Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:EllisUSA

2008-08-24T22:20:55Z

DenningMR: New page: Thanks for your message. Anyone can edit the Gun control page. You might have been attempting to edit late at night when the whole site is shut down for editing (except to sysops - a...

Thanks for your message. Anyone can edit the [[Gun control]] page. You might have been attempting to edit late at night when the whole site is shut down for editing (except to sysops - and I am not one of them). --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:20, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Gun control

2008-08-17T01:09:08Z

DenningMR: /* The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control */ Removed silly speculation.

[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, a weapon acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. It is often promoted by [[liberal]]s.

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]].<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, popular support demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece]</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|<small>Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics</small>]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> was an important factor in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref>

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, handguns or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a background check and/or a waiting period to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

Strangely, issues surrounding the second amendment never appeared before the Supreme Court until 2008. Washington D.C. attempted to disarm its citizens. On June 26th, 2008, the court resoundingly sided with American citizens, upholding their right to "keep and bear arms."

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" /> Within the European Union violent crime rates are, on average, substantially lower than in the US and gun-related deaths are enormously lower.

In the UK a ban on handguns was instituted following the Dunblane massacre of primary schoolchildren. The ban was made in response to an enormous wave of popular support for strict handgun control. This occurred even though school shootings in the UK are extremely rare - much rarer than they are in the US.

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==
=== The Gun Control Debate ===
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/would-allowing-students-to-carry-weapons-make-college-campuses-safer Campus Gun Control Debate]

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Coalition for gun control]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
{{liberalism}}

Hollywood values

2008-08-17T00:38:07Z

DenningMR: /* Falsehoods */

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*Lee Grivas, 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, pedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual mores characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Example include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* [[Freddie Mercury]] of the rock group Queen, notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk in driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:<fill in>

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly displayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

The following have checked into a different facility for psychological problems:

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Hollywood values

2008-08-17T00:35:25Z

DenningMR: /* Falsehoods */

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*Lee Grivas, 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, pedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual mores characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Example include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* [[Freddie Mercury]] of the rock group Queen, notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk in driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:<fill in>

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1940 prior to the Americans entering the war.

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly displayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

The following have checked into a different facility for psychological problems:

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Hollywood values

2008-08-17T00:34:47Z

DenningMR: /* Falsehoods */

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*Lee Grivas, 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, pedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual mores characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Example include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* [[Freddie Mercury]] of the rock group Queen, notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk in driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1940 prior to the Americans entering the war.
:<fill in>

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly displayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

The following have checked into a different facility for psychological problems:

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-08-15T22:59:01Z

DenningMR: /* Box Office Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] film charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments from schools, universities and the scientific community merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, <i>Time</i></ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the American theaters due to lawsuit, it has been re-released in the USA by way of private screenings. <ref>[http://expelledthemovie.com/rerelease.php Expelled Re-Released]</ref> Initially, Expelled grossed a domestic $7.6 million on a $3.5 million production budget. The promotional budget is unknown. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' began opening in international theaters.

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film by people who had never seen it, it is sometimes hard to tell what actual viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref> On June 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein (no relation to Ben Stein) ruled in favor of the filmmakers under the "fair use" provision.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0231537020080602</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials after promising to disrupt the showing in his blog. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on <i>Expelled</i> Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage

2008-08-10T23:10:19Z

DenningMR: /* Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" */

==Hold on==
Certainly at least some of these benefits apply to same-sex couples with adopted children, or who have had children through artificial insemination. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment has no bearing on 6 out of 8 factors, and doesn't work well in the other two either, because they do not apply to the spouse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Insightful==
Finally, something with which I cannot argue... at least not yet.<br />
I was talking with someone about a few of the points made in this essay. Didn't think it related to marriage, just dedication to want to succeed. Oh well. ^.^ [[User:NathanG|Nate]]<sup>[[User_talk:NathanG|Google's spiders need some work]]</sup> 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==Gay couples==
Hold on. so now gay couples do not help each other? They do not futher each other's goals in life, nag each other, complement each other? of this list of 7 all but two are irrespective of gender. and the two that are based on gender could just as easily be based on TWO DIFFERENT HUMAN outlooks. I know my sister and I complement each other because we are so extremely different - she is into science and math, a liberal, married for 7 years, job as an engineer for a downtown Denver building. I am a nurse with the army, and still waiting for "mr. right". You can't make broad and *unproven* statements about how two people of any gender complement each other.--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 12:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know which two you're referring to, and your personal story seems contrived. All the key elements identified apply only to male-female marriages. The [[invisible hand of marriage]] does not exist for same-sex marriages.

