Talk:Main Page/archive70

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The Race Card

So, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are racists? How does that make any sense? If they'd seated Burris, you'd complain that they were allowing the the taint of corruption into the Senate, and if Burris played the race card (actually, he is...), you'd complain about the ebul libruls creating victims out of victimizers. What should they have done, exactly? --NTemple 22:32, 6 January 2009 (EST)

The silence is deafening. Furthermore, the article that "proves" that boys and girls are fundamentally inequal simply says that girls are less physically active. Not that they are incapable of being more physically active, but that they simply aren't as active as their male counterparts. --NTemple 17:40, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Why is the silence deafening to you, NTemple? The race card was played by many "librul" news organizations as well as by politicians. Just what is your purpose for being here? Karajou 17:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Public School & Teen Pregnancy

Life in public school: over 10% of the girls become pregnant. Half have abortion, and half give birth. "There is zero shame" to teenage pregnancy at public school, the school nurse observed.[15]

First, a quick thanks to whoever suggested this article - it was really interesting. However, I have a few concerns:

  • The article's author, an English teacher, says "In our school of 2,211 students, we now have at least 70 girls who are soon-to-be or already mothers." (These numbers refer to Alexandria VA's T.C. Williams High School.) Assuming half of the students are boys, that makes 100*70/(2,211/2) = 6.3% of the girls who are pregnant and/or mothers. Where does the 10% number come from?
  • The article also states: According to the Virginia Department of Health, there were 204 pregnancies among Alexandria teens in 2006, resulting in 102 births and 99 abortions. I assume this is where the Half have abortion, and half give birth. statement comes from. If this holds true for TC Williams, it is tempting to assume that 12.6% of the students have become pregnant. However, because this statistic is for Alexandria overall, I don't think we can just assume that the ratio is the same for TC Williams. (For example, the Hispanic, presumably Catholic girls, of which there are many at TC, may be more likely to keep their babies.)
  • It is important to understand that this is one particular urban public high school (10th-12th grades), serving mostly minority students, from low socio-economic backgrounds - we should not assume or imply that the statistics are the same for all public schools. (A quick web search shows that TC is 75% minority, 40% qualify for reduced school lunches, and a significant number of students are not yet American citizens.)

Given these concerns, as well as a few grammar issues present in the original, I suggest the article be tweaked as follows: Life in one Virginia public high school: over 6% of the 10th-12th grade girls become mothers. In this city, half of teen pregnancies are taken to term, half end in abortion. "There is zero shame" to teenage pregnancy at this public school, the school nurse observed. Thanks. --Hsmom 22:44, 15 December 2008 (EST)

The headline is a correct approximation. About half of teenage girls in public school who become pregnant have abortions. The statistic may vary slightly depending on demographics, but not enough to push the percentage of girls who become pregnant at the high school in the story below 10%.
Alexandria is in the suburbs of D.C. and is reasonably well off. Its 75% minority population is not unusual for public schools nationwide. Alexandria public schools are probably wealthier than schools in many areas of large cities, like New York, Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia or L.A.--aschlafly 23:23, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I was interested in the statistics discussed in the article, so I've done some more looking. This 2006 report on teen pregnancies states that "nearly a third of all teen pregnancies end in abortion". The report shows 14% end in miscarriage, 29% in abortion, and 57% in birth. (This points to a possible flaw in the original article's statistics - "204 pregnancies among Alexandria teens in 2006, resulting in 102 births and 99 abortions" - as no miscarriages are mentioned.) If the TC girls follow the national statistics, and 70 out of 2211 give birth, then we can (in a rough, back-of-the-envelope way) estimate that there were 123 pregnancies, of which 36 ended in abortion and 17 ended in miscarriage. Thus about 11% of the girls get pregnant. But the report also shows major differences in pregnancy rates by race. Black women have the highest teen pregnancy rate (134 per 1,000 women aged 15-19), followed by Hispanics (131 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (48 per 1,000). Thus 13% of black teens, 13% of Hispanic teens, and 5% of white teens get pregnant. Based on these numbers, TC Williams seems typical for teens in general given its racial makeup. However, since I now question the accuracy of the "Half have abortion, and half give birth" statement due to the lack of miscarriage numbers, I think we should remove it from our article. I am willing to agree that your 10% number is probably in the ballpark for TC, and to let it stand, though on general principal I think that we should try to use statistics directly from the article we are referencing, rather than extrapolations, whenever possible.

But how typical is the racial and socio-economic makeup of TC Williams as far as public schools go? Can we assume that this school is typical of all public schools? My impression is that public schools vary drastically in their racial and socio-economic makeup. My local public high school is 95% white; another in my county is 93% black. One public high school in my county has 7% of kids eligible for free or reduced price lunches, another has 64%. Most local high schools have 0% migrant students; one in the next county over has 11%.

Arlington, VA, not too far from Alexandria, has schools which vary from a high of 87.8% white to a low of 6.3% white.[1] Reduced lunch eligibility ranged from a high of 79% to a low of 0.6%.[2] Pennsylvania public schools are, on average, 2% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 18% Black, and 71% white, with 35% of kids eligible for reduced or free lunches. But Philadelphia public high schools vary, with Masterman being 31% black and 19% eligible for free/reduced lunches, vs. West Philly High being 99% black and 79% eligible for free/reduced lunches, vs. Central High only 33% black (and 25% Asian), and so on.

My point is just that we should not treat TC Williams as if its pregnancy rates are typical of US public schools unless we can show that TC is typical of US public schools. (And I would argue that public schools vary so widely that a "typical" school is somewhat meaningless anyway.) The differences in pregnancy rates between various races would lead one to assume that schools with different racial makeup would have different pregnancy rates. (I'm assuming, by the way, that race is a rough marker for differences in other factors that affect pregnancy rates, and that race itself actually has little to do with it.) Public schools vary widely enough in race and socio-economic makeup (and thus in other ways as well) that it is very difficult to generalize about them.

