uneccesary|unnecessary}}<br /> # {{misspelled|usally|usually}}<br /> <br /> ==Need correction==<br /> # .<br /> <br /> [[Category:Conservapedia Maintenance]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheist_vs_Secular&diff=678729 2009-06-27T15:07:50Z

<p>TadghOB: </p> <hr /> <div>The words '''atheist''' and '''secular''' can be easy to confuse, but they have subtly different meanings. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god, and therefore an atheist institution (for example) is one that openly holds the position that there is no god. [[Richard Dawkins]] is an atheist, and the &quot;Out Campaign&quot; is an atheist institution.<br /> <br /> Someone who is secular, by contrast, does not display any belief or religion, regardless of their actual views. A secular institution is one that does not allow religion of any form. The French and American public school systems are secular.<br /> <br /> Atheism is protected by the [[First Amendment]] as freedom of expression. However, secularism prevents freedom of expression, and can therefore be said to be contrary to the First Amendment.<br /> <br /> Note that many but not all secularists are atheists, and vice versa. <br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> *School prayer: If someone chooses not to participate in [[school prayer]], they might be an atheist. If someone outlaws school prayer for all, they are secular.<br /> *A librarian who does not read the [[Bible]] may be an atheist. A librarian who refuses to stock a copy of the Bible is likely secular.<br /> *One who disagrees with Christian thought on the internet is an atheist. One who attempts to suppress it is secular.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Atheism]]<br /> [[Category:Secularism]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act&diff=678457 2009-06-26T13:33:55Z

<p>TadghOB: add more details about legislation</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act''' is &quot;a law to help protect the next generation of Americans from growing up with a deadly habit that so many of our generation have lived with&quot;, according to [[President Obama]]. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124566796165436743.html]<br /> *The law will give the FDA power to band candy and fruit flavoured cigarettes, force cigarette packs to carry larger, graphic warnings, forbid the use of terms like &quot;mild&quot; and &quot;low tar&quot; in tobacco advertisements, and further restrict advertising of tobacco products. [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/12/tobacco.bill/index.html]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States Law]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=676716 2009-06-20T13:02:36Z

<p>TadghOB: /* Patricia */</p> <hr /> <div>Archive: <br /> [[/1|01]] <br /> [[/2|02]]<br /> [[/3|03]]<br /> <br /> == Just to make sure ==<br /> <br /> Hey DeanS! So just to make sure you know - the delete proposal that I put on the talk page you deleted was mean for the main page ([[Template:Infobox Secondary school]]) - I couldn't put it on the main page itself because it's protected.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:10, 3 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:49, 3 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thank you for unblocking me, DeanS, and I'm sorry for going to another administrator, but I could not find your email address on your profile page--I'm new and didn't know that it's on the left side of the screen or that Conservapedia has that addition. Happy trails, Avalerion.<br /> :No problem. I had previously contacted other administrators about your account and we resolved the issue. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:35, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::I edited and provided the links, if you would like to check it out and make sure that I obeyed the rules of Conservapedia. Avalerion.<br /> <br /> I need your help. I have an administrator saying that &quot;truth&quot; is anti-American when it speaks of the battles between the &quot;Federalists&quot; and &quot;Anti-Federalists&quot;. How do I alert other administrators to have them settle the dispute? [[User:Avalerion|Avalerion]]<br /> :::Avalerion is not interested in truth--he wants to demean and delegitimitze the US Constitution and the US government, and ridicule and attack the founding fathers as well. He needs &quot;help&quot; all right. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:43, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::First off, I am not a 'he'. Second, I did not delegitimize the Consitution. Though it had illegal means of being made and adopted, it was finally ratified by all, even though it was established before the last states ratified it. Thirdly, I did not ridicule the founding fathers. Stop lying and being rude! You're supposed to be an administrator, being an example of how others should act, and instead you act like a name-calling child. [[User:Avalerion|Avalerion]]<br /> <br /> It was my impression she was only recently aware of the &quot;Constitution Conspiracy&quot; claptrap. As she was adding references, but not changing the articles, I don't know if Avalerion was seeking a fight, or just reacting strongly as many do when stumbling across the nut cases who claim all of the Founding Fathers were engaged in some fantastic plot, no doubt directed by the Free Mason's or quite possibly the Illuminati! I asked Dean to reconsider the original blocking, RJ, based on nothing more than my belief they were not sinister. If you feel otherwise, please let me know, via email, and feel free to block the user. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:01, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> :After seeing the commotion caused by Avalerion, I have reinstated the block. I didn't like her edits in the first place, and her recent comments to RJJensen are not appropriate. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 18:06, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::I agree with DeanS. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:10, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::here's the source she was using and citing in her edits, [http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north445.html &quot;The Most Successful Fraud in American History&quot; by Gary North]. It's pretty nasty stuff--enought to make me gag. for example:<br /> ::::''the heirs of the victims then consent to the plans of the heirs of the perpetrators to extend the original fraud....I offer as evidence the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq.&quot; [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:23, 11 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for blocking that vandal just now!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 19 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> :You're welcome. Thanks for doing the reverts; that was my clue he needed to be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:48, 19 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Question==<br /> Hey Dean, do you think tht it would be logical to run a project to clean up the userpages of all of the infinitely blocked users? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:23, 27 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> :If you mark them with speedy delete tags, I will delete them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 17:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Patricia ==<br /> <br /> You have my support and prayers my dear friend. --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:43, 18 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you Joaquín. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Please accept my sincerest condolences. I hope you are well supported by family and friends at this time of need. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:59, 20 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Please accept my deepest sympathy. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=673872 2009-06-13T23:14:31Z

<p>TadghOB: Undo revision 673856 by MontyPrime (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{Officeholder<br /> |name=Sarah Palin<br /> |image=Sarah Palin.jpg<br /> |party=[[Republican]]<br /> |spouse=[[Todd Palin]]<br /> |religion=Christian<br /> |offices=<br /> <br /> {{Officeholder/governor<br /> |state=Alaska<br /> |terms=December 4, 2006-present<br /> |preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]<br /> |former=n<br /> |succeeded=<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]&lt;/ref&gt;, and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.<br /> <br /> Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfill a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.&lt;ref&gt;[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp&lt;/ref&gt; She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]&lt;ref&gt;http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html&lt;/ref&gt; and worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.<br /> <br /> ==Personal Background==<br /> [[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. &lt;br&gt;<br /> ''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]<br /> Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship &lt;ref&gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; after graduating in 1982. She went on to college, after attending several institutions she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.<br /> <br /> She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race. <br /> <br /> Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. <br /> <br /> Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:<br /> : &quot;[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:<br /> :&quot;This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;people&quot;&gt;[[People magazine]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> :&quot;It's a sign of the times to be able to do this,&quot; she said. &quot;I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, &quot;I'm proud of him but I worry.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;people&quot;&gt;[[People magazine]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated &quot;We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]&lt;/ref&gt; Bristol has since gone on to promote abstinence as a realistic choice for teenagers, stating, &quot;[A]bstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.lifenews.com/nat5025.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]<br /> <br /> ==Political Career==<br /> Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)&lt;ref&gt;[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]&lt;/ref&gt;. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]&lt;/ref&gt; Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.<br /> <br /> In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the &quot;lack of ethics&quot; of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. <br /> <br /> To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the &quot;Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.&quot;, a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.&lt;ref&gt;[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]&lt;/ref&gt; The stated purpose of the group is, &quot;To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.<br /> <br /> She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's &quot;Top 40 Under 40&quot;, Alaska's Public Works &quot;Person of the Year&quot;, and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.<br /> <br /> Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. &lt;ref&gt;http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' &lt;ref&gt; Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, &quot;Issues&quot; Nov 7, 2006 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Record as Governor==<br /> ===Energy and Oil===<br /> <br /> A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/&lt;/ref&gt; It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae&lt;/ref&gt; As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. &lt;ref&gt;[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]&lt;/ref&gt; The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.&lt;ref&gt;[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.<br /> <br /> ===State Economy===<br /> [[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the &quot;Bridge to Nowhere&quot;. In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, &quot;OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,&quot; Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. &quot;I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']&lt;/ref&gt; The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. &quot;The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,&quot; she said.&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]&lt;/ref&gt; Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release. <br /> <br /> She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/&lt;/ref&gt; This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, &quot;You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it&quot;. Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.&lt;ref name=&quot;bridge&quot;&gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin &quot;bridge to nowhere&quot; line angers many Alaskans&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not &quot;giving back&quot; money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that &quot;She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money&quot;.&lt;ref name=&quot;bridge&quot; /&gt; However, state governments do not &quot;give back&quot; money in the manner proposed.<br /> <br /> Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of &quot;objectionable&quot; spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]&lt;/ref&gt; Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.<br /> <br /> While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Foreign Policy ===<br /> [[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]] <br /> Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the &quot;[[Bush Doctrine]]&quot;. Palin responded, &quot;In what respect, Charlie?&quot; Gibson followed, &quot;What do you interpret it to be?&quot; Palin answered with another question, &quot;His world view?&quot; Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]&lt;/ref&gt; What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the &quot;Bush doctrine&quot; (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.&lt;ref&gt;http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Legislature Investigation===<br /> In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.&lt;ref name=&quot;pc&quot;&gt;http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml&lt;/ref&gt; Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. &lt;ref name=&quot;pc&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> :The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. &quot;These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of &quot;troopergate&quot; investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French &quot;have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged&quot; and that French has called the comments he made last week &quot;regrettable&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]&lt;/ref&gt; Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation &quot;unlawful and unconstitutional&quot; and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. &quot;Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,&quot; Branchflower wrote.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011&lt;/ref&gt; Based on this, Branchflower claims that &quot;I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, &quot;I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety,&quot; Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: &quot;In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.&quot; Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. &quot;Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons,&quot; he wrote. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin &quot;acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In the end the &quot;October Surprise&quot; predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.&lt;ref&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Vice Presidential Candidate==<br /> <br /> On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain &lt;ref&gt;http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html&lt;/ref&gt;. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.<br /> <br /> Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better. <br /> ===Democratic responses===<br /> In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin&lt;ref&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA&lt;/ref&gt; and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.<br /> <br /> Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, &quot;Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain,&quot; Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']&lt;/ref&gt; She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias. Palin &quot;kept Joe Biden on the defensive&quot; and &quot;ended up dominating [the debate]&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, &quot;...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html&lt;/ref&gt; Given the fact that she's stated &quot;The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick&quot; and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Impact on Ticket===<br /> <br /> In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.&lt;ref&gt;http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead&lt;/ref&gt; The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, &quot;Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/&lt;/ref&gt; Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.<br /> <br /> ==Future==<br /> It is suspected that Palin may spend the next four years building a base for a 2012 run for the Republican nomination against Barack Obama. Given her personal charisma and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conservative woman treatment==<br /> Palin is a lightning rod to the established [[liberal]] women's movement. She, like many high profile conservative females, have taken much abuse from the left. Palin has been forced to set up a legal defense fund to help pay for fees related to an onslaught of ethic complaints, which are always frivolous. &lt;ref&gt;[http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18738 Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to &quot;control the people&quot;] CNN&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Palin said of the people who have filed the complaints:<br /> <br /> {{cquote| Those are the folks who want to tell me, they want to tell you, to sit down and shut up. We will not do that. I just can't, because I love my state. I love my country.}}<br /> <br /> ==Beliefs==<br /> Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, &quot;Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?&quot; Palin responded, &quot;Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.&quot; Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.<br /> <br /> Another question asked, &quot;Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?&quot; Palin replied, &quot;Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.&quot; <br /> <br /> Many liberals ignorant of the history of &quot;under God&quot; have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an &quot;idiot&quot; for it.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase &quot;under God&quot; was added to it in June 1954.&lt;/ref&gt; In fact, the origin of the phrase &quot;under God&quot; is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: &quot;The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army&quot; (July 2); &quot;the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms&quot; (July 9).&lt;ref&gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2&lt;/ref&gt; George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.<br /> <br /> Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|Theory of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, &quot;Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html&lt;/ref&gt; She later clarified her position by stating &quot;I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.&quot; She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.<br /> <br /> In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html&lt;/ref&gt; SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as &quot;that evolution museum&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Church Life==<br /> Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. &lt;ref&gt;{{cite web<br /> |accessdate=2008-08-30<br /> |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story<br /> |title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick<br /> |author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,<br /> |work=Los Angeles Times<br /> |date=August 30, 2008}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news<br /> | last = Gorsk| first = Eric<br /> | url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00<br /> | title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket<br /> | publisher =Associated Press<br /> | date = 2008-08-30<br /> | accessdate = 2008-08-30}}&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}&lt;/ref&gt;, an independent congregation,&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref name=&quot;miller&quot;&gt;Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. &quot;[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla].&quot; ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Popularity==<br /> <br /> Whether or not people say that they like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings&lt;/ref&gt; Palin has occasionally been criticized for her love of hunting.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]<br /> *[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]<br /> *[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]<br /> *[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]<br /> *[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]<br /> *[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008<br /> *[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Alaska Governors]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Governors]]<br /> [[Category:United States Mayors]]<br /> [[Category:Women]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_Lecture_Four&diff=673168 2009-06-12T16:40:03Z