::Besides, people don't get married to their ''sisters''. I know I wouldn't! -[[User:MelanieKoontz|MelanieKoontz]] 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::: Love how trusting you are. You've never heard of two sisters being total opposites? Anyhow, only two of the "hands" directly say that the balance of man and woman is what drives this "hand". My question to you is why two men couldn't be just as productive as a man and a woman, just as focused on bettering their family, just as focused on finding economic goals that set the family in a better position and thereby drive each individual more. Each person in a couple, regardless of gender, helps the other out, encourages them, balances them, gently points out flaws and aids in fixing those flaws, etc. Why is this exclusive to a man and a woman in marriage?--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 13:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Men and women complement each other because they are designed that way by God. Two men or two women could only be a poor imitation of God's design. It would never be as good as the real thing. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 18:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. One simply has to look at the history of homosexual relationships to see that. The pro-homosexual crowd likes to hold up the rare homosexual couple that has lasted decades, but they consistently fail to acknowledge that the average homosexual relationship lasts around 18 months. Additionally, very few "committed" homosexual relationships are monogamous. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "The history of homosexual relationships"? Pray tell, where has this history been recoded for the ages? Is it the source of your uncited claims? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: There's plenty of research that goes back many decades. The leading psychiatric association used to study it and labeled it as something to be treated and changed, until leftist political pressure took over.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Wandering, conservapedia has an excellent article on [[homosexuality]] that talks about this. It might be a good place to start if you are actually interesting in an answer to your question. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I am somewhat heartened to see that both of you are as reluctant to actually read Conservative's work on the subject as I am. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jinxmchue: Perhaps, but the average heterosexual marriage these days lasts no longer, so it's not exactly an effective argument. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Malarkey. I bet you're relying on data about Massachusetts same-sex marriages, when it is obviously too early to tell. The lead same-sex couple in the decision in Massachusetts split up long ago, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Originality==
*I'm just going to note that it's possible this is not a Conservapedian discovery; others may just have a different name for it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Suggestions welcome. I can't think of any. While we're at it, do you think Adam Smith's invisible hand wasn't original either?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't even know what that is; I know next to nothing about economics (although I plan to fulfill part of my social sciences requirement with a class in it). I wasn't saying that the idea is definitely not original, just that a lack of search results for your term doesn't prove that it is. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's interesting you don't know what the "invisible hand" is, and I appreciate your candor. I bet the familiarity with that term and concept is far higher among conservatives than liberals. Indeed, it has been said that a good economics course is more likely to convert liberals to conservatives than any other teaching. That said, it's almost impossible to present or discuss a concept for an [[invisible hand of marriage]] without using the term "invisible hand." The lack of Google cites to it was meant to be illustrative rather than a proof of originality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::To some extent it's an inverse of the [http://www.google.com/search?q=economic+cost+of+divorce&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS263US263 well-documented] social and economic cost of divorce, and, of course, a good example of the ripple effects of good teamwork.

:::::There are some good points in the essay, but the more I think about it, the less it seems that an "Invisible Hand" is the right metaphor, at least in the economic sense. Smith was talking about the ability of free, competitive markets to find their own optimal equilibrium as if guided by an unseen optimizer. In short, it's about an economic ecosystem finding its proper balance on its own, just as ecosystems in nature do, through competitive forces and natural selection. Teaming up through marriage is a great, but the contribution of millions of these teams worldwide is not as much of an "invisible hand" guiding an economy as they are an "invisible engine" driving it.

:::::Where marriage is concerned, the "Invisible Hand" metaphor is better suited to the positive influence of marriages, committed partnerships & families on the fabric of society. If you dropped a thousand individuals on an island, and couples & families totaling 1000 people on a similar island, it's probably a safe bet that a few years later conditions on the island seeded with couples & families would be better. Since couples and families have a greater self-interest in mutual support and social order than individuals, the nature of those relationships serves as an "invisible hand" that guides the social ecosystem towards order instead of anarchy. The island of individuals may do well too, and even thrive, but without the inherent social connections of partnership and family at the start, it's bound to be more challenging. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Thanks for the interesting insights. However, I don't think you'll fully captured the concept of the [[invisible hand]] and how it motivates individuals to work more efficiently, just as the [[invisible hand of marriage]] does (in an even more powerful way).

:::::: I do see that our own entry on the [[invisible hand]] needs work ... which I'll take care of right now. As written, it's a socialistic distortion of the free enterprise concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have a concept of what Smith meant by the Invisible Hand metaphor from studying macro and micro economics in business school, plus some graduate work a few years back. While it's too abstract to be practical (like studying physics without worrying about friction), it explains the motivations for individuals to be successful for their own sake, without concern for others. However, the success that comes from that self interest will in turn create an optimal economic ecosystem as all of these competing self-interests reach a balance.

