Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ground Beef

2011-12-13T00:02:25Z

GeorgeSor: added info on conservative food

“Ground Beef” or “Chopped Beef” shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen [[beef]] with or without seasoning and without the addition of [[beef]] fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders.

Ground beef is an excellent conservative food because of its democratic nature. It is not the target of ingredient fetishizing by the fine dining establishment, but is instead a component in a wide variety of home-cooked American classics. The [[cheeseburger]] is a symbol of American cooking worldwide, and despite the movement in the media to villify consumption of non-vegan food, is still one of the most popular dishes in the country. Meatloaf is another dish made from ground beef, and is a staple for many families in middle-class America.

One can contrast ground beef, which is inexpensive can feed a large family easily, with filet mignon, which is ridiculously expensive and can barely feed one person adequately. Ground beef's status as a conservative food can be similarly proved by contrasting the respective groups of people who enjoy these foods. Liberal sensibilities put ease of swallowing and price above versatility and taste when judging most foods, but meat especially. See [[liberal weakness]].

==References==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]
[[Category:United States Government Word Definitions]]

Black hole

2011-12-12T23:38:14Z

GeorgeSor: /* White Holes */ Correcting bias

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
'''Black holes''' are theoretical entities popularized by pseudoscience despite their implausibility and lack of ever being directly observed. Suggested by the controversial [[theory of relativity]] (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]), black holes are postulated to be collapsed objects, usually [[stars]], which have become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius their [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, they absorb all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes are increasingly favored by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the [[New York Times]] and glossy magazines, as well as science fiction writers. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes described with classical mechanics only have three intrinsic properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Quantum mechanics, which postulates that information loss cannot occur in a black hole, suggests properties beyond the three suggested by classical physics. Using this description, information must also be emitted by black holes. This radiation, referred to as Hawking Radiation, is thermal radiation that has currently only been described mathematically.

Although radiation from inside the event horizon has not yet been observed, there is much phenomenon that occurs outside the horizon due to the black hole. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Methods of Observation==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, their nature is determined from phenomena outside of the Schwarzschild radius. Scientists have located and observed objects theorized to be black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. Wobble effects, however, cannot be used to conclusively prove the existence of a black hole. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that when described by quantum mechanics, they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Scientists, who have been extremely eager to promote the idea of black hole existence, have shown a strong aversion to the white hole theory, even though, like a white hole, a black hole has never been observed directly. This may reflect an anti-creation bias on the part of scientists who are uncomfortable with the idea that matter and energy can be created outside of what scientific theories dictate should happen.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Black hole

2011-12-12T23:34:18Z

GeorgeSor: /* Methods of Observation */ Correcting bias

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
'''Black holes''' are theoretical entities popularized by pseudoscience despite their implausibility and lack of ever being directly observed. Suggested by the controversial [[theory of relativity]] (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]), black holes are postulated to be collapsed objects, usually [[stars]], which have become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius their [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, they absorb all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes are increasingly favored by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the [[New York Times]] and glossy magazines, as well as science fiction writers. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes described with classical mechanics only have three intrinsic properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Quantum mechanics, which postulates that information loss cannot occur in a black hole, suggests properties beyond the three suggested by classical physics. Using this description, information must also be emitted by black holes. This radiation, referred to as Hawking Radiation, is thermal radiation that has currently only been described mathematically.

Although radiation from inside the event horizon has not yet been observed, there is much phenomenon that occurs outside the horizon due to the black hole. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Methods of Observation==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, their nature is determined from phenomena outside of the Schwarzschild radius. Scientists have located and observed objects theorized to be black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. Wobble effects, however, cannot be used to conclusively prove the existence of a black hole. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that when described by quantum mechanics, they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

2011-12-12T18:53:23Z

GeorgeSor: /* Really liberalism? */

== Title ==

The correct title of the book is "Nineteen Eighty-Four," in words, not "1984" in numerals.

This is how it is presented in the New York Times' review of the book, "An Indignant and Prophetic Novel," Mark Schorer, June 12, 1949, p. BR1.

This is also how it appears in the Library of Congress' online catalog, for both the British Secker and Warburg edition

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

and the U. S. Harcourt, Brace edition:

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Apparently links to these searches don't work... search on Orwell, George and look for items 86 and 87. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Jacques, why did you remove ", or information about"? 1984 and related terms such as "Orwellian" are often used to describe information and surveillance systems which seem (to the speaker) to be excessive. See for example http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031126-113641-3955r.htm and http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George+Orwell,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/article.do .

== Oceania ==

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it stand to reason that Oceania would be... well, the continent of Oceania? IE, Austrailia, NZ, surrounding islands. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Oceania is described in the book as being the British Isles and America. It's capital is Airstrip One, formerly known as London. It's a good read. [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 18:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== [[1984]] ==

Great edits to [[1984]]. We've had debates on this site about whether [[George Orwell]] became a [[conservative]] as he grew older. Most great novels are written when the author is young; [[1984]] is the opposite. See [[Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

George Orwell's conservatism is not a "mystery." 1984 practically screamed about the liberal threat that Orwell saw in his country, and he was known to be a social conservative all his life. Liberals just kind of assume that every great writer is a liberal like them, since apparently all great writers need a PhD in english composition and three years on the editorial board of the New Yorker in order to be able to write a good book. [[User:GeorgeSor|GeorgeSor]] 13:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)

----
Government Structure
I'm adding a section about the Oceanian government

==Leftist POV==

Cut from intro:
:Leftists feel its satire applies more generally to any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see [[totalitarianism]].