I think, however, I'm belaboring the point, so I'll let it go for now. Thanks again for posting this very interesting article. There was a lot of food for thought! --Hsmom 23:24, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Hsmom, you seemed to be impressed by the story, but don't seem willing to accept its obvious implications: public schools are in a sorry state with over 10% of the girls getting pregnant, amid liberal indoctrination. That takes only a handful of words to acknowledge.--aschlafly 18:36, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Hsmom,
You're correct - one example can absolutely not be used as if it represents the whole. Especially for something like this; there are many factors that make a difference, including location (e.g. inner city or suburbs), socioeconomic background of the residents, wealth of the school, and the health education provided (e.g. abstinence-only, comprehensive, or perhaps none at all). The quality and type of health education is probably the most important factor - abstinence-only is largely ineffective yet seems to be very widespread.
As for Aschlafly...it also takes only a handful of words to acknowledge that perhaps the article provides misleading information and is in need of more extensive research and editing. It's "implications" are not "obvious" when flaws in the information can be found. --Shinri 20:55, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Paralysed schoolgirl

I read the article linked to this headline and it states: "...doctors have ruled that Ashleigh's condition is not connected to the vaccination, and health experts have insisted that the vaccine is safe".

I would have thought that the headline, as it currently stands, might cause some unneccessary panic in relation to such vaccinations. Perhaps it should be modified to include the above quote. --TCochrane 18:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. It's misleading to imply that the vaccination was the cause when the very article cited explicitly ruled that out. While the sentence in the headline is accurate from a chronological perspective, leaving it as-is gives the impression of quote mining. --DinsdaleP 18:30, 16 December 2008 (EST)
You strike me as somewhat naive, chaps. What these so-called 'doctors' - for which read fully-paid-up representatives of Big Science - have to say does not necessarily have to have any relation to the truth of the matter. Liberals are keen to push any means of encouraging immorality, and are none too scrupulous as to the consequences. Bugler 18:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Bugler, insert as much parody as you like elsewhere, but please don't help these fools propagate the myth that vaccinations are harmful. In reality, as I'm sure you are aware, not getting your children vaccinated is far more harmful!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NHaberl (talk)
I'm now starting to get tired of people claiming that I, or Bugler, or any other faithful conservatives here are parodists. NHaberl, read Evidence of Harm and come back and claim vaccines aren't dangerous!-AlexanderM 19:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Folks, even the vaccine manufacturers admit that their products cause serious harm in some recipients. Read the product insert.--aschlafly 19:17, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly, I've started an article on Evidence of Harm. Perhaps you'd like to contribute? I know you're on record standing up for parents in this area.-AlexanderM 19:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Per Schlafly, the arguments for vacinations follow those of other modern medicine. Doctors fully admit that a small percentage of patients will experience serious side effects including death when they take these things. It's both anti-science and liberal fanaticism to argue otherwise (personally, I prefer myself to be vacinated but realize that there is always a tiny risk and someone, somewhere will win the lottery if they buy the same lotto ticket as me as well as get very, very sick if not die from getting the same vacination). --RickD 22:49, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Right, except note that the vaccine manufacturers admit this. Doctors in busy practices, and subject to malpractice suits, are reluctant to admit that a vaccine caused (or will cause) any harm to a particular patient. Indeed, a doctor would be foolish (from a malpractice perspective) to admit to causing any harm at any time in any way.--aschlafly 23:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Obviously doctors backed by Big Science will continue to allow their patients to come to harm as long as they can avoid being held accountable in a lawsuit. It isn't as though these people ever had to take oaths promising to never deliberately harm those in their care. It's horrifying what these liberal doctors can get away with as long as they have the right supporters behind the curtain.--Adel 23:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Just to add some information about a pre-existing condition that vaccination will make worse GBS[3]. I am afraid that some of you are correct in that physicians often do not give the full information about a vaccine, although the patient can request the prescribing information (which includes the actual information that discusses the side effects and reported occurrences during the clinical trials) at any time. I disagree with the idea that it is a hidden agenda between the physician and drug company. Take in to consideration the amount of drugs and vaccines on the market and try to be knowledgeable on an area related to the major disciplines of medicine and you can see why some physicians stick to a routine (to avoid mistakes). The case in the news section is thought to be a GBS case due to the ascending paralysis in the child, thus the reason why it is noted that the vaccine was not responsible. The idea that vaccines do more harm than good really perplexes me, especially when you look at the occurrences of polio, small pox and even influenza since the introduction of vaccinations.--Able806 09:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

As a high school science teacher here in the UK I thought some might be interested in how we cover vaccination. The GCSE course we follow OCR 21st Century Science does ,IMO, cover it well. Including the biology of how it works, the importance of evaluating potential risk and potential benifit and some of the ethical dimensions e.g that for the individual the 'best' option can be not to be vaccinated, as long as most are so you benifit from 'herd immunity' (of course this won't work if everyone tries it). Now whislt I can't be sure what happens in every other classrooms I suspect it is similar.BannerN 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Just curious, don't any of you guys (Bugler, Schalfy, AlexanderM) get vaccinations or have your children vaccinated? If you do, which ones? MikeAndrews 10:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Silly question, like asking a critic of obesity whether he gives ice cream to his children.--aschlafly 18:32, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Is that really a silly question? A silly (and more analogous to the original) question would be like asking a critic of ice cream whether he gives ice cream to his children. He's asking if presumed critics of vaccination submit to receiving vaccines for themselves or their children despite their criticism. I think a better analogy would be "It's like asking someone who is against the oil industry if they use gasoline or petroleum products." I think both are valid questions to which the answers would inspire decent and educational discussion.BenOdelle 08:25, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Ben, you are taking Liberal literalism to an extreme. I have had certain vaccinations related to health protection. I have not had, nor would I have, vaccinations designed to encourage and facilitate immorality (and as I am a male, the particular vaccine in question here would not be appropriate). Bugler 08:34, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Ben, I've criticized mandatory vaccination using a particular vaccine that helps at most 3% of the recipients, each of whom could have more cheaply and effectively avoided the targeted disease simply by avoiding an immoral lifestyle. 97% of the recipients of the expensive and dangerous HPV vaccine probably receive no benefit from it, and yet some suffer dire consequences like that cited. You would realize that too, and oppose imposing this product on unsuspecting victims, if you didn't try to personalize the discussion in an absurd manner.--aschlafly 08:42, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Season's Greetings

Well, this is probably my last post on Conservapedia for 2008, as I shall be on holiday now (I will be checking my e-mail if need arises). To each and every one of you - thank you for a great year here and I wish all of you and your families a very Happy and Blessed Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year (or, as we would say, "meri-Kurisumasu" and "akemashite omedetou gozaimasu!")--KotomiTohayougozaimasu 10:25, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Kotimi! Say to you and your family and friends.--aschlafly 10:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)
May the holidays bring much happiness to you and your family, Kotomi. Enjoy, and see you in 2009! --DinsdaleP 11:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)