:::::::When you consider that someone with a partner or dependents needs to consider their well-being in addition to his or her own, that motivation is definitely increased. My point was that Smith described the "hand" as the incentive to want to do better, which marriage and family provides, but your essay focuses less on that motivation and more on the aspects of marriage that better ''equip'' one to be successful. That's why the metaphor breaks down once you get past the motivation part. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Google search on "[[invisible hand of marriage]]" ==

I tried this, and it actually looks as if it is true that it is an original Conservapedia term. I do get one hit now, and oddly it's not for Conservapedia, but for a website that seems to be blocked by the Conservapedia spam filter.
That website appears to be offline at the moment, but judging from the summary on google, it looks as if it is mocking Conservapedia (explaining the censorship of the term here). Are there moves afoot to get other blogs and websites to publish comments and articles or to get Conservapedia itself on the search engine results? [[User:Davidklein|Davidklein]] 09:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: I assume the Google search engine will pick up our entry in a few days. We're not planning any special effort for it. It will be interesting to see how long that process takes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::That site seems to link directly to this article anyway, so it doesn't matter very much. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 12:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: It might be an interesting project to track the propagation of a concept like this, to see how and how fast it spreads. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I would not open a website blocked by a spam filter. Those often are full of viruses and spyware. At least use an up-to-date antivirus program! Has someone tried opening that website? [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No, stay away from that site. I'm sure it's blocked for good reasons. Virus programs only help so far, you still have to be careful. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I thought so. Strange though that they would link to us. But these modern spammers, they are so cunning, who knows what they have in mind! [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::The reason the site is in the spam filter has nothing to do with viruses, spyware, etc. It's mainly just that the folks in charge here really don't like it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 16:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: No, that's misleading. We do not filter sites simply because we "don't like" them, but we do and will filter sites if they engage in utterly inappropriate behavior that is incompatible with our [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Oh nonsense. You don't like the site because they continually mock you. Fair enough. I wouldn't like that either. But at least you could be honest about it. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 20:53, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: That's false. Mockery doesn't bother us. But some enemies of this site think that falsehoods and vandalism are acceptable if criticizing an opponent. If you you agree, then you know where to go. No thanks.[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are disingenuous. Filtering the site does not prevent vandalism in any way (in fact it probably encourages it). What you don't like is the mockery and the fact that they often point out a number of the worst abuses that go on here along with some of the sillier edits. The funny thing is that that site probably wouldn't even exist if this site had any respect for free speech and a free exchange of ideas. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 23:10, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: You're clueless. But if you like that site so much, then spend your time there. We stick to the truth here and do not spread falsehoods under the guise of "parody".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Your resort to name-calling says it all. And I do spend time at that site (which cannot be named - does this remind anyone of the former Soviet Union at all? That's irony, that is). I enjoy that mystery site because I know that I can comment freely without fear of being blocked for "talk talk talk" by the site owner or some sycophantic sysop. You say that you stick to the truth. It makes me laugh to read that comment. You stick to '''your''' truth and block anyone who disagrees. Not what I would call the conservative ideal. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:10, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

==Respect for authorship==

Whether one agrees with this or not, I have to object to people applying direct edits to this piece because it's an ''essay'', not an ''encyclopedia article''. This is the original work of Andrew Schlafly, and is his alone to edit. (For the record, I do not agree with the benefits of a relationship being conditional on the genders involved) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, Dinsdale, that's not correct. I welcome edits. The very essence of a wiki is group editing, and that applies to essays also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::My apologies, then, and thanks for clarifying. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::While I generally agree with the premise of the article, I remain uncertain that a couple of the factors are exclusive to marriage. The first two, specifically, could apply equally well to a parent raising children after the untimely death of their husband or wife--a situation which sadly occurs all too often. I would certainly expect that, say, the wife of a slain veteran would still be motivated to provide for her children, and that that factor could well offset the depression and loss of productivity that might otherwise accompany the loss of a spouse. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::: In your example you are still relying on the effects of marriage. Same-sex couples cannot produce children, and the average lifespan of one partner is equal to the other, so there is no expected future beyond one's life to work for.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I wouldn't attempt to argue that the effects aren't tied to marriage at some level. While it's possible, for instance, for a single woman to have a child and act as a responsible parent, it's sadly true that all too often that doesn't happen. The difference between said unmarried woman and a young widow, I would say, is the act of commitment: someone who has gotten married has made a conscious commitment towards that relationship, and towards the children it produces.

:::: I simply think that it would be useful to note that some of --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)the effects can persist even after the death of one partner or the other.

Talk:Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage

2008-08-10T03:10:17Z

DenningMR: /* Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" */

==Hold on==
Certainly at least some of these benefits apply to same-sex couples with adopted children, or who have had children through artificial insemination. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment has no bearing on 6 out of 8 factors, and doesn't work well in the other two either, because they do not apply to the spouse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Insightful==
Finally, something with which I cannot argue... at least not yet.<br />
I was talking with someone about a few of the points made in this essay. Didn't think it related to marriage, just dedication to want to succeed. Oh well. ^.^ [[User:NathanG|Nate]]<sup>[[User_talk:NathanG|Google's spiders need some work]]</sup> 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==Gay couples==
Hold on. so now gay couples do not help each other? They do not futher each other's goals in life, nag each other, complement each other? of this list of 7 all but two are irrespective of gender. and the two that are based on gender could just as easily be based on TWO DIFFERENT HUMAN outlooks. I know my sister and I complement each other because we are so extremely different - she is into science and math, a liberal, married for 7 years, job as an engineer for a downtown Denver building. I am a nurse with the army, and still waiting for "mr. right". You can't make broad and *unproven* statements about how two people of any gender complement each other.--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 12:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know which two you're referring to, and your personal story seems contrived. All the key elements identified apply only to male-female marriages. The [[invisible hand of marriage]] does not exist for same-sex marriages.

