Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Intellipedia

2007-10-20T16:34:55Z

AuH2O: see talk. no one has pointed out how this is like conservapedia, which allows anons (although not anon IPs) to edit, and has many non-experts

[[Image:Intellipedia.jpg|thumb|250px|right|]]

'''Intellipedia''' is a set of [[wiki|wikis]] set up by the [[United States]] intelligence community. The Wiki allows people with access to classified information to edit and view. Thus, although Intellipedia has been compared to [[Wikipedia]], it is not similar, as only non-anonymous, accountable, experts can edit.<ref>http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/SecurityBeat.htm#Wik</ref>. Intellipedia is more similar to [[Citizendium]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Wiki]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-10-20T15:54:07Z

AuH2O: einstein doesn't belong, at lest not for those reasons. he was a poor student, which might be worth considering, however

{{Essay}}

----

It is interesting to observe how the [[liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of [[liberal]] arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
:*privileged youth, weak student at [[Yale]], no original work
*[[Al Gore]]
:*privileged youth, poor graduate student, tried to claim credit for the [[internet]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]
:*may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at [[Georgetown]], never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at [[Oxford]], no original work or ideas
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
:*lasted only 2 years teaching at [[Berkeley]], a mere lecturer at [[Oxford]] until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
:*[[Antioch College]] graduate (geology major), his work is riddled with contradictions
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
:*dropped out of a graduate math program, passed over initially for Law Review, passed over for [[Solicitor General]] in 1993,<ref>Tribe admitted he was being considered, but he was not nominated. "Under Clinton, Crimson tide washes over Washington," The Boston Globe (Mar. 4, 1993).</ref> plagiarism later found in his work<ref>"Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book."[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007975.php]</ref>
*[[Robert McNamara]]
:*described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled [[Vietnam War]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
:*fluent in relatively few languages for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled [[Vietnam War]] and [[Soviet Union]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
:*repeatedly passed over for the [[Nobel Prize]] due to a lack of achievement, allowed multiple leaks from [[Los Alamos]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
:*famous for making a few guesses about [[linguistics]] some of which turned out to be partially correct. He has not done any work in linguistics in 30 years and just spends his time promoting left-wing politics outside his supposed area of expertise.
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
:*dropped out of [[math]] to pursue the less rigorous [[economics]], but was unable to earn a doctorate even in that
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Rachel Carson]]
:* Started the [[environmentalist]] movement with her book [[Silent Spring]] which was found to be full of errors, exaggerations and disregard for actual [[science]].
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
:*claimed to be proving the completeness and consistency of math, a goal [[Godel]] proved was impossible. Advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
*[[Ward Churchill]]
:Offended millions of Americans by comparing those that died in 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, notorious organizer of the [[Holocaust]]. Had the gall to sue the University that terminated him.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul25/0,4670,EmbattledProfessor,00.html</ref>
*[[Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.]]
:*privileged youth, rise to the top based upon family name and inherited connections. Currently publisher of the ''[[New York Times]]''.
*[[Charles Darwin]]
:*poor student
*[[Carl Sagan]]
:*insisted that there must be life in outer space
*[[Stephen Hawking]]
:*Was fundamentally wrong about Black Holes. Never won the Nobel Prize. Like Sagan, is a major supporter of the idea of extraterrestrial life.

Please add other examples.

== Praised Heaped by Pseudo-Intellectual [[Liberals]] on Each Other ==

It is remarkable how pseudo-intellectual [[liberal]]s praise each other as geniuses. Examples include:

*[[Bertrand Russell]] declaring that the most intelligent man he ever knew was [[John Maynard Keynes]]

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essay]]
[[Category:Oxymorons]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-10-20T14:59:38Z

AuH2O:

French Wars

2007-09-24T14:41:11Z

AuH2O: /* Pre-18th century */

The following is a list of some of the wars that [[France]] has fought:

==Pre-18th century==
*'''The Crusades'''
It was under Frankish leadership that the First Crusade conquered the Holy Land from the rule of the Turks. Baldwin of Boulogne was crowned the First King of Jerusalem.

*'''100 Years War''' 
For nearly 116 years, from 1336 to 1453, France and England engaged in on-and-off warfare for control of France. After suffering major defeats at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), finally managed to drive the English out of France for good with the aid of St. Joan of Arc.

* '''Italian Wars''' 
The Italian Wars were a series of wars from 1494 to 1559 for control over the States of Italy, mainly involving France and Spain, but also involving most other European states, and the imprisonment for several months of Pope Clement VII.

Originally arising from dynastic disputes over the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples, the wars rapidly became a general struggle for power and territory among their various participants, and were marked with an increasing degree of alliances, counter-alliances, and regular betrayals. The Habsburg were eventually victorious with the French and their allies suffering major defeats.

* '''War of the League of Cognac''' 
The War of the League of Cognac (1526–1530) pitted the League of Cognac (an alliance of France, England, Pope Clement VII, Venice, Florence, and elements of Milan) against the Habsburg dominions of Emperor Charles V—primarily Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

By 1539, France's ally, Florence alone continued to resist Emperor Charles V's Imperial forces. A Florentine army under Francesco Ferruccio engaged the Imperials at the Battle of Gavinana in 1530, but although Orange himself was killed, the Imperials won a decisive victory, and the Florentine Republic surrendered ten days later. With this decisive Habsburg victory; not only did the entire League of Cognac suffer a loss, but France especially was humiliated.

==18th century==

* '''Seven Years' War''' 
The Seven Years' War (1754 and 1756–1763) was a war that pitted Great Britain and Prussia against France and Austria. The war was described by Winston Churchill as the first world war, as it was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe, although almost all of the combatants were either European nations or their overseas colonies.

The British-French hostilities were ended in 1763 with a French defeat that was made official by the Treaty of Paris; which was particularly catastrophic for France because it lost most of its colonial empire to Britain, especially Canada and India.

* '''French and Indian War''' 
The French and Indian War was the nine-year North American theater of the Seven Years War. The conflict was caused by land disputes. Specifically both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country.

The French conceded their defeat and a British victory with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. As a result of the French defeat, the British gained control of French Canada and Spain gained control of Louisiana. Overall, French administrative presence in North America was almost completely removed.