The last time I picked up a copy in a bookstore, there was a lengthy comment by [[Walter Cronkite]], not one of the most astute of journalists when it comes to [[Communism]]. He blathered on for several pages accusing the West of being rather like the nightmare vision described in the novel. No mention that I can recall of organizations or practices or slogans within the Stalinist USSR.

We need to write a lot more about the pro-Communist whitewash. The lefties cannot suppress the book, but they seem to have been able to explain it away. How about an article on the [[Potemkin Village]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I completely agree with you, I added some info on some of the elements in the book that most obviously criticized the liberal culture of the day. Its amazing that a liberal can embrace a book that tears apart the big government illusion that they've been flinging at each other for decades, and then spend every waking moment trying to expand government into a bloated, inefficient mess. [[User:GeorgeSor|GeorgeSor]] 13:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Really liberalism? ==

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the whole point of Ingsoc and the Party was that it transcended liberalism and conservatism, even if it is called "English Socialism." The point was that it had become the ''Perfect Government,'' in that it has no flaws, and can maintain power indefinitely, so long as it remains in a constant state of war, which it will. It has none of the disadvantages associated with either liberalism or conservatism, or even socialism, for that matter. In truth, it is solely fascist totalitarian.

In Jesus's Almighty Name we pray, may His will be done,--[[User:Thunderhorse|Thunderhorse]] 11:26, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:Obviously not liberalism in the sense of Democrats. Ingsoc is based on fascism but also heavily based on Russian communism (such as the idea of "unperson," reference to "three-year plans, etc). Ingsoc is nationalistic which might put it vaguely on the exrtreme right, but it is closer to extreme leftism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:38, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:I think that the idea of big government taken to its most extreme, along with the elimination of religion from public life and the breakdown of the family are all things that have striking parallels to the goals and effects of the liberal agenda of today. This is not surprising, as the liberal agenda has not changed much since Stalin put his finishing touches on it. Orwell may not have been talking specifically about United States [[liberal|Democrats]], as he was from England, he knew what a liberal was and how dangerous they could be.

Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

2011-12-12T18:48:54Z

GeorgeSor: /* Leftist POV */

Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

2011-12-12T18:44:55Z

GeorgeSor: /* 1984 */

== Title ==

The correct title of the book is "Nineteen Eighty-Four," in words, not "1984" in numerals.

This is how it is presented in the New York Times' review of the book, "An Indignant and Prophetic Novel," Mark Schorer, June 12, 1949, p. BR1.

This is also how it appears in the Library of Congress' online catalog, for both the British Secker and Warburg edition

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

and the U. S. Harcourt, Brace edition:

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Apparently links to these searches don't work... search on Orwell, George and look for items 86 and 87. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Jacques, why did you remove ", or information about"? 1984 and related terms such as "Orwellian" are often used to describe information and surveillance systems which seem (to the speaker) to be excessive. See for example http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031126-113641-3955r.htm and http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George+Orwell,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/article.do .

== Oceania ==

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it stand to reason that Oceania would be... well, the continent of Oceania? IE, Austrailia, NZ, surrounding islands. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Oceania is described in the book as being the British Isles and America. It's capital is Airstrip One, formerly known as London. It's a good read. [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 18:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== [[1984]] ==

Great edits to [[1984]]. We've had debates on this site about whether [[George Orwell]] became a [[conservative]] as he grew older. Most great novels are written when the author is young; [[1984]] is the opposite. See [[Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

George Orwell's conservatism is not a "mystery." 1984 practically screamed about the liberal threat that Orwell saw in his country, and he was known to be a social conservative all his life. Liberals just kind of assume that every great writer is a liberal like them, since apparently all great writers need a PhD in english composition and three years on the editorial board of the New Yorker in order to be able to write a good book. [[User:GeorgeSor|GeorgeSor]] 13:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)

----
Government Structure
I'm adding a section about the Oceanian government

==Leftist POV==

Cut from intro:
:Leftists feel its satire applies more generally to any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see [[totalitarianism]].

The last time I picked up a copy in a bookstore, there was a lengthy comment by [[Walter Cronkite]], not one of the most astute of journalists when it comes to [[Communism]]. He blathered on for several pages accusing the West of being rather like the nightmare vision described in the novel. No mention that I can recall of organizations or practices or slogans within the Stalinist USSR.

We need to write a lot more about the pro-Communist whitewash. The lefties cannot suppress the book, but they seem to have been able to explain it away. How about an article on the [[Potemkin Village]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Really liberalism? ==

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the whole point of Ingsoc and the Party was that it transcended liberalism and conservatism, even if it is called "English Socialism." The point was that it had become the ''Perfect Government,'' in that it has no flaws, and can maintain power indefinitely, so long as it remains in a constant state of war, which it will. It has none of the disadvantages associated with either liberalism or conservatism, or even socialism, for that matter. In truth, it is solely fascist totalitarian.

