Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Dinesh D'Souza

2012-10-27T22:38:01Z

MarkGall: update: no longer president of king's college

[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dinesh D'Souza ]]
'''Dinesh D'Souza''' (b. 1961) is a [[conservative]] scholar, author, blogger and commentator. He was President of [[The King's College]] in New York, until he was forced out in October 2012 after he was spotted checking into a hotel with a woman who was not his wife.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tkc.edu/abouttkc/president_pressrelease.html|title=Dinesh D'Souza Named President of The King's College in NYC|date=Aug. 23, 2010|accessdate=Aug. 30, 2012}}</ref>

In college, he was a prominent writer with ''The [[Dartmouth]] Review'', a conservative publication. He is a former editor of ''[[Policy Review]]'', a conservative journal. He was a fellow at the Hoover Institute at [[Stanford University]].

A Christian immigrant from [[India]] who wrote a book entitled ''What's So Great About Christianity,'' D'Souza wrote a piece entitled "Thank God for America" on his blog on November 21, 2007.<ref>http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza</ref> Today he is mostly involved with exposing the contradictions and hypocrisy of [[atheists]], and the censorship of Christian leadership in the modern world.

He regularly participates in debates with [[New Atheism|New Atheist]]s. These have included [[Christopher Hitchens]] (6 times), [[Daniel Dennett]] (once), [[Peter Singer]] (twice), [[Dan Barker]] (twice), and [[Michael Shermer]] (twice).

In September 2010, D'Souza published ''Roots of Obama's Rage'', which explores possible influences that Barack Obama, Sr may have had on his son, the President. D'Souza asserts:
<blockquote>The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s—a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs (after his real legs had to be amputated because of a car crash caused by his drunk driving). This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255</ref></blockquote>
The book did not receive wide attention until it was made into a motion picture entitled, "[[2016: Obama's America]]" which was released during the 2012 Presidential campaign. The movie has become a box office success, on track to garner the second-highest box office receipts for a documentary in history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/2016-obama-america-fact-checking-conservative-author-dinesh-ouza-film-article-1.1146143|title=‘2016: Obama’s America’: Fact checking conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s film|work=NY Daily News|date=August 28, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/nightline|title='2016': Anti-Obama Film's Giant Success|date=August 29, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.ygodinstitute.com/ God debates]

{{DEFAULTSORT:D'Souza, Dinesh}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:India]]

Christian apologetics

2012-07-08T03:30:39Z

MarkGall: rv trolling

'''Christian apologetics''' is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''apologia'', which means "defense". The expression "Christian apologist" therefore does not mean that someone is apologising for or on behalf of [[Christianity]] as is sometimes thought, but that he or she is defending and justifying it. There are a
number of subfields within apologetics. Some apologists specialize in internal biblical consistency (such as [[JP Holding]], owner of the website tektonics.org), others in scientific defenses of the Bible, and still others in historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity (such as [[Gary Habermas]] or [[Lee Strobel]]). Although some feel that faith alone needs no justification, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
{{Christianity}}
==History of Christian Apologetics==
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. [[Jesus]] himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The [[Saint Peter|Apostle Peter]] exhorted early Christians to practice apologetics, writing,
:"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16.

The Apostle Paul also spent time in [[Athens]], debating [[Stoicism|Stoic]] and Epicurian philosophers. Acts 17:16.

Great theologians such as Athanasius, [[Irenaeus]], [[Justin Martyr]], [[Augustine]], and [[Aquinas]] continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, explaining and defending their beliefs.

===Purposes===
Apologetics has generally been used for two purposes: Efforts to ''persuade'' others of the truth of Christianity, and efforts to ''defend'' the reasonableness of one's own beliefs, while not seeking to convince others of their truth.

==Types of Christian Apologetics==

===Evidentialist apologetics===

Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through what they consider to count as [[evidence]]. This can take the form of:
* [[Christian historical apologetics|Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible]]
* [[Biblical Archaeology]], seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;
* [[Christian Legal Apologetics]]
* [[Bible prophecy]]
* [[Creation science]] and [[Creationism]], seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it and that the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]] is untenable.

===Philosophical apologetics===
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument: primarily [[arguments for the existence of God]]. This can take the form of:
* The [[Teleological argument]]: When you find a watch in the sand, you infer that it is designed, even if you do not see the designer, because it is complex, has a definite purpose, and could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent causes. Therefore, when we observe a complex, purposeful universe which could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent cause, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a designer, aka God.

:This is connected to the [[anthropic principle]], which is the argument that so much fine-tuning and exact physiological constants allows us to be here, provides evidence in support of an intelligent designer.
* The [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a [[first cause]], which itself is not caused, and that first cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God. [[Creation science|Creationist scientists]] demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by [[science]], with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal. <ref>http://www.harvardhouse.com/Science-Religion.htm</ref> This verifies the very first three words of the [[Bible]]: "In the beginning."
* The [[Ontological argument]]: God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore God exists.
* The Argument from morality: All humans are born with a natural, moral code. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God.

===Presuppositional apologetics===
[[Presuppositional Apologetics]] seek to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole.

== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==

see also: [[Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]

The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref> The Christian apologist Michael Horner of [[Campus Crusade for Christ|CRU]] has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ entitled [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/ Did Jesus really rise from the dead?]. In addition, Dr. Gary Habermas offers [http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost Christian apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher Antony Flew regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], Ben Witherington, [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], Edwin M. Yamauchi, [[N.T. Wright]] and Michael Horner. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/</ref>

Legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, [[Hugo Grotius]], Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref>

== Question evolution campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Christian Apologetic Ministries ==
There are a number of [[internet]] based Christian apologetic Ministries or Christian apologetics ministries which have a internet presence. Some of the more notable Christian apologetic ministries are: Fixed Point Foundation<ref>http://www.fixed-point.org</ref>, Tekton Apologetics Ministries, LeadershipU, Probe Ministries, Christian Answers Network, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, and A Christian Thinktank.