* '''Haitian Revolution''' 
The Haitian Revolution was the first successful slave rebellion in the Western Hemisphere and established Haiti as a free republic. At the time, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue.

After two years of dispute among elements of the free population, a great slave uprising plunged the country into civil war in 1791. Slavery was first abolished on August 29, 1793 on the island. But by 1802, it was obvious that the French intended to re-establish slavery. As a result the black population continued the fight against the French. The leader of the revolution, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the rebellion until its completion, when the French were finally defeated at the Battle of Vertières in November of 1803.

==Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars==

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars fought between France (led by Napoleon Bonaparte) and alliances involving England and Prussia and Russia and Austria at different times. They were partly an extension of conflicts sparked by the French Revolution, and continued for the duration of the First French Empire.

The Napoleonic Wars ended on 20 November 1815, following France's final defeat at Waterloo and the Second Treaty of Paris.

* '''Quasi-War''' 
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The conflict began because the French began to stealing American ships trading with the British.

The war started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. By October 1800, the United States Navy produced a reduction in the activity of the French privateers and warships, defeating the French. The French had already admitted this defeat with the Treaty of Mortefontaine on September 30, 1800.

* '''Peninsular War''' 
The Peninsular War (1808–1814) was a major conflict during the Napoleonic Wars, fought in the Iberian Peninsula with Spanish, Portuguese, and the British forces fighting against the French. It has been described as "a hammer and anvil" campaign, the hammer being the Anglo-Portuguese Army, commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, with 40,000 to 80,000 men, and the anvil being the Spanish armies, the Spanish guerillas and the Portuguese militia.

The Peninsular War was the first guerrilla conflict (a term coined for this war) and lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated France in 1814.

* '''War of the Sixth Coalition''' 
The Sixth Coalition (1812-1814) was a coalition of the Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against France. After France's disastrous defeat in Russia, the continental powers saw a final opportunity to defeat the French and joined the coalition which previously consisted only of the Russians and British in addition to Spanish and Portuguese rebels in Iberia.

2.5 million troops fought in the conflict and the total dead amounted to as many as 2 million (some estimates suggest that over a million died in Russia alone). It included the battles of Smolensk, Borodino, Lützen, Dresden and the epic Battle of Nations — the largest of the Napoleonic wars, and indeed the largest battle in Western history up until the First World War. The final stage of the war led to the Allies occupying Paris, forcing the French to admit defeat.

==19th century==

* '''Franco-Mexican War''' 
The Franco-Mexican War lasted from December 8, 1861 to June 21, 1867. It began with the invasion of Mexico by the army of the Second French Empire. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of payments of interest on loans to foreign countries made by previous governments on July 17, 1861, which angered the French government. France wanted to exploit the rich mines in the north-west of Mexico. The French started the war when they did due to the fact that the United States was in the middle of its Civil War, and thus was unable to intervene as they would have due to the Monroe Doctrine.

The presidential terms of Benito Juárez were interrupted by the French occupational monarchy, which was eventually overthrown in early 1867. The Mexicans occupied the rest of the states of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí and Guanajuato in January of 1867. The French evacuated the capital on February 5, 1867. The French instituted puppet monarch, Maximilian of Habsburg was executed on June 19, 1867 by the forces loyal to President Benito Juárez.

* '''Franco-Prussian War''' 
The Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 – May 10, 1871) was fought between France and Prussia (backed by the North German Confederation) allied with the south German states of Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg. The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the French army in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, the French capital Paris fell on January 28, 1871. The French admission of defeat, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed May 10, 1871, during the time of the bloody Paris Commune of 1871.

==20th century==
*'''World War I''' 
Following major defeats at the outbreak of war in August of 1914 in which German forces threatened Paris, because of troops from French-controlled Africa the French barely managed to push back the German advance at the Battle of the Marne. Alongside Britain, they fought the war to a standstill that lasted years. In the summer of 1917 the United States joined the war, and in November, 1918, the United States military enabled the the combined forces of France, Britain, and the U.S. to defeat the Central Powers.

* '''World War II''' 
After the so-called Phony War from 1939 to 1940, Nazi Germany managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on the French. The [[French Third Republic]] formally surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940 and voted itself out of existence. The reorganized French government, known as the [[Vichy regime]], enthusiastically joined the Axis. In 1944, France was invaded by the [[Allied powers]]. After the French surrendered for the second time in less than five years, the [[Fourth French Republic]] out of the [[French National Committee]] led by [[Charles de Gaulle]].

* '''French-Thai War''' 
The French-Thai War (1940 - 1941) was fought between Thailand and Vichy France over certain areas of French Indochina that had once belonged to Thailand. In early January 1941, the Thai lauched their offensive. Many French units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistent intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area.

The Japanese Empire mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 France admitted defeat in Tokyo, with the French relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.

* '''First Indochina War''' 
The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War) was fought in Southeast Asia from 19 December 1946 until 1 August 1954 between the nation of France and the resistance movement led by Ho Chi Minh, called the Viet Minh. Most of the fighting took place in Northern Vietnam (the area the French referred to as Tonkin) although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Laos and Cambodia.

In 1954, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu occurred between Viet Minh forces under Võ Nguyên Giáp and French airborne and Foreign Legion forces. The French suffered an humiliating defeat. At least 2,200 members of the 20,000-strong French forces died during the battle. Shortly after Dien Bien Phu, the Groupe Mobile 100 of the French army were wiped out at the Battle of Mang Yang Pass. The Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu led to the departure of France from Vietnam.

* '''Tunisian War of Independence''' 
The Tunisian War of Independence was fought from 1952 to 1956 between France and a guerilla movement of Tunisia, a nation that had been a French territory since 1881. The guerilla movement was lead by Habib Bourguiba.

In 1954, Pierre Mendes-France became the leader of the French government and pursued a policy of surrender. This resulted with the April 1955 agreement which handed internal autonomy to Tunisian hands while international relations were managed by France, a similar situation to the Turkish Bey method of governance in pre-1881. The use of [[torture]] by the French government, in particular by [[Paul Aussaresses]], in the Algerian War of Independence further weakened the French claim to the area, leading to the abolition of the Treaty of Bardo and Tunisia gaining full independence in March 20, 1956.