::Besides, people don't get married to their ''sisters''. I know I wouldn't! -[[User:MelanieKoontz|MelanieKoontz]] 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::: Love how trusting you are. You've never heard of two sisters being total opposites? Anyhow, only two of the "hands" directly say that the balance of man and woman is what drives this "hand". My question to you is why two men couldn't be just as productive as a man and a woman, just as focused on bettering their family, just as focused on finding economic goals that set the family in a better position and thereby drive each individual more. Each person in a couple, regardless of gender, helps the other out, encourages them, balances them, gently points out flaws and aids in fixing those flaws, etc. Why is this exclusive to a man and a woman in marriage?--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 13:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Men and women complement each other because they are designed that way by God. Two men or two women could only be a poor imitation of God's design. It would never be as good as the real thing. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 18:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. One simply has to look at the history of homosexual relationships to see that. The pro-homosexual crowd likes to hold up the rare homosexual couple that has lasted decades, but they consistently fail to acknowledge that the average homosexual relationship lasts around 18 months. Additionally, very few "committed" homosexual relationships are monogamous. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "The history of homosexual relationships"? Pray tell, where has this history been recoded for the ages? Is it the source of your uncited claims? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: There's plenty of research that goes back many decades. The leading psychiatric association used to study it and labeled it as something to be treated and changed, until leftist political pressure took over.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Wandering, conservapedia has an excellent article on [[homosexuality]] that talks about this. It might be a good place to start if you are actually interesting in an answer to your question. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I am somewhat heartened to see that both of you are as reluctant to actually read Conservative's work on the subject as I am. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jinxmchue: Perhaps, but the average heterosexual marriage these days lasts no longer, so it's not exactly an effective argument. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Malarkey. I bet you're relying on data about Massachusetts same-sex marriages, when it is obviously too early to tell. The lead same-sex couple in the decision in Massachusetts split up long ago, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Originality==
*I'm just going to note that it's possible this is not a Conservapedian discovery; others may just have a different name for it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Suggestions welcome. I can't think of any. While we're at it, do you think Adam Smith's invisible hand wasn't original either?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't even know what that is; I know next to nothing about economics (although I plan to fulfill part of my social sciences requirement with a class in it). I wasn't saying that the idea is definitely not original, just that a lack of search results for your term doesn't prove that it is. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's interesting you don't know what the "invisible hand" is, and I appreciate your candor. I bet the familiarity with that term and concept is far higher among conservatives than liberals. Indeed, it has been said that a good economics course is more likely to convert liberals to conservatives than any other teaching. That said, it's almost impossible to present or discuss a concept for an [[invisible hand of marriage]] without using the term "invisible hand." The lack of Google cites to it was meant to be illustrative rather than a proof of originality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::To some extent it's an inverse of the [http://www.google.com/search?q=economic+cost+of+divorce&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS263US263 well-documented] social and economic cost of divorce, and, of course, a good example of the ripple effects of good teamwork.

:::::There are some good points in the essay, but the more I think about it, the less it seems that an "Invisible Hand" is the right metaphor, at least in the economic sense. Smith was talking about the ability of free, competitive markets to find their own optimal equilibrium as if guided by an unseen optimizer. In short, it's about an economic ecosystem finding its proper balance on its own, just as ecosystems in nature do, through competitive forces and natural selection. Teaming up through marriage is a great, but the contribution of millions of these teams worldwide is not as much of an "invisible hand" guiding an economy as they are an "invisible engine" driving it.

:::::Where marriage is concerned, the "Invisible Hand" metaphor is better suited to the positive influence of marriages, committed partnerships & families on the fabric of society. If you dropped a thousand individuals on an island, and couples & families totaling 1000 people on a similar island, it's probably a safe bet that a few years later conditions on the island seeded with couples & families would be better. Since couples and families have a greater self-interest in mutual support and social order than individuals, the nature of those relationships serves as an "invisible hand" that guides the social ecosystem towards order instead of anarchy. The island of individuals may do well too, and even thrive, but without the inherent social connections of partnership and family at the start, it's bound to be more challenging. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Thanks for the interesting insights. However, I don't think you'll fully captured the concept of the [[invisible hand]] and how it motivates individuals to work more efficiently, just as the [[invisible hand of marriage]] does (in an even more powerful way).

:::::: I do see that our own entry on the [[invisible hand]] needs work ... which I'll take care of right now. As written, it's a socialistic distortion of the free enterprise concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have a concept of what Smith meant by the Invisible Hand metaphor from studying macro and micro economics in business school, plus some graduate work a few years back. While it's too abstract to be practical (like studying physics without worrying about friction), it explains the motivations for individuals to be successful for their own sake, without concern for others. However, the success that comes from that self interest will in turn create an optimal economic ecosystem as all of these competing self-interests reach a balance.

