Talk:Main Page/archive82

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

That Ghastly London Sculpture

While I fully agree with anyone that thinks the proposed ArchlorMittal Orbit, the full name for the awful thing, is a ghastly piece of modern sculpture and shouldn't be built, even if there is supposed to be minimal cost to the London taxpayer since the materials have been donated, I don't quite see how one can make the leap to stating that it's 'atheistic'. Horrible, unsightly, and ugly (pick your own adjective) ...certainly - if you don't happen to like that sort of thing, which I don't. However, since the donor is a practicing Hindu, the designer a practicing Jew and the Mayor of London a practicing Christian, I'm not sure where the atheism of it all fits in. I can see how in an avowedly an atheist state such as the former USSR, current North Korea etc one could make such a suggestion with confidence, but here in Britain, where the Christianity is the state religion, to suggest it's a reflection of an atheistic culture is going a bit too far I think. Now if you want to suggest it's a sign of a lack of artistic taste and a reflection of the appalling pseudo-cultural values the Mayor - who as a Conservative should know better - is trying to impose on us, I'm with you all the way! BetsyNewson 11:05, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

London is atheistic, and the sculpture was designed for acceptance by its audience. One telling quote about it -- that it was intended to create an image of instability -- demonstrates that the product is the antithesis of faith.--Andy Schlafly 11:14, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
From where I sit in south London I can think of three CofE churches, a Methodist Hall and the biggest Mosque in Europe, all within a 5 min. walk and all seemingly fairly popular on the appropriate day of that religions worship. A slightly longer walk will bring in the local Catholic Church and a Salvation Army Hall, so I'm still bemused at where you get the 'atheistic' description. Materialistic certainly - but then what big city isn't these days? In spite of everything there's still a lot of all sorts of religious belief and practice going on throughout the whole of the City and while I've had many Christians and Mormons coming to my door inviting me to join them and even Muslim leaflets advertising their services, in the 35 years I've live here, I've yet to be approached by an atheist asking me to change my faith to theirs. However, each to their own; I'll just stick to putting the sculpture down as a monument to bad taste.BetsyNewson 11:37, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Betsy, you lose credibility when you deny that London is atheistic. It took me less than 60 seconds to pull this up:
While the vast majority of Britons identify themselves as Christians, only a small percentage attend services regularly. Atheism is far more popular, and socially and politically accepted, in Britain than in the United States. [1]
Even bus ads proclaiming atheism exist in London. I'll respond to comments about the sculpture below.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Andy's right. It's like I always say, America is Jewish. Judaism is far more popular and socially and politically accepted here than pretty much anywhere else. Just look at the U.S.-Israel relationship. Mackie 12:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
I find that the sculpture shows London's (and the whole nation's) liberal nature more than anything. I feel like the only reason this... thing was chosen over others was that the artist was a Hindu. Whoever picked and "ok-ed" the sculpture obviously wanted to make the city look tolerant, diverse, multicultural, and so forth. I think we can all agree that they didn't pick this statue (or whatever it is supposed to be) because they liked the way it looked; I think it somewhat of a political move to make the city look more diverse. Sol1221 13:20, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see how the fact that it is SOOOO very ugly makes it atheist either. Yes it is chaotic and lacks structure, that we can see, it could just as well be a metaphor for the way we can't see a clear structure in God's plans and it is an expression of a feeling that the world is haphazard and chaotic. The USSR was mentioned, and that got me thinking, do you think that the Atheists in the USSR would have allowed something like this? Ever seen a painting by Heironomous Bosh? They bear a lot of similarity to that awful awful eyesore. --JimPT 13:52, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
I like the comment in the main page link near the bottom: "Just what London needs, a giant squiggle." JacobB 14:12, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Just as newspapers and pop music often have liberal bias, art can be biased too. George Orwell famously said, "All issues are political issues ...." Nothing is immune from it.
How is this sculpture atheistic? By glorifying disorder and instability and excluding any hint of God or faith. The very meaning of the word "devil" is disorder. What do you expect an atheistic sculpture would look like, if not this?--Andy Schlafly 17:16, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Andy, if the artist is Hindu, why do you insist on calling the sculpture atheist?
As for your contention that all art is political, I can only disagree heartily -- would you call Beethoven's 9th conservative or liberal?? -- and leave you with a bit of Oscar Wilde: "Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming...There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."
What I take this to mean: there's good and bad art (and this eyesore qualifies as some of the worst art I've seen, to be sure), but ascribing political meanings to art we don't like is boorish. - JDWpianist 18:09, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
I think all the sculptures of the USSR were atheist. I think a big scarlet A might be an atheist sculpture, Or that frog nailed to a cross (that might just be blasphemous), or right now I'm sitting in DIA looking at a giant blue horse that might be atheistic. I think my alternate explanation makes just as much sense as yours. Do you think that Jackson Pollock paintings are atheist? Artwork says a whole lot, but it doesn't say anything in an explicit and clear manner, I just don't see where your certainty comes from. --JimPT 18:52, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Let's first dispense with the claim that because the sculptor is Hindu, the sculpture must not be atheistic. Does the flaw in that claim really need to be explained? The sculptor works for the client, which is undeniably political, and not for himself.
On to the substance above, a classic example of liberal denial. Liberals deny that newspapers have political bias, and even that their favorite (liberal) politician has bias. Surely you don't deny that some art has political bias, such as blasphemous depictions of Christ. Yet you insist that a sculpture done for the liberal, atheistic London is somehow utterly free of liberal bias? That politics played no role whatsoever, not even a teeny bit, in the selection, discussions, considerations, development, and approvals of this work? Surely you don't take that position. Even the great Sean Penn once declared that many would be surprised by when and how often political considerations come up in determining movie awards.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Just to correct some misunderstandings. Kapoor was initially raised in the Jewish faith of his mother ([source]), not as a Hindu. --BishoiH 16:49, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

One can learn more about the artist Anish Kapoor in an article about him in the Jewish Chronicle ([[2]]} He is also commissioned to install a piece at the Jerusalem museum {[[3]]} similar, it seems to the famous and fun "Cloud Gate" piece in Chicago's Millenium Park, or what Chicagoan's like to call "The Bean." One should be careful in interpreting religious or "atheistic" attributes to a work of art. A simpleton might view Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights" as advocating "earthy delights" when the full triptych reveals the medieval doctrine of the history of mankind from the garden of eden to the corrupted view of the time and then to a hellish view of the fate of the damned. Political ideologies who denounce a work of art by saying that it is "the latest output of an atheistic culture" undermine their credibility to analyze other aspects of culture. Even the great Ross Perot misread the impact of Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial at least from the models. -- Wilkus 11:29, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Wilkus, liberal denial doesn't fool anyone here. Atheistic London got an atheistic work of art for its 2012 Olympics. Kapoor's personal views, even if known, are irrelevant.--Andy Schlafly 11:51, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Stem Cell News

Popular Science magazine reports scientists have successfully grown human bone tissue from stem cells. For some reason, the fact that this breakthrough was accomplished with ADULT stem cells was not deemed important enough to be in the headline. JacobB 14:12, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Well the goal is to use all adult derived stem cells, embryonic stem cells only matter if you are trying to save an embryo. In 50 years all stem cell research will be Adult stem cells. --JimPT 14:25, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Fifty years? With proper legislation, it could be five. Once you have good lines, you can use them widely. DouglasA 17:24, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
the dirty little secret in adult stem cell research is that its all based on embryonic stem cell lines. I can't give you my password to the journal collections I have access too, but the papers written on therapeutic stem cell treatments all have citations lists as long as your arm, and 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the citations are based on embryonic work. beyond that there are several ways to make a stem cell line, and we keep discovering new ones, the research won't be done in 5 years, it probably will in 50 though. We will have all the protein gene interactions mapped out by then, and be able to trick any cell we want into going back to a "young" state. bottom line: they keep it all hush hush, but if you are against embryonic stem cell research then you should be against adult stem cell research, since the one entails the other they are morally locked together. --JimPT 18:25, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Chris Christie Story Inaccuracy