* '''Algerian War of Independence''' 
The Algerian War of Independence (1954–62) was one of the most important decolonisation wars and a complex conflict. It was characterized by guerrilla fighting and terrorism against civilians on both sides and counter-terrorism operations by the French Army. It was effectively started in November 1954. Under orders from Socialist Guy Mollet's (SFIO) government, the French Army initiated a campaign of "pacification" of what was considered at the time to be fully part of France. This "public order operation" quickly turned into a full-scale war.

France eventually conceded defeat with the March 1962 Evian Accords which organized the independence of Algeria, ending French imperialism.

==21st century==

* '''[[Operation Enduring Freedom]]''' 
France contributed soldiers to the war against the Taliban in [[Afghanistan]], and sustained casualties. As of 2007, French forces are still stationed in the theater.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/ Eduring Freedom casualties]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:France]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-24T14:24:15Z

AuH2O:

{{Essay}}

----

It is interesting to observe how the [[liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of [[liberal]] arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
:*privileged youth, weak student at [[Yale]], no original work
*[[Al Gore]]
:*privileged youth, poor graduate student, tried to claim credit for the [[internet]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]
:*may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at [[Georgetown]], never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at [[Oxford]], no original work or ideas
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
:*unsuccessful in obtaining a doctorate, lasted only 2 years teaching at [[Berkeley]], a mere lecturer at [[Oxford]] until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
:*[[Antioch College]] graduate (geology major), his work is riddled with contradictions
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
:*dropped out of a graduate math program, passed over initially for Law Review, passed over for [[Solicitor General]] in 1993,<ref>Tribe admitted he was being considered, but he was not nominated. "Under Clinton, Crimson tide washes over Washington," The Boston Globe (Mar. 4, 1993).</ref> plagiarism later found in his work<ref>"Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book."[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007975.php]</ref>
*[[Robert McNamara]]
:*described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled [[Vietnam War]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
:*speaks very few languages well for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled [[Vietnam War]] and [[Soviet Union]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
:*repeatedly passed over for the [[Nobel Prize]] due to a lack of achievement, allowed multiple leaks from [[Los Alamos]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
:*famous for making a few guesses about [[linguistics]] some of which turned out to be partially correct. He has not done any work in linguistics in 30 years and just spends his time promoting left-wing politics outside his supposed area of expertise.
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
:*dropped out of [[math]] to pursue the less rigorous [[economics]], but was unable to earn a doctorate even in that
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Rachel Carson]]
:* Started the [[environmentalist]] movement with her book [[Silent Spring]] which was found to be full of errors, exaggerations and disregard for actual [[science]].
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
:*claimed to be proving the completeness and consistency of math, a goal [[Godel]] proved was impossible. Advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
*[[Ward Churchill]]
:Offended millions of Americans by comparing those that died in 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, notorious organizer of the [[Holocaust]]. Had the gall to sue the University that terminated him.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul25/0,4670,EmbattledProfessor,00.html</ref>
*[[Charles Darwin]]
*[[Carl Sagan]]

Please add other examples.

== Praised Heaped by Pseudo-Intellectual [[Liberals]] on Each Other ==

It is remarkable how pseudo-intellectual [[liberal]]s praise each other as geniuses. Examples include:

*[[Bertrand Russell]] declaring that the most intelligent man he ever knew was [[John Maynard Keynes]]

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essay]]
[[Category:Oxymorons]]

Talk:Liberal myths

2007-09-24T14:02:01Z

AuH2O: /* Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! */

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==I'm ripping this apart one by one==

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in '''Science classes'''. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! ==

Here you go, sport!

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."''

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
[[Image:Chart1 lg.gif|thumb|left|300px]]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]

:From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

 

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."''

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
[[Image:Table 3 lg.gif|thumb|left|300px]]
* GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
* Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
* The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, '''critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted.''' They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intellipedia

2007-09-23T01:32:51Z

AuH2O: New page: This article seems to say that conservapedia does not allow anon edits, and only experts can edit it. Is that true? The only non-anonymous editor I know of here is mr. Schlafly. Everyone e...

This article seems to say that conservapedia does not allow anon edits, and only experts can edit it. Is that true? The only non-anonymous editor I know of here is mr. Schlafly. Everyone else is just a name that is not complete or verified. A name like JimP is not really any less anonmyous thn a bunch of ip numbers. certainly non-experts edit conservapedia all the time. right now there are students editing it. I'm sure they are learning a lot, but no one can say they are experts. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

Intellipedia

2007-09-22T15:05:35Z

AuH2O:

Intellipedia

2007-09-22T15:03:59Z

AuH2O: anons edit cp all the time.

[[Image:Intellipedia.jpg|thumb|250px|right|]]

'''Intellipedia''' is a set of [[wiki|wikis]] set up by the [[United States]] intelligence community. The Wiki allows people with access to classified information to edit and view. Thus, although Intellipedia has been compared to [[Wikipedia]] it is not similar only non-anonymous, accountable, experts can edit.<ref>http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/SecurityBeat.htm#Wik</ref>. Intellipedia is more similar to [[Citizendium]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Wiki]]

French Wars

2007-09-22T14:25:36Z

AuH2O: /* 20th century */

The following is a list of some of the wars that [[France]] has fought:

==Pre-18th century==
*'''100 Years War''' 
For nearly 116 years, from 1336 to 1453, France and England engaged in on-and-off warfare for control of France. After suffering major defeats at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), finally managed to drive the English out of France for good with the aid of St. Joan of Arc.

* '''Italian Wars''' 
The Italian Wars were a series of wars from 1494 to 1559 for control over the States of Italy, mainly involving France and Spain, but also involving most other European states, and the imprisonment for several months of Pope Clement VII.

Originally arising from dynastic disputes over the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples, the wars rapidly became a general struggle for power and territory among their various participants, and were marked with an increasing degree of alliances, counter-alliances, and regular betrayals. The Habsburg were eventually victorious with the French and their allies suffering major defeats.