:::::::When you consider that someone with a partner or dependents needs to consider their well-being in addition to his or her own, that motivation is definitely increased. My point was that Smith described the "hand" as the incentive to want to do better, which marriage and family provides, but your essay focuses less on that motivation and more on the aspects of marriage that better ''equip'' one to be successful. That's why the metaphor breaks down once you get past the motivation part. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Google search on "[[invisible hand of marriage]]" ==

I tried this, and it actually looks as if it is true that it is an original Conservapedia term. I do get one hit now, and oddly it's not for Conservapedia, but for a website that seems to be blocked by the Conservapedia spam filter.
That website appears to be offline at the moment, but judging from the summary on google, it looks as if it is mocking Conservapedia (explaining the censorship of the term here). Are there moves afoot to get other blogs and websites to publish comments and articles or to get Conservapedia itself on the search engine results? [[User:Davidklein|Davidklein]] 09:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: I assume the Google search engine will pick up our entry in a few days. We're not planning any special effort for it. It will be interesting to see how long that process takes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::That site seems to link directly to this article anyway, so it doesn't matter very much. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 12:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: It might be an interesting project to track the propagation of a concept like this, to see how and how fast it spreads. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I would not open a website blocked by a spam filter. Those often are full of viruses and spyware. At least use an up-to-date antivirus program! Has someone tried opening that website? [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No, stay away from that site. I'm sure it's blocked for good reasons. Virus programs only help so far, you still have to be careful. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I thought so. Strange though that they would link to us. But these modern spammers, they are so cunning, who knows what they have in mind! [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::The reason the site is in the spam filter has nothing to do with viruses, spyware, etc. It's mainly just that the folks in charge here really don't like it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 16:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: No, that's misleading. We do not filter sites simply because we "don't like" them, but we do and will filter sites if they engage in utterly inappropriate behavior that is incompatible with our [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Oh nonsense. You don't like the site because they continually mock you. Fair enough. I wouldn't like that either. But at least you could be honest about it. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 20:53, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: That's false. Mockery doesn't bother us. But some enemies of this site think that falsehoods and vandalism are acceptable if criticizing an opponent. If you you agree, then you know where to go. No thanks.[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are disingenuous. Filtering the site does not prevent vandalism in any way (in fact it probably encourages it). What you don't like is the mockery and the fact that they often point out a number of the worst abuses that go on here along with some of the sillier edits. The funny thing is that that site probably wouldn't even exist if this site had any respect for free speech and a free exchange of ideas. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 23:10, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

==Respect for authorship==

Whether one agrees with this or not, I have to object to people applying direct edits to this piece because it's an ''essay'', not an ''encyclopedia article''. This is the original work of Andrew Schlafly, and is his alone to edit. (For the record, I do not agree with the benefits of a relationship being conditional on the genders involved) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, Dinsdale, that's not correct. I welcome edits. The very essence of a wiki is group editing, and that applies to essays also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::My apologies, then, and thanks for clarifying. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::While I generally agree with the premise of the article, I remain uncertain that a couple of the factors are exclusive to marriage. The first two, specifically, could apply equally well to a parent raising children after the untimely death of their husband or wife--a situation which sadly occurs all too often. I would certainly expect that, say, the wife of a slain veteran would still be motivated to provide for her children, and that that factor could well offset the depression and loss of productivity that might otherwise accompany the loss of a spouse. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::: In your example you are still relying on the effects of marriage. Same-sex couples cannot produce children, and the average lifespan of one partner is equal to the other, so there is no expected future beyond one's life to work for.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I wouldn't attempt to argue that the effects aren't tied to marriage at some level. While it's possible, for instance, for a single woman to have a child and act as a responsible parent, it's sadly true that all too often that doesn't happen. The difference between said unmarried woman and a young widow, I would say, is the act of commitment: someone who has gotten married has made a conscious commitment towards that relationship, and towards the children it produces.

:::: I simply think that it would be useful to note that some of --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)the effects can persist even after the death of one partner or the other.

Talk:Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage

2008-08-10T00:53:02Z

DenningMR: /* Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" */

==Hold on==
Certainly at least some of these benefits apply to same-sex couples with adopted children, or who have had children through artificial insemination. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment has no bearing on 6 out of 8 factors, and doesn't work well in the other two either, because they do not apply to the spouse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Insightful==
Finally, something with which I cannot argue... at least not yet.<br />
I was talking with someone about a few of the points made in this essay. Didn't think it related to marriage, just dedication to want to succeed. Oh well. ^.^ [[User:NathanG|Nate]]<sup>[[User_talk:NathanG|Google's spiders need some work]]</sup> 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==Gay couples==
Hold on. so now gay couples do not help each other? They do not futher each other's goals in life, nag each other, complement each other? of this list of 7 all but two are irrespective of gender. and the two that are based on gender could just as easily be based on TWO DIFFERENT HUMAN outlooks. I know my sister and I complement each other because we are so extremely different - she is into science and math, a liberal, married for 7 years, job as an engineer for a downtown Denver building. I am a nurse with the army, and still waiting for "mr. right". You can't make broad and *unproven* statements about how two people of any gender complement each other.--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 12:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know which two you're referring to, and your personal story seems contrived. All the key elements identified apply only to male-female marriages. The [[invisible hand of marriage]] does not exist for same-sex marriages.

