Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:GregG/New Main Page

2012-06-21T16:55:27Z

JanW: /* Thoughts */

== Thoughts ==

I love it! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 18:36, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

This has some good features - I think a monthly featured article would be good, and the separation of external features and Conservapedia features makes sense too. I'm not keen on losing the masterpiece or the featured Bible verse, though. Could you find a place for them?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]
:Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice it (although I knew that Conservapedia has historically had featured bible verses. I will go ahead and put those below the "features on Conservapedia section." [[User:GregG|GregG]] 13:04, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::Excellent - much better to have the Bible represented. This is really promising. I presume the alpha, beta etc would be replaced by some of the Quick links that are at the bottom of the current main page? Or with some of the "popular articles at Conservapedia"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:16, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Yes, they would. I think at most one row of project-specific links should be featured at the top; the remaining links should be placed at our Community Portal. With regards to the remaining links, I haven't decided which articles should be featured there, but I would prefer very broad articles on major topics (especially in Conservatism). Examples might include [[Christianity]], [[Creationism]], [[Conservative]], [[Bible]], [[Capitalism]], [[Pro-life]], [[God]], and other broad articles useful for new readers to get basic information, as well as links to more in-depth articles. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:23, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I like this very much.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:18, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::I really like your proposal Greg - though maybe you might tone down the vibrant color boxes? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 12:55, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

Flip flop

2012-02-27T02:21:23Z

JanW: add footwear

"Flip-flop" could refer to any of the following terms:

*[[Flip-flop (electronics)]]: an important element in sequential electronic circuits
*[[Flip flop (politics)]]: the tendency to reverse and contradict one's stated views, usually under popular pressure
*[[Flip flop (footwear)]]: a simple casual sandal comprising only of a leather or rubber sole, straps and with neither an upper nor heel.
{{Disambiguation}}

Herman Cain

2011-10-25T21:04:26Z

JanW: /* Controversial campaign ad */

[[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.

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.

==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 a 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]

[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Herman Cain

2011-10-25T21:03:48Z

JanW: Smoking ad

[[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.

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.

==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 a 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.[http://calconservatives.com/archives/4284]

==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]

[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-10-24T15:59:43Z

JanW: I need a dollar

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant
That I love you forever."
|1
|-
|Have You Forgotten?
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|30 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU"RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']
|Marilyn Manson
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.
|29
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|-
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pQBDE5Gbg ''Me Against The World'']
|Simple Plan
|As conservatives and Christians, [[liberal bias]] is all around us, in the media for example, trying to pressure us on a bandwagon to be like them and worship at the altar of liberalism and godlessness. It is up to us to stand up for what is right, even if we have to go up against the world.
|
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-14T17:07:49Z

JanW:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|''Let It Be''
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-

|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem'']
|William Blake / Sir Hubert Parry
|Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw ''Love Me, I'm a Liberal'']
|Phil Ochs
|Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
|NA
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)''
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|''Lightning Crashes''
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|''Turn, Turn, Turn''
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|''YMCA''
|The Village People
|This song praises youth activities at the Young Men's Christian Association; one of the biggest hits of all time.
|2
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-14T17:06:30Z

JanW:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|
|-
|http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|''Let It Be''
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-

|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem'']
|William Blake / Sir Hubert Parry
|Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw ''Love Me, I'm a Liberal'']
|Phil Ochs
|Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
|NA
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)''
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|''Lightning Crashes''
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|''Turn, Turn, Turn''
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|''YMCA''
|The Village People
|This song praises youth activities at the Young Men's Christian Association; one of the biggest hits of all time.
|2
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-08-11T16:38:53Z

JanW: Texas drought is worst in a century

[[File:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, the earth has been cooling slightly for the past decade.]]

[[Global warming]] is the theory that the earth is gradually warming up due to human influence. Unusual cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal|liberals]] that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
====North America/United States====

Many record-breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years:

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Many have theorized that this is [[God]] sending a message to [[liberals]].

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*In February 2011, [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226 some parts of San Francisco witnessed snow], though it was too little to count for an official measurement. San Francisco has not witnessed a recordable snow fall since 1976.

*Meteorologists did a thirty-year study of California forecast data. 75% of measurement sites saw a reduction in temperatures. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/long-term-california-cooling-trend-blamed-on-global-warming/ Long-term California Cooling Trend Blamed on Global Warming, Gateway Pundit, July 6, 2011]</ref>

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 is shaping up to be a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

But, but, but global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

The North-Western part of the European continent had [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snow-brings-parts-of-britain-to-a-standstill-2144267.html an unusually cold November and December in 2010], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why have these months been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124 Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

Thirty-two inches of snow fell on the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in [[Chile]]. They record less than 50mm of rain per year, 80cm of snow July 2011. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/792/905/32_Inches_Of_Snow_Falls_In_Driest_Place_On_Earth.html 32 Inches Of Snow Falls In Driest Place On Earth!, beforeitsnews, July 7, 2011]</ref>

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi has been hit by thick fog during the winter of 2011 which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people], proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug any more?

Meanwhile, the communist and atheist nation of North Korea (known as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bisects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather has caused [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops] in early February 2011. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

A severe cold [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ was expected by Dr. Ryan N. Maue to hit Russia in February 2011].

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]]. With global warming we wouldn't expect cold weather patterns, because the earth would be warmer.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. Warm weather does not change the fact that record cold weather disproves global warming. All the following record-breaking high temperatures would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

* [http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT/2011/6/9/WeeklyHistory.html Wichita, Kansas (temperature rose above 100 F around midnight)]

* [http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,highmin| In one week in July 2011, approx 700 high temperature and 2000 high minimum temperature records are shattered] in a [http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/22/extreme-heat-smothers-large-part-us/?test=latestnews heatwave that blankets the entire MidWest and East Coast].

However, this also happened alongside a massive cold streak during the winter, so it is not a legitimate sign of Global Warming, and the heat wave is relatively short in duration.

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44019419/ns/weather/#.Tj3h8GakLUg Little Rock, Arkansas, and 14 other cities and towns break their all-time record high temperature records], and Texas temperature records look set to be shattered in a summer heatwave that is sitting over the South in the summer of 2011. "I can't remember any year with the magnitude and length of this heat wave," Jack Hayes, director of the National Weather Service said.

* [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-drought-idUSTRE77A3P120110811 Texas drought is worst in a century, and extending to other Mid-Western States].

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*[http://www.accuweather.com/ Find the temperature in almost any city]
*[http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html Daily Station Normals (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)]
*[http://www.surfacestations.org/ Surface Stations]
*[http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That]
*[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries (find climate statistics for thousands of locations in the western United States)]
*[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science and Public Policy Institute]
*[http://www.JunkScience.org JunkScience.org] [[JunkScience|(Our wiki entry on JunkScience.org)]]
*[http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ Global Warming Scam]
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html NOAA Satellite & Information Service]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 PDF: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T20:31:07Z

JanW: /* Insight */

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==

By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Insight ==

Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that

'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.'''

This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

==Denis Healey==

Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is?

As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Mandela ==

Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]

== Putin ==

"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== "What is a beach-master"? ==

Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ike ==

What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T20:27:38Z

JanW: /* Careers outside of government that need further discussion */

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], President of the USA. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T20:20:40Z

JanW: /* No clear influence in politics */

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], President of the USA. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - lawyer

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T20:20:22Z

JanW: sorry about 'President' mistake!

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], President of the USA. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - lawyer

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T19:03:52Z

JanW: adding political info to those deemed of no political significance

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] President of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], President of the USA. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], President of Canada lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - lawyer

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-10T14:09:03Z

JanW: Bloomberg & Romney

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race. Was a practicing lawyer at the IRS for four years with two law degrees before leaving the workforce to raise her children.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store, air force general
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*Bill Bradley - National basketball star
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - lawyer

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-09T03:46:18Z

JanW: /* Confusion */

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T22:13:46Z

JanW: Romney & Bloomberg

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Mitt Romney]] - CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - founded huge financial empire.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of [[Great Britain]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Stephen Harper]] - attorney.
*[[Denis Healey]] - UK Chancellor, soldier (beach-master at Anzio)
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Truck driver, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect for the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - industrial chemist.
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - 19th century soldier. Defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]

== Obscure or otherwise inept [[Brits]] ==

*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister, soldier, printer.
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister, accountant, businessman (metal trade).
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-08T14:41:09Z

JanW: God's Gonna Get Cha For That, Tammy Wynette & George Jones

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|Elton John
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|Merle Haggard
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|''Let It Be''
|The Beatles
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-

|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|Lee Greenwood
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem'']
|William Blake / Sir Hubert Parry
|Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|Taylor Swift
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|''Fair Exchange'' and ''Sparks of the Tempest''
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''In America''
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|''Unborn Child''
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)''
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''Love Me, I'm a Liberal''
|Phil Ochs
|Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
|NA
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|''That Smell''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|''Christmas Shoes''
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|''Sin City''
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)''
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|''Lightning Crashes''
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|The Bee Gees
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|Justin Bieber
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|''Turn, Turn, Turn''
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|''YMCA''
|The Village People
|This song praises youth activities at the Young Men's Christian Association; one of the biggest hits of all time.
|2
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|''Game of Love''
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-08-07T00:58:49Z

JanW: /* Warm Weather Patterns */

[[File:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, the earth has been cooling slightly for the past decade.]]

[[Global warming]] is the theory that the earth is gradually warming up due to human influence. Unusual cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal|liberals]] that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
====North America/United States====

Many record-breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years:

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Many have theorized that this is [[God]] sending a message to [[liberals]].

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*In February 2011, [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226 some parts of San Francisco witnessed snow], though it was too little to count for an official measurement. San Francisco has not witnessed a recordable snow fall since 1976.

*Meteorologists did a thirty-year study of California forecast data. 75% of measurement sites saw a reduction in temperatures. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/long-term-california-cooling-trend-blamed-on-global-warming/ Long-term California Cooling Trend Blamed on Global Warming, Gateway Pundit, July 6, 2011]</ref>

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 is shaping up to be a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

But, but, but global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

The North-Western part of the European continent had [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snow-brings-parts-of-britain-to-a-standstill-2144267.html an unusually cold November and December in 2010], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why have these months been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124 Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

Thirty-two inches of snow fell on the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in [[Chile]]. They record less than 50mm of rain per year, 80cm of snow July 2011. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/792/905/32_Inches_Of_Snow_Falls_In_Driest_Place_On_Earth.html 32 Inches Of Snow Falls In Driest Place On Earth!, beforeitsnews, July 7, 2011]</ref>

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi has been hit by thick fog during the winter of 2011 which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people], proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug any more?

Meanwhile, the communist and atheist nation of North Korea (known as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bisects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather has caused [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops] in early February 2011. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

A severe cold [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ was expected by Dr. Ryan N. Maue to hit Russia in February 2011].

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]]. With global warming we wouldn't expect cold weather patterns, because the earth would be warmer.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. Warm weather does not change the fact that record cold weather disproves global warming. All the following record-breaking high temperatures would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

* [http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT/2011/6/9/WeeklyHistory.html Wichita, Kansas (temperature rose above 100 F around midnight)]

* [http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,highmin| In one week in July 2011, approx 700 high temperature and 2000 high minimum temperature records are shattered] in a [http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/22/extreme-heat-smothers-large-part-us/?test=latestnews heatwave that blankets the entire MidWest and East Coast].

However, this also happened alongside a massive cold streak during the winter, so it is not a legitimate sign of Global Warming, and the heat wave is relatively short in duration.

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44019419/ns/weather/#.Tj3h8GakLUg Little Rock, Arkansas, and 14 other cities and towns break their all-time record high temperature records], and Texas temperature records look set to be shattered in a summer heatwave that is sitting over the South in the summer of 2011. "I can't remember any year with the magnitude and length of this heat wave," Jack Hayes, director of the National Weather Service said.

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*[http://www.accuweather.com/ Find the temperature in almost any city]
*[http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html Daily Station Normals (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)]
*[http://www.surfacestations.org/ Surface Stations]
*[http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That]
*[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries (find climate statistics for thousands of locations in the western United States)]
*[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science and Public Policy Institute]
*[http://www.JunkScience.org JunkScience.org] [[JunkScience|(Our wiki entry on JunkScience.org)]]
*[http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ Global Warming Scam]
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html NOAA Satellite & Information Service]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 PDF: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Conservapedia:Featured articles

2011-08-07T00:38:39Z

JanW: Los Angeles article is good and well referenced

<div style="font-size:x-large; color:red; text-align:center">'''Featured articles'''</div>

{| class="infobox" style="float:right" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="4"
!style="text-align:center;background:#FFCCFF; font-size:110%"|Committee Members
|-
|
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]]
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]]
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]]
* [[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]]
* [[User:JanW|JanW]]
* [[User:SharonW|SharonW]]
|}
The '''Featured articles''' are posted on the [[Main Page]] each week.

Articles may be submitted for consideration by adding them to the Proposed articles list below. Please add them to the end of the list.

Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.

:* '''Articles listed here will be considered for featuring and ''voted on by the committee members''. Editors may offer their own comments (on the talk page) and are welcome to help improve the listed articles!'''
 