<p>TadghOB: Irish Famine</p> <hr /> <div>Re. your question on the Irish Famine - the actual number who died is usually judged to be between 750,000 and 1m[http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Irish_potato_famine][http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/irish_pf.html]. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 12:40, 12 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&diff=673149 2009-06-12T14:26:30Z

<p>TadghOB: Undo revision 673140 by Aschlafly (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The &quot;tax-and-spend&quot; slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]], published in 1611, contains about 8,000 different words.&lt;ref&gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.<br /> <br /> Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of &quot;1-2-4-8&quot;. Nine new conservative terms that originated in the 1600s, for example, are: action-at-a-distance, biased, demagogue, efficiency, Good Samaritan, phonics, productive, self-defense and veracity. Twice as many insightful new conservative terms originated in the following century, and that total doubled again for the 1800s, and doubled yet again for the 1900s. Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.<br /> <br /> Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published, forming a pattern by century (1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s) of 10-20-40-80.&lt;ref&gt;This was the pattern as of May 31, 2009, but it will continue to grow as more conservative insights are added. Visitors are encouraged to add terms with dates.&lt;/ref&gt; Layers of new terms are being discovered and added to this list in the pattern of 1-2-4-8 by century from 1601-2000.<br /> <br /> ==Conservative words and terms==<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !New Term<br /> !Origin date<br /> !Comments<br /> |-<br /> |[[accountability]]<br /> |1794<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[action-at-a-distance]]<br /> |1693<br /> |Newton's acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to electrostatics and quantum mechanics and has a basis in Christianity&lt;ref&gt;''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.&lt;/ref&gt; -- was central to this development of his theory of gravity.&lt;ref&gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis&lt;/ref&gt; Einstein criticized this concept as &quot;spooky&quot;.<br /> |-<br /> |alarmism<br /> |1867<br /> |needless warnings <br /> |-<br /> |altruism<br /> |1853<br /> |selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom also, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[American dream]]<br /> |1911&lt;ref&gt;1911 is the date given by the &quot;OED&quot;, which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[anti-Christian]]<br /> |1900s<br /> |about a million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term<br /> |-<br /> |assimilate<br /> |late 1800s<br /> |the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population<br /> |-<br /> |attention span<br /> |1934<br /> |correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm&lt;/ref&gt; The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.<br /> |-<br /> |bailout<br /> |1951<br /> |wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company<br /> |-<br /> |bedrock<br /> |1840-1850<br /> |an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: &quot;bedrock principles&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |biased<br /> |1649<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Big Brother<br /> |1949<br /> |government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''<br /> |-<br /> |[[Blue Dog Democrat]]<br /> |1995<br /> |A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]<br /> |-<br /> |bootstrap<br /> |1913<br /> |Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work<br /> |-<br /> |bork<br /> |1988<br /> |coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.<br /> |-<br /> |born-again<br /> |1961<br /> |it takes an open mind and heart<br /> |-<br /> |brinkmanship<br /> |1956<br /> |the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations<br /> |-<br /> |[[bureaucracy]]<br /> |1818<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[capitalism]]<br /> |1850-1855<br /> |creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources<br /> |-<br /> |closed shop<br /> |1904<br /> |a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this<br /> |-<br /> |Coasean<br /> |1980s<br /> |an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]<br /> |-<br /> |Columbian<br /> |1757<br /> |relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''<br /> |-<br /> |[[comparative advantage]]<br /> |1815&lt;ref&gt;http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should &quot;do what it does best&quot; in deciding which goods to produce<br /> |-<br /> |competitive<br /> |1829<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Con Con<br /> |1980s<br /> |popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions<br /> |-<br /> |[[conservative]]<br /> |1831<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |copyright<br /> |1735<br /> |extending private property to protect expressive works<br /> |-<br /> |constant<br /> |1832<br /> |(noun) something unchanging in value<br /> |-<br /> |counterexample<br /> |1957<br /> |an example that is contrary to the proposition<br /> |-<br /> |[[culture war]]<br /> |1991<br /> |widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter<br /> |-<br /> |[[deadweight loss]]<br /> |1930s&lt;ref&gt;Confirmation of the first use is desired.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price<br /> |-<br /> |death tax<br /> |1989<br /> |interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.&lt;ref&gt;''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |decrypt<br /> |1935<br /> |military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable<br /> |-<br /> |deflation<br /> |1891<br /> |an increase in the value of savings<br /> |-<br /> |demagogue<br /> |1648<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[deregulation]]<br /> |1963<br /> |Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.<br /> |-<br /> |design by committee<br /> |before 1958<br /> |Pejorative directed against collective production by a group <br /> |-<br /> |despotism<br /> |1727<br /> |a ruler with unlimited powers<br /> |-<br /> |[[deterrence]]<br /> |1861<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |disinformation<br /> |1950s<br /> |false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda<br /> |-<br /> |division of labor<br /> |1776<br /> |increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children<br /> |-<br /> |domino effect<br /> |1966<br /> |how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations<br /> |-<br /> |doublethink<br /> |1949<br /> |[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]<br /> |-<br /> |double standard<br /> |1894<br /> |applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert<br /> |-<br /> |dumb down<br /> |1933<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |editorialize<br /> |1856<br /> |&quot;to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Merriam-Webster (1994).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[efficiency]]<br /> |1633<br /> |Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''&quot;working out, or accomplishing&quot;''&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[elementary proof]]<br /> |1865<br /> |a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, &quot;On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto<br /> undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[elitism]]<br /> |1950<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[entitlement]]<br /> |1944<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[ethnic voting]]<br /> |1900s<br /> |widely recognized and even advocated by some,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html&lt;/ref&gt; yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it<br /> |-<br /> |exculpatory<br /> |1781<br /> |often used in the phrase &quot;exculpatory evidence,&quot; it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: &quot;incriminate&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |falsifiability<br /> |1934<br /> |first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.<br /> |-<br /> |[[family values]]<br /> |1916<br /> |widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992 <br /> |-<br /> |father figure<br /> |1934<br /> |someone who fulfills the essential role of a father<br /> |-<br /> |[[fellow traveller]]<br /> |1925<br /> |May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.<br /> |-<br /> |[[federalism]]<br /> |1789<br /> |the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]<br /> |-<br /> |forward-looking<br /> |1800<br /> |planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past<br /> |-<br /> |[[free enterprise]]<br /> |1820<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |free market<br /> |1907<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |free world<br /> |1949<br /> |areas of the world free of communism<br /> |-<br /> |gateway drug<br /> |1982<br /> |abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin<br /> |-<br /> |globalism<br /> |1997<br /> |MW states it was first used in 1943&lt;ref&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism&lt;/ref&gt; and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'&lt;ref&gt;http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&amp;query_type=word&amp;queryword=globalism&amp;first=1&amp;max_to_show=10&amp;hilite=50095613se2&lt;/ref&gt; the term &quot;globalization&quot; was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.<br /> |-<br /> |go-getter<br /> |1921<br /> |-<br /> |gold standard<br /> |1831<br /> |the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold<br /> |-<br /> |Good Samaritan<br /> |1640<br /> |how genuine charity is the best approach<br /> |-<br /> |[[grade inflation]]<br /> |1975<br /> |the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.<br /> |-<br /> |[[grassroots]]<br /> |1901<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Great Awakening<br /> |1730-1740<br /> |Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].<br /> |-<br /> |hardworking<br /> |1774<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Hawthorne effect<br /> |1962<br /> |the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois<br /> |-<br /> |heckler's veto<br /> |1965<br /> |Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],&lt;ref&gt;''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).&lt;/ref&gt; [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].&lt;ref&gt;''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[homeschool]]<br /> |1980&lt;ref&gt;The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to &quot;homeschool&quot;.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |human rights<br /> |1766<br /> |rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity<br /> |-<br /> |[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]<br /> |1801<br /> |From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''&quot;womb&quot;''&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]&lt;/ref&gt; (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).<br /> |-<br /> |identity politics<br /> |1988<br /> |exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.<br /> |-<br /> |incompleteness<br /> |1931<br /> |a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931<br /> |-<br /> |individualism<br /> |1827<br /> |values, rights and duties arise from the individual<br /> |-<br /> |inflationary<br /> |1920<br /> |policies causing inflation of the monetary supply<br /> |-<br /> |informed consent<br /> |1967<br /> |consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion<br /> |-<br /> |initiative<br /> |1793<br /> |self-starting first step toward improvement<br /> |-<br /> |insightful<br /> |1907<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |interventionism<br /> |1923<br /> |&quot;governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Merriam-Webster (1994).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |invisible hand<br /> |1776<br /> |Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!&lt;ref&gt;This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |Iron curtain<br /> |1945<br /> |coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom<br /> |-<br /> |judicial activism<br /> |1947<br /> |First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,&lt;ref&gt;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089&lt;/ref&gt; and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,&lt;ref&gt;''United States v. Wade'', <br /> 388 U.S. 218 (1967).&lt;/ref&gt; yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.<br /> |-<br /> |judicial restraint<br /> |1942<br /> |&quot;Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |judicial supremacist<br /> |2004<br /> |One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).&lt;ref&gt;A similar yet different concept, &quot;judicial supremacy,&quot; was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |junk science<br /> |1962&lt;ref&gt;http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals<br /> |-<br /> |jury nullification<br /> |1948<br /> |the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore &amp; O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)<br /> |-<br /> |kowtow<br /> |1826<br /> |obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems<br /> |-<br /> |Kremlinology<br /> |1958<br /> |the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not). <br /> |-<br /> |labor camp<br /> |1900<br /> |forced work prison<br /> |-<br /> |laissez-faire<br /> |1825<br /> |opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary<br /> |-<br /> |lame duck<br /> |1761<br /> |one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.<br /> |-<br /> |leftism<br /> |1920<br /> |principles and doctrine of leftists<br /> |-<br /> |leverage<br /> |1830<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |local<br /> |1824&lt;ref&gt;This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |common usage: &quot;all politics is local&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[microeconomics]]<br /> |1947<br /> |the study of the economics of the individual person or business<br /> |-<br /> |melting pot<br /> |1912<br /> |requires &quot;social and cultural assimilation&quot; for successful immigration&lt;ref&gt;Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[meritocracy]]<br /> |1958<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |missile defense<br /> |1980s<br /> |popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]<br /> |-<br /> |mobocracy<br /> |1754<br /> |rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia<br /> |-<br /> |monogamy<br /> |1612<br /> |this has the same date of origin as &quot;productive&quot;, and that may not be a coincidence!<br /> |-<br /> |motivation<br /> |1873<br /> |can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!<br /> |-<br /> |Murphy's Law<br /> |1958<br /> |if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy<br /> |-<br /> |myopic<br /> |1752<br /> |originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals lack of foresight<br /> |-<br /> |negativism<br /> |1824<br /> |mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views<br /> |-<br /> |non-locality<br /> |1920s<br /> |[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster<br /> |-<br /> |newspeak<br /> |1949<br /> |political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''<br /> |-<br /> |non-justiciable<br /> |1922&lt;ref&gt;Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe &amp; Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): &quot;It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature<br /> |-<br /> |open-minded<br /> |1828<br /> |See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[opportunity cost]]<br /> |1911<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |originalism<br /> |1985<br /> |taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it<br /> |-<br /> |optimism<br /> |1759<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Orwellian<br /> |1960s<br /> |terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical&lt;ref&gt;http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |parenting<br /> |1958<br /> |Children raising<br /> |-<br /> |Parkinson's Law<br /> |1955<br /> |how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completition<br /> |-<br /> |patriotism<br /> |1726<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[personhood]] &lt;ref&gt;[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |1955<br /> |Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.<br /> |-<br /> |[[phonics]]<br /> |1684<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[politically correct]]<br /> |1983<br /> |This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.&lt;ref&gt;For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.&lt;/ref&gt; The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.<br /> |-<br /> |potential<br /> |1817&lt;ref&gt;Usage here refers to &quot;promise&quot;, not &quot;possibility&quot;.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |privatize<br /> |1940<br /> |to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.<br /> |-<br /> |productive<br /> |1612<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |productivity<br /> |1810<br /> |the gap of about 200 years between the creation of &quot;productive&quot; and &quot;productivity&quot; is astounding<br /> |-<br /> |[[pro-life]]<br /> |1960<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |property right<br /> |1853<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |quantify<br /> |1840<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |race card<br /> |1995&lt;ref&gt;This is the date of its widespread familiarity.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |&quot;Playing the race card&quot; consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.<br /> |-<br /> |[[recidivism]]<br /> |1886<br /> |the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders<br /> |-<br /> |recuse<br /> |1949<br /> |self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue<br /> |-<br /> |[[relativism]]<br /> |1865<br /> |the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them<br /> |-<br /> |[[responsibility]]<br /> |1737<br /> |1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.