On the front page you have a story saying that New Jersey Governor Christie's approval rating dropped to 43% because he suspended tax rebates and one of his liberal nominations was returned to committee. While those things are true, the real reason for the drop is his drastic cut in state aid to schools. The district that I live in is losing 99.8% of state aid next year. I ask that you kindly fix that story and try to not give a fellow conservative a bad reputation. --Jvasile 15:02, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't think the issue polling in the article supports your conclusion. The public favors Christie's actions concerning public schools, and that would not cause the drop in his approval rating. But his denial of the tax rebate is hugely unpopular, and must be the cause in his drop in ratings.--Andy Schlafly 16:57, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
I think the truth, as in so many cases, lies somewhere in the middle. In South Brunswick, there's a lot of discontent over the planned cuts in school aid, and practically every parent I've discussed this with is upset because we're expecting this to lead to an increase in local property taxes. Cuts in school aid are perceived as painful by renters as well as homeowners, while renters don't feel the direct impact of property tax rebates being denied.
When I discuss the governor's approaches with my neighbors, what comes up more than anything is that this is reminiscent of the Republican leadership here in the 1990's, who cut the state budget and state taxes, only to have the burden transferred to homeowners through increased property taxes. If overall spending doesn't get scaled back, then the pain remains for the people writing the checks regardless of who the check is made out to.
It's still early in Christie's term, but I'm starting to understand why he never offered specific fiscal policy proposals during the campaign - there's apparently no real plan other than making inflated budgets someone else's problem to solve. --ChrisY 17:21, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Chris, you make good points and complete proof is not available. But the article contains polling numbers on each specific issue, and the one that Christie gets hammered on is his denial of the tax rebates. It wouldn't surprise me if that issue is what counts most to the average person. Cutting public school budgets is a mixed bag in public opinion, with many in favor of it. But deny the people their tax rebates and expect the approval numbers to plunge. It's a tax increase in a sneaky way that RINOs are famous for.--Andy Schlafly 18:00, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

And they accuse conservatives of being ignorant of science?

Did anyone catch the news story about Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson, and his concern that sending 8,000 U.S. Marines to Guam would "cause the island to tip over and capsize?" Islands don't quite work that way, Mr. Johnson! --Benp 17:21, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

You should link to the story, having heard about it on the radio I assumed he was making a joke/using a metaphor. --JimPT 18:28, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
He wasn't, and that's the sad part. I heard a radio clip this morning on Jim Quinn's morning show. He couldn't figure out what the square mileage of the island was (even though he had the figures right in front of him), and then he proceeded with his fear of the island capsizing into the sea. I'll try and dig up a podcast of the show or something like that so you can listen for yourself, but his tone was most definitely not sarcastic. I had a good laugh about it. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:27, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Here is the link on YouTube. You can decide for yourself. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:30, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Agreed. He was either being totally serious or he's a master of deadpan humor. --Benp 19:35, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Steven Wright couldn't have even pulled that one off. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:39, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Someone (not me) put that on WP's page on Guam.Daniel1212 23:28, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


The third item says "Pew Forum Pew Forum." DouglasA 00:37, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Got it. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:31, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Hutaree movement

The two MSM sources, the Associated Press[4] and MSNBC,[5] cite Chip Berlet as an authoritive source on the Hutaree movement charged with conspiracy to overthrow the U.S Government. Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild vice president; Bernardine Dohrn was National Lawyers Guild student organizer [6] when she authored the Weather Underground's Declaration of War Against the United States (Dohrn is also wife of Bill Ayers).

Berlet is a primary source of attacks on Sarah Palin [7] and Christian conservatives. [8]

Berlet's leftist propaganda factory has a long history of "linking and tying;" [9] a critic observes, "Berlet's favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line," while another longtime former associate states, "but then Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist. [10] Rob Smith 15:04, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Jimbo Wales opposes referring to the Genesis creation as a "myth" on Wikipedia

Jimbo Wales "(The title) "Genesis creation myth" is blatantly and obviously not neutral on the key question of whether or not this story is true" on his user talk page at Wikipedia. To me, this is a huge victory for Christians as now any atheist wanting to classify our creation as a "myth" would be argueing against Wikipedia's founder. Worth mentioning on the CP main page as news? DMorris 22:03, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Interesting cite, but what matters is what Wikipedia does, not isolated statements. An unjust mob may include an occasional statement of reason, but usually without meaningful effect.--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
I know what you're talking about; the worst of editors there have slim to nil respect for anyone, including Jimbo Wales, which is why they never last long at CP. DMorris 23:05, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
The outlaws have taken over the place long ago. Jimbo's good idea, thanks to his being so naive, is now turning around and biting him. Eventually Wales will strike back at those causing him trouble, and it won't be pretty over there. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
Oh. My. Gosh. Have you seen this massive rename discussion? Unbelievable! Is there any clearer example of the most serious weakness of Wikipedia's liberally open editing policies? Jinx McHue 12:51, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

lake shrinkage

I'm a little confused on this one. The cited article clearly states that the lake has shrunk because the rivers that feed it were diverted by a project designed to boost cotton production. How is this a counter example to an old earth? HectorJ 21:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

The drop is an astounding 90%, likely more than expected due to the diversion projects. Note how little detail the article gives about what was expected to be caused by the diversion projects, and what the observed decline has been.
Other lakes, such as the Great Lakes, have observed declines without any diversion.--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
Well how were the two lakes before we started mucking with them. If they were shrinking over the hundreds of years before we diverted the flow for cotton or with a wide canal then that is one thing, if we have simply underestimated how badly we are behing as stewards to this earth it is another. --JimPT 22:57, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
You ask a question that likely unanswerable. What is known is that the decline in the lake's volume was unexpected, and Old Earth types will point fingers at anyone other themselves for misleading people.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
The 90% drop was surely more than expected, I agree. What I don't understand is how the declines in these lakes are evidence of a young earth in the first place. I have an open mind, I just don't get the logic. HectorJ 23:11, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
The Old Earth types claim that such lakes have existed for tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of years, and thus would be expected to exist for an additional thousands of years. Old Earth types would deny that a 90% drop would occur, because that would imply a short lifetime for the lake. The Young Earth view readily admits that such lakes have been here only a short period of time and may not last much longer.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
A 90% drop would only imply a short lifetime if the trend continued, which may or may not be a reasonable assumption. I was just as confused as HectorJ when I saw the news item. If the "Old Earth types" claim that the lakes have existed for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, then their untimely demise (at our hands or not) now would hardly amount to a short lifetime, right? Also, don't Old Earth arguments generally assume large changes over time (e.g. Pangaea to now, the American West was allegedly covered by an ocean millions of years ago, etc.)?DanieleGiusto 20:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Grammar in News posting

The wording in the first sentence about the school-accountability story has some grammar issues. I'd suggest the following:

The principal resigned, and two undisclosed public school officials have gone on paid administrative leave, yet the public cannot even learn the reason why.