::Besides, people don't get married to their ''sisters''. I know I wouldn't! -[[User:MelanieKoontz|MelanieKoontz]] 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::: Love how trusting you are. You've never heard of two sisters being total opposites? Anyhow, only two of the "hands" directly say that the balance of man and woman is what drives this "hand". My question to you is why two men couldn't be just as productive as a man and a woman, just as focused on bettering their family, just as focused on finding economic goals that set the family in a better position and thereby drive each individual more. Each person in a couple, regardless of gender, helps the other out, encourages them, balances them, gently points out flaws and aids in fixing those flaws, etc. Why is this exclusive to a man and a woman in marriage?--[[User:IcedTea|IcedTea]] 13:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Men and women complement each other because they are designed that way by God. Two men or two women could only be a poor imitation of God's design. It would never be as good as the real thing. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 18:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. One simply has to look at the history of homosexual relationships to see that. The pro-homosexual crowd likes to hold up the rare homosexual couple that has lasted decades, but they consistently fail to acknowledge that the average homosexual relationship lasts around 18 months. Additionally, very few "committed" homosexual relationships are monogamous. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "The history of homosexual relationships"? Pray tell, where has this history been recoded for the ages? Is it the source of your uncited claims? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: There's plenty of research that goes back many decades. The leading psychiatric association used to study it and labeled it as something to be treated and changed, until leftist political pressure took over.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Wandering, conservapedia has an excellent article on [[homosexuality]] that talks about this. It might be a good place to start if you are actually interesting in an answer to your question. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I am somewhat heartened to see that both of you are as reluctant to actually read Conservative's work on the subject as I am. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jinxmchue: Perhaps, but the average heterosexual marriage these days lasts no longer, so it's not exactly an effective argument. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 16:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Malarkey. I bet you're relying on data about Massachusetts same-sex marriages, when it is obviously too early to tell. The lead same-sex couple in the decision in Massachusetts split up long ago, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Originality==
*I'm just going to note that it's possible this is not a Conservapedian discovery; others may just have a different name for it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Suggestions welcome. I can't think of any. While we're at it, do you think Adam Smith's invisible hand wasn't original either?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't even know what that is; I know next to nothing about economics (although I plan to fulfill part of my social sciences requirement with a class in it). I wasn't saying that the idea is definitely not original, just that a lack of search results for your term doesn't prove that it is. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: It's interesting you don't know what the "invisible hand" is, and I appreciate your candor. I bet the familiarity with that term and concept is far higher among conservatives than liberals. Indeed, it has been said that a good economics course is more likely to convert liberals to conservatives than any other teaching. That said, it's almost impossible to present or discuss a concept for an [[invisible hand of marriage]] without using the term "invisible hand." The lack of Google cites to it was meant to be illustrative rather than a proof of originality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::To some extent it's an inverse of the [http://www.google.com/search?q=economic+cost+of+divorce&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS263US263 well-documented] social and economic cost of divorce, and, of course, a good example of the ripple effects of good teamwork.

:::::There are some good points in the essay, but the more I think about it, the less it seems that an "Invisible Hand" is the right metaphor, at least in the economic sense. Smith was talking about the ability of free, competitive markets to find their own optimal equilibrium as if guided by an unseen optimizer. In short, it's about an economic ecosystem finding its proper balance on its own, just as ecosystems in nature do, through competitive forces and natural selection. Teaming up through marriage is a great, but the contribution of millions of these teams worldwide is not as much of an "invisible hand" guiding an economy as they are an "invisible engine" driving it.

:::::Where marriage is concerned, the "Invisible Hand" metaphor is better suited to the positive influence of marriages, committed partnerships & families on the fabric of society. If you dropped a thousand individuals on an island, and couples & families totaling 1000 people on a similar island, it's probably a safe bet that a few years later conditions on the island seeded with couples & families would be better. Since couples and families have a greater self-interest in mutual support and social order than individuals, the nature of those relationships serves as an "invisible hand" that guides the social ecosystem towards order instead of anarchy. The island of individuals may do well too, and even thrive, but without the inherent social connections of partnership and family at the start, it's bound to be more challenging. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Thanks for the interesting insights. However, I don't think you'll fully captured the concept of the [[invisible hand]] and how it motivates individuals to work more efficiently, just as the [[invisible hand of marriage]] does (in an even more powerful way).