* '''War of the League of Cognac''' 
The War of the League of Cognac (1526–1530) pitted the League of Cognac (an alliance of France, England, Pope Clement VII, Venice, Florence, and elements of Milan) against the Habsburg dominions of Emperor Charles V—primarily Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

By 1539, France's ally, Florence alone continued to resist Emperor Charles V's Imperial forces. A Florentine army under Francesco Ferruccio engaged the Imperials at the Battle of Gavinana in 1530, but although Orange himself was killed, the Imperials won a decisive victory, and the Florentine Republic surrendered ten days later. With this decisive Habsburg victory; not only did the entire League of Cognac suffer a loss, but France especially was humiliated.

==18th century==

* '''Seven Years' War''' 
The Seven Years' War (1754 and 1756–1763) was a war that pitted Great Britain and Prussia against France and Austria. The war was described by Winston Churchill as the first world war, as it was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe, although almost all of the combatants were either European nations or their overseas colonies.

The British-French hostilities were ended in 1763 with a French defeat that was made official by the Treaty of Paris; which was particularly catastrophic for France because it lost most of its colonial empire to Britain, especially Canada and India.

* '''French and Indian War''' 
The French and Indian War was the nine-year North American theater of the Seven Years War. The conflict was caused by land disputes. Specifically both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country.

The French conceded their defeat and a British victory with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. As a result of the French defeat, the British gained control of French Canada and Spain gained control of Louisiana. Overall, French administrative presence in North America was almost completely removed.

* '''Haitian Revolution''' 
The Haitian Revolution was the first successful slave rebellion in the Western Hemisphere and established Haiti as a free republic. At the time, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue.

After two years of dispute among elements of the free population, a great slave uprising plunged the country into civil war in 1791. Slavery was first abolished on August 29, 1793 on the island. But by 1802, it was obvious that the French intended to re-establish slavery. As a result the black population continued the fight against the French. The leader of the revolution, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the rebellion until its completion, when the French were finally defeated at the Battle of Vertières in November of 1803.

==Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars==

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars fought between France (led by Napoleon Bonaparte) and alliances involving England and Prussia and Russia and Austria at different times. They were partly an extension of conflicts sparked by the French Revolution, and continued for the duration of the First French Empire.

The Napoleonic Wars ended on 20 November 1815, following France's final defeat at Waterloo and the Second Treaty of Paris.

* '''Quasi-War''' 
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The conflict began because the French began to stealing American ships trading with the British.

The war started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. By October 1800, the United States Navy produced a reduction in the activity of the French privateers and warships, defeating the French. The French had already admitted this defeat with the Treaty of Mortefontaine on September 30, 1800.

* '''Peninsular War''' 
The Peninsular War (1808–1814) was a major conflict during the Napoleonic Wars, fought in the Iberian Peninsula with Spanish, Portuguese, and the British forces fighting against the French. It has been described as "a hammer and anvil" campaign, the hammer being the Anglo-Portuguese Army, commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, with 40,000 to 80,000 men, and the anvil being the Spanish armies, the Spanish guerillas and the Portuguese militia.

The Peninsular War was the first guerrilla conflict (a term coined for this war) and lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated France in 1814.

* '''War of the Sixth Coalition''' 
The Sixth Coalition (1812-1814) was a coalition of the Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against France. After France's disastrous defeat in Russia, the continental powers saw a final opportunity to defeat the French and joined the coalition which previously consisted only of the Russians and British in addition to Spanish and Portuguese rebels in Iberia.

2.5 million troops fought in the conflict and the total dead amounted to as many as 2 million (some estimates suggest that over a million died in Russia alone). It included the battles of Smolensk, Borodino, Lützen, Dresden and the epic Battle of Nations — the largest of the Napoleonic wars, and indeed the largest battle in Western history up until the First World War. The final stage of the war led to the Allies occupying Paris, forcing the French to admit defeat.

==19th century==

* '''Franco-Mexican War''' 
The Franco-Mexican War lasted from December 8, 1861 to June 21, 1867. It began with the invasion of Mexico by the army of the Second French Empire. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of payments of interest on loans to foreign countries made by previous governments on July 17, 1861, which angered the French government. France wanted to exploit the rich mines in the north-west of Mexico. The French started the war when they did due to the fact that the United States was in the middle of its Civil War, and thus was unable to intervene as they would have due to the Monroe Doctrine.

The presidential terms of Benito Juárez were interrupted by the French occupational monarchy, which was eventually overthrown in early 1867. The Mexicans occupied the rest of the states of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí and Guanajuato in January of 1867. The French evacuated the capital on February 5, 1867. The French instituted puppet monarch, Maximilian of Habsburg was executed on June 19, 1867 by the forces loyal to President Benito Juárez.

* '''Franco-Prussian War''' 
The Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 – May 10, 1871) was fought between France and Prussia (backed by the North German Confederation) allied with the south German states of Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg. The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the French army in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, the French capital Paris fell on January 28, 1871. The French admission of defeat, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed May 10, 1871, during the time of the bloody Paris Commune of 1871.

==20th century==
*'''World War I''' 
Following major defeats at the outbreak of war in August of 1914 in which German forces threatened Paris, the French managed to push back the German advance at the Battle of the Marne. Alongside Britain, they fought the war to a standstill that lasted years. In 1917 the USA joined the war, and in November, 1918, the combined forces of France, Britain, and The USA defeated germany and its allies.

* '''World War II''' 
After the so-called Phony War from 1939 to 1940, Nazi Germany managed to defeat the French. The [[French Third Republic]] formally surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940 and voted itself out of existence. The reorganized French government, known as the [[Vichy regime]], enthusiastically joined the Axis. In 1944, France was invaded by the [[Allied powers]]. After the French surrendered for the second time in less than five years, the [[Fourth French Republic]] out of the [[French National Committee]] led by [[Charles de Gaulle]].

* '''French-Thai War''' 
The French-Thai War (1940 - 1941) was fought between Thailand and Vichy France over certain areas of French Indochina that had once belonged to Thailand. In early January 1941, the Thai lauched their offensive. Many French units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistent intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area.

The Japanese Empire mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 France admitted defeat in Tokyo, with the French relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.