{{Clear}}
== Proposed articles ==
(Please add your vote before the <nowiki>}}</nowiki> under the heading of your choice

{{fa|Anders Behring Breivik|hide=yes|
:*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:22, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:16, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|China|hide=yes|
*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:43, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:11, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
*Agree. --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|Political cards|hide=yes|
*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 08:41, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 12:16, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|Los Angeles|hide=yes|
*Agree --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 20:38, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
}}

==Past articles==
*[[Conservapedia:Featured Articles/Archive 2011|Archive 2011]]

*[[Featured articles. Past articles.]] '''2007/08'''

*[[Featured articles. Past articles 2009]] '''2009'''

==Past nominations==

*[[Conservapedia:Featured articles/Past Nominations 08-09]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Main Page Archives]]

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2011-08-02T15:47:55Z

JanW: /* Question Evolution article */

{|class="messagebox" size="200" align="center"
|<center>Archives: [[Conservapedia_talk:Featured articles/Archive1|1]] </center>
|}

==Need some help==
We need some help cleaing up the mainspace here. Then we can get to organizing a committee. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

: Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think it would be great if this could be implemented again, so that Conservapedia can feature decent, educational, informative articles created by members of the project, instead of the semi-coherent ramblings of somebody who for all intents and purposes appears to be trying to harm Conservapedia's image. I mean, to go from some of the great articles listed here, to dribble about walruses and dancing girls... the mind boggles. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Somebody want to begin archiving the past nominations in mainspace. Meanwhile I'm sure we'll get more signing up. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Does one need to be an administrator to apply?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::@JW: my understanding is that this is open to "civilians". @Tracy: Unfortunately, these are two different issues. Recommending the "official" featured articles, and stopping people from using their administrative authority to circumvent the decisions, are very different things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there's been no objection. We need to get the ball moving on this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:57, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Excellent, Rob. Now, is there a rubric of some sort for featured articles?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:59, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Let's clean up the mainspace and take some nominations. I'm only helping out in these organizational phases. You guys vet the articles and make sure they're presentable. They probably should relate to some current, timely theme of interest to MainPage readers. It will take a sysop to place it at [[Template:Mainpageleft]], and we have one on the committee. So an appropriate review process is in place for the Committee's recomendations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
: Previous work could give an idea of what is desirable; see history here. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==Sign up for Featured article committee==
Volunteers please mark with an asterisk and sign below.
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:17, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 12:23, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:JanW|JanW]] 21:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

==[[Libyan War 2011]]==
There appears to be a consensus majority to accept the first nomination, although other committee members should be heard pro/con/neutral or whatever before the article is posted on the MPL. Meanwhile, we can begin proofreading and bringing the article up to quality standards for placement on the Main Page (formating footnotes, templates if necessary, etc.) Good luck, Committee! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:43, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:Is the article ready? Sunday nights are probably beswt for posting new Features of the Week. Since Jaquin isn't avalable, I'll see if I can clear it for posting.
:Also, Aug 2 is the debt ceiling deadline, and I'm presuming the Committee wants that article ready for next week, if it's been selected. How's it coming? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:55, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::I've made a few changes and put stuff back as per the talk page. I think it's ready to roll. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:40, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::There just seems to still be some name confusion in the article: The majority of cases refers to him as Muammar Gaddafi, but there's also Qaddafi and even Moammar Gaddafi. We should agree on a standard naming convention for the man. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:45, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::It shouldn't be a problem to get a uniform convention for "Gaddafi", even where other spellings exist in a direct quote (like the one from Cordesman); article titles in cited references, however, should be left intact. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

This page is featured. May I remove it from the queue?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sure. We need somebdy to regularly maintain this page, you know, help answer questions from editors, do the maintence chores in the mainspace and archiving. Want to take chage? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::Yes. I would be glad to!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good! Another thing, Although Sunday nights are usually the best time to change artiloes, and this one has been in since Saturday, what about moving up the next one to perhaps Thursdy or Friday, seeing that interest in the subject is just about at its peak right now? This should no always been done that way, but we're trying to get maintenance of this task up off the ground. We can try to get a little more information in now, but we also probably should try to get another committee member to rubber stamp the selection as a formality (maybe TracyS?) Want to ask her? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::We could change it, given the circumstances. Yes, we could get more information. I will contact TracyS or SamHB when they are online. But I will need you or Mr. Martinez (also a committee member) to change it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

==[[Federal Debt Limit]]==
Let's get it ready. Lot's of interest in this one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
* Agree! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:11, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've done a bit of copy-editing and tweaked the table a bit. I'm happy for it to go live, so to speak. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks, Tracy! And could votes froom the committee go on the actual page from now on, please. It's just a technicality. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Never mind. I saw the vote. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Deleted featured articles ==

I was looking through the archives and I see there's been a few featured articles that have been deleted. That seems strange to me - is it possible this was a mistake or something? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:What exactly do you mean?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::When I was browsing the [[Featured_articles._Past_articles_2009|past articles archives]], I saw a few that had been voted on and approved, but were now red-links, meaning they'd been deleted later. There were some in 2008 and 2009. Seems strange for something that would have gone through committee to have been deleted afterwards? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The one you must be referring to... was deleted on account of plagiarism according to the deletion log.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ah, that would explain it. Thanks! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Mainpage layout ==

Um, Rob, or Joaquin, could one of you please have a look at the main page - something seems to have gone wrong with the layout - the graph is interfering with the other headers below it. Or those headers are messing up the graph.

Also, just a suggestion, maybe the heading should be "Featured article:" and the a link to the article in the same heading, not a separate line as it is now? Also I think "Featured article" would be better than "Article of the week"? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:42, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:I will have Rob take a look at it. As for Featured Article v. Article of the Week, I don't think it really matters.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::Good suggestions, I'm on it. Let me now if the formatting still messed up. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Question Evolution article ==

I note that the current Article of the Month is an article about an obscure YouTuber's personal 'campaign', and that every single edit to the article itself was written by one user, User:Conservative. Yet again we have another silly article, written entirely by him, and it is something we are supposedly "featuring". It seems our attempts to maintain a higher standard of article to feature is not proceeding so well in the face of that user's dominance of the Main Page. Is there a way to recommend removal of articles as well as suggest better articles to feature? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:What Administrators feature outside of the Article of the Week is beyond the scope of this committee. I think that was made clear in the posts above on this page. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
::OK. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:47, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Featured articles

2011-08-02T15:46:32Z

JanW: China article is very good indeed

<div style="font-size:x-large; color:red; text-align:center">'''Featured articles'''</div>

{| class="infobox" style="float:right" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="4"
!style="text-align:center;background:#FFCCFF; font-size:110%"|Committee Members
|-
|
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]]
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]]
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]]
* [[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]]
* [[User:JanW|JanW]]
* [[User:SharonW|SharonW]]
|}
The '''Featured articles''' are posted on the [[Main Page]] each week.

Articles may be submitted for consideration by adding them to the Proposed articles list below. Please add them to the end of the list.

Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.

:* '''Articles listed here will be considered for featuring and ''voted on by the committee members''. Editors may offer their own comments (on the talk page) and are welcome to help improve the listed articles!'''
 
{{Clear}}
== Proposed articles ==
(Please add your vote before the <nowiki>}}</nowiki> under the heading of your choice

{{fa|Elvis Presley|hide=yes|
:*Agree.--[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:57, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.--[[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.----[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|Anders Behring Breivik|hide=yes|
:*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:22, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:16, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|China|hide=yes|
*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:43, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:11, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
*Agree. --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
}}

==Past articles==
*[[Conservapedia:Featured Articles/Archive 2011|Archive 2011]]

*[[Featured articles. Past articles.]] '''2007/08'''

*[[Featured articles. Past articles 2009]] '''2009'''

==Past nominations==

*[[Conservapedia:Featured articles/Past Nominations 08-09]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Main Page Archives]]

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2011-08-02T15:44:49Z

JanW: /* Question Evolution article */

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2011-08-02T15:44:19Z

JanW: Question Evolution article is a good example of what we should not be featuring?

{|class="messagebox" size="200" align="center"
|<center>Archives: [[Conservapedia_talk:Featured articles/Archive1|1]] </center>
|}

==Need some help==
We need some help cleaing up the mainspace here. Then we can get to organizing a committee. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

: Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think it would be great if this could be implemented again, so that Conservapedia can feature decent, educational, informative articles created by members of the project, instead of the semi-coherent ramblings of somebody who for all intents and purposes appears to be trying to harm Conservapedia's image. I mean, to go from some of the great articles listed here, to dribble about walruses and dancing girls... the mind boggles. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Somebody want to begin archiving the past nominations in mainspace. Meanwhile I'm sure we'll get more signing up. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Does one need to be an administrator to apply?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::@JW: my understanding is that this is open to "civilians". @Tracy: Unfortunately, these are two different issues. Recommending the "official" featured articles, and stopping people from using their administrative authority to circumvent the decisions, are very different things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there's been no objection. We need to get the ball moving on this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:57, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Excellent, Rob. Now, is there a rubric of some sort for featured articles?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:59, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Let's clean up the mainspace and take some nominations. I'm only helping out in these organizational phases. You guys vet the articles and make sure they're presentable. They probably should relate to some current, timely theme of interest to MainPage readers. It will take a sysop to place it at [[Template:Mainpageleft]], and we have one on the committee. So an appropriate review process is in place for the Committee's recomendations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
: Previous work could give an idea of what is desirable; see history here. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==Sign up for Featured article committee==
Volunteers please mark with an asterisk and sign below.
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 12:17, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 12:23, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:48, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:50, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:JanW|JanW]] 21:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:25, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

==[[Libyan War 2011]]==
There appears to be a consensus majority to accept the first nomination, although other committee members should be heard pro/con/neutral or whatever before the article is posted on the MPL. Meanwhile, we can begin proofreading and bringing the article up to quality standards for placement on the Main Page (formating footnotes, templates if necessary, etc.) Good luck, Committee! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:43, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:Is the article ready? Sunday nights are probably beswt for posting new Features of the Week. Since Jaquin isn't avalable, I'll see if I can clear it for posting.
:Also, Aug 2 is the debt ceiling deadline, and I'm presuming the Committee wants that article ready for next week, if it's been selected. How's it coming? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:55, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::I've made a few changes and put stuff back as per the talk page. I think it's ready to roll. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:40, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::There just seems to still be some name confusion in the article: The majority of cases refers to him as Muammar Gaddafi, but there's also Qaddafi and even Moammar Gaddafi. We should agree on a standard naming convention for the man. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:45, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::It shouldn't be a problem to get a uniform convention for "Gaddafi", even where other spellings exist in a direct quote (like the one from Cordesman); article titles in cited references, however, should be left intact. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

This page is featured. May I remove it from the queue?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sure. We need somebdy to regularly maintain this page, you know, help answer questions from editors, do the maintence chores in the mainspace and archiving. Want to take chage? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::Yes. I would be glad to!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good! Another thing, Although Sunday nights are usually the best time to change artiloes, and this one has been in since Saturday, what about moving up the next one to perhaps Thursdy or Friday, seeing that interest in the subject is just about at its peak right now? This should no always been done that way, but we're trying to get maintenance of this task up off the ground. We can try to get a little more information in now, but we also probably should try to get another committee member to rubber stamp the selection as a formality (maybe TracyS?) Want to ask her? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::We could change it, given the circumstances. Yes, we could get more information. I will contact TracyS or SamHB when they are online. But I will need you or Mr. Martinez (also a committee member) to change it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:06, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

==[[Federal Debt Limit]]==
Let's get it ready. Lot's of interest in this one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
* Agree! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:11, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've done a bit of copy-editing and tweaked the table a bit. I'm happy for it to go live, so to speak. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks, Tracy! And could votes froom the committee go on the actual page from now on, please. It's just a technicality. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Never mind. I saw the vote. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Deleted featured articles ==

I was looking through the archives and I see there's been a few featured articles that have been deleted. That seems strange to me - is it possible this was a mistake or something? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:What exactly do you mean?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::When I was browsing the [[Featured_articles._Past_articles_2009|past articles archives]], I saw a few that had been voted on and approved, but were now red-links, meaning they'd been deleted later. There were some in 2008 and 2009. Seems strange for something that would have gone through committee to have been deleted afterwards? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The one you must be referring to... was deleted on account of plagiarism according to the deletion log.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 09:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ah, that would explain it. Thanks! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Mainpage layout ==

Um, Rob, or Joaquin, could one of you please have a look at the main page - something seems to have gone wrong with the layout - the graph is interfering with the other headers below it. Or those headers are messing up the graph.