In Jesus's Almighty Name we pray, may His will be done,--[[User:Thunderhorse|Thunderhorse]] 11:26, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:Obviously not liberalism in the sense of Democrats. Ingsoc is based on fascism but also heavily based on Russian communism (such as the idea of "unperson," reference to "three-year plans, etc). Ingsoc is nationalistic which might put it vaguely on the exrtreme right, but it is closer to extreme leftism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:38, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Nineteen Eighty-Four

2011-12-12T18:40:05Z

GeorgeSor: Info on Orwell's insights

[[Image:1984first.jpg|right|thumb|First edition of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' published in Britain, 1949.]]
'''''Nineteen Eighty-Four''''' (also '''''1984''''') <ref>The title is spelled out, in words, in the original 1949 editions, both as published in England by Secker and Warburg[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1] and in the United States by Harcourt, Brace[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1]. It is sometimes presented numerically, in digits – '''''1984''''', in modern reprints and derivative works such as screenplays.</ref>
is a [[dystopia]]n [[novel]] by [[George Orwell]] about the excesses of [[totalitarian]] regimes and specifically of [[Stalinist]] [[communism]].
The book's original title was ''The Last Man in Europe'', but it was changed at the publisher's suggestion. <ref>It is often suggested that "eighty-four" is a reversal of "forty-eight", the year in which the book was written, but this has never been confirmed.</ref>

Orwell was influenced by Jack London's novel ''[[The Iron Heel]]'', and Yevgeny Zamyatin's ''[[We]]''. The ideas of the American [[conservative]] James Burnham were especially influential in shaping the political situation described in the book.

Though Orwell was deeply critical of communism, 1984 is not meant to be taken as a condemnation of all left-of-center ideologies, as evidenced by a quote from one of his essays: "My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the [[British Labour Party]] (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. ...The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere."<ref>''The Collected Essays: Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4,'' p. 546 </ref>

The book is, at its heart, in fact a condemnation of the ultra-liberal menace that arose in Europe at his time. In keeping with the steady move to a more conservative worldview he began before writing 1984, he uses the book to attack the intrusiveness and arrogance of big government. The fictional Oceanic dictatorship is the logical extreme of the liberal attitude towards government Orwell saw creeping in around him, both at home and abroad. The breakdown and perversion of home and family ties, the eradication of religion to make room for secular cult worship, the manipulation of language and history to suit the agenda of the day, and the use of deliberate economic strangulation in order to ensure compliance in the population were all tactics that Orwell predicted would come into play should an ultra-liberal government. One need only examine the regimes of [[Stalin]] and [[Kim Jong Il]] to see examples of Orwell-type dictatorships; atheism and state-worship forcibly substituted for religion, the deliberate starvation of all but the most elite members of society, even Orwell's nightmarish vision of sons spying on their parents for the state came true in the Soviet Union, and still persists in North Korea.

== Plot Summary ==
In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, individual, free nations no longer exist; the world has been divided up into three massive empire-states: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. [[Christianity]] has been stamped out and an amoral, [[liberal]] [[paganism]] has become the ruling ideology.

Oceania is, roughly, the English-speaking world: the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Britain]], [[Australia]], and [[South Africa]]. It is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia, and allied with the other. The book describes a hyper-[[liberal]] dystopia where the government, known as the Party, monitors and controls nearly all aspects of every individual's life. Extreme [[liberal]] fanaticism and ignorance are promoted by Oceania through relentless [[propaganda]]. This is practiced to the point that citizens unthinkingly (or, in Newspeak, use ''bellyfeel'') accept everything said and done by the Party, and hate everything associated with the empire-state which happens to the enemy at the moment. Relationships among people, whether [[platonic]] or intimate, are discouraged or sometimes forbidden outright, as they distract from worship of the leader, [[Big Brother]] (who may or may not exist). It is later revealed that in reality all three empire-states have the same government and are essentially identical in their pursuit of a [[liberal]], [[pagan]] social system.

The [[protagonist]], Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth, a department of the Oceanian government altering records to fit the Party's current version of history. However, Smith gradually grows to disagree with the Party and what it stands for. Julia, a woman who also works in the Ministry of Truth and ostensibly a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League, becomes Winston's lover, and after meeting in several different places, they finally rent an upstairs room in a prole shop. However, the owner of the shop turns out to be an agent of the Thought Police and Winston and Julia are captured by the thought police right in their room, brought to the Ministry of Love, and tortured to the point where they once again love the Party.

Much of the novel is taken up with discussions of the nature of power and societal control, and words and mottoes from the novel – "[[doublethink]]", "We have always been at war with Eastasia", "the memory hole" and many more – have become standard shorthand in political discussions, while terms such as "thought police", "Room 101" and "[[Big Brother]]" have entered the language.

== Background of Novel ==
The environmental background to the action of the story is a satirical portrayal of late-1940s London, a city where war damage was still very evident, and rationing and shortages a way of life. The Ministry of Truth, as described by Orwell in the novel, is based upon the Senate House building of London University, at the time one of the tallest buildings in the capital, and home during the Second World War to the Ministry of Information.

== Governmental Structure ==

The structure of government in Oceania is sharply pyramidal; the mythical, probably non-existent Big Brother rests forever at the top of the pyramid, followed by the tiny Inner Party made up of only 1 million people. Then follows the larger Outer Party, and lastly the "proles," or the Proletariat, who make up, according to the novel, 95 percent of the population. Since Big Brother is probably only a personification of government, it is really the Inner Party which rules Oceania, making it an oligarchy. Goldstein's book refers to the system as "Oligarchical Collectivism." [[Conservative]] commentators have noted that the system Orwell describes seems like a parody of the worst aspects of [[liberalism]].