:::::: I do see that our own entry on the [[invisible hand]] needs work ... which I'll take care of right now. As written, it's a socialistic distortion of the free enterprise concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have a concept of what Smith meant by the Invisible Hand metaphor from studying macro and micro economics in business school, plus some graduate work a few years back. While it's too abstract to be practical (like studying physics without worrying about friction), it explains the motivations for individuals to be successful for their own sake, without concern for others. However, the success that comes from that self interest will in turn create an optimal economic ecosystem as all of these competing self-interests reach a balance.

:::::::When you consider that someone with a partner or dependents needs to consider their well-being in addition to his or her own, that motivation is definitely increased. My point was that Smith described the "hand" as the incentive to want to do better, which marriage and family provides, but your essay focuses less on that motivation and more on the aspects of marriage that better ''equip'' one to be successful. That's why the metaphor breaks down once you get past the motivation part. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Google search on "[[invisible hand of marriage]]" ==

I tried this, and it actually looks as if it is true that it is an original Conservapedia term. I do get one hit now, and oddly it's not for Conservapedia, but for a website that seems to be blocked by the Conservapedia spam filter.
That website appears to be offline at the moment, but judging from the summary on google, it looks as if it is mocking Conservapedia (explaining the censorship of the term here). Are there moves afoot to get other blogs and websites to publish comments and articles or to get Conservapedia itself on the search engine results? [[User:Davidklein|Davidklein]] 09:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: I assume the Google search engine will pick up our entry in a few days. We're not planning any special effort for it. It will be interesting to see how long that process takes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::That site seems to link directly to this article anyway, so it doesn't matter very much. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 12:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: It might be an interesting project to track the propagation of a concept like this, to see how and how fast it spreads. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I would not open a website blocked by a spam filter. Those often are full of viruses and spyware. At least use an up-to-date antivirus program! Has someone tried opening that website? [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No, stay away from that site. I'm sure it's blocked for good reasons. Virus programs only help so far, you still have to be careful. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I thought so. Strange though that they would link to us. But these modern spammers, they are so cunning, who knows what they have in mind! [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::The reason the site is in the spam filter has nothing to do with viruses, spyware, etc. It's mainly just that the folks in charge here really don't like it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 16:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: No, that's misleading. We do not filter sites simply because we "don't like" them, but we do and will filter sites if they engage in utterly inappropriate behavior that is incompatible with our [[Conservapedia:Commandments]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Oh nonsense. You don't like the site because they continually mock you. Fair enough. I wouldn't like that either. But at least you could be honest about it. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 20:53, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

==Respect for authorship==

Whether one agrees with this or not, I have to object to people applying direct edits to this piece because it's an ''essay'', not an ''encyclopedia article''. This is the original work of Andrew Schlafly, and is his alone to edit. (For the record, I do not agree with the benefits of a relationship being conditional on the genders involved) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, Dinsdale, that's not correct. I welcome edits. The very essence of a wiki is group editing, and that applies to essays also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::My apologies, then, and thanks for clarifying. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::While I generally agree with the premise of the article, I remain uncertain that a couple of the factors are exclusive to marriage. The first two, specifically, could apply equally well to a parent raising children after the untimely death of their husband or wife--a situation which sadly occurs all too often. I would certainly expect that, say, the wife of a slain veteran would still be motivated to provide for her children, and that that factor could well offset the depression and loss of productivity that might otherwise accompany the loss of a spouse. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::: In your example you are still relying on the effects of marriage. Same-sex couples cannot produce children, and the average lifespan of one partner is equal to the other, so there is no expected future beyond one's life to work for.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I wouldn't attempt to argue that the effects aren't tied to marriage at some level. While it's possible, for instance, for a single woman to have a child and act as a responsible parent, it's sadly true that all too often that doesn't happen. The difference between said unmarried woman and a young widow, I would say, is the act of commitment: someone who has gotten married has made a conscious commitment towards that relationship, and towards the children it produces.

:::: I simply think that it would be useful to note that some of --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)the effects can persist even after the death of one partner or the other.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-07-24T23:40:47Z

DenningMR: /* Viewer Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] film charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments from schools, universities and the scientific community merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, <i>Time</i></ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the American theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with a domestic gross of $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' began opening in international theaters.

== Viewer Reception==
The IMDB website rating for the film as at July 2008 was 3.7 out of 10. However the vast majority of votes were either 1 or 10, indicating that the film had a polarising effect on the audience due to its content. Removing both the 1 and 10 ratings results in an overall rating of 6.25.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, again strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on <i>Expelled</i> Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-07-24T23:37:35Z

DenningMR: /* Viewer Reception */ Problem solved.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] film charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments from schools, universities and the scientific community merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, <i>Time</i></ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the American theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with a domestic gross of $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' began opening in international theaters.

== Viewer Reception==
The IMDB website rating for the film as at July 2008 was 3.7 out of 10. However the vast majority of votes were either 1 or 10, indicating that the film had a polarising effect on the audience due to its content. Removing both the 1 and 10 ratings results in an overall rating of 6.25.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on <i>Expelled</i> Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:DenningMR

2008-07-16T22:36:39Z

DenningMR: Removing all content from page

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-04T02:08:34Z

DenningMR: /* What missing data? */

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-04T00:00:44Z

DenningMR: /* What missing data? */ Rearrange in chronological order

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-03T23:51:50Z

DenningMR: /* What missing data? */

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-03T22:07:23Z

DenningMR: /* What missing data? */ new section

Richard Lenski

2008-07-01T01:31:15Z

DenningMR: There is no suggestion that there was contamination. Certainly nothing is cited.