Also, the link to the article itself is broken. Thanks. --ChrisY 22:00, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Question raised about news story link story

I went to open the link in the news item to, and my antivirus software found and blocked an exploit program that tried to download from the page. Someone with the appropriate rights needs to remove that link immediately, and I strongly urge anyone who's read it to run an antivirus/malware scan on their computers. I use the free AVG antivirus from Kapersky, if anyone wanted to know what program detected the exploit. --ChrisY 15:24, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I had no problems, Mmmmm maybe your end. I have the superantivirus, top notch.--Jpatt 16:04, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
It's possible. When I restarted and did a second scan, the record showed that the source of the problem was in a right-hand ad in the texasinsider page, rather than the "core" page itself. It might have been a case of an inserted ad being associated with an IP address known to distribute exploits. As long as everything's ok, I'm glad - better safe than sorry. --ChrisY 19:01, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
I removed the link to the other site for now, but don't think there was any problem with it.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Misleading news story Re: Aaronk1994

I watched the video linked to and first I saw no actual indication of the true identity of the person filing the claim. Secondly Aaronk1994 doesn't seem to understand fair use, specifically with regards to the ten second clip (yes it is transformative, but it has to be for comment or criticism, everything on youtube is commercial, because youtube is a commercial entity) and thirdly linking to a source is not necessarily a way to get out from copyright, If I published a video of me reading the entire encyclopedia Britannica and linked to their website I probably couldn't get away with it. Also not being on Google doesn't unmake an entity, if I told you the name of my firm you would not be able to find us on Google. --JimPT 16:32, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Jim, you conveniently failed to mention that some of his videos that were pulled down had no music. For example, the video where he humbles the two popular atheist radio show host had no music.[11][12] Secondly, please provide evidence that this is true: "Secondly Aaronk1994 doesn't seem to understand fair use, specifically with regards to the ten second clip (yes it is transformative, but it has to be for comment or criticism, everything on youtube is commercial, because youtube is a commercial entity) and thirdly linking to a source is not necessarily a way to get out from copyright" Lastly, do you deny that Aaron the 15 year old boy humbled the two atheists on that popular atheist radio show?[13] If so, you are in a state of total denial. conservative 19:41, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
For the sake of consistency I'll start with the second. Title 17 quite nicely backs me up, if it's too much for you to read please take a look at their factsheet which also backs me up, compare it to what he was saying in the video. On to the first point, I don't think my case was based on just music, I think I also mentioned him using sources and linking to them, not getting permission. and thirdly, I do not deny it, and I do not confirm it, I did not watch the video in question. I am highly skeptical that the video was so earthshaking that someone could not deny it and still make the claims that I made re: US copyright law and the establishment of an identity for the person who filed the claims. Someone can be wrong on Christianity with out being wrong on color of the sky, or the meaning of the words comment or criticism. God gives us all individual talents, and you don't have to have any one talent to have any at all, deny this and you really do loose all credibility. --JimPT 19:59, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
Jim, if you are not going to watch the video in question which was copied on to another YouTube channel (or at least claim to not have watched it) , then I do question your sincerity, and I will not investigate any matters you raised in your post. In short, I did not click your factsheet link. I have better things to do with my time than waste it with insincere people. In the meantime, I will sleep quite contently tonight knowing that even a 15 year old Christian boy can quite effectively confront 2 adult atheists in debate concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When the facts on your side, it is much easier to win debates. conservative 15:53, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

I feel like you are being petty conservative. --JimPT 17:40, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

I thought you were an insincere atheist merely looking to pick a senseless fight. It appears as if you have made good faith edits in the past. My apologies. It does appear as if the young man Aaron made a mistake about copyright. However, it is also true that it appears as if many of the YouTube videos did not have music and were falsely accused of copyright violations. For example, the video clip which was quite embarrassing to the show The Atheist Experience. I do think the false reports of copyright violations were do to this embarrassing video which had no music. conservative 02:11, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

British general election

With many readers of this website coming from Britain, perhaps it might be worth posting updates on the campaigning for that election. After all, it looks likely that the centre-left Labour government is going to make way - for the first time in 13 years - to the party formally led by Margaret Thatcher. Metalware 18:24, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Nuclear disarmament & deterrence

First, let me say sorry for the absence. It's been busy over here these past few months.

Now, one of the things I saw was the story on the front about the current nuclear reduction with Russia, and how some have said that it will weaken us against our opponents. First off, if it comes down to a nuclear war, we and Russia still have enough nuclear devices to render a continent lifeless. 1,500 nuclear warheads, all of which are incredibly more powerful than the bombs used in World War II.

From there, I would have to say that a nuclear war, of any kind, would be a nightmare given form. Not to mention the environmental impact the dust and radiation would have on the area, the deaths from the blast alone to a major population center would number in the millions, many of them civilians uninvolved in the fighting. Nukes aren't used against military bases or ships mainly because of the collateral damage it would cause. And that's one weapon. Imagine that effect a thousand times over. The disarmament treaty aims in making sure such a scenario is never realized, and for that i'm glad that it is moving forward. As Albert Einstein is quoted: "I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

I think one quote sums up the sentiment shared by our modern leaders: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” -- CodyH 09:53, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Religious makeup of the Supreme Court

I wouldn't want religion to be any kind of litmus test for a Supreme Court candidate, but considering that seven of the nine current justices are Christians of one sort or another (most are Catholic), and that the remaining two are Jewish, a new justice could be from any background without compromising the deep Judeo-Christian makeup of the court. The judicial and constitutional views of a potential justice are far more relevant to their impact on the bench, and with this early April announcement they will be ample time for any nominee(s) to be thoroughly vetted before the American public. --ChrisY 11:59, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Your argument is well-stated, but there may be millions of Protestants who are surprised and concerned that in a nation founded almost entirely by Protestants, there will soon not be a single Protestant on the Supreme Court. We report, our visitors decide for themselves.--Andy Schlafly 12:08, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
I see your point, but when John Roberts was selected instead of the horribly unqualified Harriet Meiers, I was much more pleased with his qualifications and views than I was over another Catholic being added to the bench. The same for Justice Alito, whose actions on behalf of the conservative perspective have served the interests of devout Protestants despite his being a Catholic as well. --ChrisY 12:16, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
I agree that a candidate's principles (or lack thereof) are most important. But the Supreme Court is analogous in some ways to a football team, and no one should pick a football team that lacks anyone who can play a particular position.--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Planned Parenthood "Happy, Healthy and Hot" brochure

When I read this I did some fact-checking to make sure this wasn't some form of misinformation being passed around to discredit IPPF, but it's for real. They are actually telling people, particularly young, impressionable people, that concealing the fact that they have an STD is a privacy right which trumps the right of their partners to know. Advocating against disclosure laws is a truly appalling policy for a group that claims to have public health interests at heart.
There's a world of difference between a person with an STD having to go around with a scarlet letter on their forehead, and being morally & criminally accountable for concealing the knowledge that you have an STD with a partner. This is just another reminder that while abstinence is best, the idea that casual sex can be safe sex is really just a leap of faith that can be profoundly, permanently harmful if trust is misplaced.
Unfortunately, I'm also afraid it means that even conservative parents have an obligation to teach their teens about safe-sex practices. Human nature says that some of them are bound to lapse like Bristol Palin did, and if that happens, I'd rather have them rely on accurate information from parents who care over misinformation from friends or dangerous material like this brochure.

On second thought, maybe it would be better for conservative parents to show this brochure to their kids, as a stark reminder that "the playing field" is full of people who buy into this irresponsible message, and will put their selfishness over the health and safety of our kids. --ChrisY 16:28, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

RINOs news

A couple of issues with this addition:

First, why are we linking to awful, far-left "news" sources?