News Story

"Conservative activist Paul Weyrich, who coined the phrase "moral majority" and helped turn social conservatives into a powerful force in the Republican Party, died Thursday. He was 66." Here's the link to the AP Story. --DinsdaleP 13:50, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Posted. Thanks DinsdaleP. --DeanStalk 14:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)
My thoughts and prayers to his family. --Benp 16:25, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Bailout for the Auto Industry

Mucho dinero por las autos[4] we should have more than one link for this big news item. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 13:49, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Great catch. I posted it. I should have used your humorous headline!--aschlafly 14:08, 19 December 2008 (EST)


another money wasting move like the bailout of financial institutions

What makes your blood boils is, those banks dare to say either they don't know where the money goes, or they don't want to tell you where the money goes. Yeah, we the taxpayers paid them the money (that is, YOUR tax money), and we don't even have the right to know where the money goes. Make sense?

a video from ABC's 20/20 on 12/19, talks about the bailout money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtFp7Afvbk

Kmcheng 16:36, 25 December 2008 (EST)

more News

Perhaps I'm going blind but I didn't catch this on the news page. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093091/Viewers-broadcast-suicide-film-Brown-says-matter-conscience.html --AlexA 18:18, 19 December 2008 (EST)

That's not news. That silly story merely illustrates (once again) why we don't have or want a direct democracy. The truth is not chosen by popular vote.--aschlafly 18:31, 19 December 2008 (EST)
hmmm. So when it comes to Gay Marriage, anything other than a state wide referendum is judicial activism, but when it comes to a terminally ill man taking his own life, OH NO the truth is not chosen by popular vote. nice logic.
A broken clock is correct sometimes also.--aschlafly 23:48, 19 December 2008

(EST)

You've dodged my question andy. why do you support direct referendums when it comes to topics that you agree with, but discount them when you disagree?
I think the answer is pretty obvious, given the nature of this site.
(Oh, and go right ahead and warn me again for "making an attack on CP", I'll just laugh harder at this site while being even more depressed that people could even seriously believe the extremely religiously+conservatively biased views displayed here). --Shinri 22:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)

13th Amendment

Why is the 13th Amendment never mentioned in relation to pharmacists being forced to serve people wanting to buy the morning after pill and doctors who refuse to artificially inseminate lesbians? Am I the only one who sees that it applies perfectly? --MichaelK 22:30, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Interesting idea. But keep in mind that the pharmacists can always quit.--aschlafly 22:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Uh, maybe because it's irrelevant and perhaps even a bit insulting to the memory of those who endured actual slavery? And then there's the Amish bus driver example. --KevinS 22:38, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Wow, Kevin, maybe you can even call someone a "racist" for citing the 13th Amendment for a legal principle like that???--aschlafly 22:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)
No, I would not. I just find it silly that restrictions on a profession one chooses would be compared to lifelong forced labor and abuse. --KevinS 22:48, 19 December 2008 (EST)
No, Kevin, one chooses the profession but pro-abortion types (whom you haven't criticized) force him to do something he never chose to do upon threat of losing his livelihood. Are you OK with that?--aschlafly 22:53, 19 December 2008 (EST)
I believe that pharmacists should understand they may be called upon to give out the pill, and that their beliefs = / = other people's beliefs and should not affect these people's options in any way. If they are not comfortable with this, they have no business in a medical profession. --Shinri 22:18, 2 January 2009 (EST)
No, and so I don't have a problem with creating specialized pharmacies which wouldn't prescribe such medications. Someone who wants such a prescription filled would know not to go there, and the pharmacists would not be forced to do anything they find objectionable. Perhaps that's a bit too optimistic, but I don't see a problem with it.
That being said, I don't have much of a problem with the new rules, as I seriously doubt many people will be denied prescriptions. I just find the using the 13th amendment to justify it a bit silly. --KevinS 23:02, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Guest World Treasure

The text under the image of the Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster reads "The Big Ben" - this is incorrect. The tower is correctly called the "Clock Tower"; the bell that rings the hours on the clock is colloquially known as "Big Ben"; colloquially, the two together are called Big Ben. The word "The" is unnecessary. I would be grateful if you would correct this. Thank you. HumbleServant 11:51, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely correct, Humble Servant. I was going to point this out as well, but I didn't want to be the one who seemed pernickety. I suppose you could argue that Big Ben is IN the photograph, even if it is clearly OF the Clock Tower, but the definite article should certainly be annihilated. It looks ridiculous. Micheldene 18:53, 20 December 2008 (GMT)

Conscience Rule

I set up a new debate page, Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare? in case anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of this policy change. I didn't want to use this Talk page for that. --DinsdaleP 12:07, 20 December 2008 (EST)

News Headline Redundancy

It seems like the two recent headlines about recipients of TARP funds not disclosing their use are redundant. Could the references be combined under a single headline? --DinsdaleP 12:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks for the alert. --DeanStalk 16:11, 22 December 2008 (EST)


Merry Christmas

May God bless and keep you. --Benp 18:37, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Merry Christmas to all the Christians here! Sulli 12:41, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Merry Christmas to everybody else as well. No need to be nasty. PeterWinchester 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Merry Christmas to all also!--aschlafly 17:09, 25 December 2008 (EST)

As a sufferer of OCD...

...I must say that I am a bit horrified by the description of anxiety disorders as a "lack of faith". Anxiety disorders are the result of chemical imbalances, and, although they can be somewhat alleviated by faith, are not the result of a lack thereof. --HCaulfield 18:42, 26 December 2008 (EST)

A fake name and irreligious liberal excuses? You're off to a great start. You may find it difficult to accept the truth presented by conservapedia, but we will not censor it because you do. - Rod Weathers 18:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Anxiety disorders are real. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)
As is lack of faith. Your point is obscure. Bugler 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
If someone could point me to the article in question I would be happy to work on it. I have significant undergraduate training in psychology and neuroscience as well as research and clinical experience in stress disorders. Sulli 10:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Sulli, how much time have you spent learning how helpful faith is in overcoming anxiety??? In reply to Tim, no one doubts the anxiety disorders are "real", and they "really" can be cured by faith.--aschlafly 10:11, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Oh I see, on the main page. I also must say that does not cover all anxiety disorders or sufferers any particular disorder. On the other hand, with some exceptions, religious individuals tend to have a much lower incidence of anxiety disorders in general. In fact, OCD is one of the exceptions, but there is still evidence that faith in God is a good indicator of lower symptom severity, so the religious are still better off. It may be too hard to fit in the subtleties in a short news item, however. Sulli 10:12, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Aschafly, personally, with thanks to God, I have not had a particularly difficult life, and my faith has helped me. It is not a panacea for anxiety disorders, however, as it may be for those of us with normal levels of anxiety. But faith certainly helps those even with disorders, just perhaps not enough for them to be asymptomatic. Sulli 10:15, 27 December 2008 (EST)
In fact, I will add sections on the psychiatry related articles regarding faiths protective effect in different disorders, during the week when I have access to journals for sources. Sulli 10:20, 27 December 2008 (EST)

The essential element to curing a panic attack is the realization that it's not going to last, and that you're not going to die. Psychologist David Burns describes how to do this. When I have time, I'll write a short article on it.