The government is horribly inefficient in all things except constant and oppressive surveillance over Party members. The proles are considered mindless and unimportant, and so are allowed to go free, kept occupied by trashy entertainment known as ''prolefeed.'' This is one of Orwell's many swipes at the news and entertainment industry, which was a haven for liberals even in the 1940's. Orwell once remarked that "no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper,"<ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_orwell.html</ref> and he was a known critic of the arts and television, which he considered to be a tool of the elite to spread liberalism and take the world towards a Big Brother-type society.

There are four "ministries" or sections of government: the Ministry of Truth, which primarily rewrites history (and in which Winston, the story's protagonist, is employed); the Ministry of Plenty, which squanders resources; the Ministry of Peace, which fuels the perpetual war with Eastasia or Eurasia by using these resources for war purposes; and finally the Ministry of Love, where Party enemies, usually those guilty of ''thoughtcrime,'' are tortured and brainwashed into loving the Party before eventually being killed. The novel describes the Ministry of Love as the most terrifying, as it has no windows and is surrounded by barbed wire and gorilla-like guards with truncheons.

Note that all of these names are heavily [[irony|ironic]]:
* The Ministry of Truth is in fact a ministry of deceit, where the Party maintains control over newspapers, television and historical records in a never-ending race to edit the past to conform to the attitudes of the present. This campaign of historical revisionism, usually the provenance of academics trying to "uncover" new information, is performed here by an army of Party members who knowingly edit the truth and fabricate people, dates and events whole cloth. It is unlikely the Orwell envisioned such behavior occurring in his own country so soon, see [[Climategate]].

*The Ministry of Plenty rations almost all food and drink, with the notable exception of cheap "Victory Gin." Orwell was very insightful to note the connection between heavy alcohol use and compliance to the whims of a "nanny state," especially when the government is the only source of food and money for the population. All other food products are of poor quality, made in government-owned factories that are constantly behind on schedule because of the (intentional) inefficiency of the government-run industries in Oceania. Orwell was almost eerily prescient to have had this insight, as in the following years [[Stalin]] proved just how far an ultra-liberal would go to starve his people into compliance.

*The Ministry of Peace conducts perpetual war, but intentionally sabotages its own forces so that the government can keep the people of Oceania in a state of fear. This state of fear makes it easier for the Big Brother government to control the populace and cement their dependency on the "generosity" of the Party. In the book, Smith postulates that the rocket bombs dropped daily on Airstrip One are not enemy weapons, but a false flag operation by the liberal government of Oceania to justify their continued state of paranoia and economic stagnation.

*The Ministry of Love deals with those who don't love Big Brother. Another insight of Orwell's is the sinister redefinition of the word love, from traditional definitions to ones decided on by the Party. The Party's meddling in the bonds of family leads to a population almost completely ignorant of anything resembling real love. The Ministry is in charge of correcting the thoughts of citizens who fall outside of the political orthodoxy of the Party's Big Brother ideology. This comes in forms both small and large, from chastising a person through the television screen for not exercising enough, to murdering a man for speaking in his sleep. The concept of [[political correctness]] is today enforced by the media and political activists, but because the rule of law prevents these people from kidnapping those whose opinions fall outside of their narrow viewpoint, they are forced to resort to character assassination and blackmail.

==Online version==
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/ Orwell library]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?]]

[[Category:Novels]]

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2011-12-08T15:04:01Z

GeorgeSor: /* Headline text */

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== Another question, just as relevant.==

Why do Noam Chomsky, Jesus Christ, Benjamin Netanyahu and the guy from the Old Spice commercials disagree on divorce?

The answer of course is, who cares? We are CHRISTIANS, and we follow CHRIST. Other people are entitlled to their opinions, but Jesus is the one who matters, and he wasn't ambiguous at all on the matter. I think that people who put so much emphasis on "Christian" divorce (as if there is such a thing) are simply trying to justify their own wandering lusts by finding a way to fornicate with others without the disapproval of their church communities.

Also, the reason Moses agreed with divorce is that the Jews, being a slave people, we're used to being given a new slave wife by Pharoah every so often. When the slave generation died out during the 40 year exodus in the desert, the remaining people saw no need for divorcing, which is why Orthodox Jews today have a remarkably low divorce rate, compared to secular America. Note that this applies only to religious Jews; non-practicing Jews had no such success in marriage.

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. Marriage is the key to a happy life. True love is being focused on being honorable, faithful and loving to your spouse. The Bible teaches us marriage is a good thing and encourages us to stay married.

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"Some other religion?" Don't be an intellectual coward, only in an Islamic country will a woman be ostracized or put to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night. Christian societies, which believe that God will punish venal sins, and that man has no right to judge, do no such thing.

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

This is what Christ himself had to say about this subject:

Matthew 19:7-15 (King James Version)

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

http://www.myspace.com/zelemiah

{{unsigned|Zelemiah}}

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2011-12-08T14:58:49Z

GeorgeSor: /* What's a Christian To Do?? */

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== Another question, just as relevant.==

Why do Noam Chomsky, Jesus Christ, Benjamin Netanyahu and the guy from the Old Spice commercials disagree on divorce?