Also, just a suggestion, maybe the heading should be "Featured article:" and the a link to the article in the same heading, not a separate line as it is now? Also I think "Featured article" would be better than "Article of the week"? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:42, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:I will have Rob take a look at it. As for Featured Article v. Article of the Week, I don't think it really matters.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::Good suggestions, I'm on it. Let me now if the formatting still messed up. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Question Evolution article ==

I note that the current Article of the Month is an article about an obscure YouTuber's personal 'campaign', and that every single edit to the article itself was written by one user, User:Conservative. Yet again we had another silly article, written entirely by him, and it is something we are supposedly "featuring". It seems our attempts to maintain a higher standard of article to feature is not proceeding so well in the face of that user's dominance of the Main Page. Is there a way to recommend removal of articles as well as suggest better articles to feature? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T15:33:35Z

JanW: Editing my comment

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== the voters ==

I think we should ignore votes by "contributors" that have not made any substantial mainspace edits. This goes for both sides. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 08:11, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:It would seem that some editors with blocking rights and a certain sysop are taking control of this by banning or blocking every remotely questionable user anyway. I would guess that at least half of the users in the nay will be blocked by the end of this.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 22:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::I think this is a serious issue. People on both sides of the vote have no real contributions and should not be given a say in Conservapedia's affairs.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::: I agree and it seems that many of them have already been banned for being socks or vandals. Hopefully this doesn't scare off actual users with valid opinions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 22:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== This page is not being honest ==

Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:26, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Quite so, User:Conservative. The [[silent majority]] very wisely don't want to get involved in RobS's power games. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, it is about you acting in a childish and unbecoming manner, when you were asked to unlock talk pages and to stop deleting pages at random. However, you saw this as an affront to your power and over-reacted. It is exactly the same reason why you do not use the preview and minor edit buttons - you seem to think you are about such niceties. Your over-reaction to this is ample proof. It was never about RobS, but you being unwilling to work with other people. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Jcw, I do agree with your "RobS power games comment". I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways. My guess is that the power structure of Conservapedia is going to change within 5 years and I believe I may have a suggestion within 2-3 years as I think the timing of me offering such a suggestion will be more opportune. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Point of clarification: The situation about the removal of votes Conservative is refering to is where another editor added votes from sysops that Conservative has stated support RobS being demoted. The supporting sysops did ''not'' actually place their votes on the page. The proxy votes were removed under the premise of one person/one vote. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Jcw edits ==

Jcw has been removing comments from the Debate page on the grounds of civility. I believe he has gone way too far. A number of those comments were very relevant to the debate and the reason for editors exercising their vote in a particular way. I would ask that they be reinstated. I didn't want to rush back in and immediately reinstate them myself without discussion so I await some input from Jcw. If not I intend to reinstate some of them myself. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed, many of the comments removed were in fact quite relevant. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:37, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

::I've been very careful - every remark I've removed could have been rephrased to be quite acceptable. If people want to make cogent points then they're free to do so, but they should do so in ways that follow the rules and avoid inflammatory or insulting language. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Acceptable to whom? Have you cleaned up the insulting, inflammatory language of another admin on the [[Community Portal]] page, or ASchlafly's talk page? or his comments to editors anywhere, ever? This is precisely at the core of this issue, sysops wantonly abusing editors, and other sysops not holding them to account. Sysop's are not God. They '''''Do Not''''' make and/or dictate the rules anymore. They themselves must be held to account for their own interaction with the lesser beings, the lowly editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:20, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No doubt you understand the system better than I do, but I assumed that the sysops were accountable upwards, to ASchlafly. Isn't that the point - to avoid mob rule by having a clear chain of command with a definite leader at the top? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::(EC) P.s. Note that I'm not a sysop or an admin, just a user. I haven't taken any part in this debate, nor do I belong to any side or have any personal allegiance to anyone involved. My only interest is to prevent further excesses; one inflammatory comment leads to more and so on, leading to a very poor quality of debate. This hurts everyone who wants open discussion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Jcw, It is structured that way, that's true. However, sysops likewise are to be held to the same standard, ''if not moreso'', of editing practices non -sysop should be. They are the example. If a Conservapedia Sysop is abusive and incivil -- to anyone, sysop or non-sysop -- he/she needs to be called on it. Sysopship is not a brotherhood of mindless robots, they are not the site owners "goons and thugs" tasked with being "hitmen" to obliterate Conservapdia's critics. Their job primarily is to ''help'' editors learn how to become better editors and contributors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:02, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Unless the language is completely offensive it should stay. Jcw, you are removing peoples reasoning, which IS NOT a personal remark. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::On that we disagree; perhaps an admin will settle the point. In my opinion, an argument like this should be handled very carefully and with the highest levels of civility and respect for all parties. The comments I removed evinced disrespect variously for Conservative, ASchlafly and the site as a whole. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::user:Conservative was far more egregious when it came to personal remarks recently and the ones on this page explain ''reasons'' why people support Robs over Conservative. Please do not remove them until a line is crossed (which it hasn't yet - not quite). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As Conservative is a sysop, it's not my place to comment on his behavior. As for other users, I suppose we have different ideas about where the line is. To me, calling this whole site a 'joke' is crossing the line; calling another sysop 'abusive' is crossing the line. If something useful were being discussed, I might be more relaxed about it, but as this page seems simply to be an excuse for users to insult Conservative, I don't feel inclined to have much tolerance. The matters being discussed on this page are for the sysops to discuss and decide on, not for us users to carp about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If I was asked why I believe conservative should be stripped of sysop rights I would say it is because he uses them in an unbecoming fashions, is abusive to other uses and his "Obesity" essay make conservapedia into a joke. That is not a personal attack. learn the difference. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Perhaps it's not a 'personal attack', but it is disrespectful of a senior admin on this site, of the site itself, and by implication the whole senior team here. You and I have no business making remarks like that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:59, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:''You and I have no business making remarks like that.'' Which is part of the problem when it comes to sysop accountability and this is exactly why we have this page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

::Would it be acceptable to fling insults if there was more sysop accountability, Max? If not, why should it be acceptable now? Jcw's completely correct, here. Those of us with basic block rights are simply trying to keep this reasonably civil. That means trying to weed out those who are creating accounts just to stir the pot, and it also means trying to keep criticisms constructive--they've been ranging into outright personal attacks way too often. Personal feelings don't enter into this; we're just trying to do our job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I can understand that. However I think he was a little to selective. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm disappointed to see that my comment was edited, but I understand the desire to keep things civil, and so I apologize. To rephrase, I feel that there are articles appearing on the front page of this site that make this site look silly - for example, the current Main Page "Article of the Month", every single edit of which has been written by only one user, Conservative. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 11:33, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T15:51:08Z

JanW: /* Nay */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

# Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible should not be in a position of authority. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. User:Conservative makes this site look like a joke, and User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him.

Mystery:Why is the Senate More Liberal than the House?

2011-07-24T17:17:46Z

JanW:

As the political struggle over the [[debt ceiling]] in July 2011 illustrates, the [[U.S. Senate]] is currently more liberal than the [[U.S. House of Representatives]]? Other examples include how the House voted to end funding of the [[abortion]] provider [[Planned Parenthood]], yet the Senate voted to continue the funding.

''Why'' is the Senate more [[liberal]] than the House? Reasons include:

*Natural changes in voting patterns. Over the past 154 years of the Senate, the Senate has been a Republican institution 53% of the time.

*Senate elections are statewide, and thus are more easily influenced by [[liberal]] media organizations than local House elections are.

*Senators are elected to a six year term, rather than the two years that members of the House of Representatives are elected to, making the Senate less accountable to the voters. The Senate, for much of its history, has always been more moderate than the House.

*Individual Senators receive more media attention than House members do, thereby making the Senators more full of themselves than House members are.

*Because Senators are elected to six year terms instead of two, the Senate is still Democratic while the House is Republican.

*The course of history is towards increasing [[conservatism]], but the Senate's longer term of office means it is slower than the House in catching up to the increasingly conservative public.

* Because only 1/3 of the Senate is elected each year, only 1/3 of the seats can shift from Democrat to Republican in a given election (excepting special elections). However, the entire House is up for reelection every two years. So, if 60% of voters vote Republican in a given election, roughly 60% of the House will be Republican (actually, that isn't exactly true. It depends on the distribution of Democrats and Republicans among electoral districts. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion). However, since only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election each year, even with significant seat changes, it's still slower to respond than the House. The Democrats lost 6 of the 19 Senate seats they held that were up for reelection this past 2010. In the House, they had a net loss of 63 seats of the 257 they held that were up for reelection (they actually lost a few more than 63, but gained a few too). So, they actually lost a HIGHER percentage of seats in the Senate than the House. However, fewer Senate seats were up for election, so they still controlled it. One of the reasons for the higher percentage of Senate seats lost was because many Congressional Districts will always vote Democrat (or Republican) no matter what. In NY-15, Democrat Charlie Rangel won 80% of the vote in spite of facing massive corruption charges. It helped that NY-15 is the most pro-Democrat district in the country. Rangel won over 90% of the vote in 2008, before the charges. If a Democrat senator were facing those charges, then since the state as a whole would be significantly closer than an individual district, they'd almost certainly lose. (As Republican Ted Stevens did in traditional red-state Alaska in 2008). But since some districts have such great support for one side or the other, it's pretty much impossible to get them to switch sides. Hence, the Senate actually sees more swing in most elections than the House, but since not every seat is up for election, it has less impact.

*Senate election races are less dependent on grassroots activism than on money, which tends to shift the focus away from the social views of the voters
{{Add to list}}

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:mystery]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-07-23T21:12:02Z

JanW: clarifying

[[File:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, the earth has been cooling slightly for the past decade.]]

[[Global warming]] is the theory that the earth is gradually warming up due to human influence. Unusual cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal|liberals]] that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
====North America/United States====

Many record-breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years:

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Many have theorized that this is [[God]] sending a message to [[liberals]].

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*In February 2011, [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226 some parts of San Francisco witnessed snow], though it was too little to count for an official measurement. San Francisco has not witnessed a recordable snow fall since 1976.

*Meteorologists did a thirty-year study of California forecast data. 75% of measurement sites saw a reduction in temperatures. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/long-term-california-cooling-trend-blamed-on-global-warming/ Long-term California Cooling Trend Blamed on Global Warming, Gateway Pundit, July 6, 2011]</ref>

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 is shaping up to be a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

But, but, but global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

The North-Western part of the European continent had [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snow-brings-parts-of-britain-to-a-standstill-2144267.html an unusually cold November and December in 2010], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why have these months been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124 Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

Thirty-two inches of snow fell on the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in [[Chile]]. They record less than 50mm of rain per year, 80cm of snow July 2011. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/792/905/32_Inches_Of_Snow_Falls_In_Driest_Place_On_Earth.html 32 Inches Of Snow Falls In Driest Place On Earth!, beforeitsnews, July 7, 2011]</ref>

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi has been hit by thick fog during the winter of 2011 which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people], proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug any more?

Meanwhile, the communist and atheist nation of North Korea (known as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bisects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather has caused [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops] in early February 2011. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

A severe cold [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ was expected by Dr. Ryan N. Maue to hit Russia in February 2011].

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]]. With global warming we wouldn't expect cold weather patterns, because the earth would be warmer.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. Warm weather does not change the fact that record cold weather disproves global warming. All the following record-breaking high temperatures would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

* [http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT/2011/6/9/WeeklyHistory.html Wichita, Kansas (temperature rose above 100 F around midnight)]

* [http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,highmin| In one week in July 2011, approx 700 high temperature and 2000 high minimum temperature records are shattered] in a [http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/22/extreme-heat-smothers-large-part-us/?test=latestnews heatwave that blankets the entire MidWest and East Coast].

However, this also happened alongside a massive cold streak during the winter, so it is not a legitimate sign of Global Warming.

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*[http://www.accuweather.com/ Find the temperature in almost any city]
*[http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html Daily Station Normals (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)]
*[http://www.surfacestations.org/ Surface Stations]
*[http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That]
*[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries (find climate statistics for thousands of locations in the western United States)]
*[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science and Public Policy Institute]
*[http://www.JunkScience.org JunkScience.org] [[JunkScience|(Our wiki entry on JunkScience.org)]]
*[http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ Global Warming Scam]
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html NOAA Satellite & Information Service]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 PDF: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-07-23T20:59:35Z

JanW: fixing link display problem

[[File:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, the earth has been cooling slightly for the past decade.]]

[[Global warming]] is the theory that the earth is gradually warming up due to human influence. Unusual cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal|liberals]] that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
====North America/United States====

Many record-breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years:

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Many have theorized that this is [[God]] sending a message to [[liberals]].

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*In February 2011, [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226 some parts of San Francisco witnessed snow], though it was too little to count for an official measurement. San Francisco has not witnessed a recordable snow fall since 1976.

*Meteorologists did a thirty-year study of California forecast data. 75% of measurement sites saw a reduction in temperatures. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/long-term-california-cooling-trend-blamed-on-global-warming/ Long-term California Cooling Trend Blamed on Global Warming, Gateway Pundit, July 6, 2011]</ref>

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 is shaping up to be a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

But, but, but global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

The North-Western part of the European continent had [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snow-brings-parts-of-britain-to-a-standstill-2144267.html an unusually cold November and December in 2010], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why have these months been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124 Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

Thirty-two inches of snow fell on the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in [[Chile]]. They record less than 50mm of rain per year, 80cm of snow July 2011. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/792/905/32_Inches_Of_Snow_Falls_In_Driest_Place_On_Earth.html 32 Inches Of Snow Falls In Driest Place On Earth!, beforeitsnews, July 7, 2011]</ref>

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi has been hit by thick fog during the winter of 2011 which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people], proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug any more?

Meanwhile, the communist and atheist nation of North Korea (known as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bisects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather has caused [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops] in early February 2011. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

A severe cold [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ was expected by Dr. Ryan N. Maue to hit Russia in February 2011].

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]]. With global warming we wouldn't expect cold weather patterns, because the earth would be warmer.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. Warm weather does not change the fact that record cold weather disproves global warming. All the following would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

* [http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT/2011/6/9/WeeklyHistory.html Wichita, Kansas (temperature rose above 100 F around midnight)]

* [http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,highmin| In one week in July 2011, approx 700 high temperature and 2000 high minimum temperature records are shattered] in a [http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/22/extreme-heat-smothers-large-part-us/?test=latestnews heatwave that blankets the entire MidWest and East Coast].

However, this also happened alongside a massive cold streak during the winter, so it is not a legitimate sign of Global Warming.

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*[http://www.accuweather.com/ Find the temperature in almost any city]
*[http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html Daily Station Normals (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)]
*[http://www.surfacestations.org/ Surface Stations]
*[http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That]
*[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries (find climate statistics for thousands of locations in the western United States)]
*[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science and Public Policy Institute]
*[http://www.JunkScience.org JunkScience.org] [[JunkScience|(Our wiki entry on JunkScience.org)]]
*[http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ Global Warming Scam]
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html NOAA Satellite & Information Service]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 PDF: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-07-23T20:51:15Z

JanW: 700 max temperature records shattered across US in record-breaking heatwave

[[File:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, the earth has been cooling slightly for the past decade.]]