<br /> |-<br /> |reverse discrimination<br /> |1969<br /> |the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person<br /> |-<br /> |salutary neglect<br /> |1775<br /> |coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled &quot;On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |school choice<br /> |1980<br /> |popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose'' <br /> |-<br /> |[[self-defense]]<br /> |1651<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |self-destruct<br /> |1968<br /> |often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods<br /> |-<br /> |[[Discipline|self-discipline]]<br /> |1838<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |self-indulgence<br /> |1753<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |self-reliant<br /> |1848<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |separation of powers<br /> |1748<br /> |the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]<br /> |-<br /> |slippery slope<br /> |1900s<br /> |term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of &quot;it doesn't hurt to try&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |smoking gun<br /> |1974<br /> |a law-and-order term, &quot;smoking gun&quot; was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!<br /> |-<br /> |spend-and-tax<br /> |2009&lt;ref&gt;http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |a variation on &quot;tax-and-spend&quot; (see below), &quot;spend-and-tax&quot; consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending<br /> |-<br /> |straw man<br /> |1896<br /> |an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments<br /> |-<br /> |straightforward<br /> |1806<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |supply-side<br /> |1976<br /> |the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s<br /> |-<br /> |takeover<br /> |1917<br /> |as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year<br /> |-<br /> |tax-and-spend<br /> |1937 <br /> |Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending<br /> |-<br /> |taxpayer<br /> |1816<br /> |the word highlights who is really paying for things<br /> |-<br /> |terrorism<br /> |1795<br /> |this was during the French Revolution<br /> |-<br /> |tour de force<br /> |1802<br /> |a feat of skill<br /> |-<br /> |[[term limits]]<br /> |1861<br /> |can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it&lt;ref&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |trademark<br /> |1838<br /> |extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business<br /> |-<br /> |[[transaction cost]]<br /> |1961<br /> |Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.<br /> |-<br /> |[[transistor]]<br /> |1948<br /> |named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]<br /> |-<br /> |traditionalist<br /> |1856<br /> |&quot;adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |tree huggers<br /> |1970s<br /> |still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do<br /> |-<br /> |trust but verify<br /> |1980s<br /> |popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]<br /> |-<br /> |ugly duckling<br /> |1883<br /> |an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential<br /> |-<br /> |underemployed<br /> |1908<br /> |having less than full-time or suitable employment<br /> |-<br /> |vandalism<br /> |1798<br /> |malicious destruction of someone else's property<br /> |-<br /> |veracity<br /> |1623<br /> |devotion to truthfulness<br /> |-<br /> |victimization<br /> |1840<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |wannabee<br /> |1981<br /> |a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]<br /> |-<br /> |War on Terror<br /> |2001<br /> |no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. &lt;ref&gt;[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |work ethic<br /> |1951<br /> |a habit of working as a moral good<br /> |-<br /> |worldview<br /> |1858<br /> |a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> __TOC__ &lt;!--Do not remove this. We want to keep insights on the first screen of viewing--&gt;<br /> <br /> == Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==<br /> <br /> The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing at a remarkable geometric rate of growth, by doubling each century:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Century<br /> !# New Conservative Terms<br /> |-<br /> |1600s<br /> |10<br /> |-<br /> |1700s<br /> |23<br /> |-<br /> |1800s<br /> |44<br /> |-<br /> |1900s<br /> |88<br /> |-<br /> |2000s<br /> |4 (preliminary)<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==<br /> <br /> A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Not Yet Recognized Terms<br /> !Suggestions<br /> !Comments<br /> |-<br /> |9/10 mindset<br /> |pre-9/11 thinking<br /> |terror is jurisdiction of the courts<br /> |-<br /> |anti-family<br /> |tradition opposer, familiopathic<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |causing harm by spreading falsehoods<br /> |<br /> |e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity<br /> |-<br /> |cradle to grave &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |sanctity of life, conception to natural death<br /> |pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs<br /> |-<br /> |cut and run<br /> |surrender advocates<br /> |when the going gets tough, run away from the problem<br /> |-<br /> |[[deliberate ignorance]]<br /> |<br /> |the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it<br /> |-<br /> |denial that [[Hell]] exists<br /> |Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be &quot;antihadessic&quot; so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]<br /> |abstinence-denier?<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |drive-by media<br /> |partisan slander<br /> |liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints<br /> |-<br /> |easily amused by [[deceit]]<br /> |dolophile<br /> |from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]<br /> |-<br /> |Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it<br /> |Misopatria, misopatrist<br /> |From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland<br /> |-<br /> |[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]<br /> |<br /> |widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.<br /> |-<br /> |infotainment<br /> |tabloid news, dramacast<br /> |mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline<br /> |-<br /> |merit pay<br /> |performance bonus<br /> |Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students. <br /> |-<br /> |[[militant gays]]<br /> |intimidating homosexual<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |modern idolatry<br /> |&quot;media idolatry&quot;; &quot;money idolatry&quot;; &quot;celebrity idolatry&quot;<br /> |idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed<br /> |-<br /> |morally bankrupt<br /> |[[atheism]], self-void <br /> |ethically and spiritually challenged souls<br /> |-<br /> |opposite of [[materialism]]<br /> |spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically<br /> |[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; &quot;spiritualism&quot; is not a common term and is the &quot;opposite&quot; of materialism<br /> |-<br /> |[[peer pressure]]<br /> |<br /> |can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?<br /> |-<br /> |proven wrong, a refusal to admit it<br /> |mulism; heel-digger?<br /> |cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]]. <br /> |-<br /> |religious right<br /> |Christian conservatives<br /> |Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.<br /> |-<br /> |rogue states<br /> |rogue nations<br /> |nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters<br /> |-<br /> |runaway jury<br /> |The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |Rule of Law<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[schlockumentary]]<br /> |propaganda film<br /> |documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths<br /> |- <br /> |[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]<br /> |cradle atheist<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |strict constructionism<br /> |<br /> |an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.<br /> |-<br /> |[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]<br /> | principles of Conservatism<br /> |much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against. <br /> |-<br /> |true emergency<br /> |life support<br /> |meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.<br /> |-<br /> |Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media<br /> |mediaproof<br /> |cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == New Liberal Terms ==<br /> <br /> New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !New Term<br /> !Origin date<br /> !Comments<br /> |-<br /> |[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]<br /> |1860<br /> |Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[Atheism|atheist]]<br /> |1571<br /> |useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian<br /> |-<br /> |[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]<br /> |1948<br /> |term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery&lt;ref&gt;Compare this migration with that of &quot;politically correct,&quot; which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |bilingual education<br /> |1972<br /> |a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities<br /> |-<br /> |[[carbon footprint]]<br /> |1999&lt;ref&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide <br /> |-<br /> |chairperson<br /> |1971<br /> |Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.<br /> |-<br /> |check-off<br /> |1911<br /> |automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice<br /> |-<br /> |[[class warfare]]<br /> |<br /> |first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of &quot;class warfare&quot;], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[communism]]<br /> |1840<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |compassion fatigue<br /> |1968<br /> |Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.<br /> |-<br /> |[[condescension]]<br /> |1647<br /> |Treating another person as though they are inferior<br /> |-<br /> |[[creationism]]<br /> |1880<br /> |like most &quot;isms&quot;, creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.<br /> |-<br /> |[[Dark Ages]]<br /> |1730<br /> |A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.<br /> |-<br /> |[[Dead white males|dead white males]]<br /> |<br /> |a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]<br /> |-<br /> |deconstruction<br /> |1973<br /> |a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias<br /> |-<br /> |diva<br /> |1883<br /> |modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities<br /> |-<br /> |[[Détente|detente]]<br /> |1970s<br /> |A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union<br /> |-<br /> |distributive justice<br /> |<br /> |A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as &quot;just&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[enlightenment]]<br /> |1669<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]<br /> |1922<br /> |a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.<br /> |-<br /> |[[exclusionary rule]]<br /> |1964<br /> |an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.<br /> |-<br /> |freethinker<br /> |1692<br /> |the euphemism &quot;free&quot; hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free<br /> |- <br /> |[[fundamentalism]]<br /> |1922<br /> |&quot;a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism&lt;/ref&gt; From a series of pamphlets called &quot;The Fundamentals&quot; which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].<br /> |-<br /> |[[feminism]] <br /> |1895 <br /> |notionally, &quot;the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes&quot;; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences. <br /> |-<br /> |[[gay rights]]<br /> |1969<br /> |The movement for civil rights for homosexuals<br /> |- <br /> |glass ceiling<br /> |1984<br /> |the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[global warming]]<br /> |1969<br /> |The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.<br /> |-<br /> |[[goth]]<br /> |?<br /> |&quot;A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics&quot;, or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.&lt;ref&gt;Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]&lt;/ref&gt; Goths often &quot;dress in black with heavy jewelry&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]&lt;/ref&gt; The term is taken from the name of &quot;a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |gun control<br /> |1969<br /> |a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms <br /> |- <br /> |[[homophobia]]<br /> |1969<br /> |used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].<br /> |-<br /> |[[humanism]]<br /> |1808 &lt;ref&gt;http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[imperialism]]<br /> |1851<br /> |a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny<br /> |-<br /> |[[isolationism]]<br /> |1922<br /> |a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities<br /> |-<br /> |Keynesianism<br /> |1946<br /> |advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].<br /> |-<br /> |[[Living Constitution]]<br /> |2000<br /> |a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)<br /> |-<br /> |McCarthyism<br /> |1950<br /> |Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.<br /> |-<br /> |[[metrosexual]]<br /> |1994<br /> |fashion and glamour man<br /> |-<br /> |moderate<br /> |late 1900s<br /> |the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.<br /> |-<br /> |nationalize<br /> |1800<br /> |a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism<br /> |-<br /> |natural selection<br /> |1857<br /> |a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival<br /> |-<br /> |[[Nihilism]]<br /> |1817<br /> |a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.<br /> |-<br /> |[[population control]]<br /> |1968<br /> |the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich<br /> |-<br /> |[[pro-choice]]<br /> |1975<br /> |a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the &quot;choice&quot; meaningless<br /> |-<br /> |[[progressivism]]<br /> |1892<br /> |the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does<br /> |-<br /> |[[psychoanalysis]]<br /> |1906<br /> |contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings<br /> |-<br /> |[[quote mining]]<br /> |non-existent<br /> |a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.<br /> |-<br /> |Segway<br /> |2001<br /> |Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of &quot;segue&quot; for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency.<br /> |-<br /> |[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]<br /> |1968<br /> |That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].<br /> |-<br /> |situation ethics<br /> |1955<br /> |a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards<br /> |-<br /> |strict liability<br /> |1869<br /> |court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant<br /> |-<br /> |sustainability<br /> |1727<br /> |[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword<br /> |-<br /> |Swift-Boating<br /> |2004<br /> |Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.<br /> |-<br /> |transnationalist<br /> |2006<br /> |popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: &quot;The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ....&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Penn State Law Review (2006).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |undocumented immigrant<br /> |2000<br /> |a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.<br /> |-<br /> |unfair<br /> |1700<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |union shop<br /> |1904<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[Unitarian]]<br /> |1687<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |will to power<br /> |1907<br /> |[[Nietzche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==<br /> <br /> The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Century<br /> !# New Liberal Terms<br /> |-<br /> |1600s<br /> |4<br /> |-<br /> |1700s<br /> |2<br /> |-<br /> |1800s<br /> |10<br /> |-<br /> |1900s<br /> |27 (8 in the 1960s)<br /> |-<br /> |2000s<br /> |4<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Terms Difficult to Classify ==<br /> <br /> These new terms are difficult to classify:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]<br /> |1961<br /> |first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]]. <br /> |-<br /> |Americanism<br /> |1781<br /> |Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles<br /> |-<br /> |bipartisan<br /> |1909<br /> |emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power<br /> |-<br /> |Cold War<br /> |1947<br /> |open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations<br /> |-<br /> |evangelism<br /> |1620-30<br /> |&quot;isms&quot; are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset<br /> |-<br /> |missionary<br /> |1635-1645<br /> |conservative?<br /> |- <br /> |Multitasking<br /> |1966<br /> |multiple task all at once<br /> |-<br /> |republican<br /> |1685<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |scrooge<br /> |1843<br /> |the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value<br /> |-<br /> |smoke and mirrors<br /> |1982<br /> |describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it<br /> |-<br /> |states' rights<br /> |1790<br /> |liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage<br /> |-<br /> |telecommute<br /> |1974&lt;ref&gt;This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |a combination of a Greek root (&quot;tele&quot;, which means &quot;far off&quot;) and a Latin root (&quot;commutare&quot;, which means &quot;to exchange&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> |traditionalism<br /> |1856<br /> |&quot;beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[twilight zone]]<br /> |1949<br /> |the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body<br /> |-<br /> |underdog<br /> |1887<br /> |conservative or liberal?<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Downgraded Conservative Terms ==<br /> <br /> These conservative terms are less significant:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |byzantine<br /> |1794&lt;ref&gt;The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[entropy]]<br /> |1868<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[filibuster]]<br /> |1851<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |incandescent<br /> |1794<br /> |bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)<br /> |-<br /> |Luddite<br /> |1811<br /> |one who opposes and even destroys technological advances<br /> |-<br /> |media<br /> |1923<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |[[milquetoast]]<br /> |1933<br /> |timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited<br /> |-<br /> |normalcy<br /> |1920<br /> |related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history<br /> |-<br /> |ne'er-do-well<br /> |1736<br /> |&quot;an idle worthless person&quot; - Merriam-Webster<br /> |-<br /> |reticent<br /> |1834<br /> |restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]<br /> *[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]<br /> *[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Essays]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_science&diff=673147 2009-06-12T14:25:48Z