The answer of course is, who cares? We are CHRISTIANS, and we follow CHRIST. Other people are entitlled to their opinions, but Jesus is the one who matters, and he wasn't ambiguous at all on the matter. I think that people who put so much emphasis on "Christian" divorce (as if there is such a thing) are simply trying to justify their own wandering lusts by finding a way to fornicate with others without the disapproval of their church communities.

Also, the reason Moses agreed with divorce is that the Jews, being a slave people, we're used to being given a new slave wife by Pharoah every so often. When the slave generation died out during the 40 year exodus in the desert, the remaining people saw no need for divorcing, which is why Orthodox Jews today have a remarkably low divorce rate, compared to secular America. Note that this applies only to religious Jews; non-practicing Jews had no such success in marriage.

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. Marriage is the key to a happy life. True love is being focused on being honorable, faithful and loving to your spouse. The Bible teaches us marriage is a good thing and encourages us to stay married.

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

This is what Christ himself had to say about this subject:

Matthew 19:7-15 (King James Version)

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

http://www.myspace.com/zelemiah

{{unsigned|Zelemiah}}

Mythbusters

2011-12-08T07:42:00Z

GeorgeSor:

'''MythBusters''' is a popular [[science]] show that airs on the [[Discovery Channel]]. It is hosted by Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, who are frequently joined by Kari Byron, Tory Belleci and Grant Imahara, known as the build team.

On December 6, 2011, the crew of Mythbusters, exhibiting a shocking lack of regard for the safety of civilians, fired a steel cannonball into a valley adjacent to a California suburb. The cannonball missed the intended target and bounced off the sheer rock of the valley (the producers mistakenly believed that the ball would impact itself into the hill). The cannonball rocketed through the master bedroom of the home of a family of four, putting the occupants and structure in danger. The owner's van was also destroyed in the incident. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1208/Mythbusters-cannonball-misses-target-blasts-through-neighborhood/%28page%29/2</ref> It is unknown why the much-vaunted hosts of this television show were unable to use their physics knowledge to guide the projectile more effectively.
<references>
</references>
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Mythbusters

2011-12-08T07:39:27Z

GeorgeSor:

Charity

2011-12-08T06:56:13Z

GeorgeSor: /* Charity and Religion */ Corrected info on muslim charity rate, added references

[[Image:Bouguereau Charity.jpg|thumb|Charity / [[Adolphe William Bouguereau|Bouguereau]]]]
'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical:

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by St. [[Paul]] in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward [[God]].

*''Charity'' is also one of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.
 

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*[[Christianity]]: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able, following the command of [[Jesus]] in [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 6:30 ([[KJV]]): "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again." Also, [[the parable of the sheep and the goats]] in [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 25:31-46<ref>Matthew 25:31-46 (KJV) [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat025.html#31]</ref> shows the necessity of charity to [[salvation]]. Many Christian denominations ask for a [[tithe]], or one-tenth of the income, to go to the church, a portion of which is then given to charity outside of the church. No specific figure is given for how much to give outside of the church body.
*[[Islam]]: charity ('زكاة', 'zakat', in Arabic) is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion. A tithe of money (normally 2.5%) is given to help the poorest in society. Implementation of this pillar in Muslim countries is spotty at best.<ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/us-most-charitable-nation-oil-rich-muslim-countries-give-almost-nothing.html</ref>
*[[Judaism]]: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

In both the Christian and Islamic faiths, charity is not considered righteous if done to enhance the giver's reputation. Thus private and discreet charity is prompted by love not status.
:''Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.'' [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 6:1 (Christian Scripture from the [[Bible]])
:''If you give alms openly, it is well; but if you do it secretly and give to the poor, that is better.'' [[Koran|Qur-an]] 2:271a (Islamic Scripture)

For [[libertarians]], charity is the choice of the individual, as any societal intervention must be voluntary, and based on the decision of the individual. It goes against libertarian belief to tax people involuntarily and redistribute wealth as "charity".<ref>''Ask Dr. Ruwart: Libertarians and Taxation" [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?s_keyword=charity&id=226]</ref>

====United States cities with the highest volunteer participation in religious venues====

* [[Salt Lake City]] 21.8%
* [[Charlotte]] 15.9%
* [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul (City)|St. Paul]] 14.6%
* [[Omaha]] 14.6%
* [[Nashville]], 14.5%
* [[Louisville]] 14.5%
* [[Tulsa]] 13.6%
* [[Kansas City]] 12.9%
* [[Dallas]] 12.2%
* [[Oklahoma City]] 11.9%<ref>''[[Christianity Today]]'', Sept. 2007, Pg. 19</ref>

====Americans have a long tradition of charitable giving and volunteerism====

The United States is “a land of charity,” says Arthur Brooks, an expert on philanthropy and a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, who sees charitable giving and volunteerism as the signal characteristic of Americans. Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions. The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.<ref>http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html</ref>

Higher faith-based giving in the US explains 60% of the difference in proportion of GDP given to charity in the US and the UK. Religion giving accounts for a third of US charity donations, compared to 13% in the UK. <ref name="InternationalComparisons">[https://www.cafonline.org/publications/archive/international-giving.aspx International Comparisons of Charitable Giving (November 2006) Briefing Paper, Charities Aid Foundation] </ref>.