[[Global warming]] is the theory that the earth is gradually warming up due to human influence. Unusual cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal|liberals]] that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
====North America/United States====

Many record-breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years:

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Many have theorized that this is [[God]] sending a message to [[liberals]].

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*In February 2011, [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSTRE71P1NH20110226 some parts of San Francisco witnessed snow], though it was too little to count for an official measurement. San Francisco has not witnessed a recordable snow fall since 1976.

*Meteorologists did a thirty-year study of California forecast data. 75% of measurement sites saw a reduction in temperatures. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/long-term-california-cooling-trend-blamed-on-global-warming/ Long-term California Cooling Trend Blamed on Global Warming, Gateway Pundit, July 6, 2011]</ref>

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 is shaping up to be a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

But, but, but global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

The North-Western part of the European continent had [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/snow-brings-parts-of-britain-to-a-standstill-2144267.html an unusually cold November and December in 2010], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why have these months been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10749124 Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

Thirty-two inches of snow fell on the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in [[Chile]]. They record less than 50mm of rain per year, 80cm of snow July 2011. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/792/905/32_Inches_Of_Snow_Falls_In_Driest_Place_On_Earth.html 32 Inches Of Snow Falls In Driest Place On Earth!, beforeitsnews, July 7, 2011]</ref>

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi has been hit by thick fog during the winter of 2011 which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people], proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug any more?

Meanwhile, the communist and atheist nation of North Korea (known as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bisects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather has caused [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops] in early February 2011. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

A severe cold [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ was expected by Dr. Ryan N. Maue to hit Russia in February 2011].

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]]. With global warming we wouldn't expect cold weather patterns, because the earth would be warmer.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. Warm weather does not change the fact that record cold weather disproves global warming. All the following would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

* [http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KICT/2011/6/9/WeeklyHistory.html Wichita, Kansas (temperature rose above 100 F around midnight)]

* [http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,highmin In July 2011, approx 700 high temperature and 2000 high minimum temperature
records are shattered] in a [http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2011/07/22/extreme-heat-smothers-large-part-us/?test=latestnews heatwave that blankets the entire MidWest and East Coast].

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*[http://www.accuweather.com/ Find the temperature in almost any city]
*[http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html Daily Station Normals (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)]
*[http://www.surfacestations.org/ Surface Stations]
*[http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That]
*[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries (find climate statistics for thousands of locations in the western United States)]
*[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science and Public Policy Institute]
*[http://www.JunkScience.org JunkScience.org] [[JunkScience|(Our wiki entry on JunkScience.org)]]
*[http://www.globalclimatescam.com/ Global Warming Scam]
*[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html NOAA Satellite & Information Service]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 PDF: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Video games

2011-07-23T20:41:31Z

JanW: BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

A '''video game''' is any electronic game played on a computer or console. They vary greatly in type and complexity, but all games are alike in that they translate player input (from a controller, mouse, keyboard or motion sensor) into onscreen actions. Games are usually stored on some sort of digital media - ROM cartridge, [[CD]], [[DVD]], or even cassette tape for early computer games - though older or more inexpensive games may have dedicated chips which are pre-programmed to play certain games only. In recent years, game developers have moved to digital distribution, allowing anyone with a credit card or [[Paypal]] account to purchase games online.

Home consoles are classified by ''generation'' to indicate their relative power and date of release. The current major consoles (XBox360, PS3, Wii) are considered ''seventh generation''. Handheld consoles are not generally put into generations due to their more irregular release schedules.

Though a popular form of entertainment in America, some video games (especially in modern years) may tend to promote a [[liberal]] worldview, and can cause [[sexual immorality]], [[atheism]], [[obesity]], and [[violence]] {{Citation needed}} . Several prominent murderers in recent years were inspired by video games{{Citation needed}}, for example <ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-316491/Teenager-gets-life-Manhunt-murder.html </ref>.

Video games have also been shown to help people to become more attuned to their surroundings and increase coordination, and in the future may be used to treat people with visual problems and to train soldiers. <ref> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html </ref>

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as ''Mass Effect'' (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like ''Katamari Damacy''.

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Video games are addictive activities targeted at teenagers{{Citation needed}}, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Certain genres of games are becoming increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> After a ''Conservapedian'' filed an [[amicus brief]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider this issue, it surprised [[liberal]]s by granting ''[[certiorari]]''.

However, in 2011, the Supreme Court denied a ban on the sale of violent video games in California, claiming they were protected as they "qualify for First Amendment Protection" and pointing out that there has historically been no shortage of violent imagery in children's fairytales, classical literature, and comics. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia pointed out that "disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression", and continued that any effects of violent video games on children "are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media".<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.]</ref>

It has also been suggested that it is the role of parents to regulate what their children play, and that laws restricting video game vendors are an effort to replace parents' decisions with the government's decisions.<ref> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45083/ </ref> <ref> http://www.gameculture.com/2010/11/10/editorial-parental-responsibility-and-today039s-media </ref> <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-games28-2009feb28,0,1556900.story </ref>

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by ''[[Doom (video game series)|Doom]]'', ''[[Quake]]'', and the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series.

Some people point out that violent video games cause violent behavior in some children. The effects of violent video games on the developing psyche of children and adolescents vary greatly and of course have much to do with the mental stability of the subject in question.
Serious crimes have often been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], all retail games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

At least one study has shown that, contrary to the position mentioned above, kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies{{Citation needed}}. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause. <ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by playing some of the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing sexually-suggestive material. One reason for the relative lack of explicitly sexual material in western games may be the refusal of retailers including [[Wal-Mart]]<ref>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=440903</ref> (the leading distributor of video games in the United States) and [[Toys R Us]]<ref>[http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/practices/ See Toys "R" Us's video games policy]</ref> (the world's largest toy themed retailer) to sell games carrying an "Adults-Only" rating. One notable target of controversy is the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series after a third-party mod was released that allowed the player to engage in a mini-game containing explicit sexual material. Mods are, as "third-party" would imply, fan-made and are not the responsibility of the game's developer. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game ''[[Tomb Raider]]'' as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has attempted to blur the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Education in Video Games ==

While most popular video games are experiencing an increase in violence, language, and sexuality, other gamers and game developers are beginning to view video games as an educational opportunity. Firaxis Games, a noteworthy video game development company, has been creating a video game series called ''Civilization'' for nearly a decade. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/company/ </ref> Civilization is a simulation game that allows the player to lead a nation from ancient times to modern day. It features a dynamic military system, politics, trading, and historical content. It has been recognized for its unintentional educational properties. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/community/teacher.php </ref>

Microsoft Flight Simulator is another example of a video game being recognized for its unique educational properties. <ref> http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/product/Pages/InfoEducators.aspx </ref>

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems. ''Bible Adventure'' in particular is infamous for its poor design and playability.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The ''Breath of Fire'' series and the ''Shin Megami Tensei'' games, in particular, use a god as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion in some way include the ''Final Fantasy'' series, ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]'', ''Black and White'', ''Heaven and Hell'', ''Xenogears'', ''Okami'', and the ''Tales'' series, particularly ''Tales of Symphonia''. Unfortunately, many (not all) of the aforementioned games present religion (or it's respective church and followers) as evil, fake, or having ulterior and nefarious motives. Virtually no video games present faith in an honest or positive manner, as few conservatives or Christians work for game companies, then again direct content.

Games may include a fictional religion as part of the setting if the use of a real religion may invite undesirable controversy.

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where real-world religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]''.<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]
*[[Video game industry]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.whattheyplay.com/ What They Play - the parent's guide to video games]
*[http://www.leftbehindgames.com/index.php Left Behind Games - a Christian, family friendly video game company]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Conservapedia:Featured articles

2011-07-23T20:28:29Z

JanW: /* Proposed articles */

<div style="font-size:x-large; color:red; text-align:center">'''Featured articles'''</div>

{| class="infobox" style="float:right" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="4"
!style="text-align:center;background:#FFCCFF; font-size:110%"|Committee Members
|-
|
* [[User:TracyS|TracyS]]
* [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]]
* [[User:SamHB|SamHB]]
* [[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]]
* [[User:JanW|JanW]]
|}
The '''Featured articles''' are posted on the [[Main Page]] each week.

Articles may be submitted for consideration by adding them to the Proposed articles list below. Please add them to the end of the list.

Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.

:* '''Articles listed here will be considered for featuring and ''voted on by the committee members''. Editors may offer their own comments (on the talk page) and are welcome to help improve the listed articles!'''
 
{{Clear}}
== Proposed articles ==
(Please add your vote before the <nowiki>}}</nowiki> under the heading of your choice

{{fa|Libyan War 2011|hide=yes|
:*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:01, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:08, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:22, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.--[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Federal Debt Limit|hide=yes|
:*Agree. -- --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:11, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:*Agree.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:37, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Elvis Presley|hide=yes|
:*Agree.--[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
}}

==Past articles==

*[[Featured articles. Past articles.]] '''2007/08'''

*[[Featured articles. Past articles 2009]] '''2009'''

==Past nominations==

*[[Conservapedia:Featured articles/Past Nominations 08-09]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Main Page Archives]]

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2011-07-19T01:27:24Z

JanW:

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2011-07-16T20:15:46Z

JanW:

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers List of female rock singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers List of female heavy metal singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors List of Australian Soap Opera actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors List of Australian TV actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers List of Australian Pop singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_musicians List of Canadian musicians].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_pop_musicians_of_the_2000s List of British Pop Musicians of the 2000's].

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately many of these are not broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Katy Cusack==
Ms. Cusack, according to the articles, was a stage actress only in the Austin area, and worked mainly at a clothing shop she owned. I don't think she should be counted as part of Hollywood. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:I plan on removing her from the list soon. I could be wrong, but I don't think she falls under the definition of a member of Hollywood. It would be nice if someone else could respond one way or the other. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Norwegian actress and porn star==

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that. [[user:DamianJohn]]

== Link to breast enhancment ? ==

a delicate subject to be sure but is there ant statistical link to show that actresses with breast cancer ALSO had breast enhancements which may have increased the risks ? just a thought [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: Seems unlikely and there are far larger studies of that issue with negative results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Statistical analysis ==

This came up on the recent changes and I was somewhat shocked by the fundamental mistakes underlying this apparent 'mystery'.

The article ONLY lists a very few cases of Hollywood (and even some who have nothing to do with Hollywood) actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively young age. They have been listed because they are below the average age for diagnosis, but as has been pointed out this figure is the mean, by definition it will have values above and below. There will also be many examples of Hollywood actresses diagnosed with the condition after the average age, and I expect that if an actual survey were done the average age of diagnosis when limited to hollywood actresses would be very close to the national average. However, this raises another fundamental flaw. The group in question is far too small in mathematical terms for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The definition of the group of people in question is also highly arbitrary making any sort of mathematical assessment of the group difficult. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

: Robert, please learn first here, then comment. Your statistical analysis above is completely wrong. Clusters within a group this size certainly are meaningful.

: By chance, you didn't work for tobacco companies a few decades ago, did you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::I can safely say I have never nor would I ever work for a tobacco company. My argument is that the statistics are not meaningful for the group size in question since for one thing the group size has not been accurately delimited. And for another the group has been selected by specifically identifying individual actresses that have been diagnosed at a young age. I'm sure there are hollywood actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively old age and certainly ages much closer to or above the average stated in the article, however this has not been accounted for and in statistical terms there is a pre-existing bias towards the younger victims before any analysis is actually undertaken. You yourself also acknowledge the lack of complete numbers of those diagnosed within hollywood. The statistics regarding actual risk also differ temporally and spatially. Obviously hollywood actresses come from across the world and so the statistics that are more relevant to them would be those from their places of origin. Even within the USA there is variation in the chance of suffering from breast cancer. The different times at which the featured actresses were diagnosed also raises issues since the risk statistics have changed over time whereas the articles simply groups them all together. (also as you shall see i have edited the title of this section from both my original and your edit, to better reflect the nature of this discussion. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. And there is another major flaw in your example. Whilst of course such a high rate would be alarming, the sample does not link with the rate you have provided since the rate is for non-smoker whilst the sample is strictly smokers. As such to try and make a comparison between that sample and that figure is impossible. Certainly with a larger sample you could compare the rates of lung cancer amongst smokers and non-smokers and would most definitely find it to be much higher amongst the former. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in hollywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. There is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Christmas in Germany

2011-06-10T19:06:52Z

JanW: /* Article titling */

== Tellenbaum ==

Googling ''Tellenbaum'' came up with nine hits. It should be something else: ''Weihnachtsbaum'', ''Christbaum'', or ''Tannenbaum''...
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:37, 20 December 2009 (EST)

==Article titling==

Shouldn't this article simply be a section in a broader ''[[Christmas]]'' article, perhaps a a section titled 'Christmas Around the Word', or such? It's a poor title for an article - we wouldn't have an article titled "Easter in Denmark", would we? And I note that the [[Christmas]] article doesn't even link to here, so it's kind of 'unattached', no? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 15:05, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Christmas in Germany

2011-06-10T19:06:15Z

JanW: /* Article titling */

Talk:Christmas in Germany

2011-06-10T19:05:59Z

JanW: Suggest a move into Christmas article?