You can call realization "faith" if you want to, or simply confidence.

Science has not studied the role of expectation enough, but it would be very interesting to summarize the latest research. Here are some topics to flesh out:

  • placebo effect: doctor says pills, etc. will work, and you believe him - how much does that help?
  • Pygmalion effect: teacher says a student is smart, and the student believes here - how much does that help?
  • observer bias: scientist expects to find results, and does - how valid are the results?
  • psychosomatic illness: how much does attitude or mood affect our physical health?
  • homeopathy: is it a placebo, or just pseudoscience?

Let's settle this the CP way, by writing articles! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 11:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Obama Church Attendance

While he hasn't attended mass once, he has been to a church for his grandma's funeral service at First Unitarian Church. [5] --Jpatt 19:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

That's hardly relevant. Being to a church for a funeral is far different than being to church to engage in one's religion. - Rod Weathers 23:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Conservative Elevator Story

I was surprised at this being posted as a favorable "news" item, because it seems to be full of contradictions, or at the least is an indictment of the George Bush administration under the guise of an attack on liberalism. The "set the stage" comment, for example, states "In America today, conservatives believe, government is cruel, corrupt, unjust; and it just costs too much. And we conservatives just can't stand there and do nothing". Republican conservatives have been in charge of the executive branch for the past eight years, and of Congress for the first six of those eight. The author also takes aim at Bush and his compassionate conservatism with statements like "Government is not compassion. Government is force. You cannot solve social problems by force". While he uses a single corrupt Democratic governor as his example for all that is wrong with government today, the author apparently lost sight of his original intent - to come up with an effective elevator speech to explain the fall elections and what conservatives need to do about it. I think his idea was good but his result was not, because being in denial about the past eight years by blaming liberals for the results the Bush administration is not going to work with voters in 2010 or 2012.

Instead of just criticizing this article, I see it as a chance for a new Conservapedia Challenge - to create our own focused, effective elevator speech - so I'm adding this to the Conservapedia Challenge page as a new objective to start 2009 with. --DinsdaleP 09:18, 29 December 2008 (EST)

New news item

You should direct your readers to sign the Academic Freedom Petition, CreationWiki as well as many other conservative websites are doing it. Kuyper 23:21, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Other News Item

It looks like Bristol Palin has had her baby, a boy she and the father have named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston. [6] --DinsdaleP 09:45, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Pagan AND Godless??

Even if it is a direct quote, that looks pretty stupid. --TBrouwer 12:41, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. I'd suggest pulling that line from the headline, not because it's an inaccurate quote from Chaplain Moore, but because it betrays his ignorance and undermines the message the person posting this news story wanted to get out. --DinsdaleP 13:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Not really - think it through. Pagans worship streams, tree spirits, the sun, the moon... you name it. In other words, they worship false gods. If you worship false gods, you aren't worshipping God at all. Ergo, Godless - as much as any Dawkins. Bugler 13:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
And even if that were true, it would be a needless redundancy and a tautology. --TBrouwer 13:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)
even if that were true - it is true, as I have just demonstrated. needless redundancy and a tautology which is itself a double (and arguably treble) tautology... but what is the problem? You wanted rid of it because you thought it was wrong and 'looked stupid', whereas in fact it is neither. It would have been more gracious of you to admit that you have egg on your face! Bugler 13:33, 30 December 2008 (EST)
which is itself a double tautology. Yes, that was the joke, brought to you by the department of redundancy. First of all, you admitted yourself that they have many gods. If it was denying that they had a God, it should've been Godless not godless. Hence it's a contradiction in terms, which looks just as silly as a contradiction. And finally, it would have been even more gracious if you didn't resort to putting words in my mouth or childish remarks, thanks.
As pointed out, "Pagan" and "Godless" are not identical, and convey different, important connotations. What's "pretty stupid" is to whine about it. Do you have a preference between the terms in describing your own views?--aschlafly 13:46, 30 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent)

I thought about the Pagan = not worshipping God = Godless line of reasoning, too, but the comment still remains an ignorant one because public schools do not teach Paganism. I have a feeling that Moore uses the words "Pagan" and "Heathen" interchangably, but that usage is incorrect. If people want the quote to remain in the headline I have no issue, but doing so invites legitimate criticism that distracts from the point of the article, which is the campaign. --DinsdaleP 13:48, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Jumping the gun

Why have we included a forecast for the 2010 Senate race of Harry Reid on the News page? If this information was placed on his article, it would make much more sense, because speculation isn't warranted on the "News" section, especially speculation about something so distant in the future. AAdams 16:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)

You have it backwards, AAdams. Compare a printed newspaper to a printed encyclopedia and please acknowledge that we have it right.--aschlafly 16:37, 30 December 2008 (EST)
AAdams, as one who lives in Nevada, I can attest to the basic facts of the article. Harry Reid was elected to the U.S. Senate by the gambling industry which he has served faithfully since his election. While his radical liberal ways grab all the headlines, behind the scenes he has been dedicated to giving special breaks to the major gaming interests, and the cities that serve them. Even his own personal finances and land dealings have been noted in the press, and are entangled with the gambling interests who have him in their pocket. Odd for someone who touts his ties to the LDS Church at election time. --₮K/Talk! 16:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
There was a similar story about Saxby Chambliss's win stating that it could be an "early sign of the results of the US midterms in 23 months". I don't really think that speculation like this is 'news' or encyclopedia worthy.--RonAbdul 20:41, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Well, the "In The News" section isn't in the encyclopedia articles section of CP. It is on the Main Page, and was started to bring news of interest to Conservatives, which the dishonest and deceitful MSM usually ignore. Surely being the conservative and good Christian that you are, RonAbdul, you can see the benefit of that? --₮K/Talk! 21:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, but no, I am not a Christian.--RonAbdul 10:40, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Happy (Early) New Year

Well, we are down to 15 hours and counting, so let me wish everybody, and their families, here a happy new year and all the best for 2009! --KotomiTohayougozaimasu 02:00, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks so much, Kotomi, and a happy New Year's to you also! You will be one of the first of us to bring in the New Year's!--aschlafly 07:36, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Same here. I'm probably gonna post a lot of those messages before night editing turns on. Happy New Year everyone! JY23 21:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

"Please Don't Mention Christ!

