Talk:Main Page/archive12

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Infantcide, Abortion responsible for massive gender imbalance in Asia

[1]. Is this good for the main page? The communistic tactics of the Chinese government, i.e. limiting the number of children that can be had by a couple for economic purposes, combined with a lack of appreciation for life, has resulted in a major crisis in Asia. This will, in addition to a lack of females overall, may cause massive rises in prostitution, polygamy, and other sexual immorality. --SimonA 11:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Excellent suggestion. Done!--Aschlafly 12:14, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, TECHNICALLY, this is going to lower the population in Asia...just not the way they had planned ;) --Elamdri 13:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, it's a great honor to make the main page so soon after joining. --SimonA 12:07, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


Dunno if you care or not, because it doesn't seem to advocate much in any direction, but here ya go: Aziraphale 12:24, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Iraqi Prime Minister requests greater US protection

[2]. Is this one good for the main page as well? --SimonA 12:36, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

And compare it to the New York Times article on the same subject. --SimonA 12:44, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, today is the anniversary of the great Martin Luther's wedding. Just though you might be interested. --SimonA 13:03, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Guys, hey, this is amazing! I HAVE SOLVED THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS! I figured it out, it came like an epiphany. Its so simple that its amazing that we never thought of it before. You guys ready? Here it is.... Stop killing each other.--Elamdri 13:18, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I assume this is not newsworthy? --SimonA 13:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

No, no, its cool. I just feel a little distended from all the troubles surrounding the Middle East. I just wish that they could get their stuff together for once.--Elamdri 00:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
It does seem rather counterintuitive, doesn't it? --SimonA 10:44, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

June 14 in history

June 14 is Flag Day! Greg 00:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Greg....added it! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:26, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
It is also Liberation Day for the proud people (the Kelpers) of the Falkland Islands, a day of celebration, of thanks to the British soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen who travelled 8000 miles to fight for their freedom, and in memory of the 255 Brits who never made it home. The 649 fallen Argentines will also be remembered. I have had the privilige of spending, in total, 8 months living on East Falkland (and a couple of nights on Mount Alice... what a hangover!) and in 1999 I was able to attend the Liberation Day service in person. June 14, 1982 was a great moment for Britain, for freedom, for the Kelpers, and indirectly the Argentines, leading as it did to the overthrow of Galtieri and the military Junta. The Torygraph has extensive resources here, and here is a quick link to ITN's news report of the final assault on Port Stanley (now just Stanley). File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:36, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
My late father was one of those sailors. Anyone who is interested in knowing about the effect a war can have on a mother and young family, I'm your man. Ferret 06:16, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks for the reminder, and I have (albeit late)added the information! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I just spotted it, many thanks for putting it on the main page :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:34, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Germans Capture Paris