== Tellenbaum ==

Googling ''Tellenbaum'' came up with nine hits. It should be something else: ''Weihnachtsbaum'', ''Christbaum'', or ''Tannenbaum''...
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:37, 20 December 2009 (EST)

==Article titling==

Shouldn't this article simply be a section in a broader ''Christmas'' article, perhaps a a section titled 'Christmas Around the Word', or such? It's a poor title for an article - we wouldn't have an article titled "Easter in Denmark", would we? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 15:05, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Welfare

2011-06-10T18:41:31Z

JanW: Incomplete sentence

==On the Reference==
Whoever added "Jackson" - needs to fully cite the source in a "references section". Just saying "Jackson, 2005" doesn't really explain anything - and therefore the reference is questionable.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This entire article needs citations.
''Welfare has been growing...''
It's also too simple. It is no longer called Welfare, and the concept has changed dramatically since its inception. I'm giving anyone who wants to look at it 1 day. After that, I'm giving it the scrubbing of its life. [[User:JohnGalt|JohnGalt]] 17:33, 30 November 2007 (EST)

==Image==
Why's there a picture of a bank on an article about welfare? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 17:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder the same thing. The image seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Welfare==
Clinton signed GOP legislation cutting back welfare, just so you know who is credited for that success. Also, the U.S. Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", this doesn't mean "fund" the general welfare. Also, it is the same excuse Democrats use for implementing the unconstitutional [[ObamaCare]] package. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:37, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==Sentence fragment ==

The sentence "Opponents say that, since 50% of Americans pay over 96% of the taxes." is incomplete - what was the intention of the writer? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 14:41, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-06-09T21:29:30Z

JanW: /* Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates */

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Operation Dynamo

2011-06-09T21:25:29Z

JanW: oops fix this

'''Operation Dynamo''' was the code name for a [[British]] project during [[World War II]] which rescued 338,226 [[Allied]] soldiers from [[Dunkirk|Dunkerque]], a harbor town on the coast of [[France]]. This required over 900 ships to cross the [[English Channel]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dynamo, Operation}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Military History]]

Operation Dynamo

2011-06-09T21:22:55Z

JanW: Use correct French name, not anglicised version

'''Operation Dynamo''' was the code name for a [[British]] project during [[World War II]] which rescued 338,226 [[Allied]] soldiers from [[Dunkirk|Dunquerque]], a harbor town on the coast of [[France]]. This required over 900 ships to cross the [[English Channel]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dynamo, Operation}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Military History]]

Today's New International Version

2011-06-09T21:20:38Z

JanW: Article does not say what this is about, add "bible". Cannot change title, but that would also seem appropriate?

The '''Today's New International Version''' is a [[liberal]], [[feminist]] revision of the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], which was sharply criticized. The TNIV uses unisex, gender-neutral language unsupported by the original manuscripts, and even appeased feminists by omitting reference to Jesus as the unborn child:

:"When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she '''was found with child''' of the Holy Ghost" (Matt 1:18 KJV)

to:

:"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, '''she was found to be pregnant''' through the Holy Spirit"

However, when referring to God, TNIV "retains gender-accurate, masculine terminology for references to God,"<ref>http://www.biblica.com/bibles/tniv/clarity.php</ref> much like its NIV counterpart.

In 2002, one hundred Christian leaders, including prominent [[conservative]] activists, signed a statement opposing use of the TNIV:<ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=13461</ref>

:"Because of these and other misgivings, we cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study, and reading Bible of the Christian community."

Zondervan announced in 2009 its intention to discontinue publication of the [[TNIV]] and improve the [[NIV]]. "And we'll make sure we get it right this time," says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica. Maureen Girkins, president of Zondervan, also declared, "We need to undo the damage."<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm</ref> The new translation will replace the bestselling NIV, which will then be pulled off the market.

== Committee ==

The translation committee for the TNIV included:

*Kenneth Barker
*Richard T. France
*Donald H. Madvig
*Gordon Fee
*Karen H. Jobes
*Walter Liefeld
*Douglas J. Moo
*Martin Selman
*John H. Stek
*Larry L. Walker
*Bruce K. Waltke
*Herbert M. Wolf
*Ronald Youngblood

== New Committee ==

The translating committee for the new NIV to be released in 2011 includes:<ref>http://www.biblica.com/bible/cbt/</ref>

*Douglas Moo, Chair (Wheaton)
*Richard T. France, Vice Chair (UK)
*Karen H. Jobes, Secretary (Wheaton)
*Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary)
*Gordon Fee (British Columbia)
*David Instone-Brewer (UK)
*Mark L. Strauss (Bethel Seminary)
*Paul Swarup (India)
*Larry L. Walker

Moo (the Chairman), Jobes (the Secretary), Fee and Walker all served on the committee listed above, which produced the much-criticized, sometimes gender-neutral TNIV. Moo was quoted by the ''Tennessean'' as being highly critical of the [[Conservative Bible Project]]: "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it," he said. "Any serious people working on Bible translation know that you have to leave as much ideology at the door as possible to do a good job."

== References ==

<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=100343&catid=2 New NIV Bible in works, will review 'gender-related' language]

Recession of 2008

2011-06-09T19:53:58Z

JanW:

The '''Recession of 2008''' (also called the '''Recession of the late 2000's''' or the '''Great Recession''') is a major worldwide economic downturn that began in 2008 and continued into 2010. It was caused by the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]; it is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It appears the worldwide recession hit bottom around September 2009; however there are few signs that the American or world economies have started to move upward again. [[Greece]], [[Portugal]] and [[Ireland]] remain in serious trouble, while [[China]] and [[Brazil]] have rebounded and are growing rapidly. Concerning the United States economy, proponents of [[free market]] capitalism declare that [[Federal Reserve]] Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention merely drags out recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTXaAXusiI</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref> A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref>

Likewise in the U.S. the economy has stabilized but has not shown signs of recovery, apart from the stock market going up. Serious weaknesses continue in housing, commercial real estate, banking, automobiles, and retail trade. [[Unemployment]] continues to worsen, reaching 10.2% in October, 2009 and slipping to 10.0% in November, with conditions especially poor in California, Michigan and South Carolina.

The crisis is worldwide, with major impact in [[Britain]], Europe (that is the "European Union" or EU), [[Russia]], [[Japan]], the oil countries of the Middle East, and the Third World. The economy of the EU (Europe) will shrink by 4% in 2009, with unemployment reaching 10%. Ireland, Iceland and parts of Eastern Europe are hardest hit. Britain was hit hard with its major banks in deep trouble. Recovery in Britain has been slow; its GDP fell 5.2% from 3Q 2008 to 3Q 2009.<ref>3Q is the third quarter, or the months of July, August and September.</ref>

Global trade declined sharply--by 13% from August 20008 to August 2009, hurting exporters such as Germany and Japan. [[China]] has avoided most of the troubles; it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate (8.9% annual rate in 2008-9).

Global governments spent an astonishing $17 trillion to support the world economy in the form of bailouts, guarantees, and equity market purchases. That $17 trillion represents one quarter of global GDP, but only a fraction of that sum will actually be paid out. (How much will not be known afor a few years.) Global investment declined by 15% , and global GDP by shrank by nearly $4 trillion, or an amazing 6%. Global industrial production in the advanced economies dropped a 15%, causing unemployment to soar around the world, nearly doubling in the United States alone.<ref>David Smick, "Now What Do We Do?" November 10, 2009 [http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/DavidSmickSpeechattheColonyClub11.10.09.pdf online] </ref>
[[File:Empl2009.jpg|thumb|400px]]
==Origins==
The recession began in January 2008 in the financial sector as major banks in the U.S. and Europe got into serious trouble by investing in bad mortgages. The crisis spread globally due to the fact that many banks and other business worldwide had invested in these securitized debts. Trouble spread to the [[automobile]] industry, where General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt in spring 2009, due to a decrease in US consumer demand. They remained solvent by an emergency loan proposed by President [[George W. Bush]] over the objections of Congressional [[Republican Party|Republicans]]. Later a [[bailout]] involving a taxpayer buy out and bankruptcy reorganization was authorized by President [[Barack Obama]] and Congressional [[Democrat]]s.

In the U.S. GDP fell in the fourth quarter of 2008 (October-November-December), by 6.2% annual rate, with declines heaviest in business investment, exports, finance, autos, housing, construction, and retail sales.<ref>Three of the four engines of economic growth -- consumer spending, business investment and exports -- declined sharply. Consumer spending fell at an annualized rate of 4.3%; business investment in equipment and software sank at an astonishing annual rate of 29%; exports of goods and services plunged 24%. ''Washington Post'' Feb. 28, 2009 </ref> The steep decline continued; GDP in the first quarter of 2009 (January-February-March) fell at the annualized rate of 6.1%, much worse than expected. American business slashed capital investment at an annual rate of -38%. Investment in software and computer equipment declined by an annualized 33.8%, and investment in new buildings was down 44.2%. On the slightly optimistic side, financial markets that spiralled out of control late last year are stabilizing, and declines in retail sales and orders by manufacturers are no longer posting record declines.<ref>An "annualized rate" is four times the actual quarterly rate. Jack Healy, "U.S. Economy in 2nd Straight Quarter of Steep Decline," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/economy/30econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' April 29, 2009]</ref>

The stock market fell by 50% in 2008, wiping out trillions of dollars in assets. More trillions were lost as housing prices fell by 20%. Adding together the declines in housing and the stock market, the net worth of American households declined from $63.7 trillion in January 2008 to $51.5 trillion in January 2009, a decline of $11.2 trillion or 18%. That is, Americans owned $11 trillion less wealth, and adjusted by buying less and investing less. Meanwhile mortgages and credit-card debt together reached $13 trillion, or 123% of after-tax income, a huge jump since 1995, when it was 83% of income.<ref> see [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123687371369308675.html?mod=djemalertNEWS S. Mitra Kalita, "Americans See 18% of Wealth Vanish," ''Wall Street Journal'' Mar. 13, 2009]</ref>

Bankruptcies among small businesses soared from 206 a day in Dec. 2007 to 357 a day in March 2009. In April, 2009, came the largest real estate bankruptcy in history, as General Growth, which owns and manages more than 200 malls, proved unable to handle its crushing $27 billion debt load. The debt was created by heavy borrowing in optimistic days to build new new malls.

Wealth levels plunged worldwide. Stock markets in other major countries fell even faster than the U.S. Most companies worldwide reported reduced sales and sharply reduced profits, as banks refused to lend and consumers refused to spend, fearing the worst.

A series of emergency measures enacted by the Federal Reserve (on its own authority) and Congress after heavy prodding by presidents Bush and Obama resulted in trillions of dollars in loans, banking bailouts and guarantees, a half-trillion new stimulus spending and a third of a trillion in tax cuts, but by mid-March 2009 the outlook remained bleak as the economy continued downward. Therefore the Federal Reserve announced yet another trillion dollar plan on March 18, this one to buy $300 billion in Treasury bonds, and $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities. The idea was to keep mortgage rates low in the hope people will start buying houses again, but the problem is that the prices are falling, so that if a person buys a $500,000 house today it will be worth $400,000 in a year, despite the Fed's intervention.

In the first quarter of 2009 (January 1 to March 30), GDP fell sharply in major countries compared to the fourth quarter of 2008. In the US GDP was down 6.3%.

Major export countries have seen their markets shrink. Exports from Japan were down 41% (quarter one 2009 versus 2008), Germany 32%, China 20% and U.S. 22%.

Major countries are experimenting with Keynesian stimulus packages, including the US ($787 billion), Europe (EU, $634 billion), China ($586 billion), and Japan ($486 billion), but so far no positive results have been reported. Central banks (such as the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) have cut interest rates to nearly zero, but few are borrowing money.

==Indicators down==
Oil, metal and grain (rice, wheat, corn) prices, after hitting record levels in the summer of 2008, have plunged. Oil went from $145 a barrel to $42.

Retail sales in the U.S. and worldwide are in a major slump, with the slowest Christmas shopping season in decades. American manufacturing contracted in November 2008 at the steepest rate in 26 years. The U.S. lost some 2.6 million jobs in 2008, the worst record since the end of World War II, Factory indexes in China, Britain, Europe, and Russia all fell to record lows.

In January 2009 the downturn worsened, as major companies and small firms announced round after round of layoffs and postponement of expansion plans. The financial sector worsened sharply in January, indicating the the huge financial bailouts of 2008 were not enough. The steep slide continued as unsold goods piled up. The GDP (gross domestic product) shrank at a -6.2% annual rate in the fourth quarter (last three months) of 2008, the sharpest contraction in 26 years.<ref>Jack Healy And Louis Uchitelle, "Steep Slide in U.S. Economy as Unsold Goods Pile Up," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/economy/31econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Jan. 30, 2009]</ref>

Meanwhile, at the urging of the [[Obama Administration]], Congress passed a $789 billion stimulus package, combining new spending and tax cuts, in the hopes of turning the economy around by mid-2009. Republicans were nearly unanimous against the proposal, as their smaller package was voted down. Canada, although not as hard hit as the U.S., is preparing its own stimulus package.
*see also [[Economic stimulus package]]

Economists from all political viewpoints predict the slide in GDP is likely to continue at an alarming pace well into summer 2009 as consumers continue to curtail spending and businesses reduce their capital investments and cut their payrolls.
==Income and Wealth==
Wealth holding took a heavy blow. Incomes were down too, but not as dramatically.

[[File:Pers-income.jpg|thumb|400px|Personal income; change from previous year]]
===Money===
In terms of a monetary explanation, there is far more money around, thanks to the stimulus programs of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress. However the velocity is down to the lowest rate since 1991. That is, people and business are saving and not spending. Banks are not lending. The nation’s banks in March 2009 had reserves of $679 billion, up from only $45 billion in August 2008. Individuals are keeping their cash in the banks, or paying off credit cards and debts, and not buying new merchandise. The goal of federal stimulus spending is to get new spending going, to create jobs and keep businesses from slowing down. If people do start spending again all the extra money will cause inflation, but in that case the Federal Reserve plans to reduce the money supply and, hopefully, restore normalcy and prosperity.<ref> Mark Gongloff, “Best Check on Inflation: Broken Banks,” ’’Wall Street Journal,’’ Mar. 20, 2009</ref>

==US==
The longest economic slumps since 1945 were the 16-month downturns that ended in March 1975 and November 1982. The [[Great Depression]] lasted 43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933.