==Levels of giving per country==

The following is a table of national giving levels as a percentage of GDP.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Level of Giving as % of GDP
|-
| [[USA]]
| 1.67
|-
| [[UK]]
| 0.73
|-
| [[Canada]]
| 0.72
|-
| [[Australia]]
| 0.69
|-
| [[South Africa]]
| 0.64
|-
| [[Republic of Ireland]]
| 0.47
|-
| [[Netherlands]]
| 0.45
|-
| [[Singapore]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[New Zealand]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| 0.23
|-
| [[Germany]]
| 0.22
|-
| [[France]]
| 0.14
|}

The UK is especially proactive with donating to overseas charities, compromising 13% of total giving. In contrast, only 3% of US contributions goes to international

The lower levels of giving in some European countries reflects an expectation that social services should be provided through [[socialist]] state institutions. There is also an general inverse relationship between the rate of income tax and the level of giving. <ref name="InternationalComparisons"/>.

== See also ==

*[[Altruism]]
*[[Greed]]
*[[Capitalism]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Virtues]]
[[category:economics]]

{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Tithe

2011-12-08T06:52:41Z

GeorgeSor: Created page with "I added information on Muslim tithing practices. Also, the article on charity incorrectly cites the Muslim charity rate as ten percent. It is two and a half percent."

I added information on Muslim tithing practices. Also, the article on [[charity]] incorrectly cites the Muslim charity rate as ten percent. It is two and a half percent.

Tithe

2011-12-08T06:51:07Z

GeorgeSor:

{{Bible}}
In the [[Christian]] and [[Jewish]] traditions, a '''tithe''' is a sum of [[money]], usually 10% of a person's [[income]], that is given to the [[church]]. The tithe is mandated in the [[Old Testament]] ([[Leviticus]] 27:30-33) and praised by [[Jesus]] ([[Matthew]] 23:23). Tithing is relatively rare in modern [[American]] society. As of 2002, only 6% of born again adults tithe, and only 3% of households overall.<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=139</ref>
It is even rarer outside of the USA.

In the [[Muslim]] tradition, tithing is set at a rate of 2.5 percent. It is notable that among the major religions, Islam's prescribed rate of charity is a quarter of what was dictated to Christians in the [[The Gospels]]. <ref>http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223</ref> This could be attributed to differing attitudes towards the responsibility man has towards his community. Bedouin nomads, who made up the largest chunk of Muslims for much of its history, had little in the way of permanent settlement and so no instinct to contribute towards something larger than themselves. Christian communities, not being nomadic, valued their roots and held their neighbors in high regard, which led naturally to contributing to their shared homes of worship.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:Bible]]

Young Earth Creationism

2011-12-08T06:37:12Z

GeorgeSor: /* Responses to criticisms */ Added info on sham peer review and YEC evidence

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].

=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===

''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]

Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent.

The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.

Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:

Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]

=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]

The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.

On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref>

See also:

*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsidized, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

==Criticism==
===Lack of scientific acceptance===
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

===Creationist methodology===
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists]</ref>

===Theological===
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].''
: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be virtually no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Herman Cain

2011-12-07T17:07:38Z

GeorgeSor: /* Controversial campaign ad */ the ad was NOT low quality, it was REAL. Not everyone has to produce a 3 million dollar, hyper-edited MTV production to advertise their campaign.

[[File:HCain4.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Herman Cain]]
'''Herman Cain''' (born December 13, 1945) is an American journalist, businessman, politician, and broadcaster. He is a prominent [[African American]] conservative. He ran for the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States in the [[2012 Presidential election]], but dropped out after several women made allegations that he had inappropriate relations with them including one allegation of an affiar..

Cain was born in [[Georgia]] and grew up there. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University. He married his wife, Gloria, in 1968. They have two children.

Cain worked for the [[United States Navy]] as a civilian ballistics analyst, then as a business analyst for the [[Coca-Cola Company]] and [[Pillsbury Company]] in 1977. While there, Cain moved to Pillsbury's [[Burger King]] division, eventually overseeing 400 Philadelphia franchises. He then moved to their Godfather's Pizza chain in 1986 and returned it to profitability. He then served on the National Restaurant Association board, becoming President and CEO in 1996.

Cain was a senior advisor to the 1996 [[Bob Dole|Dole]]/[[Jack Kemp|Kemp]] campaign for the Presidency. In 2004, he ran for the United States Senate in Georgia as a Republican, facing Congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins for the seat formerly held by [[Zell Miller]]. Collins got 20% of the vote, Cain got 26%, and Isakson avoided a runoff by getting 53%.<ref name="senate">[[Associated Press]] (July 21, 2004). [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126389,00.html Ga. Dems Forced Into Senate Runoff.] ''[[Fox News]]''</ref>

''The Herman Cain Show'' radio program is based in Atlanta. Cain founded the leadership consulting company T*H*E New Voice, Inc. He has authored four books on leadership and self-empowerment, including ''Leadership is Common Sense'' and ''CEO of Self''.