Who was the complete and utter IDIOT who wrote the Hitler thing? Whoever it was, he should get his head out from wherever it is, and apologise to the families - the millions of families - who lost loved ones fighting that monster before America decided to get off its arse and do the right thing. My mother was at Dunkirk. My Australian father was in North Africa nearly a year before America was forced to enter. He didn't have to be, but he was! What was your family doing? Where they rushing to join up in 1940? Or where they one of the many Americans who sympathised with the Germans. My father's brother who joined up in 1940 when he turned 18, was machine-gunned in the water BY AMERICANS when the Jap POW ship he was on was sunk. The Yanks admitted that it happened. We never got an apology though. Maybe one of your relatives had joined the war. My family never held it against America, but my God, I think we should have, after reading that cheap, ignorant and utterly gratuitous remark! Whoever wrote that crap has the sensitivity of a housebrick and should be blocked forever! AlanE 03:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Your comments and attitude are out of line. The reason all of that happened was because of Liberal Deceit, not America! It was Chamberlain, the Great Appeaser, and others in Europe, who thought they could reason with the monster Adolf Hitler, who were responsible for Germany's expansion. Against the warnings of the United States and Winston Churchill, among others. You need to read history a bit more thoroughly, and rid yourself of the hate you so obviously hold within. You will be in my prayers. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:01, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
You telling me to read my history! Ha! I read Churchill, all 6 volumes, one after the other, as they were published in the fifties. He tried and tried and tried to get the Americans to join the war. But it was "politically inexpedient". Why was that, TK? I live between cultures TK, between Britain and America. I read the books of both. I enjoy various parts of both. I have friends and family that belong to both. And unlike many of the Conservapedians I have read in the last month or two I don't come at things from always the same direction. As far as that comment about everyone being afraid of Hitler, it was beyond the Pale. It was an insult. I thought it was a thoughtless statement. Now I think that perhaps it was not. If the Brits were afraid of Hitler there wouldn't have been the courage and never-say-die-ism of Dunkirk and the Blitz and the Battle of Britain. You are assuming the Brits agreed with Chamberlain. You are visiting the sin of the leader onto the people. When Hitler overran Poland, Britain went to war. Immediately. No waiting around, like America did until Pearl Harbor made it inevitable.
There is no hate, TK. Anger at the moment. Sadness. And puzzlement at how an obviously educated man can be so bloody ignorant, and in total disregard, completely insensible, of how much dislike of America such statements as that on your homepage cause around the world. And the really scary thing is , you don't realise that. Then you compound everything by assuming my emotions, my thoughts. Isn't that what you told me you didn't like people to do to you, Tk? I am sticking up for my country, TK, and my mother's country, whose people were fighting and dying years before your people found themselves having to! AlanE 05:21, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I also think that it needs to be rewritten! To say that Britain was terrified of Hitler is a gross insult. A July 14, 1940 radio broadcast to the nation by Prime Minister Churchill, as Britain stood alone against the Nazi war machine: "Should the invader come to Britain, there will be no placid lying down of the people in submission before him, as we have seen, alas, in other countries. We shall defend every village, every town, and every city. The vast mass of London itself, fought street by street, could easily devour an entire hostile army; and we would rather see London laid in ruins and ashes than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved. I am bound to state these facts, because it is necessary to inform our people of our intentions, and thus to reassure them." To the House of Commons on August 20, 1940: "Let us see what has happened on the other side of the scales. The British nation and the British Empire finding themselves alone, stood undismayed against disaster. No one flinched or wavered; nay, some who formerly thought of peace, now think only of war. Our people are united and resolved, as they have never been before. Death and ruin have become small things compared with the shame of defeat or failure in duty." As for the role of "appeasers", modern memories forget the part played by the US ambassador to Britain, one Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who continually rejected the warnings of Mr. Churchill that compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible and instead urged Prime Minister Chamberlain to follow the policy of appeasement. In Britain, we are quite used to "Hollywood" revisionism of history, pasrticularly with regard to the Second World War, but this main page section takes the biscuit. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

In 1940, an American living in Britain, Quentin Reynolds, made this 9 minute (Oscar-nominated) newsreel for the viewres back in the US. Called London Can Take It, I believe that there are some people around here who should get a nice cup of tea and sit and watch it... File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Sadly, this is typical of the condescension towards the British and general stupidity present on this site. RDre 06:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't blame the site (well, not too much at least), and try to be understanding of these Americans that hardly know that the rest of the world exists. I've changed the Main Page, in the interests of not dishonouring all the other nations who fought valiantly before the American came to their aid and helped put an end to Hitler's tyranny. We do need to be appreciative of the might of the Americans, even if they were slow to help out. Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I respect the ones who came and gave their lives. But they would be disgraced by some of their descendants. Thanks for changing the front though, it's rare for someone to acknowledge when something is wrong. RDre 06:38, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for changing that comment, Philip. While America did turn the tide in the war, it's not like the British, French, Slavs, Greeks, Scandanavians, and yes, Russians, were just sitting around weeping. Maybe the governments capitulated, but many of the citizens fought back. Maestro 09:41, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, Philip. Perhaps now Fox might also be unblocked. To be blocked by another CP sysop merely for sticking up for truth and for his country is shameful. Pachyderm 10:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Pachyderm, Fox is not a Sysop. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I think he means you, as in "another" sysop that is not Philip. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:00, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey Pachyderm, watch it! You might get blocked for saying things like that!--Fbaker 10:11, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know if you're serious or if you are mocking TK, but in either case your comment was out of line. If the former then you have no buisness threatening a block as a non-sysop, especially since his comment was in no way innapropriate for a talk page, if the latter then you deserve a block yourself. --Ben Talk 11:29, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -Winston Churchill. --Elamdri 13:14, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Concerning the Drug Bust article

The summary which the main page offers for this is confusing; it suggests that students were actually responsible and the principal was instead busted for crossing some red tape. The summary ought to be changed to better reflect on the events.