* '''First Indochina War''' 
The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War) was fought in Southeast Asia from 19 December 1946 until 1 August 1954 between the nation of France and the resistance movement led by Ho Chi Minh, called the Viet Minh. Most of the fighting took place in Northern Vietnam (the area the French referred to as Tonkin) although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Laos and Cambodia.

In 1954, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu occurred between Viet Minh forces under Võ Nguyên Giáp and French airborne and Foreign Legion forces. The French suffered an humiliating defeat. At least 2,200 members of the 20,000-strong French forces died during the battle. Shortly after Dien Bien Phu, the Groupe Mobile 100 of the French army were wiped out at the Battle of Mang Yang Pass. The Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu led to the departure of France from Vietnam.

* '''Tunisian War of Independence''' 
The Tunisian War of Independence was fought from 1952 to 1956 between France and a guerilla movement of Tunisia, a nation that had been a French territory since 1881. The guerilla movement was lead by Habib Bourguiba.

In 1954, Pierre Mendes-France became the leader of the French government and pursued a policy of surrender. This resulted with the April 1955 agreement which handed internal autonomy to Tunisian hands while international relations were managed by France, a similar situation to the Turkish Bey method of governance in pre-1881. The use of [[torture]] by the French government, in particular by [[Paul Aussaresses]], in the Algerian War of Independence further weakened the French claim to the area, leading to the abolition of the Treaty of Bardo and Tunisia gaining full independence in March 20, 1956.

* '''Algerian War of Independence''' 
The Algerian War of Independence (1954–62) was one of the most important decolonisation wars and a complex conflict. It was characterized by guerrilla fighting and terrorism against civilians on both sides and counter-terrorism operations by the French Army. It was effectively started in November 1954. Under orders from Socialist Guy Mollet's (SFIO) government, the French Army initiated a campaign of "pacification" of what was considered at the time to be fully part of France. This "public order operation" quickly turned into a full-scale war.

France eventually conceded defeat with the March 1962 Evian Accords which organized the independence of Algeria, ending French imperialism.

==21st century==

* '''[[Operation Enduring Freedom]]''' 
France contributed soldiers to the war against the Taliban in [[Afghanistan]], and sustained casualties. As of 2007, French forces are still stationed in the theater.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/ Eduring Freedom casualties]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:France]]
[[Category:Wars]]

French Wars

2007-09-22T14:22:23Z

AuH2O: /* Pre-18th century */

The following is a list of some of the wars that [[France]] has fought:

==Pre-18th century==
*'''100 Years War''' 
For nearly 116 years, from 1336 to 1453, France and England engaged in on-and-off warfare for control of France. After suffering major defeats at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), finally managed to drive the English out of France for good with the aid of St. Joan of Arc.

* '''Italian Wars''' 
The Italian Wars were a series of wars from 1494 to 1559 for control over the States of Italy, mainly involving France and Spain, but also involving most other European states, and the imprisonment for several months of Pope Clement VII.

Originally arising from dynastic disputes over the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples, the wars rapidly became a general struggle for power and territory among their various participants, and were marked with an increasing degree of alliances, counter-alliances, and regular betrayals. The Habsburg were eventually victorious with the French and their allies suffering major defeats.

* '''War of the League of Cognac''' 
The War of the League of Cognac (1526–1530) pitted the League of Cognac (an alliance of France, England, Pope Clement VII, Venice, Florence, and elements of Milan) against the Habsburg dominions of Emperor Charles V—primarily Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

By 1539, France's ally, Florence alone continued to resist Emperor Charles V's Imperial forces. A Florentine army under Francesco Ferruccio engaged the Imperials at the Battle of Gavinana in 1530, but although Orange himself was killed, the Imperials won a decisive victory, and the Florentine Republic surrendered ten days later. With this decisive Habsburg victory; not only did the entire League of Cognac suffer a loss, but France especially was humiliated.

==18th century==

* '''Seven Years' War''' 
The Seven Years' War (1754 and 1756–1763) was a war that pitted Great Britain and Prussia against France and Austria. The war was described by Winston Churchill as the first world war, as it was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe, although almost all of the combatants were either European nations or their overseas colonies.

The British-French hostilities were ended in 1763 with a French defeat that was made official by the Treaty of Paris; which was particularly catastrophic for France because it lost most of its colonial empire to Britain, especially Canada and India.

* '''French and Indian War''' 
The French and Indian War was the nine-year North American theater of the Seven Years War. The conflict was caused by land disputes. Specifically both the British and the French claimed the vast territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi river, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Ohio Country.

The French conceded their defeat and a British victory with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. As a result of the French defeat, the British gained control of French Canada and Spain gained control of Louisiana. Overall, French administrative presence in North America was almost completely removed.

* '''Haitian Revolution''' 
The Haitian Revolution was the first successful slave rebellion in the Western Hemisphere and established Haiti as a free republic. At the time, Haiti was a colony of France known as Saint-Domingue.

After two years of dispute among elements of the free population, a great slave uprising plunged the country into civil war in 1791. Slavery was first abolished on August 29, 1793 on the island. But by 1802, it was obvious that the French intended to re-establish slavery. As a result the black population continued the fight against the French. The leader of the revolution, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the rebellion until its completion, when the French were finally defeated at the Battle of Vertières in November of 1803.

==Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars==

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars fought between France (led by Napoleon Bonaparte) and alliances involving England and Prussia and Russia and Austria at different times. They were partly an extension of conflicts sparked by the French Revolution, and continued for the duration of the First French Empire.

The Napoleonic Wars ended on 20 November 1815, following France's final defeat at Waterloo and the Second Treaty of Paris.

* '''Quasi-War''' 
The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The conflict began because the French began to stealing American ships trading with the British.

The war started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. By October 1800, the United States Navy produced a reduction in the activity of the French privateers and warships, defeating the French. The French had already admitted this defeat with the Treaty of Mortefontaine on September 30, 1800.

* '''Peninsular War''' 
The Peninsular War (1808–1814) was a major conflict during the Napoleonic Wars, fought in the Iberian Peninsula with Spanish, Portuguese, and the British forces fighting against the French. It has been described as "a hammer and anvil" campaign, the hammer being the Anglo-Portuguese Army, commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, with 40,000 to 80,000 men, and the anvil being the Spanish armies, the Spanish guerillas and the Portuguese militia.