[7]

C'mon. He's a Christian minister. Who is he supposed to pray to? "Nondenominational Deity and/or Other Creative Force Who May Or May Not Actually Exist?" Would that be wishy-washy enough to appease the perpetually offended? --Benp 12:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Protection request

Could someone please semi-protect my user and user talk pages? An irritating troll is angry that I reverted his edits and keeps coming back with new accounts to vandalize my talk page. Daniel_Kuyper 12:36, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Done as requested. Thanks for your efforts.--aschlafly 12:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Thank you, hopefully that will stop him! Daniel_Kuyper 12:56, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Main Page Correction

I thought it appropriate to point out that the main page notes that Conservapedia celebrated the new year by appointing five new sysops, yet six are listed.

--Economist 00:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Your name fits your comment!--Andy Schlafly 12:52, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Wiki news item

Uh, the article used as a source for the possible Wikipedia competitor news item actually says that the sites aren't even wikis. All that company has is a bunch of sites with little information and some ads. They don't seem to be aiming to compete with Wikipedia, either. Nor do they seem notable at all; they seem to me to just be a step above cybersquatters. --KevinS 22:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The company is probably a cybersquatter that is expecting a bunch of specialized wikis to be rolled out and they want these wiki websites to pay them for the domain names. No error on the main page on this matter. conservative 04:03, 4 January 2009 (EST)
The better question is, why is a story about a cybersquatter parking a bunch of ---wiki domains newsworthy in terms of the Conservapedia main page? The domains on the article's list are all niche terms, so none of them would pose a serious competitive challenge to Wikipedia, which is a multi-language, general-purpose online encyclopedia. I'd suggest removing the item, since it doesn't meet the same standard of relevance as the other articles on the main page. --DinsdaleP 12:15, 4 January 2009 (EST)
The news story reflects a belief in growing competition to Wikipedia, and thus is of particular interest to our visitors (many of whom are fed up with the Bias in Wikipedia). You denial of this trend is also telling.--Andy Schlafly 12:52, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Parking domains is not competing with Wikipedia - it's looking to make money off of the people who'd actually be interested in doing the competition. Until these domains are actually purchased and wikis built, this is just the speculation of a business hoping to capitalize on a wiki-building trend that may or may not exist. Also, as I mentioned above, these are all niche names, none of which pose a significant competitive challenge to Conservapedia, Wikipedia, or any other general-focus encyclopedia. --DinsdaleP 12:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)
DinsdaleP, you seem to resist abstracting a bit. Speculation is a sign of expectation, and expectation is a sign of the future. Billions of dollars are transacted each day on "futures", which is the same concept.
Not to pick on Dinsdale, but I've noticed that many liberals seem to resist abstraction. On the gun control issue, for example, liberals resist recognizing the deterrent value of widespread gun ownership. Some liberals seem to have trouble understanding it, while others understand it but resist accept something "unseen". Insights on this are welcome.--Andy Schlafly 13:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I think that we are overreacting to this news. These aren't wikis with the same potential as Conservapedia; take a look at the list given in the article. 'CouponPedia'; 'MenuPedia'. The others aren't much better: 'ColoradoPedia'; 'MarysvillePedia'. Even if anyone wants to buy them (and I doubt it) they then have to get it up to a standard to compete not only with wikipedia (and Conservapedia too) but with all the other sites giving similar information as well. And they have to find contributors who care. And they'll have to be able to fend off massive attacks from vandals who'll smell such a weak target straight away. It's just my opinion, of course, but those sites seem doomed to failure. ETrundel 13:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm all for abstraction, and Aschlafly is right about how that ties to futures markets. People who bet on oil futures, though, (hopefully) make their decisions on careful analysis and an investment model. Domain squatters tend to buy up cheap names and hope one pays off, the way spammers send millions of emails hoping for a few gullible recipients to respond. This is speculation-by-gambling, not thoughtful abstraction, and as ETrundel mentions, names like "Couponpedia" are not challenges to the Wikipedia model the way Google's Knol project is. --DinsdaleP 13:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

It seems to me the major flaw with the linked article is that the author makes a logical lapse by stating that the suffix "-pedia" is somehow meant to imply a wiki. "Pedias" have been around for centuries, while wiki's have been around about a decade. This idea that somehow that suffix has been usurped by wikis strikes me as silly. Wikipedia changed a lot, but not that much. Is he going to complain that my Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia is not a wiki too? MarkJ 13:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Domain parkers don't do anybody any favors. It's now much less likely that a new project will use these domain names because of the cost of acquiring them. New projects don't spend a lot of money if they're unsure if they'll be successful. The only way these domains will be useful against Wikipedia is if an already-established project purchases them, someone like CreationWiki or Conservapedia. --Interiot 16:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Perhaps this article should be taken down then? The above comments are very sensible, and I agree. I personally feel that it makes us seem stupid; I know we are not. ETrundel 11:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Folks, learn how the simply concept of futures markets works and don't demand censorship of information. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 11:31, 5 January 2009 (EST)
1) Removal of faulty news items is not censorship (e.g. retractions in the newspaper everyday). 2) A lot of people seem to think it doesn't belong there. I thought a wiki was supposed to be collaborative.
This domainsquatter is hardly a futures purchaser. Whoever acquired those domains obviously recognizes that he can make a quick buck off of something that "fell off the back of a truck" (not implying he stole it). If I found a fancy piece of stained glass in a dumpster, I don't know if it's worth anything or if anyone will consider buying it, but I believe that it's worth it to at least try to make something off it, and I think that what this person is attempting. (P.S. To put it metaphorically "one man's trash is another's treasure, I mean come on ColoradoPedia? [Note: No offense to Coloradoans.])--Snotbowst 19:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Public Schools Changing Evangelical Student's Values