Also, the "Breaking News" section grows increasingly long and outdated; note the gaps in the "Website Rules and Other Matters" section as a result of the columns balancing. In my opinion, older items should be deleted on a much faster schedule. TigersRoar 21:32, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Although I can see how you could read the drug bust item that way, I didn't read it that way and I think most would understand. My personal opinion is that it doesn't need changing. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Cricket World Cup

The article on the Cricket world cup is a spoof. Ferret 07:02, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Ruth Graham

Could someone place a notice on the main page noting the death of Billy Graham's wife, Ruth? Here is a link to the story:<;_ylt=Avheiu5LcbLZlSbvq0dpQXzMWM0F>--Bender 09:50, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Done, and thanks. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

June 15 - a slow day in history

We could add that on June 15 1752, in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin successfully carried out his kite experiment to prove that lightning was electricity. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:14, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

June 16

  • In 1948 a Cathay Pacific Airways seaplane en route between Macau and Hong Kong became the first ever skyjacked plane. When the pilot refused to cooperate he was shot and the plane crashed into the sea, leaving only one survivor, ironically the leader of the hijackers.
  • In 1963, Valentina Tereshkova, on board Vostok 6, became the first woman in space. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:14, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Good suggestions for the 15th and 16th. Thanks and I'll post them.--Aschlafly 09:49, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
I was posting them too! I had an edit conflict with you, but I decided to override it (i.e. my edits replaced yours), because I checked his suggestions out, and the hijacking was in July 1948. (It's in the HTML comment ready for July.) Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Andy had also changed the spelling of a word; I went back to reinstate his change, but it was already spelt correctly for British English, and the item was about a British event, so I figured it could stay that way. :-). Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
The references are split 50/50 over which month it ocurred in - although one I couldn't check was JSTOR. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:03, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
My initial Google search turned up two or three references to July, and none to June. I've just tried again (searching cathay pacific hijacking june OR july 1948), and virtually all the early references were to July. But the further down the list I went, the more June references there were! Whether it was 75/25 or 50/50 or whatever really seemed to depend on how far into the list one went. So I tried a different approach. I had a look on Wikipedia, found that the Cathay_Pacific article said June, but the article for the plane (Miss_Macao) said July! However, the latter's talk page had someone questioning the date, and linking to Aviation Safety Network, which looks to be fairly authoritative, and it says July. Philip J. Rayment 10:49, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Just goes to show how unreliable historical references can be after only 60 years lol :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:53, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

There is now a starter article on Valentina Tereshkova if a sysop would like to "do the honors" and wikify her name on the main page. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:40, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


In the breaking news section it says "Pennsylvania couple and its teenage son". Would the correct pronoun in this case be their son? Bohdan 21:29, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it would. "Couple" is always plural.--TerryHTalk 21:31, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

"Is the problem that government will not fund anything contrary to the Theory of Relativity"?

Quantum mechanics is not contrary to relativity. Admittedly, they do not work well together, but they describe what is, under normal circumstances, completely different domains. Quantum mechanics describes what happens on the extremely small level, whereas relativity describes behavior on significantly larger scales. Both completely fail to describe the other. The only intersection is in gravitational singularities, where the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, fail. Reconciling the two is the Holy Grail of physics, and our best guess at the moment is string theory. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are essentially scientific laws. Simply because the experiment being attempted was designed by Einstein to protest QM -- which he was wrong about (don't get me started on the whole Einstein-QM thing, if you value your time :)) -- does not mean that it contradicts relativity. --Elvon 16:30, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, your statement is false. In merely 30 seconds on the internet I found these:

"Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict", By Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D.[]

"There is a deep seated fundamental conflict between Quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Subtle difficulties become insurmountable problems when gravity is added." Paul Renteln, "Quantum Gravity", American Scientist, 79, 508-527 (1991).
Moreover, you fail to explain why mainstream scientists who control government funding do object to the experiment cited on the main page, if contradiction with relativity is not the reason.--Aschlafly 17:03, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't have an answer for that. I'm not a government employee.
Read or watch The Elegant Universe, read any reliable source, and you'll find that I am accurate. The seeming "conflict" is that QM describes a world ruled by chance, by randomness, where the very structure of space is that of a seething quantum foam; whereas in relativity, space is smooth, geometrical, and predictable. However, the only place where the two intersect, is as I have stated, in the singularities of black holes, regions of unimaginable mass but minute size. Elsewhere, there is no conflict, as we use the applicable theory. And, as I've said, we are constantly getting closer to reconciling the two. There is no real conflict, only what appears to be one to the untrained eye, so to speak. And I fail to see what the issue with relativity is. As I've stated, it's pretty much a fact. --Elvon 17:14, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and your source looks like a crackpot. No offense ;). --Elvon 17:15, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
How much of the "American Scientist" articles are "crackpot" material these days? I'm curious.
Any physics student knows that there is a fundamental conflict between QM and the Theory of Relativity. People have been waiting decades for string theory to resolve the conflict, and they're still waiting. In the process string theory has since become a bit of a joke.
If you don't know why the government won't fund the experiment on the front page, then I'll tell you: the government won't fund any test to might disprove the Theory of Relativity.--Aschlafly 17:22, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there is a problem, but it doesn't manifest itself except in the very limited case of which I spoke. String theory is not a joke, I don't know what you're taking, but you're beginning to sound like a completely uneducated moron, which I have doubt that you're not. I don't know what bloody problem you have with relativity -- is it in conflict with your precious little YEC beliefs or something? -- but it's straight science. It's the only thing we have that describes gravity accurately, which QM does not do. And, as I've said, yes, there is a conflict, but it's not insurmountable, and yes, string theory is not a joke, and yes, QM does not affect relativity in the slightest. They're both correct, and although they do conflict at some level, it's not insurmountable, as I've said. Yes, I know I will be blocked, and it won't be the first time (read: Linus M.), but please do me the courtesy of answering the bloody question: what is your bloody problem with relativity?!? --Elvon 17:30, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
And come over to RationalWiki, Andy. We'd love to have you. --Elvon 17:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Oh, now I see what you get you ideas. First study some college physics and then let me know how long you think the "American Scientist" has been publishing "crackpot" material. Oh yes, acquiring an open mind would help also before you start name-calling. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:39, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Dude, just because quantum mechanics is correct, doesn't mean that relativity isn't. Neither of them can describe the other, so unless you want to propose an entirely new theory, you might as well accept them both. And, as I've said, the situations in which they intersect are highly limited, therefore, one does not preclude the other. --Elvon 21:58, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
As a small aside, string theory is rather out of date. The problem of multiple string theories arose due to insufficient dimensions to properly express the concept mathematically. The updated theory is popularly called 'M-Theory'. Officially, it stands for 'Membrane', because the multiple strings resolve into a membrane that describes all of what we know of as the universe. The theory is still being fleshed out; among other things, there's the small problem of an infinite number of parallel membranes, or what the layperson would consider parallel universes. --AllGoodThings 00:57, July 17th 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Schalfly, could I have a look at the article from Paul Renteln that the review by Richard Stafford cites to? One of the posters called it a "crackpot" article, and I would love to have a chance to read it. Have you read it? Can you link it? I ask because at first glance the article you cited, in its conclusion, seems to reconcile the problem stated in its introduction... the problem up which you depend. In short, Stafford refutes Renteln, but you're citing Renteln for your argument, and yet linking us to Stafford. Am I confused? I know NOTHING about quantum physics, so I defer to you, but could you give a better source? I am very curious to learn about it... but maybe I should just stick to law...-Phoenix 01:59, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Ethanol could keep gas prices high

Here's a headline for you. It ought to take some of the wind out of the liberal alternative fuel pushers' sails. I've been saying for years that ethanol is a waste of time, money, and energy, and here's more evidence to prove it.