<p>TadghOB: Undo revision 673145 by Dumbdumb (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>'''Creation science''' is [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&amp;mdash;Laws of Science]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html&lt;/ref&gt; Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.&lt;ref&gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&lt;/ref&gt; Many scientists in the field of creation science assert that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge | Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].<br /> <br /> == Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==<br /> :''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''<br /> [[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]<br /> Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;id=118&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:<br /> <br /> #In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that &quot;the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).&lt;ref&gt;http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]<br /> Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html&lt;/ref&gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:<br /> {{cquote|No matter how many &quot;bits&quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &quot;information&quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a &quot;program.&quot; Another name for computer software is an &quot;algorithm.&quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==<br /> Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered &quot;[[science]]&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001&lt;/ref&gt; However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001&lt;/ref&gt; Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&lt;ref&gt;<br /> * http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/<br /> * http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&lt;/ref&gt; stated that Darwinism is &quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&lt;/ref&gt; Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: &quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> {{Creation vs. evolution}}<br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Christianity and Science]]<br /> *[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://creationontheweb.com/ Creation On the Web] The website of [[Creation Ministries International]]<br /> *[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]<br /> *[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]<br /> *[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]<br /> *[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]<br /> *[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]<br /> <br /> ==Notes and References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Science]]<br /> [[Category:Creation science]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=673146 2009-06-12T14:25:05Z