The essay by Phyllis Schlafly is interesting reading, but without taking anything away from her points on education, it leaves a key question unanswered. The essay cites a statistic that 32% of 18-to-29-year-old evangelicals voted for Barack Obama despite his holding positions considered to be against their values. What is missing is a deeper understanding of why these people voted for Obama - specifically, was it a vote for him, or a vote against John McCain. Many conservatives were disappointed by the failures of the Bush administration to effect the change they expected, both socially and fiscally, and despite Sarah Palin being on the ticket I think many felt that John McCain was no more likely to make a difference. It's also worth noting that McCain's lead in the polls dived as a direct result of the growing financial crisis and his poor response to it. Evangelical voters may disapprove of Obama's social positions, but their concerns over who would better address the economic crisis in the short term may have led a significant number to vote for Obama despite those objections, and wait for 2012 for a better conservative candidate. Without some details as to why those 32% voted the way they did, all we can do is speculate. --DinsdaleP 12:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)

"Liberal Democratic Bozo " news description

Is "Bozo" really the intended word or is this vandalism? SJames 21:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Vandals don't have access to the news items. --KevinS 21:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)

It's the intended word, but it could be improved. I was considering other options and welcome suggestions. He and his candidacy seem like that of a clown to me. I imagine liberals love people like Al Franken and Terry McAuliffe. What word would you use to describe them? Statesmen?????--Andy Schlafly 21:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I think the proper word could be found if it distinguished McAuliffe and Franken from others who ran for governor without having previously held public office as a qualification. George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan are in this category as well, but would not be considered unfit candidates for Governor by most editors here. One of the great things about this country is that political outsiders can run for high office if they have a message and platform that connects with enough voters. Can derogatory terms like "bozo" be used to critique their positions on the issues instead of their status as political outsiders? --DinsdaleP 22:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)
None of your examples were political party insiders who spent years as "yes men" for party hacks. Rather, your examples are of people who had serious, successful careers in their own right, and substance and sincerity in their work. A bozo, like a clown, is lacking in substance, just as Franken and McAuliffe are.--Andy Schlafly 22:30, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I don't think Franken was unsuccessful in his prior career, which like Reagan came from the entertainment industry and therefore has no bearing on his fitness for office. Considering them to be clowns because of their positions, instead of their lack of prior elected-office experience, was the distinction that mattered, and it seems that we are in agreement on the importance of that distinction. --DinsdaleP 22:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)
KevinS, especially in light of recent events, I wouldn't put vandalism past (almost) anybody.
As for the word in this news headline, I don't have a particular substitute in mind but "bozo" just doesn't seem encyclopedic or necessary. Perhaps, just remove the word altogether. By stating his blank slate of public office experience, I'm pretty certain most readers can link that with his sudden run to become Governor and form their impressions of McAuliffe. SJames 23:45, 4 January 2009 (EST)

"dumber than even the internet vandals"

Reid's obvious inability of forming a scapal-like legal opinion in regards to the seating of Roland Burns is jaw-droppingly appalling. As a person in a role of such high legal authority, he should never have said "B obviously is a corrupt invididual...done to divert attention from him." So much for innocent until proven guilty. In my mind corruption starts with stupidity and laziness, which appears to be more of the accussER than accussed in the case of Harry Reid's judgment. --RickD 00:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

  • Don't even use the two words in the same sentence. That would be an oxymoron! --₮K/Administrator/Talk 00:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)
What did he mean when he said "we have to do something about jobs, ...classrooms, ...maybe with lithium batteries...also something with housing..."? I'm an electrical engineer and I have no clue how lithium batteries could ever be as important as jobs, classrooms, or housing. How can this guy be the head of the Senate? --RickD 00:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I would love it if I'm clueless about the lithium batteries. Still, later in the MSNBC Meet the Press today, he's quoted as calling President Bush "a liar," "a loser" and "our worst President ever"?!! When asked to respond to these quotes he confirms them and goes on a rant about Bush. Now I see that Reid is an American-hater who wants others to hate like he does. --RickD 01:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Ried's mindless rants against President George W. Bush are astounding. If Ried did that on any respectable internet site he'd be blocked for being so moronic.--Andy Schlafly 08:24, 5 January 2009 (EST)
He'd be living dangerously even on disreputable ones like wikipedia! --RickD 08:34, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Gossip

One would think that (profanity removed) 'bout Michelle Obama's dress sense, in the broken news section, is Gossip, something one would not expect in an Encyclopedia. It is verging on Liberal celebrity obsession and it is only one small step to Fashion industry and Hollywood values, and with them, all the atheisitic depravity that accompanies them. GillianP 07:39, 5 January 2009 (EST)

If she is attempting to make a point by the way she dresses, it is a reflection upon the First family elect, and thus a legitimate topic for comment. Bradlaugh 07:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)
GillianP doesn't like the criticism of Michelle Obama, but the criticism has nothing to do with gossip.--Andy Schlafly 08:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)
But is it good criticism? I don't think that the way Michelle Obama dresses is of any concern when put next to the horrible things that Obama could do with the presidency. When talking about something as insignificant as her fashion sense, it does border on gossip. Worse, it just seems like meanly picking on her, and isn't really newsworthy. -- JArneal 18:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Well, she came out wrapped in the red flag on election night. Study semiotics, JArneal. Signs have meanings. Bradlaugh 18:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I know liberals don't like it when their silly charade is pointed out for what it is. Michelle Obama trying to look like Jackie Onassis in public is not gossip. It's a silly attempt to boost popularity.
Insistence by liberals on last wordism on this in violation of our rules, without contributing substance to this encyclopedia, could result in account blocking.--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Can I ask a question without it being last wordism? If not, feel free to ignore my question! I know sometimes I'm a bit ditsy and don't see the obvious, which can get tedious - I apologize. Here it is: I'm not sure I understand Coulter's point. What is she saying is wrong with Obama's clothes? I agree that Michelle Obama dresses like a modern Jackie O, but I'm not sure why Coulter thinks it is laughable. Jackie O was a style icon. The two basic choices for first ladies (or other women in politics) are well-fitted dresses or suits, both of which were worn by Jackie O. Coulter preferred Cindy McCain's style, and so did I, but we must remember that Mrs. McCain spends quite a bit more on her clothes than Mrs. Obama. Obama's popular prêt-à-porter White House/Black Market dress was only $148; McCain's designer Oscar de la Renta dress was $3000. (McCain is also of a certain age, thus unlikely to go sleeveless.) I think that McCain's style also channels Jackie, though, in her matching single-solid-color suit ensembles, like those she wore to the RNC convention. I think both of them dressed quite nicely, as did Sarah Palin, though each has her own twist on the basic dress-or-suit style. I'm not a fan of Mrs. Clinton's pantsuits, but I think they work OK for her and her constituency. Coulter herself is no stranger to sleeveless A-line dresses, though she favors black, and frankly significantly more décolleté than would be appropriate for a first lady. --Hsmom 21:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Attempts to boost popularity are nothing new, really. Ronald Reagan in particular was known for having his helicopter pilots rev the propellers early so that interviewers couldn't ask questions that he wouldn't be ready for on the way to the craft. I guess the reason that the news entry bugged me was that it was presented like gossip.
Mr. Schlafly, did you suggest that only liberals can be blocked for last wordism? That's good news for me, but isn't it unfair? If you are referring to me, on the other hand, I've been making substantive contributions. -- JArneal 21:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I don't see how Reagan is relevant to this discussion. Don't try to change the subject at hand by pointing fingers to somebody else. Last wordism is a block reason for anyone who chooses to instead of going back to contributing decides to continue a debate. Often harrassing the person and is more or less trolling. It also makes working on any wiki much harder since you have to look at the new message on your talk page to see if it's important.--JesseC 21:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)