--Conservateur 01:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. I'll check it out. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Ethanol was always a fool's errand, and it's obvious to anyone who can crunch the numbers. There's simply too much consumption of petroleum to replace with ethanol. But the farming corporations love the idea because it lets them sell corn at outrageous prices, and they lobby every politician who'll look at them to keep the farce up. The only biofuel worth the time of day is Butanol, and that's because you can probably run an aircraft off of it. A real useful thing, because there's only so much oil in the ground. --AllGoodThings 01:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
A better answer is biodiesel. I don't mind the idea of ethanol, but biodiesel is a better long-term solution. Coxman 09:54, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but read this before you start building your own frybrid. The guy's been running his 1986 Volkswagen Golf on recycled vegetable oil. State officials wanted him to pay a fuel tax on it. (The story does appear to have a happy ending, though.) Dpbsmith 11:37, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk about stating the obvious...

The BBC - in a report commissioned to investigate allegations about its bias - has been slammed for:

  • "institutional Left-wing bias"
  • failure of its journalism to be neutral
  • overt promotion of multiculturalism
  • promoting anti-American sentiment
  • promoting anti-Christian sentiment
  • failing to reflect the views of the British public on issues such as Capital punishment

And more - read the article here File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:17, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Fantastic story, Fox! I've posted this at the top of Main Page. Even though this may be obvious to us, this is just what we want to publicize more. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:23, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Very interesting story, indeed, particularly when you consider that the BBC sanctioned the report itself. I'd go for a little more introspection from American media companies. It should be noted, though that "[t]he report finds no evidence that the BBC's news and politics coverage is biased." So, the entertainment folks lean in a particular direction, which IS a concern, but when they get down to the programming that ostensibly promises to be fact-based, apparently they get it correct. Aziraphale 10:32, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
You might be right about some issues. I've long subscribed to the Economist because I generally find the British press to be more objective about American news than the American press is. That said, the British news bias towards gun control and social issues seems to be indisputable.--Aschlafly 11:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed (especially about the Economist!), but on gun control, at least, it seems that the country in general shares that bias. Not 100%, just as we don't have 100% consensus on anything here in the States, but as far as I can tell Brits "generally" are in agreement on strict gun control. Probably a matter of it being institutionalized at this point, so to speak... My point being, I suspect you could sack the entire editorial staff of the BBC and replace it with a random collection of British citizens, and the organization's stance on gun control probably wouldn't shift. On the other issues, I wouldn't dare speculate. Aziraphale 11:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
I doubt that the public views of gun control in Britain are as one-sided as the views of the British press in favor of gun control. I mean, how could the public view be as one-sided? Two decades ago the Brits had much broader rights to bear arms.--Aschlafly 13:42, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
The Torygraph carried an interesting article about the UK gun culture a while back, which is still online here. Gun control in the UK was introduced by stealth (be warned, America...) - a little chipped away here and there over the course of around 60 years - and it went almost unnoticed until Dunblane. At that time, the liberals in control of the majority of our media spun it so that to support gun ownership singled you out as a psychotic (in much the same way that decent people who express concerns about uncontrolled immigration are shouted down as racists and nazis). The average joe, I would suggest, is not as pro-gun control as the liberal media would have you think. Incidentally, I did smile at this part of the Torygraph article: "Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street..." Priceless :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:43, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

June 17

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:27, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