<p>TadghOB: Undo revision 673142 by Dumbdumb (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]<br /> '''Global warming''' is a term generally used to describe an increase in the global average surface (air at surface) temperature. <br /> As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].<br /> <br /> The term is most often used to refer to the modern period of global warming, an increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when instrumental measurements began to be taken and organized records began to be kept. Although only a small increase in absolute terms, the temperature increase is unprecedented within at least the last 14,000 years according to the reconstructions by Viau et al. (2006) &lt;ref&gt;http://www.citeulike.org/user/kmcolo/article/618203 Viau et al. (2006) 'Millennial-scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene' in Journal of Geophysical Research, 111&lt;/ref&gt; and can have a significant impact upon the earth. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship. Despite this, there is no completely proven model explaining the rise in global temperatures.<br /> <br /> Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.<br /> <br /> ==Controversy==<br /> <br /> {{main|Global Warming Controversy}}<br /> <br /> Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see &quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&quot; and [[global warming theory]].&lt;ref&gt;Some people predicted &quot;global warming,&quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:<br /> <br /> *Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.<br /> <br /> In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.<br /> <br /> The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.<br /> <br /> Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:<br /> * Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. &lt;ref&gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&lt;/ref&gt; The conclusion is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. The evidence is conclusive, there is no threat.<br /> <br /> ==The Modern Warm Period==<br /> <br /> The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. <br /> &lt;ref&gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&lt;/ref&gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&quot;'' &lt;ref&gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.<br /> <br /> == Sun Spots ==<br /> Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Liberal claims of &quot;Consensus&quot;==<br /> <br /> [[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,<br /> <br /> :Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &lt;ref name=&quot;cato&quot;&gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &quot;consensus&quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)<br /> <br /> The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &quot;science is settled&quot; began in 1988 or 1989.<br /> <br /> <br /> By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.<br /> <br /> Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]<br /> <br /> It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&lt;/ref&gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &quot;facts,&quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.<br /> <br /> [[File:ad.jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==Natural Variability of the Climate System==<br /> It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.<br /> <br /> ==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==<br /> <br /> Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.<br /> <br /> Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. <br /> <br /> However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.<br /> <br /> ==Politics of Global Warming==<br /> {{main|Politics of global warming}}<br /> <br /> Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &lt;ref&gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The need to fight &quot;global warming&quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &lt;ref name=&quot;cato&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> Clearly, &quot;global warming&quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. <br /> ... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &lt;ref name=&quot;cato&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;/ref&gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &lt;ref&gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')<br /> have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. <br /> <br /> Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.<br /> <br /> In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &lt;ref name=&quot;cato&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> Richard Lindzen wrote:<br /> :Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &quot;right&quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &quot;global warming&quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &lt;ref name=&quot;cato&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. <br /> :States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &quot;Climate Crisis&quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&lt;/ref&gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&quot; and &quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.<br /> <br /> Ryan N. Maue: <br /> :A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. It's conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&lt;/ref&gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.<br /> <br /> Dr. Vincent Gray:<br /> :A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist <br /> :The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&quot; and &quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Dr. John S. Theon:<br /> :Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister <br /> :He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&quot; peddling &quot;patent nonsense.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> *“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”<br /> *“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”<br /> *“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”<br /> <br /> Geology professor and scientist at the University of Oklahoma, [[David Deming]] talks about a biased [[AP]] article mentioning global warming &quot;...whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> The mean global temperature, at least as measured by is now the same as it was in the year 1980.<br /> In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising.<br /> Sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.<br /> Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low.<br /> <br /> Also in discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho says, &quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&quot; <br /> <br /> Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says &quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&quot; and &quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Al Gore's Claims==<br /> <br /> *[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &quot;Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&quot; &lt;ref name=&quot;sun&quot;&gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, &quot;Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&quot; &lt;ref name=&quot;sun&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> *Al Gore is therefore an example of how in such an important debate, [[deceit]]ful tactics have been used by liberals to make a position seem more solid than it is.<br /> <br /> ==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==<br /> <br /> [[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.<br /> <br /> According to his website,&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&lt;/ref&gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &quot;aggressive approach&quot; to global warming which he has declared as &quot;undeniable and urgent.&quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &quot;real deal on the environment&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In his own words, McCain says &quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.<br /> <br /> [[Barack Obama]] believes &quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &lt;ref&gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; He comments &quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Al Gore's &quot;Inconvenient Truth&quot; Movie Claims==<br /> <br /> A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &quot;An Inconvenient Truth&quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &lt;ref&gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Those inaccuracies include the following<br /> <br /> * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.<br /> * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.<br /> * The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &quot;not possible&quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.<br /> * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.<br /> * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.<br /> * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.<br /> * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.<br /> * The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.<br /> * The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.<br /> * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.<br /> * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.<br /> <br /> == Scientists ==<br /> <br /> [[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]<br /> <br /> {|<br /> | valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;35%&quot;|<br /> * [[Roger Revelle]]<br /> * [[Achim Steiner]]<br /> * [[Fred Singer]]<br /> * [[Richard Lindzen]]<br /> * [[Sallie Baliunas]]<br /> * [[Lonnie Thompson]]<br /> | valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> * [[James E. Hansen]]<br /> * [[Michael Mann]]<br /> * [[Charles Keeling]]<br /> * [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] <br /> *[[Global Warming Controversy]] <br /> *''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''<br /> *[[Socialism and global warming]]<br /> *[[Politics of global warming]] <br /> *[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]<br /> *[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]<br /> *[[An Inconvenient Truth]]<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &quot;Breaking News&quot;]]<br /> *[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> *[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]<br /> *[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]<br /> *[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.<br /> *[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.<br /> *[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]<br /> *[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]<br /> *[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.<br /> *[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen<br /> *[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]<br /> *[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]<br /> *[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;articleID=604 &quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].<br /> *[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;articleID=296 &quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&quot; by Bruce Yandle].<br /> *[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]<br /> *[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&quot;, by Richard Lindzen]<br /> *[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;id=5 &quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&quot;]<br /> *[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]<br /> *[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]<br /> *[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog<br /> *[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann<br /> *[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&quot;]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===<br /> &lt;small&gt;<br /> *[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.<br /> *[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.<br /> *[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.<br /> &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> {{liberalism}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Earth Sciences]]<br /> [[Category:Environmentalism]]<br /> [[Category:Liberal Bias]]<br /> &lt;sub&gt;Subscript text&lt;/sub&gt;</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolutionism&diff=673144 2009-06-12T14:24:20Z