"This may be referred to as the Great Recession," because of its length, said Norbert Ore, chairman of the Institute for Supply Management’s factory survey. "It looked like we were headed for a shallow recession earlier in the year because of higher energy prices. With the meltdown in the financial sector, it has become something more serious."<ref>see [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar0v6PP3HCpk&refer=home Steve Matthews and Timothy R. Homan, "U.S. May Be in for ‘Great Recession,’" ''Bloomberg News'' Dec 2, 2008]</ref>
[[File:Housing$.jpg|thumb|340px]]
===Housing===
see [[Housing]]

The construction of new housing and commercial buildings has fallen off; many commercial buildings and shopping centers have high vacancy rates and may be hard pressed to pay their debts. Housing prices continue low--falling from an average of $255,000 to $180,000, as millions of empty houses are a drag on the market. Indeed much of the housing activity in 2009 involved sales of foreclosed properties at distress prices.
[[File:Constr1.jpg|thumb|400px|Construction spending--change from previous year]]

===Auto sector===
The automobile industry is in desperate crisis, with General Motors and Chrysler, and numerous parts suppliers, on the verge of bankruptcy. Ford is in better shape as are the "transplants" like Toyota and Honda that have factories in the U.S. If GM shuts down, however, many parts suppliers will also shut, forcing the end of most US auto production. Autos will still be imported, though at much higher prices. GM and Chrysler were given $17 billion TARP funds in December on condition they present a turnaround plan by Feb. 17, 2009. In its plan GM will ask for access to an additional $16.6 billion in federal aid; otherwise will run out of money by March 2009. GM also said it would close 14 U.S. plants, and cut 47,000 global hourly, salaried jobs. Bankruptcy, GM claimed, could cost the federal government the loss of tax revenue and the loss of 1.3 million jobs across the US, as plants and dealers close down operation.<ref>. For the GM plan see [http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/agreements/auto-reports/GMRestructuringPlan.pdf GM Plan of Feb 17, 2009]</ref>
[[Image:U-2009-2.jpg|thumb|275px|left]]

In March 2009 GM reported that its auditors have raised substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern, citing recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and an inability to generate enough cash to meet its obligations. GM has received $13.4 billion in federal loans, and the company is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has run up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008. Bankruptcy took place June 1, 2009.

===Unemployment===
[[Image:U-county-09feb.jpg|thumb|450px]]

After reaching a low of 4.1% in October, 2006, the U.S. [[unemployment]] rate has been trending upward, reaching 9.4% in May 2009. Analysts from the National Bureau of Economic research say that the current nation-wide recession began over a year ago; the economy peaked in December, 2007. This recession is expected to continue into 2010. Unemployment reached 6.5% in November 2008. Unemployment has already reached 10% and higher in half the country.

[[Image:U-states-08.jpg|thumb|380px]]

==Worldwide crisis==
The crisis is worse in many other countries, which means they are dragging down the US economy and cannot be expected to be the engine to restore prosperity. Japan’s economy, the world’s second largest after the U.S., is deteriorating rapidly because of shrinking exports and weak domestic spending. Japan's GDP shrank at an annual rate of 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the downward plunge shows no sign of reversal.
[[Image:Bleak09.jpg|550px]]
Japan's exports to the U.S. and other areas are down sharply, causing massive layoffs at companies like Nissan, Toyota, Panasonic and Sony. Capital spending on tools and factories has fallen as companies halted production lines and cut investment. Consumer spending has stalled as Japanese households reduced spending amid the large-scale layoffs. The government has promised a huge bailout package on the order of 50 trillion yen ($545 billion), but has been unable to get it passed in parliament.<ref>Hiroku Tabuschi, "Japan’s Economy Plunges at Fastest Pace Since ’74," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/worldbusiness/16yen.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 15, 2009] </ref>

The economies in Europe and Russia are headed down, as are most third world countries. Eastern Europe is very hard hit, as is Ireland and Iceland. Economic growth in China continues at a much lower pace than usual, throwing tens of millions out of work there. The oil producing nations have seen their revenues plunge with the decline of oil prices.
==U.S. Politics==
The Obama Administration has been basing its domestic policies on the assumption that the stimulus package passed in February, 2009, will turn around the economy. The stimulus money has been spent slowly and little impact is visible by October. The Treasury assumes that the tax revenue will be there to fund permanent new spending program in areas such as health care and greening the economy. It assumes that the rich will recover enough of their investments to pay new taxes--right now tax collections are falling sharply as investments turn sour. The deficit for fiscal 2009 (which began Oct. 1 2008 and ended Sept. 20, 2009, covering both Bush and Obama terms) is an astonishing $1.4 trillion, or 10% of GDP.

Obama's policies are delaying and retarding the inevitable economic recovery, keeping unemployment high even though the recession Obama inherited was similar to others in the past that gave way to rapid recoveries.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624711732528426.html</ref>
==Economists==
The vast majority of the world's economists and economic forecasters--whether liberal or conservative--were caught unawares by the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Nearly all misjudged the depth of the economic downturn; they were baffled by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn. They could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and return to recovery. By 2010, most economists are in general agreement with the Obama administration's Keynesian strategy. However, some say the government is not doing enough and is too cozy with the bankers, while others say that it is doing too much and warn about dangerous long-term consequences. There is no professional consensus on the details of what should be done to end the downturn, speed recovery, or prevent a recurrence.

==See also==
*[[Recovery Summer]]

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Recession of 2008

2011-06-09T19:53:36Z

JanW: links

The '''Recession of 2008''' (also called the '''Recession of the late 2000's''' or the '''Great Recession''') is a major worldwide economic downturn that began in 2008 and continued into 2010. It was caused by the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]; it is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It appears the worldwide recession hit bottom around September 2009; however there are few signs that the American or world economies have started to move upward again. [[Greece]], [[Portugal]] and [[Ireland]] remain in serious trouble, while China and Brazil have rebounded and are growing rapidly. Concerning the United States economy, proponents of [[free market]] capitalism declare that [[Federal Reserve]] Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention merely drags out recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTXaAXusiI</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref> A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref>

Likewise in the U.S. the economy has stabilized but has not shown signs of recovery, apart from the stock market going up. Serious weaknesses continue in housing, commercial real estate, banking, automobiles, and retail trade. [[Unemployment]] continues to worsen, reaching 10.2% in October, 2009 and slipping to 10.0% in November, with conditions especially poor in California, Michigan and South Carolina.

The crisis is worldwide, with major impact in [[Britain]], Europe (that is the "European Union" or EU), [[Russia]], [[Japan]], the oil countries of the Middle East, and the Third World. The economy of the EU (Europe) will shrink by 4% in 2009, with unemployment reaching 10%. Ireland, Iceland and parts of Eastern Europe are hardest hit. Britain was hit hard with its major banks in deep trouble. Recovery in Britain has been slow; its GDP fell 5.2% from 3Q 2008 to 3Q 2009.<ref>3Q is the third quarter, or the months of July, August and September.</ref>

Global trade declined sharply--by 13% from August 20008 to August 2009, hurting exporters such as Germany and Japan. [[China]] has avoided most of the troubles; it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate (8.9% annual rate in 2008-9).

Global governments spent an astonishing $17 trillion to support the world economy in the form of bailouts, guarantees, and equity market purchases. That $17 trillion represents one quarter of global GDP, but only a fraction of that sum will actually be paid out. (How much will not be known afor a few years.) Global investment declined by 15% , and global GDP by shrank by nearly $4 trillion, or an amazing 6%. Global industrial production in the advanced economies dropped a 15%, causing unemployment to soar around the world, nearly doubling in the United States alone.<ref>David Smick, "Now What Do We Do?" November 10, 2009 [http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/DavidSmickSpeechattheColonyClub11.10.09.pdf online] </ref>
[[File:Empl2009.jpg|thumb|400px]]
==Origins==
The recession began in January 2008 in the financial sector as major banks in the U.S. and Europe got into serious trouble by investing in bad mortgages. The crisis spread globally due to the fact that many banks and other business worldwide had invested in these securitized debts. Trouble spread to the [[automobile]] industry, where General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt in spring 2009, due to a decrease in US consumer demand. They remained solvent by an emergency loan proposed by President [[George W. Bush]] over the objections of Congressional [[Republican Party|Republicans]]. Later a [[bailout]] involving a taxpayer buy out and bankruptcy reorganization was authorized by President [[Barack Obama]] and Congressional [[Democrat]]s.

In the U.S. GDP fell in the fourth quarter of 2008 (October-November-December), by 6.2% annual rate, with declines heaviest in business investment, exports, finance, autos, housing, construction, and retail sales.<ref>Three of the four engines of economic growth -- consumer spending, business investment and exports -- declined sharply. Consumer spending fell at an annualized rate of 4.3%; business investment in equipment and software sank at an astonishing annual rate of 29%; exports of goods and services plunged 24%. ''Washington Post'' Feb. 28, 2009 </ref> The steep decline continued; GDP in the first quarter of 2009 (January-February-March) fell at the annualized rate of 6.1%, much worse than expected. American business slashed capital investment at an annual rate of -38%. Investment in software and computer equipment declined by an annualized 33.8%, and investment in new buildings was down 44.2%. On the slightly optimistic side, financial markets that spiralled out of control late last year are stabilizing, and declines in retail sales and orders by manufacturers are no longer posting record declines.<ref>An "annualized rate" is four times the actual quarterly rate. Jack Healy, "U.S. Economy in 2nd Straight Quarter of Steep Decline," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/economy/30econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' April 29, 2009]</ref>

The stock market fell by 50% in 2008, wiping out trillions of dollars in assets. More trillions were lost as housing prices fell by 20%. Adding together the declines in housing and the stock market, the net worth of American households declined from $63.7 trillion in January 2008 to $51.5 trillion in January 2009, a decline of $11.2 trillion or 18%. That is, Americans owned $11 trillion less wealth, and adjusted by buying less and investing less. Meanwhile mortgages and credit-card debt together reached $13 trillion, or 123% of after-tax income, a huge jump since 1995, when it was 83% of income.<ref> see [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123687371369308675.html?mod=djemalertNEWS S. Mitra Kalita, "Americans See 18% of Wealth Vanish," ''Wall Street Journal'' Mar. 13, 2009]</ref>

Bankruptcies among small businesses soared from 206 a day in Dec. 2007 to 357 a day in March 2009. In April, 2009, came the largest real estate bankruptcy in history, as General Growth, which owns and manages more than 200 malls, proved unable to handle its crushing $27 billion debt load. The debt was created by heavy borrowing in optimistic days to build new new malls.

Wealth levels plunged worldwide. Stock markets in other major countries fell even faster than the U.S. Most companies worldwide reported reduced sales and sharply reduced profits, as banks refused to lend and consumers refused to spend, fearing the worst.

A series of emergency measures enacted by the Federal Reserve (on its own authority) and Congress after heavy prodding by presidents Bush and Obama resulted in trillions of dollars in loans, banking bailouts and guarantees, a half-trillion new stimulus spending and a third of a trillion in tax cuts, but by mid-March 2009 the outlook remained bleak as the economy continued downward. Therefore the Federal Reserve announced yet another trillion dollar plan on March 18, this one to buy $300 billion in Treasury bonds, and $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities. The idea was to keep mortgage rates low in the hope people will start buying houses again, but the problem is that the prices are falling, so that if a person buys a $500,000 house today it will be worth $400,000 in a year, despite the Fed's intervention.

In the first quarter of 2009 (January 1 to March 30), GDP fell sharply in major countries compared to the fourth quarter of 2008. In the US GDP was down 6.3%.

Major export countries have seen their markets shrink. Exports from Japan were down 41% (quarter one 2009 versus 2008), Germany 32%, China 20% and U.S. 22%.

Major countries are experimenting with Keynesian stimulus packages, including the US ($787 billion), Europe (EU, $634 billion), China ($586 billion), and Japan ($486 billion), but so far no positive results have been reported. Central banks (such as the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) have cut interest rates to nearly zero, but few are borrowing money.

==Indicators down==
Oil, metal and grain (rice, wheat, corn) prices, after hitting record levels in the summer of 2008, have plunged. Oil went from $145 a barrel to $42.

Retail sales in the U.S. and worldwide are in a major slump, with the slowest Christmas shopping season in decades. American manufacturing contracted in November 2008 at the steepest rate in 26 years. The U.S. lost some 2.6 million jobs in 2008, the worst record since the end of World War II, Factory indexes in China, Britain, Europe, and Russia all fell to record lows.

In January 2009 the downturn worsened, as major companies and small firms announced round after round of layoffs and postponement of expansion plans. The financial sector worsened sharply in January, indicating the the huge financial bailouts of 2008 were not enough. The steep slide continued as unsold goods piled up. The GDP (gross domestic product) shrank at a -6.2% annual rate in the fourth quarter (last three months) of 2008, the sharpest contraction in 26 years.<ref>Jack Healy And Louis Uchitelle, "Steep Slide in U.S. Economy as Unsold Goods Pile Up," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/economy/31econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Jan. 30, 2009]</ref>

Meanwhile, at the urging of the [[Obama Administration]], Congress passed a $789 billion stimulus package, combining new spending and tax cuts, in the hopes of turning the economy around by mid-2009. Republicans were nearly unanimous against the proposal, as their smaller package was voted down. Canada, although not as hard hit as the U.S., is preparing its own stimulus package.
*see also [[Economic stimulus package]]

Economists from all political viewpoints predict the slide in GDP is likely to continue at an alarming pace well into summer 2009 as consumers continue to curtail spending and businesses reduce their capital investments and cut their payrolls.
==Income and Wealth==
Wealth holding took a heavy blow. Incomes were down too, but not as dramatically.