June 18

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:27, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I've added the Battle of Bunker Hill, the Battle of Waterloo, and the Sally Ride entries. The War of 1812 was already listed on the Main Page, albeit not in the Today in History section. The date the Statue of Liberty arrived is variously reported as 17th June and 19th June, split about 50/50 (although I think some of the 17th June ones are Wikipedia clones). The official site only mentions the month. The Library of Congress site says 19th June. Any thoughts? Philip J. Rayment 07:22, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I found this on the National Parks site: "The Isere left Rouen on May 21, 1885, and arrived at Sandy Hook, at the entrance of New York Harbor, on June 17. After the title papers to the statue had been transferred to General Stone, the vessel was docked at Bedloe's Island." Liberty state Park site gives the 17th too. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
"...arrived at Sandy Hoo, at the entrance of New York Harbour... . After the title papers ... had been transferred...the vessel was docked at Bedloe's Island". How long did this transfer take? This reference agrees that the ship arrived in the harbour on 17th June, but says that the formal reception for the ship (not the statue) was on the 19th, which is apparently when it was escorted "...down the Narrows." and "...anchored off Bedloe's". So if I'm understanding this correctly, the ship and statue did arrive in the harbor on 18th June, but didn't "arrive" at the dock until the 19th June. Despite this, most of the references on the Internet to 19th June use the words "arrived in New York Harbor"! Anyway, I'll put it in the "Today in History" section for 17th and the 19th.
All this bother by a Pom and a Aussie over a present the Frogs gave the Yanks 120 years ago! :-)
Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Lol - too true. But no one can say we haven't tried to verify our dates with a little digging :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:29, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but digging in a harbor can be a rather futile exercise! :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Ethanol story

Whether or not this is a bad thing depends on one's point of view. From my point of view, high petrol (US:gas) prices mean more people using public transport, which I believe is a good thing. The railway I work for has seen an increase in patronage over the last two or three years of around 40%, much of it due to higher petrol prices. Philip J. Rayment 10:17, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

That may work well for Europe, but America is just too big and the population is too spread out to make public transportation economically viable, even with skyrocketing gas prices. For the most part, bus lines, subways, and light rail systems barely eke out a profit even in the most densely populated cities, and the rest usually run in the red, the difference being made up for by taxpayers. Amtrak, our national railway, has lost billions of dollars over the years, only to be bailed out time and time again by the federal government.
Looking out my office window, there are at least a thousand cars in the parking lot, almost all of which come in from dozens of suburban towns in a 50 mile radius. If I were to ride a bus to work, I'd have to transer 3 times and the trip would take over an hour, compared to just 20 minutes driving myself. Until American suburbanites (of which I am one) decide en masse to give up their half-acre yards and move into row housing and high-rises, the automobile will still be king in the vast majority of this country. Carpooling and vanpooling will become more commonplace, but it's unlikely that mass transit will ever catch on.--Conservateur 15:57, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
You describe this issue in America very well. Maybe Conservapedia can help educate us all, including Americans, about the energy dilemma ... and what can best be done about it.--Aschlafly 16:12, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Personally, what I would like to see is a new fuel that can be cheaply made from anything common (like junk tires), and can be put in the gas tank of any car on the road with little to no alteration of the car itself. I'm sure some bright college kids can work on just such a fuel. Karajou 21:17, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Conservateur, your description applies even more so in Australia, which is about the geographic size of the contiguous states of America, with a fraction of the population. But that misses the point.
Yes, public transport doesn't run at a profit here either, and neither does it run at a profit in most places in the world, as far as I know. But neither do private cars! Railways are inherently more efficient than road vehicles (lower wheel-to-surface friction; better possibilities for efficient traction, fewer employees required per person or ton moved, etc.), but suffers from having to finance all its costs, whereas cars and trucks get the roads provided for them by the government. In many respects, if the railway is privately owned (as American freight railways generally are), then the railway is the example of private enterprise, and the road system is the example of socialism! That is, the private rail operators have as their main competition various other operators using a government-provided road network. Sound fair? You say that Amtrack is "bailed out", but why not see that as the cost of providing a social service, just as with roads?
Railways can, in theory at least, be constructed for a smaller cost than the equivalent in roads, so if the population density is great enough to pay for roads, why isn't it enough to pay for railways? I believe that it is enough, but governments paying for the roads is in effect a subsidy, with the result that public transport has unfair competition and struggles to break even, let alone make a profit.
And, of course, public transport can make far better use of energy resources.
Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 19 June 2007 (EDT)