==2012 Presidential Run==
Herman Cain officially announced his decision to enter the presidential race of 2012. He has a decent following courtesy of the [[Tea Party movement]], [[Op-Ed]] articles and a radio program through [[Conservative media]] outlets. If declared the winner, many people would consider Cain to be this nation's first [[African-American]] president. Cain prefers the term "black American" to "African-American", stating, "My roots go back through slavery in this country. Yes, they came from Africa. But the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America. So I consider myself a black American."<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-i-prefer-black-american/ Herman Cain: I Prefer 'Black American'] Morgenstern, Madeleine, October 16, 2011, theblaze.com, retrieved October 20, 2011</ref>

Cain is widely believed to have won the [[South Carolina]] debates, though the potential field of candidates was limited.<ref name="debate">[[CBS News]] [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20060614-10391715.html How Herman Cain won the GOP debate.]'</ref>

The significance of his [[Florida]] straw poll victory cannot be overlooked. He is officially a top tier candidate.

On December 3rd Cain announced, that his campaign is "suspended". This was the result of a relentless campaign of smear tactics and outright fabrications created and amplified by the media in order to keep black voters, who are overwhelmingly God-fearing Christians opposed to sexual deviance, voting for the Democratic party, despite the growing realization among blacks that they have more in common with the GOP and its message of self-success than with the "gravy-train politics" of the outdated Democrats. It is interesting that media coverage of Bill Clinton's numerous instances of sexual harassment and adultery were reported in a much more favorable light than Cain's few minor indiscretions, which were vague accusations of "inappropriate conduct" from women who were fired from the NRA and chose to remain anonymous to avoid being questioned over their alleged experiences. It should be noted that commenting on the height of one of his coworkers is apparently the worst instance of sexual harassment that the media could dig up; he used his hand to compare the height of a female subordinate to his wife of similar height. It is also interesting that one of the more offensive nicknames that Bill Clinton has accepted from his "not-racist-at-all" liberal worshippers is "The First Black President," apparently because all black people play the saxophone and cheat on their wives. Cain will remain an important voice of conservativism.

==Controversial campaign ad ==
In October of 2011, the Cain campaign released a [http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/have-you-seen-herman-cain‘s-new-’smoking’-ad/ controversial political campaign advertisement], which featured filmed comments from his chief of staff, Mark Block, and a final shot of Block, in a close-up, inhaling on a cigarette. The comments made in the ad, in contrast with the highly scripted, edited and vetted content of even "grassroots" Obama campaign videos, are the real feelings of Cain's right hand man, and reflect the general sentiment of the people who had worked with Cain on his campaign and in the National Restaurant Association. Contrary to the impression left by mainstream news coverage of the ad itself, smoking a cigarette on TV is not yet a crime. More time was taken criticizing Block's smoking than analyzing the very salient points made in this and other Cain ads.<ref>http://calconservatives.com/archives/4284] Calconservatives website</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.hermancain.com/ Herman Cain: Official website]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADaC7AahRM Cain's Gospel recordings]
*[http://www.newvoicefoundation.org/ T*H*E New Voice Foundation]
*[http://www.northstarwriters.com/ North Star Writers Group]
*[http://www.newvotersalliance.org/ New Voters Alliance]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cain, Herman}}
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Herman Cain

2011-12-07T17:00:16Z

GeorgeSor: /* 2012 Presidential Run */ Added info on media hypocrisy re: Clinton/Cain

[[File:HCain4.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Herman Cain]]
'''Herman Cain''' (born December 13, 1945) is an American journalist, businessman, politician, and broadcaster. He is a prominent [[African American]] conservative. He ran for the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States in the [[2012 Presidential election]], but dropped out after several women made allegations that he had inappropriate relations with them including one allegation of an affiar..

Cain was born in [[Georgia]] and grew up there. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University. He married his wife, Gloria, in 1968. They have two children.

Cain worked for the [[United States Navy]] as a civilian ballistics analyst, then as a business analyst for the [[Coca-Cola Company]] and [[Pillsbury Company]] in 1977. While there, Cain moved to Pillsbury's [[Burger King]] division, eventually overseeing 400 Philadelphia franchises. He then moved to their Godfather's Pizza chain in 1986 and returned it to profitability. He then served on the National Restaurant Association board, becoming President and CEO in 1996.

Cain was a senior advisor to the 1996 [[Bob Dole|Dole]]/[[Jack Kemp|Kemp]] campaign for the Presidency. In 2004, he ran for the United States Senate in Georgia as a Republican, facing Congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins for the seat formerly held by [[Zell Miller]]. Collins got 20% of the vote, Cain got 26%, and Isakson avoided a runoff by getting 53%.<ref name="senate">[[Associated Press]] (July 21, 2004). [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126389,00.html Ga. Dems Forced Into Senate Runoff.] ''[[Fox News]]''</ref>

''The Herman Cain Show'' radio program is based in Atlanta. Cain founded the leadership consulting company T*H*E New Voice, Inc. He has authored four books on leadership and self-empowerment, including ''Leadership is Common Sense'' and ''CEO of Self''.

==2012 Presidential Run==
Herman Cain officially announced his decision to enter the presidential race of 2012. He has a decent following courtesy of the [[Tea Party movement]], [[Op-Ed]] articles and a radio program through [[Conservative media]] outlets. If declared the winner, many people would consider Cain to be this nation's first [[African-American]] president. Cain prefers the term "black American" to "African-American", stating, "My roots go back through slavery in this country. Yes, they came from Africa. But the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America. So I consider myself a black American."<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-i-prefer-black-american/ Herman Cain: I Prefer 'Black American'] Morgenstern, Madeleine, October 16, 2011, theblaze.com, retrieved October 20, 2011</ref>

Cain is widely believed to have won the [[South Carolina]] debates, though the potential field of candidates was limited.<ref name="debate">[[CBS News]] [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20060614-10391715.html How Herman Cain won the GOP debate.]'</ref>

The significance of his [[Florida]] straw poll victory cannot be overlooked. He is officially a top tier candidate.