[[File:Pers-income.jpg|thumb|400px|Personal income; change from previous year]]
===Money===
In terms of a monetary explanation, there is far more money around, thanks to the stimulus programs of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress. However the velocity is down to the lowest rate since 1991. That is, people and business are saving and not spending. Banks are not lending. The nation’s banks in March 2009 had reserves of $679 billion, up from only $45 billion in August 2008. Individuals are keeping their cash in the banks, or paying off credit cards and debts, and not buying new merchandise. The goal of federal stimulus spending is to get new spending going, to create jobs and keep businesses from slowing down. If people do start spending again all the extra money will cause inflation, but in that case the Federal Reserve plans to reduce the money supply and, hopefully, restore normalcy and prosperity.<ref> Mark Gongloff, “Best Check on Inflation: Broken Banks,” ’’Wall Street Journal,’’ Mar. 20, 2009</ref>

==US==
The longest economic slumps since 1945 were the 16-month downturns that ended in March 1975 and November 1982. The [[Great Depression]] lasted 43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933.

"This may be referred to as the Great Recession," because of its length, said Norbert Ore, chairman of the Institute for Supply Management’s factory survey. "It looked like we were headed for a shallow recession earlier in the year because of higher energy prices. With the meltdown in the financial sector, it has become something more serious."<ref>see [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar0v6PP3HCpk&refer=home Steve Matthews and Timothy R. Homan, "U.S. May Be in for ‘Great Recession,’" ''Bloomberg News'' Dec 2, 2008]</ref>
[[File:Housing$.jpg|thumb|340px]]
===Housing===
see [[Housing]]

The construction of new housing and commercial buildings has fallen off; many commercial buildings and shopping centers have high vacancy rates and may be hard pressed to pay their debts. Housing prices continue low--falling from an average of $255,000 to $180,000, as millions of empty houses are a drag on the market. Indeed much of the housing activity in 2009 involved sales of foreclosed properties at distress prices.
[[File:Constr1.jpg|thumb|400px|Construction spending--change from previous year]]

===Auto sector===
The automobile industry is in desperate crisis, with General Motors and Chrysler, and numerous parts suppliers, on the verge of bankruptcy. Ford is in better shape as are the "transplants" like Toyota and Honda that have factories in the U.S. If GM shuts down, however, many parts suppliers will also shut, forcing the end of most US auto production. Autos will still be imported, though at much higher prices. GM and Chrysler were given $17 billion TARP funds in December on condition they present a turnaround plan by Feb. 17, 2009. In its plan GM will ask for access to an additional $16.6 billion in federal aid; otherwise will run out of money by March 2009. GM also said it would close 14 U.S. plants, and cut 47,000 global hourly, salaried jobs. Bankruptcy, GM claimed, could cost the federal government the loss of tax revenue and the loss of 1.3 million jobs across the US, as plants and dealers close down operation.<ref>. For the GM plan see [http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/agreements/auto-reports/GMRestructuringPlan.pdf GM Plan of Feb 17, 2009]</ref>
[[Image:U-2009-2.jpg|thumb|275px|left]]

In March 2009 GM reported that its auditors have raised substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern, citing recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and an inability to generate enough cash to meet its obligations. GM has received $13.4 billion in federal loans, and the company is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has run up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008. Bankruptcy took place June 1, 2009.

===Unemployment===
[[Image:U-county-09feb.jpg|thumb|450px]]

After reaching a low of 4.1% in October, 2006, the U.S. [[unemployment]] rate has been trending upward, reaching 9.4% in May 2009. Analysts from the National Bureau of Economic research say that the current nation-wide recession began over a year ago; the economy peaked in December, 2007. This recession is expected to continue into 2010. Unemployment reached 6.5% in November 2008. Unemployment has already reached 10% and higher in half the country.

[[Image:U-states-08.jpg|thumb|380px]]

==Worldwide crisis==
The crisis is worse in many other countries, which means they are dragging down the US economy and cannot be expected to be the engine to restore prosperity. Japan’s economy, the world’s second largest after the U.S., is deteriorating rapidly because of shrinking exports and weak domestic spending. Japan's GDP shrank at an annual rate of 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the downward plunge shows no sign of reversal.
[[Image:Bleak09.jpg|550px]]
Japan's exports to the U.S. and other areas are down sharply, causing massive layoffs at companies like Nissan, Toyota, Panasonic and Sony. Capital spending on tools and factories has fallen as companies halted production lines and cut investment. Consumer spending has stalled as Japanese households reduced spending amid the large-scale layoffs. The government has promised a huge bailout package on the order of 50 trillion yen ($545 billion), but has been unable to get it passed in parliament.<ref>Hiroku Tabuschi, "Japan’s Economy Plunges at Fastest Pace Since ’74," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/worldbusiness/16yen.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 15, 2009] </ref>

The economies in Europe and Russia are headed down, as are most third world countries. Eastern Europe is very hard hit, as is Ireland and Iceland. Economic growth in China continues at a much lower pace than usual, throwing tens of millions out of work there. The oil producing nations have seen their revenues plunge with the decline of oil prices.
==U.S. Politics==
The Obama Administration has been basing its domestic policies on the assumption that the stimulus package passed in February, 2009, will turn around the economy. The stimulus money has been spent slowly and little impact is visible by October. The Treasury assumes that the tax revenue will be there to fund permanent new spending program in areas such as health care and greening the economy. It assumes that the rich will recover enough of their investments to pay new taxes--right now tax collections are falling sharply as investments turn sour. The deficit for fiscal 2009 (which began Oct. 1 2008 and ended Sept. 20, 2009, covering both Bush and Obama terms) is an astonishing $1.4 trillion, or 10% of GDP.

Obama's policies are delaying and retarding the inevitable economic recovery, keeping unemployment high even though the recession Obama inherited was similar to others in the past that gave way to rapid recoveries.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624711732528426.html</ref>
==Economists==
The vast majority of the world's economists and economic forecasters--whether liberal or conservative--were caught unawares by the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Nearly all misjudged the depth of the economic downturn; they were baffled by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn. They could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and return to recovery. By 2010, most economists are in general agreement with the Obama administration's Keynesian strategy. However, some say the government is not doing enough and is too cozy with the bankers, while others say that it is doing too much and warn about dangerous long-term consequences. There is no professional consensus on the details of what should be done to end the downturn, speed recovery, or prevent a recurrence.

==See also==
*[[Recovery Summer]]

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Recession of 2008

2011-06-09T19:53:00Z

JanW: Britain and Spain not in so much trouble any longer, focus now elsewhere

The '''Recession of 2008''' (also called the '''Recession of the late 2000's''' or the '''Great Recession''') is a major worldwide economic downturn that began in 2008 and continued into 2010. It was caused by the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]; it is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It appears the worldwide recession hit bottom around September 2009; however there are few signs that the American or world economies have started to move upward again. Greece, Portugal and Ireland remain in serious trouble, while China and Brazil have rebounded and are growing rapidly. Concerning the United States economy, proponents of [[free market]] capitalism declare that [[Federal Reserve]] Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention merely drags out recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzTXaAXusiI</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref> A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref>

Likewise in the U.S. the economy has stabilized but has not shown signs of recovery, apart from the stock market going up. Serious weaknesses continue in housing, commercial real estate, banking, automobiles, and retail trade. [[Unemployment]] continues to worsen, reaching 10.2% in October, 2009 and slipping to 10.0% in November, with conditions especially poor in California, Michigan and South Carolina.

The crisis is worldwide, with major impact in [[Britain]], Europe (that is the "European Union" or EU), [[Russia]], [[Japan]], the oil countries of the Middle East, and the Third World. The economy of the EU (Europe) will shrink by 4% in 2009, with unemployment reaching 10%. Ireland, Iceland and parts of Eastern Europe are hardest hit. Britain was hit hard with its major banks in deep trouble. Recovery in Britain has been slow; its GDP fell 5.2% from 3Q 2008 to 3Q 2009.<ref>3Q is the third quarter, or the months of July, August and September.</ref>

Global trade declined sharply--by 13% from August 20008 to August 2009, hurting exporters such as Germany and Japan. [[China]] has avoided most of the troubles; it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate (8.9% annual rate in 2008-9).

Global governments spent an astonishing $17 trillion to support the world economy in the form of bailouts, guarantees, and equity market purchases. That $17 trillion represents one quarter of global GDP, but only a fraction of that sum will actually be paid out. (How much will not be known afor a few years.) Global investment declined by 15% , and global GDP by shrank by nearly $4 trillion, or an amazing 6%. Global industrial production in the advanced economies dropped a 15%, causing unemployment to soar around the world, nearly doubling in the United States alone.<ref>David Smick, "Now What Do We Do?" November 10, 2009 [http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/DavidSmickSpeechattheColonyClub11.10.09.pdf online] </ref>
[[File:Empl2009.jpg|thumb|400px]]
==Origins==
The recession began in January 2008 in the financial sector as major banks in the U.S. and Europe got into serious trouble by investing in bad mortgages. The crisis spread globally due to the fact that many banks and other business worldwide had invested in these securitized debts. Trouble spread to the [[automobile]] industry, where General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt in spring 2009, due to a decrease in US consumer demand. They remained solvent by an emergency loan proposed by President [[George W. Bush]] over the objections of Congressional [[Republican Party|Republicans]]. Later a [[bailout]] involving a taxpayer buy out and bankruptcy reorganization was authorized by President [[Barack Obama]] and Congressional [[Democrat]]s.

In the U.S. GDP fell in the fourth quarter of 2008 (October-November-December), by 6.2% annual rate, with declines heaviest in business investment, exports, finance, autos, housing, construction, and retail sales.<ref>Three of the four engines of economic growth -- consumer spending, business investment and exports -- declined sharply. Consumer spending fell at an annualized rate of 4.3%; business investment in equipment and software sank at an astonishing annual rate of 29%; exports of goods and services plunged 24%. ''Washington Post'' Feb. 28, 2009 </ref> The steep decline continued; GDP in the first quarter of 2009 (January-February-March) fell at the annualized rate of 6.1%, much worse than expected. American business slashed capital investment at an annual rate of -38%. Investment in software and computer equipment declined by an annualized 33.8%, and investment in new buildings was down 44.2%. On the slightly optimistic side, financial markets that spiralled out of control late last year are stabilizing, and declines in retail sales and orders by manufacturers are no longer posting record declines.<ref>An "annualized rate" is four times the actual quarterly rate. Jack Healy, "U.S. Economy in 2nd Straight Quarter of Steep Decline," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/business/economy/30econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' April 29, 2009]</ref>

The stock market fell by 50% in 2008, wiping out trillions of dollars in assets. More trillions were lost as housing prices fell by 20%. Adding together the declines in housing and the stock market, the net worth of American households declined from $63.7 trillion in January 2008 to $51.5 trillion in January 2009, a decline of $11.2 trillion or 18%. That is, Americans owned $11 trillion less wealth, and adjusted by buying less and investing less. Meanwhile mortgages and credit-card debt together reached $13 trillion, or 123% of after-tax income, a huge jump since 1995, when it was 83% of income.<ref> see [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123687371369308675.html?mod=djemalertNEWS S. Mitra Kalita, "Americans See 18% of Wealth Vanish," ''Wall Street Journal'' Mar. 13, 2009]</ref>

Bankruptcies among small businesses soared from 206 a day in Dec. 2007 to 357 a day in March 2009. In April, 2009, came the largest real estate bankruptcy in history, as General Growth, which owns and manages more than 200 malls, proved unable to handle its crushing $27 billion debt load. The debt was created by heavy borrowing in optimistic days to build new new malls.

Wealth levels plunged worldwide. Stock markets in other major countries fell even faster than the U.S. Most companies worldwide reported reduced sales and sharply reduced profits, as banks refused to lend and consumers refused to spend, fearing the worst.

A series of emergency measures enacted by the Federal Reserve (on its own authority) and Congress after heavy prodding by presidents Bush and Obama resulted in trillions of dollars in loans, banking bailouts and guarantees, a half-trillion new stimulus spending and a third of a trillion in tax cuts, but by mid-March 2009 the outlook remained bleak as the economy continued downward. Therefore the Federal Reserve announced yet another trillion dollar plan on March 18, this one to buy $300 billion in Treasury bonds, and $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities. The idea was to keep mortgage rates low in the hope people will start buying houses again, but the problem is that the prices are falling, so that if a person buys a $500,000 house today it will be worth $400,000 in a year, despite the Fed's intervention.

In the first quarter of 2009 (January 1 to March 30), GDP fell sharply in major countries compared to the fourth quarter of 2008. In the US GDP was down 6.3%.

Major export countries have seen their markets shrink. Exports from Japan were down 41% (quarter one 2009 versus 2008), Germany 32%, China 20% and U.S. 22%.

Major countries are experimenting with Keynesian stimulus packages, including the US ($787 billion), Europe (EU, $634 billion), China ($586 billion), and Japan ($486 billion), but so far no positive results have been reported. Central banks (such as the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) have cut interest rates to nearly zero, but few are borrowing money.

==Indicators down==
Oil, metal and grain (rice, wheat, corn) prices, after hitting record levels in the summer of 2008, have plunged. Oil went from $145 a barrel to $42.