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]]. He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch. For his past work studying microbial evolution he received a MacArthur Fellowship and in 2006 was elected into the United States National Academy of Sciences.<ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study. His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions from the [[user:Aschlafly|owner]] of this site<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. He has also displayed annoyance and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]</ref>

When Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded.

Undisclosed data from the central claims in Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref>

<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10 cellpadding=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Undisclosed Data</font>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Our Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR></table>

===Visual inspection===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data on these observations?

</TD></TR></table>

===Turbidity===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? When and how many?
</TD></TR></table>

===Contaminants???===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data for when that occurred, and how often?

A Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data. Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."

In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His second response was rude and insulting.
</TD></TR></table>

===The Numbers Please?===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing Numbers===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

===We're Professional Scientists===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

===Missing Characteristics===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics. It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."

What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.
</TD></TR></table>

===DNA===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??

A Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."

No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,
pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and
nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.

A Lenski defender also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data distinguishing "This population from all the others"?
</TD></TR></table>

===Fast Tracked===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.
</TD></TR></table>

== ==
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards atheism and evolutionism. <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref>

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...."

Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref>

The importance of the simulation is to show that complex patterns can grow from simple inputs, which was demonstrated by the results of this simulation. Although Lenski freely disclaims the use of true biology in the simulation, his result is nevertheless quite important. The validity is not contigent, as is claimed above, upon the specific biological system.

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}

Talk:Atheism and deception

2008-07-01T01:08:17Z

DenningMR:

== "Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support" ==

What does this have to do with the argument that evolutionists are deceitful? Moreover, what does public support have to do with the truth value of any idea? How many Americans believe that Elvis is still alive? Or in UFOs? Or Bigfoot? Or that Obama is a Muslim? Are any of these ideas more or less valid because of what the American people think about them? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I suggest you read the article several times until the obvious becomes more obvious to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Because reading it is all you can do. You sure ain't going to be editing it. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 21:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Richard Lenski

2008-06-29T09:39:55Z

DenningMR:

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State University. He holds a doctorate from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but, oddly, does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own resume.<ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination. His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions from the [[user:Aschlafly|owner]] of this site<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

When Lenski received a public request for the data underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded.

Undisclosed data from the central claims in Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):
<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10 cellpadding=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Undisclosed Data</font>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Our Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR></table>

===Visual inspection===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?
</TD></TR></table>

===Study Omissions===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?
</TD></TR></table>

===Turgidity===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? WHEN AND HOW MANY?
</TD></TR></table>

===Contaminants???===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED, AND HOW OFTEN?
</TD></TR></table>

===The Numbers Please?===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE NOT PROVIDED DESPITE REQUEST
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing Numbers===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR></table>

===We're Professional Scientists===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR></table>

===Missing Characteristics===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?
</TD></TR></table>

===DNA===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?
</TD></TR></table>

===Fast Tracked===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
MEANINGFUL PEER REVIEW FOR THIS CONCLUSION MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ASTOUNDINGLY SHORT 14-DAY PEER REVIEW PERIOD!
</TD></TR></table>
== ==
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a publication produced by an [[atheist]] <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> [[lobbying]] <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref> organization.

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...."

Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)
[[Category:Scientists]]

==References==
<references/>

Richard Lenski

2008-06-28T23:37:19Z

DenningMR: Citation Needed

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State University. He holds a doctorate from the University of North Carolina.

Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination. His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions{{fact}} about the thoroughness of the review.

When Lenski received a public request for the data underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. No one else has reproduced Lenski's findings.

Undisclosed data from the central claims in Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):
<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10 cellpadding=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Undisclosed Data</font>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Our Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR><table>

===Visual inspection===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?
</TD></TR><table>

===Study Omissions===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?
</TD></TR><table>

===Turgidity===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? WHEN AND HOW MANY?
</TD></TR><table>

===Contaminants???===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED, AND HOW OFTEN?
</TD></TR><table>

===The Numbers Please?===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE NOT PROVIDED DESPITE REQUEST
</TD></TR><table>

===More missing Numbers===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR><table>

===We're Professional Scientists===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR><table>

===Missing Characteristics===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?
</TD></TR><table>

===DNA===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??
</TD></TR><table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?
</TD></TR><table>

===Fast Tracked===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
MEANINGFUL PEER REVIEW FOR THIS CONCLUSION MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ASTOUNDINGLY SHORT 14-DAY PEER REVIEW PERIOD!
</TD></TR><table>
== ==
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a publication produced by an [[atheist]] <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> [[lobbying]] <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref> organization.
==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy)
[[Category:Scientists]]

==References==
<references/>