Second, why does the linked article have nothing to do with what was posted?

Very curious. Jinx McHue 17:38, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

That was the only source I could find for the cited statement by Specter. The liberal college newspaper covered it up. I'll look again at the link, but it had the Specter mistake when I posted it.--Andy Schlafly 18:17, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I just looked at the link, searched on "Specter", and the cited statement came right up.--Andy Schlafly 18:19, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
It's in a comment. Surely there's something better. Jinx McHue 18:46, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I'd welcome another cite, but the cite given is adequate proof. Liberals censor this sort of stuff so I'm not surprised that I couldn't find it anywhere else.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Dawkins plans a new publicity stunt

Here he plans to arrest the pope in England. --Brendanw 20:55, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

The more a person strays from the mainstream and the less followers they have, always look for a rise in silly, kooky stunts on their part to try and seem relevant. Dawkins has long ago ceased to be an intellect and more a silly tool. I'm hoping the guy succeeds in trying to arrest the Vicar of Christ. He will only seem foolish and petty, and might get to spend some time in prison as well. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:42, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
Dawkins' role is to make atheism look popular and friendly. He made a big mistake by showing the true colors of atheism here. I guess someone can put on a good show for only so long, before the real person comes out.--Andy Schlafly 21:52, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I think this is a little unfair. Much as Dawkins is not a nice piece of work, the current Pope is not whiter than white either. His defence of the perpretrators of those horrible acts is shameful. MikeSorter 11:10, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Abuse of kids by adults in public school is far worse. Why aren't you demanding that action be taken there to address that bigger problem? See the latest news item, for example.--Andy Schlafly 14:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't remember saying I don't want action to be taken? Adults abusing kids in public schools is shameful, as you rightly say - if we are to shame these teachers, we should shame the priests doing similar things, and shame the man who is now Pope who attempted to cover the whole thing up - just as we should shame the headteachers who tolerate or tolerated it. MikeSorter 15:01, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

One couldn't logically use the word "cover-up" to describe the future Pope's caution "to be careful". Before throwing out such allegations, of which there have been many false charges as well, one would need to be careful. I don't know if that rises to a cover-up, is all. All denominations have been plagued with such charges as well, including the Anglican Church. Seems there is still a great deal of Catholic bashing in the U.K., wot? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:30, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

British atheists like Dawkins think they can exploit anti-Catholic bigotry for their own benefit, but they're in the wrong century and the atheists are just making fools of themselves. By baring their viciousness, they're probably losing young people, and rightly so.--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Did anyone actually bother to read the news story, or just the headline? Because the story doesn't support the headline. --JimPT 10:50, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
Are you saying the story doesn't support the newspaper's headline, or ours? Please be specific about why.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
I am saying that the article written by the reporter does not support the wording of the headline written by the editor, as a result your headline is just as inaccurate (though through no fault of your own, it was a mistake you inherited from Brendan). If you read the article you will see that Dawkins and Hitchens found a barrister and a solicitor in order to convince the Crown prosecution service (CPS) to press charges against the pope when he is on British land (and there for in the jurisdiction of the CPS) and then to refer those charges to the international criminal court. Or, failing that, to press civil charges against the pope themselves, which would not involve any arrest. if he is arrested it will be by the British government, not by Dawkins. --JimPT 12:21, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
Dawkins makes his position clear here. --British_cons (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

ICP's new song

I have seen this on a number of blogs that I read but figured it was a joke, however Paul Nelson over at uncommon descent has thrown his credibility in with it. I have not watched it, and will not watch it, I have always harbored a strong dislike for the band. you may feel differently. --Brendanw 22:54, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Liberal party?

Hi, I'm new here and I live in Scotland, and the Labour party is in power down south, not the Liberals (who incidentally haven't existed as 'Liberals' since 1988). MikeSorter 10:41, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

"Anti-Christian Bullies"

I think the term "Anti-Christian Bullies" to refer to Atheists is a bit of a generalization. If an Atheist views this page and s/he sees that s/he will probably not convert to Christianity. I think Atheists are "Anti-Christian Bullies" as much as we Conservatives are "Ant-Atheist Bullies". NP

It's not symmetric, NP. Christians build hospitals and atheists don't, for example.--Andy Schlafly 14:04, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
They have started some rather prominent universities, though, and secular governments contribute a lot of money to hospitals.MikeSorter 14:45, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Which prominent universities do you think atheists started? I'm not aware of any.--Andy Schlafly 14:50, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
University College London springs to mind, insofar as Jeremy Bentham heavily influenced its founders. MikeSorter 14:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Never heard of it. So please tell me more: when was it founded and how, and what do you think makes it prominent?--Andy Schlafly 15:00, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of knowledge, but I have a friend who attends it and regularly waxes lyrical about it; the history on Wiki is more or less accurate. It is prominent in that the Times (UK) recently ranked it as the fourth best university in the world, and spawned the underpants bomber (and, worse, Coldplay!). MikeSorter 15:04, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
I'll also quickly add that UCL has been involved in many prominent scientific discoveries, as well as 21 Nobel prizes being awarded to its alumni. MikeSorter 15:08, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
No, Mike, we don't debate here by sending people to Wikipedia. We think for ourselves here. If you can't explain in your own words why you think that school was founded by atheists and is so prominent today, then give up and try debating a topic you can put in your own words.--Andy Schlafly 15:15, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Just a question Andy... How many hospitals have YOU built? I don't want to be harsh but I don't see any logical connection between NP's original statement and your refutation. There are some atheists that are Anti-Christian bullies. I'm sure we've all met a few. But I think it's perfectly valid to say that are are some Christians/Conservatives that are Anti-Atheist Bullies as well. Your refutation took a harsh Anti-Atheist tone actually and only proves the point. I respect what conservapedia and as a Christian I appreciate some of the efforts here. I just don't see the connections you make and don't believe that all atheists are horrible people who wouldn't build a church if they had the chance like you seem to imply that they are. --Dasonk 14:01, 12 April 2010 (CST)
It is worth pointing out that while UCL may or may not be a notable university (It's certainly not Princeton) they do have UCH (a 595 bed hospital that I've worked with) and it is in the heart of London. London is atheistic right? --JimPT 17:52, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
Taxing and spending by government does not count as "atheists building hospitals," and you didn't mention when UCH was built anyway.--Andy Schlafly 18:11, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
Then might I ask who it is you're referring to that does build hospitals? Is it not organizations that build hospitals? I guess I'm just asking for evidence of what you keep saying as fact which is "Christians are the only ones that build hospitals". Mind you that with everything you've been saying I'd fully expect to find some sort of research that shows that Christians are the ONLY ones that build hospitals (however I don't think that is the case). I want to point out that I am a Christian and I am mighty proud of that (if I'm going to boast in anything it's going to be in the name of Jesus). But I am not going to convince myself that it is impossible to do ANY act of good without being a Christian. I think that one of the main things that turn some people off to Christianity is the inflated ego and moral superiority complex we seem to be suffering. So all I ask is a little proof to verify what you've been saying. It's only fair as you been demanding evidence from everybody else to back up their claims. I'd love to see the evidence myself. --Dasonk 17:14, 12 April 2010 (CST)
Proof is all around you. Charity in Canada, which has become increasingly atheistic, is now much less than charity in the United States, by any measure (quantity, percentage by amount, percentage by participation, etc.). Look at atheists you see in school or elsewhere: you'll likely find that most, though perhaps not all, are less charitable in attitude and activities. Look at how Richard Dawkins treats the Pope. Look at how many hospitals have Christian names and symbols, and how none have atheistic ones.
It's Christian to tell the truth. Jesus did, even when it insulted others. By not telling the truth one misleads others, particularly young people. Jesus said Hell is worst of all for such a person.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Possible news story?