As someone who fully supports teacher-led classroom prayer in public schools, vehemently opposes homosexuality, gun-control and abortion, and rejects nonsense like black holes and life in outerspace, I couldn't really care less about a Muslim's Wife or what she wears. What my open mind would like to learn is what Conservative insights I can gain from such observations. I want to be set free by the truth and kindly request that someone more erudite than myself can explain what is to be learnt from that Woman's dress sense. Godspeed GillianP 11:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Possible news item?

Russia tightens the screws on Western Europe [8] ETrundel 15:16, 5 January 2009 (EST)

It's Eastern Europe being affect. Western European nations are pretty much unaffected by the dispute. MikeR 11:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Even liberals now must agree...

Liberal news site CNN.com is reporting that true love exists. Previously, many psychologists claimed that real love does not last and is only a brief infatuation, but now new evidence supports what we have always known. [9] Sulli 10:35, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Image uploads

Is there a problem with uploading images? I get an "Internal error" page with "The upload directory (public) is not writable by the webserver". BrianCo 17:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Panetta CIA Nomination

Count me among the people who sad "Wait, what?" when this nomination was announced. Given the critical role of the CIA in the post-9/11 world it just made no sense, especially when the other Obama picks seemed more thoughtful. Then I found this article on the topic in the Christian Science Monitor, and the choice seems to make more sense after reading it. According to the analysis in the article, Obama may have concluded that he needed a strong manager and communicator to head the agency, and instead of looking for one from within the ranks he chose someone from the outside for objectivity. The last CIA chief promoted from within, Porter Goss, failed in his attempt to reform the agency because his managerial & leadership style was not a good fit despite his Intelligence qualifications. Panetta is a former White House Chief of Staff, bringing team-building and managerial skills to an agency that came under considerable controversy as it attempted to carry out the intelligence policies of the Bush administration. I'm still not sure if Panetta is the right choice, but I'm now more inclined to wait until his confirmation hearings before passing judgment. --DinsdaleP 17:35, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Dr. Kasun and Population Growth

Without taking anything away from Dr. Kasun's contributions to the research of global population growth, it's worth noting that some of her predicted trends turned out to be incorrect. The most significant one is that in this 1998 article, she states that the rate of population growth was declining, and that a U.N. estimate of a world population in 2050 of 9 billion was almost certainly too high.

According to the CIA Factbook, though, the world population has grown by 847 million people in the decade since then, and the rate of population growth is currently 1.188%. At this rate, the world population in 2050 will be just over 11 billion, or 22% higher than the number that Dr. Kasun considered unrealistically high.

The updated numbers show that population growth rate is not declining as Dr. Kasun expected, but that does not mean that we are heading towards a Malthusian disaster. It does mean that we need to become wiser about managing our resources, especially as improving health care extends lifespans in the coming decades. They also serve as a call for improved family planning - not by encouraging abortions, but by improving birth-control education and creating better incentives to grow families through adoption. My family members and friends who have adopted all lament that there were so many wonderful children waiting to be adopted that it hurt to only be able to take on one or two. --DinsdaleP 09:21, 7 January 2009 (EST)

No, Dinsdale, you don't persuade by citing a liberal government statistic to try to prove Kasun wrong. And your conclusion is an absurd non sequitur. Your statement about adoption is wrong, as there is a shortage of babies to be adopted.
Kasun was prophetic in predicting the decline in world population, a prediction made when the population control types were continuing to lie about the mythical population explosion. Obesity, not starvation, is the biggest real problem.--Andy Schlafly 09:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I don't see how numbers from the CIA World Factbook are "liberal" statistics, given that the CIA has reported to George W. Bush for the past 8 years; what would be a trustworthy, unbiased reference for world population and growth-rate figures to use instead, then? My statement about adoption is not incorrect - you refer to a shortage of babies for adoption, which is true because most couples want to adopt babies. However, more than 120,000 children older than that are awaiting adoption in the U.S. alone, most of them school-age or older (source). My in-laws adopted two 4-year-old boys from Russia, and the institution they cam from had dozens of children the same age who were likely to spend their childhoods there because were not adopted as babies. It's not absurd to state the families looking to grow should consider opening their hearts to adopting one of these older children. --DinsdaleP 10:20, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I am not worried about overpopulation. I remember reading somewhere that the entire population of the world could comfortable fit in Texas, with something like half an acre for every family. In any case, God will provide, and with enough faith everyone will be taken care of.MBBurke 10:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Good points.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Actually, assuming five people per family, it's more like four Texases, but still, a good point.--Frey 10:49, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Dinsdale, I'm not going to spend all day responding to your logical errors and non sequiturs. This is my last response. The government is filled with liberal bureaucrats, regardless of who is president. In fact, the president is prohibited from firing or replacing most civil servants. Please, please, learn how our government works. Second, your adoption citation is to a website seeking to sign-up families wanting to adopt. Of course they are going to make it look like there is an abundance of babies to adopt. In fact, adoption is very difficult due to the scarcity, and I think Chief Justice Roberts' wife was even criticized by liberals who questioned how she was able to adopt when others have so much difficulty finding babies to adopt. Your own in-laws apparently traveled all the way to Russia to adopt.
Dinsdale, there are plenty of open-minded people with whom I can discuss issues. I'm not going to waste more time discussing issues with you until you demonstrate a more open mind.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I'm slightly confused by this exchange. I've not seen any credible dispute with the current figures for world population. Dinsdale at least has presented a source, if you don't agree with him then surely you have your own sources? As for fitting people into Texas, does anyone here really think that half an acre of land is enough to sustain a typical Western family long-term with our current level of comfort?