On December 3rd Cain announced, that his campaign is "suspended". This was the result of a relentless campaign of smear tactics and outright fabrications created and amplified by the media in order to keep black voters, who are overwhelmingly God-fearing Christians opposed to sexual deviance, voting for the Democratic party, despite the growing realization among blacks that they have more in common with the GOP and its message of self-success than with the "gravy-train politics" of the outdated Democrats. It is interesting that media coverage of Bill Clinton's numerous instances of sexual harassment and adultery were reported in a much more favorable light than Cain's few minor indiscretions, which were vague accusations of "inappropriate conduct" from women who were fired from the NRA and chose to remain anonymous to avoid being questioned over their alleged experiences. It should be noted that commenting on the height of one of his coworkers is apparently the worst instance of sexual harassment that the media could dig up; he used his hand to compare the height of a female subordinate to his wife of similar height. It is also interesting that one of the more offensive nicknames that Bill Clinton has accepted from his "not-racist-at-all" liberal worshippers is "The First Black President," apparently because all black people play the saxophone and cheat on their wives. Cain will remain an important voice of conservativism.

==Controversial campaign ad ==
In October of 2011, the Cain campaign released a [http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/have-you-seen-herman-cain‘s-new-’smoking’-ad/ controversial political campaign advertisement], which featured very low quality filmed comments from his chief of staff, Mark Block, and a final shot of Block, in a close-up, inhaling on a cigarette.<ref>http://calconservatives.com/archives/4284] Calconservatives website</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.hermancain.com/ Herman Cain: Official website]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADaC7AahRM Cain's Gospel recordings]
*[http://www.newvoicefoundation.org/ T*H*E New Voice Foundation]
*[http://www.northstarwriters.com/ North Star Writers Group]
*[http://www.newvotersalliance.org/ New Voters Alliance]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cain, Herman}}
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Business People]]

ObamaCare

2011-12-07T16:02:16Z

GeorgeSor: /* Treatment of Elders */ Added info on death panel implementation

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|right|150px]]
'''ObamaCare''',<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/president-reagan-on-government-run-health-care</ref> more formally known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''," was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law began the process to [[Socialism|socialize]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system.<ref>Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed ObamaCare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: ObamaCare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of ObamaCare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which is unprecedented in American history. Through legislative mandates, ObamaCare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

ObamaCare violates America's [[constitutional law]], according to the law as outlined in the [[U.S. Constitution]]; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against ObamaCare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over ObamaCare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared ObamaCare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the [[unconstitutional]] revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees paychecks.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan, and also offered a number of criticisms of Obama's health care plan.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> The AAPS maintains that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> Political analyst and commentator [[Dick Morris]] has asserted that Obama's health care plan will lead to the significant use of rationing senior health care which will decrease the life span of senior citizens.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsImVGsFlmA</ref>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal ObamaCare (56 percent to 44 percent). In an historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn ObamaCare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus [[Medicare]] cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of ObamaCare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal ObamaCare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans will be required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include children up to age 26.

Does allow states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include [[abortion]].

Creates (by 2014) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved, but insurance can be sold outside of the exchange.

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires employers having more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employees having 25 or less full-time employees and average salaries of $50,000 or less can apply for tax credits to provide health insurance to their employees.

=== Medicaid ===

ObamaCare expands Medicaid (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016.

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==

The basis for legal challenges against ObamaCare is predicated on the unconstitutionality of health care bill. ObamaCare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in ObamaCare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that ObamaCare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'ObamaCare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. There may by a religious exemption under this proposal. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals.]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. Under an early proposal for mandatory care, the penalty was calculated by multiplying the number of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly premium for a plan in the person’s coverage class and coverage area, plus 15 percent.

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref> http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/ Obama Health Bill Allows Government Real-time Access to Bank Accounts], Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, August 3, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042 Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook], KFYI News.</ref><ref>http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/07/22/inside-the-health-care-bill-aka-hr3200/</ref><ref>http://www.kfyi.com/cc-common/mlib/622/08/622_1249314906.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. ObamaCare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

ObamaCare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in ObamaCare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under ObamaCare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==

If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of ObamaCare, the proposed take over of the health care industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of ObamaCare, or that are against the implementation of ObamaCare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52306</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama also stated he is constantly followed around by a personal physician.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Obama’s medical takeover bill is a monstrosity in many ways, but the biggest danger comes from the separate treatment it reserves for the ruling left compared to us ordinary folks.<ref>As is true in all socialist countries, there will be one standard of health care for you and me — and then a higher standard for the ruling class. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ ObamaCare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of ObamaCare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in ObamaCare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea|teas]], polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense.

Less than one year after ObamaCare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive ObamaCare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that ObamaCare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers/> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of Elders===
Some critics, including former Vice-Presidential hopeful [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "Death Panels" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over death panels, the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly-granted authority from these extra-judicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of ObamaCare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of ObamaCare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See Also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ ObamaCare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*[[Fox News|FoxNews.com]]: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of ObamaCare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].

{{Liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

[[Category: Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category: Health]]