Would this make an acceptable news story? Even the liberal media can't ignore it! [14]

Missing Link

The headline about the newly discovered hominid not being the missing link is misleading. The article goes on to say "they do claim that “Sediba” shares more derived features with early Homo species than any other australopith species and thus might help reveal the ancestor of that genus." Additionally, the article then states that "the fossils ... are potentially a Rosetta stone into the past," which really runs counter to your bold claim on the main page. The mere term "missing link" is without backers in the scientific community, as the article states, and this is the reason for the agreement that the fossil is not a missing link. DanieleGiusto 13:47, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.[92] In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[93]
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist in which he said: "...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.[94]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology: I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.[94] ”

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[95] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[96][97] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[97] conservative 16:51, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Please note that I'm not attempting to make the case for evolutionary theory. Indeed, I am often astounded by the presumptions made in the biological sciences. I merely meant to say that the article cited does not prove or even reinforce the main page statement; it is more a discussion of semantics than anything else. DanieleGiusto 19:56, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Fox Block

I wonder if this has anything to do with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus bone-headed decision to add Murtha's name to a Navy vessel? The only news source critical of his actions was Fox. [15] --Jpatt 12:18, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Update, Navy claims technical glitch which was resolved --Jpatt 12:54, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Obama's Plan to Destroy American Space Dominance

"Republicans say the President's vision for NASA means the end of U.S. space leadership, and even some Democrats are questioning the plan." [16]

I really hope you add this to the news. Putting a man on the moon is one of our greatest achievements and now Obama wants to outsource it and let some other nation lead the way. Sol1221 14:42, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, there are multiple points to what Obama's proposing that make sense from the conservative point of view, and which open-minded people should support:
  • First, it acknowledges that the private sector can be more nimble, efficient and innovative in meeting the needs of satellite launch and low-orbit manned flights. There's no need for the government to be a provider in this marketplace anymore, and our tax dollars should not be used for anything that's not essential to national security where this is concerned.
  • Second, canceling the Constellation program was the right move at this time. There's no short term economic benefit to returning to the moon, and no need to waste billions or risk lives repeating a 41-year-old accomplishment. Since Constellation was trying to leverage a lot of established technology, its value as a driver for innovation was limited from the start, and the few new programs, like the Ares boosters, were already over budget and behind schedule.
  • Third, the U.S. continues to show success and space leadership, but it's through unmanned missions like the Hubble telescope and Mars Rovers, which have delivered amazing, valuable advances in hard science a much better cost/benefit ratio than any contemporary manned mission would. Have we gotten a comparable return on the International Space Station yet? I doubt we ever will before it's retired.
  • Fourth, there are more pressing areas for space research and exploration compared to returning to the moon or going on to Mars. Spending more on studying the sun is a better investment, for example, because of the impact solar flares and sunspot cycles have on our satellite and worldwide power & communications infrastructures.
  • Fifth, Obama's plan calls for investing in new forms of propulsion and heavy lift technology. The payoff on these may not be immediate, but this is a forward-looking plan to truly innovate and support the type of research that keeps a country in a position of technology leadership.
Do I want to see the U.S. with a viable, purposeful manned space program? Of course. What people need to understand is that there's no loss of technology leadership or prestige in focusing on other areas while nations like China and India play catch-up and repeat achievements we regard as part of our history now. What we should be focused on instead is accomplishing new things, and writing our own generation's history.
I'd like to see extensive robotic exploration of the moon to see if resources there like helium-3 can be harvested for our benefit. I'd like to see the U.S. be a leader in robotics to the point where we can send unmanned missions to Mars to build our bases and mine fuel for a return trip in advance, so that when we send American astronauts they don't have to waste 5 minutes doing anything other than the exploration, observation and hands-on science that we can do so much better than machines. A extra $2 billion dollars spent on robotic exploration would likely pay for one or more completed missions in full, while it would only be a dent in the cost of refreshing 50-year-old tech to boldly go where man has already gone before. Imagine the gain in our industrial competitiveness from developing robotics, computers and software technology to the levels needed to support this kind of vision. That would have obvious payoffs for our economy even as these programs develop, and that's the kind of vision any spend of a taxpayer dollar deserves.
Let's acknowledge when Obama does something in line with our values, then, in the hope that he starts to accept and support conservative thinking in other areas too. --ChrisY 17:14, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
I agree with ChrisY partly, but realize that his new tune doesn't scrap manned space flight entirely, it just does away with our bouncing up and down to LEO all the time. While I criticized Obama's space goals in the past, I'm a big fan of the current proposal. The benefits to unmanned exploration are obvious, from a scientific perspective. As for canceling the future moon flights - going back to the moon the way we went before is pointless; there is nothing there, basically. In time, perhaps uses will be found for the moon. Exploring Mars and the asteroids is a good goal, though, IMO. A typical asteroid has millions of tons of industrially useful metals, including enough iron and nickel to fulfill 10 years of production by all the worlds mines. While asteroid mining may not be feasible right now, if the United States gets ahead in asteroid exploration now, then 100 years from now we may be that far ahead when it comes to mining them. JacobB 17:50, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the terrific comments above on this interesting issue. Chris and Jacob do make great points.
A broken clock is still right twice a day. Also, someone can be right for the wrong reason. It's possible that only 99% of what Obama does is wrong!--Andy Schlafly 17:56, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
You all make great points, and I suppose I stand corrected. I suppose the way I interpreted it was more that he was simply stepping back with our space program to make cuts where he can, but now I do see your point regarding the private sector. Thanks everyone, and sorry for the hassle. Sol1221 18:35, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
Not a hassle at all, Sol. Raising a point as you did invites thoughtful comments, like the great one Jacob made about asteroid mining. Imagine the benefit of harvesting key resources from asteroids instead of trashing our landscape to do it, perhaps by attaching robotic engines to them and flying them to Earth orbit. If we could also make the concept of a space elevator a reality, then we'd also have a clean, efficient way to get those resources down to Earth, and advance the field of materials science along the way. --ChrisY 18:51, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional

Looks like the Separation of church and state article content was increased just in time, thank God.

On March 15, 2010, as a result of a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists and agnostics called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin ruled that the annual National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. The judge partly based her decision on the belief that atheists feel marginalized by the law.