<p>TadghOB: Undo revision 673143 by Dumbdumb (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;evolutionism.&quot; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. &lt;Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism&gt;.&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[evolution|theory of evolution]]''&lt;ref&gt;&quot;evolutionist.&quot; Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. &lt;Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist&gt;.&lt;/ref&gt; would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, &quot;Evolutionism&quot; and &quot;Evolutionists&quot; usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.<br /> <br /> The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive&lt;/ref&gt;, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.<br /> {{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Theistic Evolution==<br /> [[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution(30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheist believe in(just a mere 13% of people). However both of these combined is still less people than the ammount of people who beleive in Young Earth Creation(48%), as told by The Bible&lt;ref&gt;http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==Foundational question/starting point==<br /> All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.<br /> <br /> ===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===<br /> * God exists (world view)<br /> ** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that &quot;fact&quot;<br /> *** Thus science is done on the basis that &quot;God exists&quot;<br /> **** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.<br /> <br /> ===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===<br /> There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.<br /> <br /> '''Impersonal God'''<br /> * There is no personal/involved God (world view)<br /> ** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that &quot;fact&quot;<br /> *** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation<br /> **** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.<br /> <br /> '''Personal God'''<br /> * There is a personal/involved God (world view)<br /> ** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that &quot;fact&quot;<br /> *** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a &quot;personal God&quot;<br /> **** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.<br /> <br /> ===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===<br /> Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' and who make a positive assertion that there is no God, do in fact have a world view; whereas 'weak atheists', who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.<br /> <br /> '''Strong Atheism'''<br /> * There is no God (world view)<br /> ** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that &quot;fact&quot;<br /> *** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])<br /> **** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.<br /> <br /> '''Weak Atheism'''<br /> * So far, there is no objective proof of God<br /> ** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the &quot;fact&quot; of God's existence<br /> *** Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. [[naturalism]]) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)<br /> **** For [[Weak Atheism|weak atheists]], science comes before [[Naturalism]]. They (presumably) base their world view on the Science.<br /> <br /> ===Comparison===<br /> The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin&lt;ref&gt;Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore &quot;secondary origin&quot; is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.&lt;/ref&gt; in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.<br /> <br /> ==Controversy==<br /> ===Usage of Terminology===<br /> The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, &lt;ref&gt;&quot;I count myself among the evolutionists&quot;, S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also &quot;Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory&quot;. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]&lt;/ref&gt; and his obituary read &quot;Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]&lt;/ref&gt; This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]). <br /> <br /> Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, <br /> or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term &quot;Evolutionism&quot; has the same or very similar meaning to &quot;Creationism&quot; as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term &quot;Evolutionism&quot; refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.<br /> <br /> ===Religion and Evolutionism===<br /> Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).<br /> {{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.&lt;ref name=&quot;mgreen&quot; /&gt;''}}<br /> <br /> Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]&lt;ref&gt;http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm&lt;/ref&gt;. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution&lt;ref&gt;http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-does-not-believe-in.html&lt;/ref&gt;, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].<br /> <br /> ===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===<br /> There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: &quot;[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html&lt;/ref&gt; In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: &quot;Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===<br /> Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC &lt;ref&gt;http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html&lt;/ref&gt;, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes==<br /> '''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':<br /> {{cquote|'''Michael Ruse'''&lt;br /&gt;''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''&lt;ref&gt;MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> '''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> {{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews'''&lt;br /&gt;''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? &lt;ref&gt;L.N. Matthews, &quot;Introduction&quot; to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)&lt;/ref&gt;''}}<br /> {{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan'''&lt;br /&gt;''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. &lt;ref&gt;J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.&lt;/ref&gt;''}}<br /> {{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]'''&lt;br /&gt;''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. &lt;ref&gt;R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.&lt;/ref&gt;''}}<br /> {{cquote|'''T. Lessl'''&lt;br /&gt;''&quot;By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan,&quot; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).&lt;/ref&gt;''}}<br /> {{cquote|'''M. Grene'''&lt;br /&gt;''&quot;Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.&quot; &lt;ref name=&quot;mgreen&quot;&gt;M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism,&quot; Encounter, November (1959), p49.&lt;/ref&gt;''}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Creationism]]<br /> *[[Faith]]<br /> *[[Humanism]]<br /> *[[Naturalistic religions]]<br /> *[[Religion]]<br /> *[[Theism]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> {{Creation vs. evolution}}<br /> ==External links==<br /> '''Notes'''<br /> :'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''<br /> :'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;<br /> ! Affirmative !! Critical<br /> |-<br /> | valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;50%&quot;|<br /> '''TalkOrigins'''<br /> *[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]<br /> **[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]<br /> *[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]<br /> **[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]<br /> *[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]<br /> **[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]<br /> *[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]<br /> '''EvoWiki'''<br /> *[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]<br /> <br /> | valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;50%&quot;|<br /> '''DrDino'''<br /> * [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]<br /> '''Creationists.org'''<br /> * [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]<br /> '''Northwest Creation Network'''<br /> * [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]<br /> '''Creation Ministries International'''<br /> * [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]<br /> * [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]<br /> '''Answers in Genesis'''<br /> * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]<br /> * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]<br /> '''CreationWiki'''<br /> *[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive<br /> *[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive<br /> '''Institute for Creation Research'''<br /> * [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Naturalism]]</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_Lecture_One&diff=673139 2009-06-12T14:06:18Z

<p>TadghOB: missing the point</p> <hr /> <div>''America’s health care system, by far the greatest in the world''<br /> <br /> Although I understand that this is an American project, I think you'll find there's little substantiation for this assertion. Clearly, excellent healthcare is available in the United States - the President's of foreign nations have often been rushed to the Mayo Clinic and the like, for example. However, that is no reflection on the overall ''system''. And I think you'll find that that particular claim is never thought to be held by the US. The healthcare ''systems'' of many other nations are excellent, and in recent World Health Organization surveys, the US ranked fairly low in the world. This is not to denigrate the US system, merely to point out that unsubstantiated assertions - with little experience of healthcare in the rest of the world by the authors, I'm assuming - shouldn't be part of a series of Economics lectures. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 09:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There's no denying that the American health care system is the best in the world. The proof is in your answer: non-Americans who have the means flock to the U.S. for medical care.<br /> <br /> :Your obtuse statement that &quot;I think you'll find that that particular claim is never thought to be held by the US&quot; is a [[liberal]] circumlocution. Liberals do want to denigrate and end free enterprise in medicine, but that doesn't fool anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 12 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::''There's no denying that the American health care system is the best in the world.'' - no doubt you have a source or reference to which you can direct the reader to support this assertion? ''Non-Americans who have the means flock to the U.S. for medical care.'' - that superb healthcare is available in the US is undeniable. However, it is only available to those who, as you point out, &quot;have the means&quot;. And that is a direct comment about the ''system'', which is what your article is referring to. That excellent high-speed trains are available in the US (e.g. Acela) is undeniable, yet no-one would contest that the world's best high-speed rail ''system'' is that of either Japan or France. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 10:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_Lecture_One&diff=673136 2009-06-12T13:37:03Z

<p>TadghOB: Healthcare assertion</p> <hr /> <div>''America’s health care system, by far the greatest in the world''<br /> <br /> Although I understand that this is an American project, I think you'll find there's little substantiation for this assertion. Clearly, excellent healthcare is available in the United States - the President's of foreign nations have often been rushed to the Mayo Clinic and the like, for example. However, that is no reflection on the overall ''system''. And I think you'll find that that particular claim is never thought to be held by the US. The healthcare ''systems'' of many other nations are excellent, and in recent World Health Organization surveys, the US ranked fairly low in the world. This is not to denigrate the US system, merely to point out that unsubstantiated assertions - with little experience of healthcare in the rest of the world by the authors, I'm assuming - shouldn't be part of a series of Economics lectures. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 09:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Economics_Lecture_Eleven&diff=672716 2009-06-11T15:40:06Z