The Peninsular War was the first guerrilla conflict (a term coined for this war) and lasted until the Sixth Coalition defeated France in 1814.

* '''War of the Sixth Coalition''' 
The Sixth Coalition (1812-1814) was a coalition of the Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against France. After France's disastrous defeat in Russia, the continental powers saw a final opportunity to defeat the French and joined the coalition which previously consisted only of the Russians and British in addition to Spanish and Portuguese rebels in Iberia.

2.5 million troops fought in the conflict and the total dead amounted to as many as 2 million (some estimates suggest that over a million died in Russia alone). It included the battles of Smolensk, Borodino, Lützen, Dresden and the epic Battle of Nations — the largest of the Napoleonic wars, and indeed the largest battle in Western history up until the First World War. The final stage of the war led to the Allies occupying Paris, forcing the French to admit defeat.

==19th century==

* '''Franco-Mexican War''' 
The Franco-Mexican War lasted from December 8, 1861 to June 21, 1867. It began with the invasion of Mexico by the army of the Second French Empire. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of payments of interest on loans to foreign countries made by previous governments on July 17, 1861, which angered the French government. France wanted to exploit the rich mines in the north-west of Mexico. The French started the war when they did due to the fact that the United States was in the middle of its Civil War, and thus was unable to intervene as they would have due to the Monroe Doctrine.

The presidential terms of Benito Juárez were interrupted by the French occupational monarchy, which was eventually overthrown in early 1867. The Mexicans occupied the rest of the states of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí and Guanajuato in January of 1867. The French evacuated the capital on February 5, 1867. The French instituted puppet monarch, Maximilian of Habsburg was executed on June 19, 1867 by the forces loyal to President Benito Juárez.

* '''Franco-Prussian War''' 
The Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 – May 10, 1871) was fought between France and Prussia (backed by the North German Confederation) allied with the south German states of Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg. The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the French army in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, the French capital Paris fell on January 28, 1871. The French admission of defeat, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed May 10, 1871, during the time of the bloody Paris Commune of 1871.

==20th century==

* '''World War II''' 
After the so-called Phony War from 1939 to 1940, Nazi Germany managed to defeat the French. The [[French Third Republic]] formally surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940 and voted itself out of existence. The reorganized French government, known as the [[Vichy regime]], enthusiastically joined the Axis. In 1944, France was invaded by the [[Allied powers]]. After the French surrendered for the second time in less than five years, the [[Fourth French Republic]] out of the [[French National Committee]] led by [[Charles de Gaulle]].

* '''French-Thai War''' 
The French-Thai War (1940 - 1941) was fought between Thailand and Vichy France over certain areas of French Indochina that had once belonged to Thailand. In early January 1941, the Thai lauched their offensive. Many French units were simply swept along by the better-equipped Thai forces. The Thais swiftly took Laos. Because of over-complicated orders and nonexistent intelligence, the French counterattacks were cut to pieces and fighting ended with a French withdrawal from the area.

The Japanese Empire mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect at 1000 hours on January 28. On May 9 France admitted defeat in Tokyo, with the French relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories.

* '''First Indochina War''' 
The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War) was fought in Southeast Asia from 19 December 1946 until 1 August 1954 between the nation of France and the resistance movement led by Ho Chi Minh, called the Viet Minh. Most of the fighting took place in Northern Vietnam (the area the French referred to as Tonkin) although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Laos and Cambodia.

In 1954, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu occurred between Viet Minh forces under Võ Nguyên Giáp and French airborne and Foreign Legion forces. The French suffered an humiliating defeat. At least 2,200 members of the 20,000-strong French forces died during the battle. Shortly after Dien Bien Phu, the Groupe Mobile 100 of the French army were wiped out at the Battle of Mang Yang Pass. The Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu led to the departure of France from Vietnam.

* '''Tunisian War of Independence''' 
The Tunisian War of Independence was fought from 1952 to 1956 between France and a guerilla movement of Tunisia, a nation that had been a French territory since 1881. The guerilla movement was lead by Habib Bourguiba.

In 1954, Pierre Mendes-France became the leader of the French government and pursued a policy of surrender. This resulted with the April 1955 agreement which handed internal autonomy to Tunisian hands while international relations were managed by France, a similar situation to the Turkish Bey method of governance in pre-1881. The use of [[torture]] by the French government, in particular by [[Paul Aussaresses]], in the Algerian War of Independence further weakened the French claim to the area, leading to the abolition of the Treaty of Bardo and Tunisia gaining full independence in March 20, 1956.

* '''Algerian War of Independence''' 
The Algerian War of Independence (1954–62) was one of the most important decolonisation wars and a complex conflict. It was characterized by guerrilla fighting and terrorism against civilians on both sides and counter-terrorism operations by the French Army. It was effectively started in November 1954. Under orders from Socialist Guy Mollet's (SFIO) government, the French Army initiated a campaign of "pacification" of what was considered at the time to be fully part of France. This "public order operation" quickly turned into a full-scale war.

France eventually conceded defeat with the March 1962 Evian Accords which organized the independence of Algeria, ending French imperialism.

==21st century==

* '''[[Operation Enduring Freedom]]''' 
France contributed soldiers to the war against the Taliban in [[Afghanistan]], and sustained casualties. As of 2007, French forces are still stationed in the theater.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/ Eduring Freedom casualties]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:France]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-20T18:30:33Z

AuH2O:

{{Essay}}

----

It is interesting to observe how the [[liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of [[liberal]] arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
:*privileged youth, weak student at [[Yale]], no original work
*[[Al Gore]]
:*privileged youth, poor graduate student, tried to claim credit for the [[internet]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]
:*may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at [[Georgetown]], never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at [[Oxford]], no original work or ideas
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
:*unsuccessful in obtaining a doctorate, lasted only 2 years teaching at [[Berkeley]], a mere lecturer at [[Oxford]] until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
:*[[Antioch College]] graduate (geology major), his work is riddled with contradictions
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
:*dropped out of a graduate math program, passed over initially for Law Review, passed over for [[Solicitor General]] in 1993,<ref>Tribe admitted he was being considered, but he was not nominated. "Under Clinton, Crimson tide washes over Washington," The Boston Globe (Mar. 4, 1993).</ref> plagiarism later found in his work<ref>"Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book."[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007975.php]</ref>
*[[Robert McNamara]]
:*described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled [[Vietnam War]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
:*speaks very few languages well for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled [[Vietnam War]] and [[Soviet Union]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
:*repeatedly passed over for the [[Nobel Prize]] due to a lack of achievement, allowed multiple leaks from [[Los Alamos]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
:*famous for making a few guesses about [[linguistics]] some of which turned out to be partially correct. He has not done any work in linguistics in 30 years and just spends his time promoting left-wing politics outside his supposed area of expertise.
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
:*dropped out of [[math]] to pursue the less rigorous [[economics]], but was unable to earn a doctorate even in that
*[[Gandhi]]
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Rachel Carson]]
:* Started the [[environmentalist]] movement with her book [[Silent Spring]] which was found to be full of errors, exaggerations and disregard for actual [[science]].
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
:*claimed to be proving the completeness and consistency of math, a goal [[Godel]] proved was impossible. Advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
*[[Ward Churchill]]
:Offended millions of Americans by comparing those that died in 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, notorious organizer of the [[Holocaust]]. Had the gall to sue the University that terminated him.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul25/0,4670,EmbattledProfessor,00.html</ref>
*[[Charles Darwin]]

Please add other examples.

== Praised Heaped by Pseudo-Intellectual [[Liberals]] on Each Other ==

It is remarkable how pseudo-intellectual [[liberal]]s praise each other as geniuses. Examples include:

*[[Bertrand Russell]] declaring that the most intelligent man he ever knew was [[John Maynard Keynes]]

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essay]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-07T13:43:06Z

AuH2O: /* real intellectuals */

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-07T13:40:51Z

AuH2O:

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-07T13:39:00Z

AuH2O:

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-06T21:24:49Z

AuH2O:

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://volokh.com/2003_11_16_volokh_archive.html#106917664607446885], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

Salem

2007-09-06T17:27:19Z

AuH2O:

'''Salem''' is the capital city of [[Oregon]]. There is also a Salem in [[Massachusetts]], famous for [[Salem Witch Trials|witch trials]] in the 17th century.

[[Category:United States Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-06T17:22:14Z

AuH2O:

It is interesting to observe how the [[liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of [[liberal]] arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Al Gore]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
*[[Robert McNamara]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
*[[Linus Pauling]]
*[[Gandhi]]
*[[Michel Foucault]]

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.
[[Category:Essay]]

Recombinant

2007-09-06T17:20:25Z

AuH2O:

'''Recombinant''' means of, or resulting from, new combinations of genetic material or cells; the genetic material produced when segments of [[DNA]] from different sources are joined to produce recombinant DNA.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#r</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Pan

2007-09-06T17:19:16Z

AuH2O:

'''Pan''' is the god of nature in [[ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] [[mythology]]. He is a lesser god and is usually viewed having legs similiar to a goat including fur. Pan is also viewed as wild and somewhat reclusive. According to one ancient source, Pan died. How this occurred in mythology is not known.

Pan was a musical deity, who gave his name to the instrument known as the panflute, or panpipes.

{{Nb mythology greece}}
[[Category: Greek Mythology]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-04T23:53:27Z

AuH2O:

It is interesting to observe how the [[liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own. Put another way, the biggest advocates of [[liberal]] arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Al Gore]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
*[[Robert McNamara]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.
[[Category:Essay]]

Bayonet

2007-09-04T20:49:11Z

AuH2O:

A '''Bayonet''' is a sharp, sword-like weapon attached to the end of a [[rifle]]. It is used in close-range melee combat. It takes its name from the townsfolk of Bayonne, [[France]], who made makeshift bayonets after running out of ammunition.

[[Category:Weapons]]

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2007-09-04T20:39:02Z

AuH2O:

Barry Goldwater

2007-09-04T20:34:47Z

AuH2O:

[[Image:BarryGoldwater.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Barry Morris Goldwater''' (1909-1998) was a [[United States]] [[Senator]] and the [[Republican]] nominee for [[President]] in 1964.

==Biography==
Born in a [[Jewish]] family. Father of Barry Morris Goldwater, Jr., a [[U.S. Senator]] from [[Arizona]]; born in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Ariz., January 1, 1909; attended the Phoenix public schools, Staunton Military Academy, and one year at the University of Arizona at Tucson in 1928; began business career in 1929 in family mercantile business; during the Second World War entered active service in August 1941 in the United States Army Air Corps, serving in the Asiatic Theater in India, and was discharged in November 1945 as a lieutenant colonel with rating as pilot; organized the Arizona National Guard 1945-1952; brigadier general in the Air Force Reserve in 1959 and promoted to major general in 1962; retired in 1967 after thirty-seven years service; member of advisory committee, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior 1948-1950; member of the city council of Phoenix 1949-1952; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1952; reelected in 1958, and served from January 3, 1953, to January 3, 1965; did not seek reelection to the Senate in 1964; unsuccessful Republican nominee for President in 1964; elected to the United States Senate in 1968; reelected in 1974 and again in 1980, and served from January 3, 1969, to January 3, 1987; did not seek reelection in 1986; chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence (Ninety-seventh and Ninety-eighth Congresses), Committee on Armed Services (Ninety-ninth Congress); awarded the [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] on March 12, 1986; died May 29, 1998, at Paradise Valley, Ariz.

==1964 Presidential campaign==
Barry Goldwater entered the United States Senate in 1953. During the 1960 Presidential election there was a campaign among [[conservative]]s to draft Goldwater for President, a race in which [[Richard Nixon]] ultimately won the Republican nomination and [[John F. Kennedy]] narrowly defeated him for President. The campaign to draft Goldwater to run for President continued in the next election cycle. In 1964 Goldwater seriously sought the nomination, not running for re-election to the Senate that year, and was successful. He was defeated in the general election by incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]]. After the election he ran successfully again for the Senate in 1968.