At any rate, as a Christian I believe in respect for the natural world that God provided for us. He entrusted us with His creation to use for our benefit, but He expects us to act responsibly, and not take His creations for granted. MikeR 11:10, 7 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'll make this my last response on the topic as well. The adoption link I provided talked about the need to adopt older children, not babies, as I stated above. I don't dispute that there's a shortage of adoptable babies, but you're not addressing the reality that over 120,000 older children are awaiting adoption in this country alone. Can you open your mind on the adoption issue to consider the needs of older children and not just babies?

My in-laws traveled to Russia because they wanted to make a difference with their adoption. The conditions of institutions there are not as good there as they are here, and by bringing two of those children to America they were giving them a far better opportunity than they would have had in Russia. It was an act of compassion and giving, not an end-run around a waiting list. Their choice to adopt 4-year-olds and not babies was deliberate; they wanted to help children others ignored, and one of the boys they chose has special-needs.

I don't know why it has to be assumed that there's a liberal bias behind something as basic as reporting population statistics - if these numbers are wrong then others can cross-verify and challenge them. I asked you for a better source for population statistics, and if you can provide me with one I'll be glad to recheck my math with an open mind.

As for the Texas example, those statistics are not meaningful because they equate "standing" or "living" space to the amount of land needed to sustain a population. Dr. Kasun wrote in a 1998 essay that the world population at that time could fit into the area of Texas, with each person having 1269 square feet per person. That sounds like a lot, but that doesn't mean that the world could populate Texas and live there - it means that if each person in the world were allowed a 36-foot by 36-foot plot of land to exist on, all of those plots would fit in the same area as Texas if we left out roads or any space between the plots themselves.

The simple truth is that examples like this are meaningless. For a person to live there has to be land to grow crops and raise food-producing livestock, extract natural resources, generate energy, manufacture goods, provide drinking water, remove garbage, etc. Numbers about available-land per person assume that all land is equally usable, which of course it's not. Assessing the impact of population growth against finite usable resources is an important area of study, and if we take it seriously instead of dismissing it as a non-issue we can learn to use these finite resources more wisely and efficiently.

I don't believe we are in a Malthusian crisis, but I do believe that mankind is wasteful and negligent in our responsibility to be good caretakers of this planet for the generations to follow. I have no issue with those who believe that God will provide, but I doubt that God would approve of man wasting the gifts that are then provided, like this planet and its resources. Learning to use the resources of this planet wisely instead of acting as if some key resources are not finite is in line with these points from CP's Conservative Values page:

  • frugality and efficiency
  • emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities
  • self-control as opposed to a self-indulgent search for instant gratification of desires

If I'm wrong I'm open to being convinced. (but on my talk page, since I promised to cut myself off on this thread :-) ) --DinsdaleP 11:15, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Merck

The news item editorialises: "Abstinence is much cheaper and healthier, folks".

Unfortunately it doesn't work. See here.

Perhaps it would be best to remove that rather misleading sentence. --GrigoriR 18:02, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Ellen Goodman's column is one-sided, and it specifically only refers to an "abstinence pledge" - it said nothing I could find about abstinence itself.
Her bias is revealed at the beginning of her article, where she implies that no one can be expected to keep a resolution. --Ed Poor Talk 18:09, 7 January 2009 (EST)
If I had to pick the columnist most biased in favor of abortion in the media, I'd pick Ellen Goodman. Of course she's going to pretend abstinence doesn't work. Abstinence is very bad for the abortion industry.--Andy Schlafly 18:12, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Forget Ellen Goodman. The Johns Hopkins research (which was widely reported) is of more significance. It clearly indicates that abstinence does not work. Indeed it indicates that those who pledge abstinence not only have sex at about the same rate as those who do not make the pledge, but also that those who make the pledge are less likely to use any form of birth control when they do have sex.
Obviously the statement "Abstinence is much cheaper and healthier, folks" is a little silly if the research shows that abstinence doesn't work (or worse - has a detrimental effect). Don't you think? --GrigoriR 18:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
That's rubbish. Nonsensical pseudo-science of the type you cite carries no weight whatsoever. Borazan 18:22, 7 January 2009 (EST)
It's truthful to say that abstinence is cheaper and healthier, for as long as one can stay abstinent, anyway. I would like to see the adjective "harmful" removed from the headline, but I'm not holding my breath. Most if not all vaccines are not 100% free of side effects, but the benefits outweigh the probability of encountering them so it's misleading to regard them as "harmful". Even abstinent women should not be discouraged from taking this vaccine, because there's no guarantee that their future spouse is not unknowingly carrying HPV, and this is an entirely preventable form of cancer. As for the argument that taking the HPV vaccine encourages promiscuity, I doubt that is as big a factor as people think, considering that we don't have vaccines for HIV, Herpes and other STDs. It's better to advise inform women about the very real risk of these diseases than the perceived risk of the HPV vaccine. --DinsdaleP 18:22, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Abstinent women should choose abstinent husbands. Unlike Liberals, we advocate equality of moral standards and expectations between male and female. Borazan 18:26, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I don't argue with the statement that "abstinence is cheaper and healthier, for as long as one can stay abstinent, anyway". The point is that the research shows that people do not remain abstinent (whether they pledge to do so or not). --GrigoriR 18:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I'm not surprised to find someone with your 'name' pushing that line. The greater the sin, the greater the redemption, eh? Try telling it to the Tsarina. Borazan 18:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)
You should be aware that your increasingly shrill attempts to pick a fight just scream parodist. --GrigoriR 18:34, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Aha, crying 'stinking fish'! It won't work, Father Rasputin. Borazan 18:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)
  • Well, if you wanted my attention given to both of you, you got it. --₮K/Administrator/Talk 18:42, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Student Values

Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" the professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil.

And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

--Ekeegan 23:44, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I understand that this is a good refutation of the argument that God created evil, but does it belong here? -- JArneal 00:01, 8 January 2009 (EST)
I had no idea of where it belonged, and I honestly do not agree with it, but I thought the people here would like it. I will move it if asked and wont mind if an admin moves or deletes it.

--Ekeegan 00:14, 8 January 2009 (EST)

As interesting story as it is, this talk page is supposed to be for talking about news items on the front page. This kind of story would be better in the Conservative parables article and your personal user page. ShawnJ 16:16, 8 January 2009 (EST)

News Item

Things may be heating up in the Middle East. Very curious as to why this has not been on mainpageright. Also, Russia shutting off gas supplies through the Ukraine. Both important world news articles. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 11:22, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Personal tools