<p>TadghOB: /* Interest */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Economics_Lectures}}<br /> <br /> Twelfth Lecture – Interest, Rents and Profits<br /> <br /> Instructor, Andy Schlafly<br /> <br /> ==Introduction and Review==<br /> <br /> The mid-term exam should become your guide to filling in gaps in your understanding of economics. Make sure you fully understand the concepts in the questions that you missed. Be prepared to apply those same principles correctly to new problems.<br /> <br /> Take the time to review all the concepts featured in the exam. Also, spend time asking yourself questions about businesses that you encounter in your daily lives. For example, what are the costly inputs and sources of revenue for a newspaper? A movie theater? A book? How elastic are the demands in those markets? How competitive or monopolistic? The more you quiz yourself, the better you will learn the principles.<br /> <br /> Let’s review “returns to scale.” Imagine using a scale of one foot in measuring the dimensions of a room. Then change to a scale of inches. All dimensions increase by a factor of 12, because there are 12 inches to a foot. That is what “scale” means: it affects everything. In economics, changing the scale means changing all inputs by the same proportion. Increasing the scale means increasing all inputs. The “returns to scale” are then what happens to the output of a company when all inputs are increased. Is bigger better for the business?<br /> <br /> “Increasing returns to scale” means that when you increase all the inputs, then your company’s output increases by an even greater proportion. For example, if you double your inputs then perhaps your output triples. That would be extremely profitable for your business. Your costs only double, but your revenue triples. Your profits skyrocket. It is a formula for success.<br /> <br /> Wal-Mart’s “secret” to its success would, among the choices, be “increasing returns to scale.” The bigger it gets, the more efficient it becomes, the cheaper it can buy goods for (because it is obtaining volume discounts), and the more output it can produce. <br /> <br /> Meanwhile, there is nothing special about constant returns to scale, which is to be expected. Decreasing returns to scale is a disaster for a business that is growing. So is diminishing returns to labor. If bigger is better, and it is for Wal-Mart, then the correct answer is “increasing returns to scale.”<br /> <br /> Remember how I asked about the returns to the scale of the world population? It likely has increasing returns to scale. Twice as many people may mean more than twice as much output. Humans are creative, and twice as many humans would probably mean more than twice as many inventions like the light bulb, as people build on the work of others.<br /> <br /> So, then, what is the Law of Diminishing Returns? That is a rule that applies to ONLY ONE input. It is when a company keeps its assembly line and factor size constant, for example, but keeps hiring more and more of one input, such as labor. Eventually each added employee will have less and less to do. The returns on the additional employees declines. But if all inputs were increased at the same time, then the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply. Then it is a question of returns to scale.<br /> <br /> Consider this question:<br /> <br /> “The more someone has, the more he wants to make to be satisfied!” What economics principle would best explain that phenomenon?<br /> <br /> (a) Law of Demand<br /> <br /> (b) Law of Diminishing Returns<br /> <br /> (c) Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility<br /> <br /> (d) Coase Theorem<br /> <br /> Choices (a) and (d) can be eliminated immediately, but selecting between (b) and (c) is more difficult. The key here is that “marginal utility” refers to consumer satisfaction, while “returns” refers to output of a company. The question is geared towards consumer satisfaction, not output by a firm. It refers to what someone wants, not what a company produces. The correct answer is therefore (c).<br /> <br /> Know these concepts like the back of your hand, and learn from your mistakes. There will be a final exam when you can prove how much you learned.<br /> <br /> By the end of the course, make sure you understand the concepts in the problems that you missed. Make sure you answer them correctly on the final exam.<br /> <br /> ==So you want to make some money?==<br /> <br /> Traditionally there were four ways to make money:<br /> <br /> (1) Perform labor to earn wages. This is how most people make most of their money.<br /> <br /> (2) Invest capital to earn interest. This is what you can do once you save up some money.<br /> <br /> (3) Allow someone to use your land in exchange for rent.<br /> <br /> (4) Start a new business to earn profits. But watch out here: 9 out of 10 new businesses fail!<br /> <br /> Sounds simple enough, right? Look around you, and you’ll see people earning money each of the four above ways. Mostly, you’ll see the first way: get a job and earn some wages. That entails the least risk and is the easiest for most people. Adults and teenagers often follow the path of least resistance, and often imitate others. In economics, that means getting a job to work for a company. It’s great until the job becomes tiresome or the boss fires you. Then it’s not so great anymore. But as a teenager you can earn money from someone else while you are learning how business works. You need experience and savings before you can even try to make money the other three ways.<br /> <br /> Economists have their own terminology which, as you’ve seen in this course, is often different from common usage. In economics, the basic terms of wages, interest, rent and profit are all redefined. Ughhhhhh! Here we go:<br /> <br /> “[[Economic wages]]” are payments for the worker’s opportunity cost of time. When Charles earns $7 per hour working for a dry cleaners, those wages are payments for his opportunity cost of time. He could be working someone else making money. The market rate of $7 implies that his time is worth that much at this stage in his life.<br /> <br /> “[[Economic rent]]” is the payment for a perfectly inelastic input. If increasing the payment does not increase the supply of the input, then this is a “rent”. It is similar, but not identical, to rent paid on scarce land. Increasing the rent does not increase the supply the land. The supply is fixed. Don’t worry if you don’t understand this yet. We’ll spend more time on it below.<br /> <br /> “[[Interest]]” is straightforward: it is the cost of the use of money over time. If you borrow $10,000 for your business, then you have to pay interest (say 5%) for using that money. The person who lent you the money wants something for it. He’s not going to give it to you for free.<br /> <br /> “[[Economic profits]]” is concept we’ve addressed before. It is total revenues minus total costs, including opportunity costs of time and money in the costs.<br /> <br /> ==Interest==<br /> <br /> “There’s no free lunch,” according to the famous saying. “It costs money to make money” is another aphorism. Most bank's ATMs charge $1.50 just to withdraw cash from your account at a different bank.<br /> If you asked me to loan you $1000, then I might answer: why? What’s in it for me? You would then say that you promise to give it back. I would then say why should I give it to you in the first place? If I just keep the money, then I won’t have to worry about your giving it back.<br /> <br /> You would then offer to pay me money in exchange for loaning you $1000. We would bargain. You might offer me $25. I might reply that is not enough for me to go the trouble and take the risk to loan you $1000. Then you might offer me $50. I might wonder if I can get a better deal somewhere else. Ultimately we might settle on an amount that makes it worthwhile for me and advantageous for you. Some states have limits on how much interest can be charged. Query: should laws limit the amount of interest that can be charged?<br /> <br /> If I agreed to loan you $1000 for an extra payment by you of $50, then the interest rate would be $50/$1000 = 5%. Usually rates are stated in annual terms. If the $50 is paid and the full $1000 must be paid one year later, then the interest rate is 5% per year.<br /> <br /> Sometimes people repay money all at once, rather than with interest payments. Suppose I gave you $1000 and you promised to pay me back $1500 in 10 years. Then economists ask what is the “rate of return” or “yield” on that investment by me in your business?<br /> <br /> That is more difficult to calculate. I am receiving 50% return on my investment, but ten years from now. At first glance, you may think to simply divide 50% by 10 years to calculate a rate of return of 5% per year. That is a rough approximation, but not entirely precise.<br /> <br /> What is wrong with it? The flaw is that it fails to address the time value to money.<br /> <br /> ==The Time Value of Money==<br /> <br /> Suppose I told you that I will be giving you $100, but that you have a choice: either (1) I will give you the $100 today, or (2) I will give it to you in two years. Which would you prefer?<br /> <br /> Today, of course. But why? Is the $100 really worth more today than in two years in the future?<br /> <br /> Yes, it is. You could take $100 today and invest it, and have it grow to more than $100 in two years. Or you could buy something with it that you could enjoy for the two years. Or you could give it to a charity that could make good use of it for the two years.<br /> <br /> Money, like anything else, has an opportunity cost. Just as it is a waste of your time to sit and watch television for a few hours, it is a waste of money to have it sit idle without earning anything for several years. At a minimum, it could be earning interest.<br /> <br /> From Matthew 25:14-30 (RSV): “For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”<br /> <br /> Jesus was concerned with something far greater than money in this parable. But money does have a time value to it. Money tomorrow is not worth as much as the same amount of money today.<br /> <br /> How can you compare future money to present money? By calculating the “present value of money.” That is how much one would need in the present which, with investment, would equal the proposed future payment. We use the interest rate to determine how something today should be worth in the future, or how much a payment promised in the future is worth today.<br /> <br /> If I promise to give you $100 in 5 years, and the interest rate is 5%, then ask yourself how much you would need today to generate that same $100 in 5 years. It would be less than $100, because you could earn interest on it. In fact, you would only need $100 divided by (1.05) times itself 5 times (i.e, 1.05 x. 1.05 x 1.05 x. 1.05 x. 1.05)<br /> <br /> Using a calculator, that comes to $78.35. That’s amazing, isn’t it? Receiving $100 in 5 years is equivalent to only $78.35 today, assuming an interest rate of 5%.<br /> <br /> We can check our work. If you had $78.35 today and you invested it the bank at an interest rate of 5%, then next year it would be worth 5% more: $78.35 x 1.05 = $82.27<br /> <br /> You would do the same thing in the second year, investing it for a return of 5%: <br /> $82.27 x 1.05 = $86.38<br /> <br /> And again in year three:<br /> $86.38 x 1.05 = $90.70<br /> <br /> And again in year four:<br /> $90.70 x 1.05 = $95.24<br /> <br /> And, finally, one more time for the fifth year:<br /> $95.24 x 1.05 = $100<br /> <br /> So $100 to be paid five years from now is the same thing as receiving only $78.35 today. That’s due to the effect of the time value of money.<br /> <br /> ==Investment Decisions==<br /> <br /> Using the time value of money, now we can make investment decisions. As an owner of a company or just someone wanting to see your savings grow, you will need to make investment decisions.<br /> <br /> Suppose your widget company is considering a new machine that will last for two years and costs $3500. Suppose also that it will be worthless afterwards. Suppose further that it will bring in revenue of $2000 per year, and that interest rates are 10%. Should you invest in the machine?<br /> <br /> Ask yourself what the time value of the added income is. It equals:<br /> ($2000/1.10) + ($2000/(1.10x1.10)) = $1818.18 + $1652.89 = 3471.07<br /> <br /> Look again at its cost. Your decision? Don’t buy it.<br /> <br /> ==Economic Rent==<br /> <br /> There are four equivalent definitions of “economic rent.” Pick the one you like the best and then use it to understand the others:<br /> <br /> (1) Economic rent is the increased payment for a (scarce) good due to its very limited supply.<br /> <br /> (2) Economic rent is the amount that a payment exceeds the supply cost. The “rent” is the excess of a good’s actual price above the good’s supply cost.<br /> <br /> (3) Economic rent is the increased payment for an input that is in perfectly inelastic supply.<br /> <br /> (4) Economic rent is the payment of a factor of production in excess of the factor’s opportunity cost or supply cost.<br /> <br /> This is one of the most complex concepts of the course. But this should help: economic rent is the amount that a monopoly can charge in excess of the good’s cost. Economic rent is the surplus enjoyed by the recipient, at the expense of the person paying it. <br /> <br /> Suppose there is only one house on a peninsula overlooking the ocean out of both sides of the house. The economic rent is the excess in price that the owner can charge due its unique location. The supply is one, and anyone determined to have that house must pay whatever price is charged. Of course, the Law of Demand places a limit on the rent, because people can’t pay what they don’t have, nor will they pay more than what they value something at. But the overcharge due to the uniqueness of the good is what constitutes the “economic rent.”<br /> <br /> ==Economic Profits==<br /> <br /> Remember that “economic profits” include far more than ordinary “accounting profits” or “profits” in the ordinary sense of the term. “Economic profits” are total revenues minus costs that include opportunity costs, time value of money, and other hidden costs missing from most claims about profits. Economic profits are much harder to come by.<br /> <br /> Who enjoys true economic profits? Monopolies do, because they can increase their price and reap economic rents. Microsoft garners hefty profits year after year, with no end in sight. But ultimately all monopolies, even Microsoft, fall prey to competition and those economic profits dry up. However, that process can be painfully slow for consumers seeking to realize those competitive benefits now.<br /> <br /> Inventors and other innovators can enjoy real economic profits. Thomas Edison did, with his numerous marvelous patented inventions. Patents give the holder an exclusive right to the product for 17 years. Competition is prevented for that time, and enormous economic profits can be obtained without competition driving the price down. AT&amp;T used Alexander Graham Bell’s patent on the telephone to build a highly profitable company for a century. But ultimately its economic profits dried up, too.<br /> <br /> ==Assignment==<br /> <br /> Review your mid-term exam again and understand why you missed certain questions. Then answer the problems below:<br /> <br /> ===Introductory===<br /> <br /> 1. Receiving $100 next year is not the same as receiving $100 today because of the _________________.<br /> <br /> 2. “Free enterprise does not cause interest rates. Impatience does!” Explain both views.<br /> <br /> ===Intermediate===<br /> <br /> 3. I agree to pay you $1,000 in one year, if you pay me ______ today. The interest rate is 5%. Fill in the blank, showing your work.<br /> <br /> 4. Elizabeth owns a clothing store. She can spend $100,000 today to increase her inventory of fancy clothes, which would increase her profits by $104,000 in one year without any further benefit. Interest rates are 5%. Should she make the investment?<br /> <br /> 5. If total utility is maximized, then<br /> <br /> (a) average utility is minimized<br /> <br /> (b) average utility is maximized<br /> <br /> (c) marginal utility is maximized<br /> <br /> (d) marginal utility is zero<br /> <br /> Answer and explain.<br /> <br /> 6. All of the following are fixed costs for starting a new school EXCEPT:<br /> (a) textbooks<br /> (b) electricity<br /> (c) rent<br /> (d) landscaping<br /> Answer and explain.<br /> <br /> 7. During hurricane season a town’s power plant was completely destroyed. People wanted to buy kerosene to run their emergency generators. But the price of kerosene doubled! What is the effect of the price increase? Should a new law force the price of kerosene down by half?<br /> <br /> ===Honors===<br /> <br /> 8. Explain what “economic rent” is in your own words, using your own example.<br /> <br /> 9. Explain which of these earn economic rent, and how much: Katrina earns $500 for playing her violin at events, but would play for free. Philip collects $800 for renting his basement, which equals the electricity, property, interest and costs of his time collecting the rent. Victoria, because of her special talent, earns $30,000 a year growing soybeans when others like her only make $20,000 with similar land.<br /> <br /> 10. Explain Jesus’ parable about the talents, using general principles learned during this course.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Economics lectures]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Economics Lecture 12}}</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_Lecture_Ten&diff=672714 2009-06-11T15:34:38Z