Retail sales in the U.S. and worldwide are in a major slump, with the slowest Christmas shopping season in decades. American manufacturing contracted in November 2008 at the steepest rate in 26 years. The U.S. lost some 2.6 million jobs in 2008, the worst record since the end of World War II, Factory indexes in China, Britain, Europe, and Russia all fell to record lows.

In January 2009 the downturn worsened, as major companies and small firms announced round after round of layoffs and postponement of expansion plans. The financial sector worsened sharply in January, indicating the the huge financial bailouts of 2008 were not enough. The steep slide continued as unsold goods piled up. The GDP (gross domestic product) shrank at a -6.2% annual rate in the fourth quarter (last three months) of 2008, the sharpest contraction in 26 years.<ref>Jack Healy And Louis Uchitelle, "Steep Slide in U.S. Economy as Unsold Goods Pile Up," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/economy/31econ.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Jan. 30, 2009]</ref>

Meanwhile, at the urging of the [[Obama Administration]], Congress passed a $789 billion stimulus package, combining new spending and tax cuts, in the hopes of turning the economy around by mid-2009. Republicans were nearly unanimous against the proposal, as their smaller package was voted down. Canada, although not as hard hit as the U.S., is preparing its own stimulus package.
*see also [[Economic stimulus package]]

Economists from all political viewpoints predict the slide in GDP is likely to continue at an alarming pace well into summer 2009 as consumers continue to curtail spending and businesses reduce their capital investments and cut their payrolls.
==Income and Wealth==
Wealth holding took a heavy blow. Incomes were down too, but not as dramatically.

[[File:Pers-income.jpg|thumb|400px|Personal income; change from previous year]]
===Money===
In terms of a monetary explanation, there is far more money around, thanks to the stimulus programs of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress. However the velocity is down to the lowest rate since 1991. That is, people and business are saving and not spending. Banks are not lending. The nation’s banks in March 2009 had reserves of $679 billion, up from only $45 billion in August 2008. Individuals are keeping their cash in the banks, or paying off credit cards and debts, and not buying new merchandise. The goal of federal stimulus spending is to get new spending going, to create jobs and keep businesses from slowing down. If people do start spending again all the extra money will cause inflation, but in that case the Federal Reserve plans to reduce the money supply and, hopefully, restore normalcy and prosperity.<ref> Mark Gongloff, “Best Check on Inflation: Broken Banks,” ’’Wall Street Journal,’’ Mar. 20, 2009</ref>

==US==
The longest economic slumps since 1945 were the 16-month downturns that ended in March 1975 and November 1982. The [[Great Depression]] lasted 43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933.

"This may be referred to as the Great Recession," because of its length, said Norbert Ore, chairman of the Institute for Supply Management’s factory survey. "It looked like we were headed for a shallow recession earlier in the year because of higher energy prices. With the meltdown in the financial sector, it has become something more serious."<ref>see [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar0v6PP3HCpk&refer=home Steve Matthews and Timothy R. Homan, "U.S. May Be in for ‘Great Recession,’" ''Bloomberg News'' Dec 2, 2008]</ref>
[[File:Housing$.jpg|thumb|340px]]
===Housing===
see [[Housing]]

The construction of new housing and commercial buildings has fallen off; many commercial buildings and shopping centers have high vacancy rates and may be hard pressed to pay their debts. Housing prices continue low--falling from an average of $255,000 to $180,000, as millions of empty houses are a drag on the market. Indeed much of the housing activity in 2009 involved sales of foreclosed properties at distress prices.
[[File:Constr1.jpg|thumb|400px|Construction spending--change from previous year]]

===Auto sector===
The automobile industry is in desperate crisis, with General Motors and Chrysler, and numerous parts suppliers, on the verge of bankruptcy. Ford is in better shape as are the "transplants" like Toyota and Honda that have factories in the U.S. If GM shuts down, however, many parts suppliers will also shut, forcing the end of most US auto production. Autos will still be imported, though at much higher prices. GM and Chrysler were given $17 billion TARP funds in December on condition they present a turnaround plan by Feb. 17, 2009. In its plan GM will ask for access to an additional $16.6 billion in federal aid; otherwise will run out of money by March 2009. GM also said it would close 14 U.S. plants, and cut 47,000 global hourly, salaried jobs. Bankruptcy, GM claimed, could cost the federal government the loss of tax revenue and the loss of 1.3 million jobs across the US, as plants and dealers close down operation.<ref>. For the GM plan see [http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/agreements/auto-reports/GMRestructuringPlan.pdf GM Plan of Feb 17, 2009]</ref>
[[Image:U-2009-2.jpg|thumb|275px|left]]

In March 2009 GM reported that its auditors have raised substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern, citing recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and an inability to generate enough cash to meet its obligations. GM has received $13.4 billion in federal loans, and the company is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has run up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008. Bankruptcy took place June 1, 2009.

===Unemployment===
[[Image:U-county-09feb.jpg|thumb|450px]]

After reaching a low of 4.1% in October, 2006, the U.S. [[unemployment]] rate has been trending upward, reaching 9.4% in May 2009. Analysts from the National Bureau of Economic research say that the current nation-wide recession began over a year ago; the economy peaked in December, 2007. This recession is expected to continue into 2010. Unemployment reached 6.5% in November 2008. Unemployment has already reached 10% and higher in half the country.

[[Image:U-states-08.jpg|thumb|380px]]

==Worldwide crisis==
The crisis is worse in many other countries, which means they are dragging down the US economy and cannot be expected to be the engine to restore prosperity. Japan’s economy, the world’s second largest after the U.S., is deteriorating rapidly because of shrinking exports and weak domestic spending. Japan's GDP shrank at an annual rate of 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the downward plunge shows no sign of reversal.
[[Image:Bleak09.jpg|550px]]
Japan's exports to the U.S. and other areas are down sharply, causing massive layoffs at companies like Nissan, Toyota, Panasonic and Sony. Capital spending on tools and factories has fallen as companies halted production lines and cut investment. Consumer spending has stalled as Japanese households reduced spending amid the large-scale layoffs. The government has promised a huge bailout package on the order of 50 trillion yen ($545 billion), but has been unable to get it passed in parliament.<ref>Hiroku Tabuschi, "Japan’s Economy Plunges at Fastest Pace Since ’74," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/worldbusiness/16yen.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 15, 2009] </ref>

The economies in Europe and Russia are headed down, as are most third world countries. Eastern Europe is very hard hit, as is Ireland and Iceland. Economic growth in China continues at a much lower pace than usual, throwing tens of millions out of work there. The oil producing nations have seen their revenues plunge with the decline of oil prices.
==U.S. Politics==
The Obama Administration has been basing its domestic policies on the assumption that the stimulus package passed in February, 2009, will turn around the economy. The stimulus money has been spent slowly and little impact is visible by October. The Treasury assumes that the tax revenue will be there to fund permanent new spending program in areas such as health care and greening the economy. It assumes that the rich will recover enough of their investments to pay new taxes--right now tax collections are falling sharply as investments turn sour. The deficit for fiscal 2009 (which began Oct. 1 2008 and ended Sept. 20, 2009, covering both Bush and Obama terms) is an astonishing $1.4 trillion, or 10% of GDP.

Obama's policies are delaying and retarding the inevitable economic recovery, keeping unemployment high even though the recession Obama inherited was similar to others in the past that gave way to rapid recoveries.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624711732528426.html</ref>
==Economists==
The vast majority of the world's economists and economic forecasters--whether liberal or conservative--were caught unawares by the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Nearly all misjudged the depth of the economic downturn; they were baffled by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn. They could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and return to recovery. By 2010, most economists are in general agreement with the Obama administration's Keynesian strategy. However, some say the government is not doing enough and is too cozy with the bankers, while others say that it is doing too much and warn about dangerous long-term consequences. There is no professional consensus on the details of what should be done to end the downturn, speed recovery, or prevent a recurrence.

==See also==
*[[Recovery Summer]]

====Notes====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]

Evacuation

2011-06-09T19:49:45Z

JanW:

'''Evacuation''' refers to a massive planned movement of [[population]] from an area perceived as being under threat or for other reasons. Examples include the 2008 evacuation of [[New Orleans]] prior to [[Hurricane Gustav]], and the evacuation during the [[Second World War]] of children from the major cities of [[Britain]]. Following the [[Russo-Finnish War]] of 1939-40 the Finnish population was evacuated from the areas ceded to the [[Soviet Union]]. Other examples would include the evacuation of the people in the areas surrounding the [[Chernobyl]] and [[Fukushima]] nuclear plants.
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Evacuation

2011-06-09T19:41:19Z

JanW: Wanted to add Fukushima but wasn't able to - spam filter or something?

Talk:Essay:Gun Control Case

2011-06-09T19:37:54Z

JanW: Can this article be improved?

This article purports to be an "analysis" of this case, but it has not been updated since it was written in Nov 2007 (I assume, before the case was heard) and does not contain the verdict handed down by the Court. I tried researching the case but neither is there is any information given in the article to do the search with - case number, etc. it's a very incomplete article. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 15:37, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Rick Santorum

2011-06-06T15:15:04Z

JanW: No longer "current"

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views. A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "Santorum Amendment" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to support the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606], Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Rick Santorum

2011-06-06T15:12:06Z

JanW: /* 2012 Presidential Race */

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views. A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "Santorum Amendment" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to support the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Currently Senator Santorum is on a lecture circuit decrying the dangers of terrorism and pointing out the obvious flaws of President Barack Hussein Obama's policy of negotiation with rogue states such as Libya or Iran.

==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606], Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2011-06-03T17:33:44Z

JanW: /* Film */ - add ref.

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Andy Schlafly, I joined this site with the hope of improving the (frankly dismal) articles related to English literature, from a conservative, Christian point-of-view. Considering the lack of such material here, I thought this would be appreciated. However, if such awful generalizations will be made about my major after the actions of a VT student with serious problems in his mind, faith, and family, my only conclusion can be that I was wrong, and you have very negative pre-conceived tendencies against English literature. My edits would therefore have gone unappreciated, and I am disappointed. Enjoy the few embarrassingly incomplete literature articles you do have, and enjoy, of course, your open-mindedness. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:56, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Ckirk, your [[Parthian shot]] illustrates my point well. You criticize me personally while also trying to insult this site, and then announce your grand exit after a mere handful of edits. Of course, I did not criticize "English literature"; rather, the criticism is of the major of English Lit. as it is taught today. May I suggest you consider ranting elsewhere now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." - from the Conservapedia article on [[last wordism]]. If you think I left, why direct a comment at me other than to obtain the "last word" here? I only say this because I think you could learn a lot if you adopted conservative principles. You seem to have more in common with radical liberals than with true conservatives. Somehow I think you know that to be true. Now please block me. I've wasted enough of my time here. And don't forget to add the last word. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 23:28, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to rant rather than produce. Please find a different scapegoat. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Do these majors even exist? ==

First, I’d like to concur with others’ opinion that claims that these majors “leave the student with relatively few job opportunities” should be properly documented, or withdrawn. But some of these alleged “worst college majors” don’t seem to even exist. There are several easily located websites with comprehensive lists of available college majors, and none of them contains Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies or Gambling/Gaming. As for the list of courses, yes, most of them seem silly, but they don’t fit the stated category of “fields of study.” [[User:GregF|GregF]] 23:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:Women's studies is a major having many tens of thousands of students nationwide. Gambling/gaming is a big major in Nevada, and perhaps some other states that now also have expansive gambling. I don't doubt that your other three examples exist too, at least at some schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

::I said nothing about Women's Studies, which I am aware is a common course of study at American universities. You "don't doubt" that the others exist but fail to provide any reason for this lack of doubt. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::One reason I don't doubt it is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:: GregF, did you even bothered looking before posting this complain? A quick google search show that the four degrees you mentioned in the message actually exist:
::Comic Book Art: Called "Sequencial Art", offered by [http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm Savannah College of Art and Design].
::Parapsychology: Offered by [http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/ptshortcpd/pgpt/Pages/pgpt.aspx?itemID=151 Coventry University].
::Surfing Studies: Called "Surf Science and Technilogy", offered by [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/course.asp?id=1645 The University of Plymouth]
::Gambling/Gaming, offered by the [http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html University Of Macau]. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, I did look. I didn't find them; you did. Thanks. My point was that they should be documented. Now perhaps they should be listed by their correct names. Sequential Art is much broader than "Comic Book Art" and appears to be a type of Fine Arts degree and no less valid than one in Sculpture or Photography. And the "Gambling" degree is actually in Casino Management, which, given the importance of that industry in Macao, could be quite practical there. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Film==

I noticed that 'Film' has been reinstated, with the comment that the business is shrinking and jobs are scarce. I am one of those not-as-rare-as-you'd-think people - a Christian in the film business in 'Hollywood' (there are a surprising amount of us), and I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects between 10-30% growth in movie business employment between 2008-2018, for example[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm]. The production companies I work for as a freelancer are ''all'' staffed almost entirely by film school grads (dating from 2011 students back to grads from the 60s), are growing and hiring like crazy, and they are desperately searching for more film school grads. There are graduates from all over the world working in this business, and I personally know film school grads from ''at least'' ten different film schools in the US who are busily at work here in Los Angeles - schools like Tisch, SCAD, Arts Centre, UCLA, USC, Vasser, Colorado Film School, etc - there's countless programs nowadays. In a business where experience is everything, film school grads are eminently hirable, and I think the suggestion that it is one of the "Worst College Majors" is utterly incorrect. If you can back up your claim with some figures, I'd be interested, but for now it seems you may be pre-judging these kids, based on the fact that they want to work in what is often a not particularly Christian business. But rest assured, there are plenty of art department, post-production, gaffers, DP's, runner and producers who are people of Faith, and we welcome more into our fold every day. Try not to pre-judge what is a highly employable field. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)