Lyndon Johnson was successful in part because of continued public sympathy over the [[John F. Kennedy assassination]], the use of [[negative advertising]] such as the notorious "daisy" TV ad which raised fears of [[nuclear war]] if Goldwater were elected, and negative media coverage of some of the conservative groups supporting Goldwater, such as the [[John Birch Society]]. Johnson ironically ran as a "peace candidate" but shortly after the election drastically escalated U.S. involvement in the [[Vietnam War]].

The 1964 Goldwater campaign helped usher in the modern conservative movement in the United States. The political careers of both [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] got a big boost during the campaign. Schlafly wrote a book, ''[[A Choice, Not An Echo]]'' during the campaign which was widely distributed and launched her career as a conservative political activist. ''A Choice, Not An Echo'' detailed the machinations of the [[moderate]] to [[liberal]] East Coast wing of the Republican Party to hand-pick Presidential candidates (Nixon, [[Wendell Willkie]], [[Dwight Eisenhower]], etc.) and called for conservatives in the party to organize to counter this wing of the party and their "kingmaker" approach to nominating candidates. The book was a rallying call for conservatives in the party and helped Goldwater win the nomination. Reagan gave a speech as part of a "TV for Goldwater-Miller" television ad campaign which made him an up and coming star among conservatives, eventually leading to his own series of Presidential campaigns in 1968, 1976. and 1980, the last of which successfully landed him in the [[White House]]. The 1964 Goldwater campaign was also followed by the rise of a growing conservative campus movement during the 1960s led by [[Young Americans for Freedom]], the rise of a small [[libertarian]] movement which also supported Goldwater but would later split with conservatism over the [[draft]] and [[drug]] policy, and modern conservative movement approaches such as [[direct mail]] organizing.

The 1964 Goldwater campaign also marked the first time since before the [[Civil War]] that the states of the Deep South, angered by the liberal Johnson's support for civil rights, broke from the [[Democratic Party]] and gave their electoral votes to the Republican nominee. The South has had a long tradition of [[conservative Democrat]]s and nearly always voted for the Democratic nominee in Presidential elections before 1964.{{fact}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Goldwater, Barry}}
[[Category:Political people]]

Solid South

2007-09-04T20:33:21Z

AuH2O:

The Solid South is a term describing the voting practices of the southern [[United States]] from the [[Reconstruction]] until the later 20th century, when the region voted solidly with the [[Democratic Party]]. More recently, the South has aligned itself more with the [[conservative]] [[Republican Party]], and, especially since the time of [[Richard Nixon]], the Solid South has reversed itself, becoming a bastion for Republicans. In 1980, [[Jimmy Carter]] only carried one southern state: his home state of Georgia, and since then southerner [[Bill Clinton]] is the only Democratic Presidential candidate to carry any state in the south.

Solid South

2007-09-04T20:33:07Z

AuH2O: New page: The Solid South is a term describing the voting practices of the southern United States from the Reconstruction until the later 20th century, when the region voted solidly with the...

The Solid South is a term describing the voting practices of the southern [[United States]] from the [[Reconstruction]] until the later 20th century, when the region voted solidly with the [[Democractic Party]]. More recently, the South has aligned itself more with the [[conservative]] [[Republican Party]], and, especially since the time of [[Richard Nixon]], the Solid South has reversed itself, becoming a bastion for Republicans. In 1980, [[Jimmy Carter]] only carried one southern state: his home state of Georgia, and since then southerner [[Bill Clinton]] is the only Democratic Presidential candidate to carry any state in the south.

Linus

2007-09-04T20:24:32Z

AuH2O:

'''Linus Van Pelt''' of just '''Linus''' is a fictional character in the [[Peanuts]] comic strip and the younger brother of [[Lucy Van Pelt|Lucy]], who bosses him around. He is the person who most hangs out with [[Charlie Brown]] and the only one who doesn't put him down. Even though Linus is younger than Charlie Brown, he is often the voice of reason.

A popular story theme is Linus' blanket which he still takes with him and that he somehow uses to do things that regular blankets could not do. He also believes in ''The Great Pumpkin''. [[Sally (Peanuts)|Sally]] has a crush on him, but he doesn't show any interest in girls, mirroring real life where boys usually take longer before they start to like girls than girls do to start to like boys. Apart from Charlie Brown, Linus is the only other human character who really hangs out with [[Snoopy]].

In a famous scene from the [[Charlie Brown Christmas]] movie, it's Linus who explains what the real meaning of [[Christmas]] is by quoting from the [[Gospel of Luke]] the story of [[Jesus]]. In real life the creator of the Peanuts comic strip, [[Charles Schulz]], said that Linus represented his spiritual side.

[[Category: Comic Strips]]

Scurvy

2007-09-04T20:22:38Z

AuH2O:

Scurvy is a disease caused by a deficiency in [[vitamin C]] (ascorbic acid). The symptoms include poor wound healing, easy bruising, bleeding and swollen gums leading to the teeth falling out <ref> http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/scurvy/symptoms.htm </ref>.

Scurvy was a major problem in navies prior to the 18th Century when the preservation of fresh fruit was not possible. It was not uncommon for losses to scurvy on ships to outnumber crew members killed in enemy action - Commodore George Anson took six ships and 2000 crew to the Pacific Ocean in the 1740s, and lost five of the ships and two thirds of his men <ref> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/captaincook_scurvy_01.shtml </ref>

A Scottish surgeon called James Lind proved that scurvy could be treated by feeding patients citrus [[fruit]] in 1753 <ref> http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/lind/lind_tp.html </ref>.

[[James Cook]] is often credited as being the first sea captain to eliminate scurvy in his sailors, principally by using sauerkraut (pickled cabbage), although the some people believe his success in doing this has been overstated not least because the vitamin C content of sauerkraut is minimal <ref> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/captaincook_scurvy_05.shtml </ref>

Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy because ascorbic acid provides a hydroxyl group for the hydroxylation of proline residues to from hydroxyproline in the protein collagen. These hydroxyproline residues form hydrogen bonds between chains of collagen, holding them together. Thus in the absence of vitamin C, the collagen chains fall apart, which leads to the weakened connective tissue which causes the scurvy symptoms.

=References=
<references/>
[[category:diseases]]