<p>TadghOB: FBI</p> <hr /> <div>''Louis Freeh, director of the FBI for eight years, was so far behind technologically that FBI agents had to use their more advanced personal computers at home in order to exchange large files!''<br /> <br /> The wording in this sentence is a little confusing? Just because Freeh was technologically behind, other people had to use their home computers to communicate? I'm guessing the intended meaning was that Freeh, while head of the FBI, didn't push forward the organization's technology enough, resulting in better computing facilities domestically for agents? In passing, I'd point out that this is of course common nowadays - with cable modems and services like fibre available domestically, internet performance at home is very frequently better than the traditional corporate T1 lines, etc. That said, of course the FBI should have had the best net access in the world. [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 11:34, 11 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_Lecture_Six&diff=672713 2009-06-11T15:02:21Z

<p>TadghOB: updates needed, and some internal contradictions?</p> <hr /> <div>''Occasionally a major company will suddenly declare itself to be broke and will ask the government for a “bailout” to save its jobs. The car maker Chrysler did this about 25 years ago. The federal government, despite substantial criticism, provided cheap loans to Chrysler to keep it out of bankruptcy. So many jobs were at stake that there was political benefit to some officials for doing this.''<br /> <br /> You might want to update this to add the April 2009 Chrysler bankruptcy, and last week's GM filing. In the case of the 1979 Chrysler bailout, when the US Government's shares were sold in 1983, the US made a profit of about $350m on the investment[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm].<br /> <br /> ''But don’t expect the government ever to save a company you work for from going bankrupt.''<br /> <br /> This flatly contradicts the prior sentence regarding the government bailout of Chrysler. Chrysler survived its 1979 bankruptcy so that it could go bankrupt again in 2009! Also, since Oct 2008, you could add Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Chrysler, GM, all the major US banks and many regional banks (taken over by the FDIC) to the list of organizations who were wholly taken over or assisted by the Government to save them from going bankrupt? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 11:02, 11 June 2009 (EDT)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Mysteries_of_World_History&diff=621331 2009-02-10T00:06:53Z

<p>TadghOB: /* Who was right - Catholics or Protestants? */</p> <hr /> <div>==Dark Ages==<br /> <br /> I have to ask: does this really qualify as a &quot;mystery?&quot; Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: &quot;No, the so-called &quot;Dark Ages&quot; weren't really so backwards.&quot; Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the &quot;Dark Ages&quot; in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term &quot;Dark Ages&quot; for precisely that reason. <br /> <br /> Should it really be termed a &quot;mystery&quot; just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> : Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the &quot;dark ages&quot; with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Perhaps a better question would be &quot;Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Humor==<br /> Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]<br /> <br /> ::: You misunderstand what a Greek &quot;comedy&quot; was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by &quot;humor&quot;? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term &quot;comedy&quot; did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.<br /> ::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.<br /> ::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'. <br /> ::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.<br /> ::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.<br /> ::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.<br /> ::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.<br /> ::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar &quot;examples&quot; tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek &quot;comedies&quot; were not attempts at humor in today's sense.<br /> <br /> ::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to &quot;draw rich laughter from the audience&quot; before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by &quot;humor&quot; and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::::If you are so adament about so called &quot;genuine humor&quot; mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.<br /> <br /> ::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> For the elucidation of all: &quot;''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''&quot; describes Aristophanes as an &quot;Athenian comic poet&quot;. Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - &quot;''The Wasps''&quot;. I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes. <br /> <br /> Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.<br /> <br /> The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing &quot;I find it funny&quot; with &quot;it is intended as Humor.&quot; I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be &quot;humour&quot; just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about &quot;The Wasps.&quot; But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not &quot;humor&quot; as defined primarily by the dictionary: the &quot;ludicrous&quot; or (more importantly) the &quot;absurdly incongruous.&quot;<br /> <br /> There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not &quot;humor&quot; as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like &quot;Trading Places&quot; would qualify, but it didn't exist.<br /> <br /> It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Here you go Andy, here is the full text of &quot;The Wasps&quot; for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)&quot;But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not &quot;humor&quot; as defined primarily by the dictionary&quot;<br /> ::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire (&quot;a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics&quot;), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not &quot;humor&quot; per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==<br /> <br /> Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to &quot;love thy neighbour&quot;, after all. But to return to the question at hand - &quot;who is right, Catholics or Protestants?&quot;. As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)</div>

TadghOB https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Mysteries_of_World_History&diff=621285 2009-02-09T22:10:29Z

<p>TadghOB: Catholics vs Protestants?</p> <hr /> <div>==Dark Ages==<br /> <br /> I have to ask: does this really qualify as a &quot;mystery?&quot; Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: &quot;No, the so-called &quot;Dark Ages&quot; weren't really so backwards.&quot; Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the &quot;Dark Ages&quot; in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term &quot;Dark Ages&quot; for precisely that reason. <br /> <br /> Should it really be termed a &quot;mystery&quot; just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> : Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the &quot;dark ages&quot; with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Perhaps a better question would be &quot;Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Humor==<br /> Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]<br /> <br /> ::: You misunderstand what a Greek &quot;comedy&quot; was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by &quot;humor&quot;? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term &quot;comedy&quot; did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.<br /> ::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.<br /> ::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'. <br /> ::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.<br /> ::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.<br /> ::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.<br /> ::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.<br /> ::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar &quot;examples&quot; tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek &quot;comedies&quot; were not attempts at humor in today's sense.<br /> <br /> ::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to &quot;draw rich laughter from the audience&quot; before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by &quot;humor&quot; and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::::If you are so adament about so called &quot;genuine humor&quot; mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.<br /> <br /> ::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> For the elucidation of all: &quot;''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''&quot; describes Aristophanes as an &quot;Athenian comic poet&quot;. Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - &quot;''The Wasps''&quot;. I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes. <br /> <br /> Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.<br /> <br /> The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing &quot;I find it funny&quot; with &quot;it is intended as Humor.&quot; I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be &quot;humour&quot; just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==<br /> <br /> Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)</div>

TadghOB