The White House stated that regardless of the ruling, the president still "intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer." (CBS news, April 16, 2010)

Conservative legal experts disagreed with the ruling. Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia stated that "If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, then the Constitution itself if unconstitutional.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), himself a former judge, told that "it was obvious" the federal judge "had not received a very good education" in American history. (, Legal Experts Blast Judge’s Decision, Friday, April 16, 2010) The ruling may be seen as another example of secular values displacing religious ones, and morally functioning as a religion itself. Daniel1212 18:23, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

The interesting thing I noticed in this ruling is that the judge did not have an issue with religion for its own sake, but with the idea of the government "calling on Americans to pray" as being an unconstitutional action. In other words, it was the action of calling on people to pray that was the issue.
So what if the theme of the day was officially changed from a "National Day of Prayer" to a "National Religious Heritage Day". Rather than making the day about calling on people to pray, the focus of the day would be on recognizing the importance of religion itself in American history and American life. The difference sounds subtle, but the important distinction is that there's ample precedent that recognizing the role of religion in America does not violate the establishment clause, while calling on people to participate in a religious act (even if it's as subtle as a prayer) potentially can be. Thoughts? --ChrisY 19:02, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
The real issue is that what the judge is doing is disallowing a formal religion and replacing it with a functional one, as regards world view and morality, and by disallowing prayer based upon the premise that this would sanction religion, then what is being effectively sanctioned is atheism or agnosticism. For a gov. to not express appreciation or acknowledge an unseen but manifest host conveys that such is unworthy of recognition, or that it is evil for them to do so, or that no host exists. Together with atheistic evolution, the latter has become the officially sanctioned ideology, and which functions as religion. Either the Founders meant that atheism should be conveyed, or the consequences of the 1st Amendment was not foreseen by them, and or they sought to disallow a gov. sanctioned formal religion, while sanctioning general expressions of the common Christian faith, assuming its strength would continue, and the upholding of its morality. However, while Christianity was the "civil religion", in a functional democracy the people can change what will be the basic ideology, and what we are seeing is the result of at least the more influential classes so doing.
"Any discussion of a secular-religious distinction is self-refuting. For someone's values are always being advocated even in so called "neutral" settings." Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest ask, Is a religiously neutral public school education an oxymoron? Daniel1212 20:07, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Volcano linked to global warming

Actually, according to the article linked to, "[The global warming advocates] said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming."--Whizkid 23:13, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

Typo in Gordon Brown News story

The end of the story contains the phrase "Brown is trying to be rescue himself. ", which should be corrected to say "rescued". --ChrisY 10:20, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

Great catch. Just fixed it.--Andy Schlafly 10:36, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

Americans stuck in the UK

Is the phrase 'just imagine: atheism everywhere they look' adding anything to the story? It'll annoy many British users without adding anything relevant to the story, and i imagine those americans stuck in the UK chose to go there in the first place--ColinK 08:47, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Is that so? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:06, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Typo in salt story.

It needs a close quote after "Nanny State." JClarke 14:55, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

Muslim cleric declares jihad on suicide bombers

| Story here

It's about time, but I'm still glad to see it, and I'll give ul-Qadri credit: it took courage to stand up and say this. Now, if only more Muslims will follow his lead... --Benp 15:45, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

50 years in prison?

Im sorry, but when a mainpage news items of an site that promotes christian valueas reads that a boy aged 22 should be sentenced for up to 50 years in prison from crimes like identity theft, wire fraud and obstructing an FBI investigation, I really have to ask, where is the compassion? Are those crimes really so serious that the boy should loose allmost literally his life over them? Do you think that society could really cope with the amount of prisoners this would bring, not to mention the social aspects. I have hard time beliaving that anyone could think a judgement like that would be fair and in proportion to the crimes committed. Personally i dont think that the news item reflects conservative or christian values. HeikkiL 17:36, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

And where was the compassion this "fine" young man had for his victim? Instead of taking his opinions about her to a public debate, he broke into her various accounts out of nothing more than pure hate, the hatred that a liberal like him has for a conservative. And I think liberals of all stripes should be supportive of severe punishment for those who commit hate crimes. Karajou 17:47, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
Karajou, please don't ruin my honey pot! This is certain to bring out those with liberal values crying about that poor lad, intent as he was to soil the reputation of a great Patriot like Sarah Palin as he was....son of a liberal Memphis politician...totally innocent in the ways of politics, just simply misguided! Boo-hoo! He will have time to consider his misdeeds in prison, and learn many valuable lessons all cyber vandals should and soon will. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:56, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
I'm just supporting a purely-liberal cause here. This is a hate crime, and it was liberals who pushed hate-crimes legislation through the House and Senate and the various state governments until it became the law of the land. So, if the shoe fits - and it will be a size-12 boondocker suitable for prison use, without laces - this guy should wear it! Karajou 18:01, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
Let's also note that the story does NOT say "The kid will get 50 years in prison." It says that the crimes carry a maximum sentence of 50 years. Doubtless the actual sentence will be less. (By the way, I wonder if the liberals who were howling for the book to be thrown at James O'Keefe for walking into Mary Landreau's office with a camera will do likewise in this case?) --Benp 19:31, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
Identity theft and obstruction are serious charges, and if he's convicted he deserves a significant enough sentence to deter others from trying the similar exploits. The fact that the victim was a prominent or that the offender was only 22 is irrelevant - any person who compromises the trust people need to have in online email systems should pay a steep price. That said, I hope the judge would have teh good sense to follow precedent and established sentencing guidelines so this person, if convicted, doesn't become a political martyr. --ChrisY 20:07, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
I am more than willing to give the left all the martyr's it wants. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:41, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
Wasn't Climategate a form of cyber vandalism? I don't like the idea of any sort of hacking of personal information taking place, he should be charged as this is a crime. But let's cut the bias out of it, much like larceny it should be judged on the severity of the crime. It's a good thing courts are around because the idea of having one type of hacking and personal information violation being alright if it proves a political point (right or left) is not the kind of thing that should be encouraged.--Composer 14:28, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

Multiple Typos in News article

There are a few typos in the article about soliciting editors for the Anti-Abortion project:

  • "who is a history" should be changed to "who has a history"
  • "to be an Conservapedia editor" should be changed to "to be a Conservapedia editor"

--ChrisY 15:13, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

Evangelist "Disinvited" to National Day of Prayer

I guess it's no longer politically correct to say that blowing up innocent civilians is evil.

--Benp 20:21, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Just saw this, and I don't know if I added that story before or after your post here, but it was there....thanks, Benp! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:13, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Typo in SEC News Article

Obama has been in office 15 months, not 2 1/2 years. --ChrisY 08:53, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you for pointing that out, ChrisY. Fixed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
It just feels like 2 1/2 years. ---- Ferret Nice old chat 07:31, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Liberals attempt to censor video satirizing Climategate

Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann obviously doesn't like his lies exposed in any form, even humorous ones!

Climate Experts Square Off Over Video

Scratch a leftist, find a fascist! Fight liberal censorship!!! Jinx McHue 15:44, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Arizona's new immigration law

Wow, many twists in this story. Obama opposes following the law, wants lawbreakers to enter. Gov. Brewer has the guts and should be Homeland Security director unlike the woman she replaced who did nothing. Liberals of all stripes will be loud and deranged because their future amnesty voters are affected. Citizens of Arizona will be the safest of all border states.--Jpatt 18:55, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

British election betting

The latest betting markets are showing a hung parliament (ie no party getting an overall majority) as the most likely outcome in the British general election, which would hand the balance of power to the third-largest party, the Liberal Democrats. They would be in a position to choose whether to back the existing Labour government, or the Conservative party. Their leader has previously said that in the first place he would seek to form a coalition with the party winning the most seats - most likely the Conservatives. The Conservatives could choose to attempt to form a government without a formal coalition, but ultimately would probably need to rely on Liberal Democrat support in any vote of confidence. An outright majority for the Conservatives is seen as the second most-likely outcome, with an outright majority for either Labour or Liberal Democrats being seen as highly unlikely.

It's worth noting though that the Conservative Party is not all that conservative in the American sense of the word, and is much less conservative than it was under Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s. For example they favour gun control and socialised health care. (Having said that, they are certainly more conservative than either of their opponents.) It will be interesting to see what political colour a government made up primarily of the Conservatives but with Liberal Democrat backing (and most likely cabinet ministers) will have.

---- Ferret Nice old chat 07:47, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your interesting analysis. Note, however, that a divided Parliament may be the optimal solution!--Andy Schlafly 14:40, 25 April 2010 (EDT)


Hi, long-time listener, first-time caller. In the "In The News" section, strictly speaking I don't think the association between rise in autism rates and the introduction of vaccines could be called correlation. That would be if they found that children who received the vaccines were statistically significantly more likely to be more autistic. Maybe you could change it to "autism rose dramatically in 1988, when vaccines with the cells of aborted babies started being used" or something like that. Same [horrible] effect, but more accurate IMO. Marinara 14:40, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

When lung cancer incidence increased as smoking within a society increased, that is properly described as a "correlation" regardless of whether individualized studies are performed. Breast cancer skyrocketed in Romania subsequent to its introduction of abortion, and that can also be properly described as a correlation. Furthermore, the cited article repeatedly uses the term "correlate" itself, and thus the headline should reflect the point made in the article. But thanks for your comment.--Andy Schlafly 16:13, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

Terrorist video game

Out of curiosity, what video game allows you to play a terrorist?--Whizkid 23:32, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

More than one, I am reliably informed. Just as many allow kids to play serial killers and other assorted low-lifes. Do the research. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:41, 25 April 2010 (EDT)

Counterstrike from the days of Half-Life had one side as a terrorist group, fighting a counter-terrorism force. I don't think many emphasize the actual terrorist act for the terrorist act's sake--clear problems would develop there. Though TK has a clear point regarding playing as assorted criminal persons.

I discussed this with a group of teenagers last week and they stated very clearly that a new game rewarded terrorist role-playing. In fact, they brought up the issue.--Andy Schlafly 01:09, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Could you name this game? Many games allow you to play as terrorists (especially multiplayer ones,) but few reward you for it. Linkthewindow 07:47, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Certainly, I guess it is too much for you to Google, eh? Modern Warfare 2 is one of them. But I am guessing you already knew that, and have read the article about it on Wikipedia, and just wanted to see if we knew what we were talking about? We rarely see any true conservatives from Australia..hopefully you will prove the exception to the rule! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:50, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, in Modern Warfare 2 you play as an American CIA agent sent undercover to monitor a dangerous Russian terrorist cell DougHerb 14:08, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, DougHerb, for correcting the record in this one example, and having the last word. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:50, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

The "Call of Duty" video game is one specific example, in response to Whizkid's question at the top.--Andy Schlafly 19:10, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Modern Warfare 2 has a disturbing mission in which you walk through an airport as a terrorist shooting civillians. I'm sure there are stories of this around, such as this. MattS 10:24, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Any of those "Grand Theft Auto," "Destroy All Humans," "Bully," or "Super Columbine Massacre" things obviously promote terrorism. I'm sure there's a game somewhere that allows one to play as Obama, who is economically and socially terrorizing the American public. DMorris 16:02, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Immigration Poll News Story

An interesting article. What stood out for me was this finding from the same survey:

At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.”

That's practically the same percentage as the 60% who favor immigration checks. What this tells me are two things: First, the true test of this law's acceptability will be in the guidelines given to law enforcement to identify suspected illegal immigrants without relying on race alone. It also shows that Americans are properly suspicious of any drift by government towards a state where anyone can be pulled over and arrested for "failing to show their papers", as in the old Soviet Union. Conservatives should demand immigration solutions that don't make walking without I.D. a crime, because that's the start of a slippery slope to living in a police state. --ChrisY 15:16, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Remember the poll reflects citizens/voters from states not impacted by this issue so much, so their concerns will be greater...American's have a natural distaste for the "your papers, please" request. The law doesn't make it a crime, however, to be without proof of citizenship, however. And it is a long-standing requirement in the U.S. and other countries that those traveling on Visa's always carry their passport on them. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:59, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
True enough, but while there's little objection over foreign visitors being expected to have their papers available, this is a case where the law is empowering the authorities to stop and potentially arrest U.S. citizens based on nothing more than some appearance or behavior that creates the suspicion of being an illegal alien. You don't have to be doing anything wrong, you just have to fail a something doesn't look right test, and I haven't seen what the criteria of that test is supposed to be, given that race is not supposed to be allowed.
Here in NJ, there was an uproar in the 1990's about N.J. State Police officers and the criteria they were allowed to use to pull over cars on the NJ Turnpike for a "probable cause" check. If you were black that wasn't enough, but there was an unspoken guideline that if a person was black, dressed casually, and driving a luxury car, then there was "probable cause" to pull them over because they might have stolen it, or were drug dealers. While the practice was defended as being non-racial, there was really no other way to see it because non-blacks were not treated that way.
I have sympathy for what the citizens of Arizona have to deal with since they are a border state, but common sense says that since we're dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico, you are not going to see whites or asians stopped at the rate hispanics will be. No matter how many check marks off a list of criteria it takes to stop someone, being hispanic is going to be one whether people officially admit it or not, and I doubt that's Americans want.
If people wanted strong, meaningful enforcement, then they should have passed a law allowing the state to seize the assets of individuals and business who knowingly hire illegals, just as the vehicles and property of drug dealers can be seized. THAT would take away the incentive to save money by hiring illegals, and if the jobs aren't there, the motivation to come here illegally goes away. --ChrisY 16:48, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Really? Consider that both parties claim to be against deficit spending as well. BOTH of them. What has that gotten "we, the people"? There is nothing wrong with profiling, it is just logical. I cringe every time I am in an airport and see some wheel-chaired or cane-using granny being meticulously searched. It's silly. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:00, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Yes, that's right, because everyone knows that the good guys wear white and the bad guys always wear black. --LindaLunch 12:42, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
And no matter where you turn, there's always a liberal supporting the bad guys, right Ms Lunch? Karajou 14:00, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Pretty much. They've had destroying America on their agenda for a long time now, and there certainly are no conservative bad guys with conservative backers. At least, none that I see! --LindaLunch 14:07, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Chicago Headline

They have decided to not call in the guard, the Mayor doesn't want them.,0,6672533.story

Not surprising. Chicago politicians and lawyers have gotten rich off of crime for generations now. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:02, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
Add to that, Obama's old stomping grounds as State Senator of District 13, South Side Chicago. A peek into the future of America? How did Obama provide hope and change? Did he alleviate suffering, clean up crime, reign in gangs, rebuild the neighborhood, encourage job creation? Seems as if the South Side has been so neglected for so long that it's now a battlefield. --Jpatt 13:01, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Lying liberal lesbian smears hospital; gets president on board

Remember Obama's order demanding hospitals give homosexual partners full visitations rights? It came after a lesbian partner was allegedly prevented from visiting her dying partner. Well, the truth finally has been exposed:

Hospital Visit Horrors? Here’s the Rest of the Story

We would also like to take this opportunity to provide you with some clarification on the allegations being made by Janice Langbehn, whose partner was treated at Jackson’s Ryder Trauma Center in 2007. From the beginning, JHS has vehemently denied that Ms. Langbehn was denied visitation due to her sexual orientation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Ms. Langbehn’s lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital in September 2009.

Ms. Langbehn’s allegations and those made by published articles, blogs, etc., are inaccurate and have damaged the reputations and deeply hurt the feelings of the personnel in our trauma center. They have devoted their careers to all who come through our doors, from all walks of life.

JHS grants hospital visitation to all individuals equally, regardless of their relationship to the patient, as long as doing so does not interfere with the care being given to the patient or other patients in the area. With that said, our first priority when a patient is brought to our trauma center is always to stabilize the patient and save their life. As the only adult and pediatric Level 1 trauma center in Miami-Dade County to support a population of more than 2.3 million people, our facility is one of the busiest – and most renowned – in the nation.

The Trauma Resuscitation Unit in Ryder Trauma Center, where Lisa Pond was treated when airlifted to Jackson, is more like a large operating room with multiple beds separated by glass partitions rather than a traditional hospital floor. Sometimes, visitors are not able to see a loved one in the trauma bay as quickly as they would like or they may have to wait until the patient is moved to the ICU or to another area of the hospital that is better suited for visitation. This all depends on the circumstances of the situation, how busy the unit is at the time and the medical conditions of the patients in the unit at the time. The patients in this area are facing life-threatening injuries or illnesses and are extremely vulnerable.

So in actuality, it just wasn't an average situation involving a regular patient room. It involved the trauma/emergency area of the hospital, which is tightly controlled. The lesbian partner of the victim was afforded no more and no less rights than anyone else in the same situation. Had this involved visitation in a non-emergency situation, the lesbian partner would've been fully welcomed to visit. I read somewhere, too, that this lesbian partner had tried to sue the hospital afterward, but the judge threw the case out because of the facts. Jinx McHue 12:14, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Yes, exactly, that's why the hospital make a big to-do about changing its policies. If a case was thrown out, it's because Florida does not have a non-discrimination law. A lesbian partner is in the same category as a dirt bike buddy; no law is broken by preventing either from visitation. --LindaLunch 12:57, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
So are you saying that the lesbian charge nurse who denied the visitation request by another lesbian was discriminating against her because ... she's a lesbian? And for this the hospital should pay megabucks in damages? No, we don't need more and more money going towards funding the homosexual agenda for imaginary discrimination.--Andy Schlafly 13:17, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
A lesbian charge nurse has the ability to decide which policies of her employer she enforces? How does allowing people to visit other people in the hospital, particularly when they have the legal documentation to do so, cost any money? --LindaLunch 13:28, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Hospital visitors can spread germs to immunity-compromised patients, and also disrupt emergency care as the hospital carefully explained in this case. Often visitation is properly denied. But the homosexual agenda wants to be able to intimidate and sue deep pockets like hospitals. Are you in favor of allowing such intimidation and litigation? I'm not.--Andy Schlafly 13:36, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
I'm in favor of allowing loved ones visit loved ones in the hospital, particularly when they are near death, out of a sense of Christian charity. --LindaLunch 13:45, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Oh, what a joke that is: "Christian charity" ... by the lawsuit-wielding, never-satisfied homosexual activists??? Every aspect of the homosexual agenda is non-charitable and selfish.--Andy Schlafly 13:59, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Excellent point that Christians should respond in-kind. --LindaLunch 14:08, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Right ... charity for the patients who need life-saving care without distraction by or germs from someone demanding a right to visit simply because he or she is a homosexual. Tell me this: do you support a right of the patients harmed by the distractions and germs to sue the homosexual visitors? Notice how the liberals aren't suggesting that.--Andy Schlafly 14:12, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Only if other people are monitored for whatever contagions they may bring in with them, or is only the gays who should pay? If risk of contamination is an issue for you, why not bar children from hospitals? They are notorious for their bad hygiene; they can't be forced into legal obligations to compensate those they get sick; some may be gay; and they often haven't developed the emotional capacity to understand the significance of visiting a loved one in the hospital. Under your criteria, they should probably be barred if they are not patients. --LindaLunch 14:19, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
Then we're all on the same page. People should be controlled when they visit hospitals; the spread of germs to patients must be controlled, and the lesbian above has no case whatsoever. Karajou 14:29, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

News Flash: ER's already do, for the most part, block children. Your lunch has been eaten, Linda, please stop arguing this now tiresome liberal clap-trap. The country is very nearly broke, there isn't anymore money left to pay out to anyone, and productive citizens are no longer willing to pay for others so-called "injuries". --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:31, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Linda, children don't sue hospitals and try to intimidate others. Homosexuals do. If a hospital administrator becomes afraid to tell a homosexual to get out because he might cry "discrimination", and a patient is then hurt by that, then the homosexual should pay for the harm. But don't expect to see such payment for the harm caused to be included in the homosexual agenda.--Andy Schlafly 14:47, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Hospitals are a business, in the industry of healing people and saving lives. The business of a hospital trumps visitation when visitation compromises quality treatment, regardless of who the visitor is. DMorris 14:54, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

So long as they didn't discriminate against her because she's a lesbian or because of their own policies regarding the status or validity of the couple's relationship. If there is a bona fide reason (i.e. health concerns) then there is no issue and no need to worry as any court will uphold the hospital's policies. Mike.

No, that's not true. The lesbian sued even though the hospital explained its valid basis. She lost, but it is noted above by someone else that she would have won (and the hospital would have had to pay her money) if there were a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual visitation.
The homosexual agenda is not about equal treatment. It is about special treatment ... for themselves. Note how the wealthy homosexual movement provides almost no charity to others.--Andy Schlafly 22:34, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

That's hypothetical. Even in cases where there are laws against discrimination in employment, individual cases are still subject to review and are determined by whether or not the discrimination consists of a bona fide occupational requirement. It must be shown that discrimination is warranted and justified and the same applies in this case. Was she being treated equally or was she being discriminated against because she was a lesbian? I don't agree that this is about special rights. She is the identified spouse of the patient and the question is whether or not she was treated equally with other spouses of other patients or if she was treated differently because they were a same sex couple. Regardless of views or statistics on how much homosexuals give to charity or volunteer, I don't believe that's relevant in this case or applicable.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michguts (talk) -- 19:47, 27 April 2010

I'm glad you brought that up, Mike. I've just researched that and this article might interest you: Liberals and uncharitableness RichardBurn 23:04, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
I've read through that article several times and it's interesting but I don't feel it's relevant to this case. Whether liberals and or homosexuals (There are homosexuals who identify as conservatives) are more or less charitable than conservatives is another issue in my opinion. This is about whether she was recognized as the patient's spouse and treated accordingly or not. Her own charitableness and the charitableness of other homosexuals is not an issue that seems to apply.-Mike
It obviously does matter whether one is dealing with a selfish bully intent on filing a lawsuit, or a charitable person who wants to help others. Homosexuals are a wealthy group of people. Why aren't they building hospitals rather than suing them?--Andy Schlafly 23:58, 27 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't know the financial circumstances of this couple. But are you saying that because heterosexuals are more charitable as a group that as a group they are entitled to be treated differently then groups that are less charitable? I see this story as an issue of whether or not spouses are being treated the same regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. I do not believe that is reasonable to assume that her sexual orientation is grounds for determining her finances nor her charitableness as these are characteristics which must be assessed on a case by case basis. Either way I again do not see the relevance how her charitableness should have any baring on whether or not she should be allowed to see her spouse in the hospital if other spouses are permitted to do so. The issue of building hospitals is perhaps best raised by addressing the HRC, GLAAD or other such organizations. - Mike

Mike, we have a button, above when editing to sign, or use the four tildes ~ every time, to sign and date your posts!

Mike, that was a whole lot of 'supposin you have going on there, reading in everything but the kitchen sink to Mr. Schlafly's post. Spouse is a subjective term, recognized in some states, not in others, for same-sex couples. Personally I have never seen a hospital deny visitation to a loved one except in the ER, where strict legal definitions are usually used, and I don't disagree with a hospital keeping out all visitors from trauma bays. Let's stick to the facts, as we know them here, but a normal person's fist response isn't to litigate. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:46, 28 April 2010 (EDT)