== Christian websites with a large focus on the topic of atheism ==

[[File:TFT.JPG|right|200px]]
Four of the more notable Christian apologetics which have a large focus on the topic of atheism are: [[True Free Thinker]], the [[Creation Ministries International and atheism|Creation Ministries International resources on atheism]], the [[Fixed Point Foundation]] website, and [[Atheism Analyzed]].

== Christian apologetics clubs on college campuses ==

[[Ratio Christi]] is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ.

The Christian apologetics organization Stand to Reason wrote:
{{cquote|Ratio Christi, a fairly new apologetics organization that is seeking to change the intellectual atmosphere at universities by bringing Christianity into public, academic discussion. Their goal is to start on-campus apologetics clubs at 500 universities in the next five years. This is where you come in--because it’s also Ratio Christi’s goal to connect each of these clubs with a person who has been trained in apologetics (but who probably has a different day job) to act as chapter director.

Ratio Christi helps each chapter organize one or two campus-wide events a year by connecting them with speakers and debaters like William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas, helping them find the funding, etc. But after the event has come and gone, the lay apologist is still there to lead discussions and interact with the Christians, skeptics, atheists, and seekers who may never have realized that Christianity has a weighty intellectual tradition behind it.<ref>[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/05/ratio-christi-apologetics-clubs.html Ratio Christi Apologetics Clubs]</ref>}}

== Recommended books ==

'''General Christian apologetics:'''

*Carl Gallups, ''The Magic Man in the Sky: Effectively Defending the Christian Faith'', WND Books, 2012, ISBN 1936488523[http://www.amazon.com/The-Magic-Man-Sky-Effectively/dp/1936488523]
*[[Josh McDowell]], ''The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today'', 1999, ISBN 0785242198
*[[Lee Strobel]], ''Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus '', Zondervan, 1998, ISBN 0310209307
*[[Gary Habermas]] and Michael Licona, ''The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus'', Kregel Publications, 2004, ISBN 0825427886

'''Old Testament apologetics:'''

*Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., ''The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?'', IVP Academic, 2001, ISBN 0830819754
*Kenneth Kitchen, ''On The Reliability of the Old Testament'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. ISBN 0802803962

'''Biblical creation apologetics:'''

*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref> ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref> ISBN 9780890511121

*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref> ISBN 080105852X

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Christian apologetics website resources]]
*[[Israel Tourism]] for some biblical archaeological sites available to tourists
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[List of proofs of God]]

== External Links ==

=== General Christian apologetics websites ===

* [http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers Christian apologetics]
* [http://www.allaboutgod.com All About GOD] — Answers to many questions regarding Christianity
* [http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html Apologetics Information Ministry]
* [http://www.apologetics.com Apologetics.com]
* [http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
* [http://www.tektonics.org/classics/classics.html Classic Works of Apologetics] (Tektonics)
* [http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]
* [http://hisdefense.org/Links/Authors/tabid/297/Default.aspx Academy of Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.lifeway.com/apologetics LifeWay Apologetics]
* [http://www.windmillministries.org Windmill Ministries]
* [http://www.probe.org/ Probe Ministries -Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.ses.edu/Resources/ApologeticsJournal/tabid/104/Default.aspx Christian Apologetics Journal]
* [http://www.arcapologetics.org/ Apologetics Resource Center]
* [http://www.ApologeticsWiki.com/ Christian Apologetics Wiki] — [[Wiki]]-based Christian apologetics
* [http://www.actministry.org Academy for Christian Thought]
* [http://www.rbc.org/rtb/ 10 Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.proofthatgodexists.org Proof That God Exists]

=== Historical and legal apologetics ===

'''Historical apologetics:'''

*[http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/ Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?] by Michael Horner
*[http://www.theapologiaproject.org/WHYIBE~1.pdf Why I Believe the New Testament is historically Reliable] by Dr. [[Gary Habermas]]
*[http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/articles.htm Journal articles of Dr. Gary Habermas]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?]
*[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html The Impossible faith] by [[JP Holding]]

'''Christian legal apologetics:'''

*[[Christian legal apologetics]]

=== Bible archaeology ===
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/ Bible archaeology]
*[http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn30/archaeologychurch.htm The Bible & Archaeology: The Book of Acts: The Church Begins]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm St. Luke, archaeology, Book of Acts]
*[http://www.inplainsite.org/html/acts_and_archaeology.html Archaeology and the Book of Acts]
*[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/McRay-ArchaeologyActs-CTR.pdf Archaeology and the Book of Acts] - Gordon College
*[http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA2/paultravels.asp Book of Acts - Paul's travels]
*[http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/contents.html Bible and Spade articles]
* [http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/ Archaeology and the Old Testament] by Patrick Zukeran
* [http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219999/k.A54E/The_Archaeological_Evidence_for_the_Bible_is_NonExistent.htm The Archaeological Evidence for the Bible is Non-Existent!] A reply from James F. Williams

'''Bible archaeology and dating:'''

* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2020 Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility] by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

=== Christian worldview/Christian philosophy ===
* [http://www.rzim.org/ Ravi Zacharias, modern apologist]
* [http://www.str.org/ Stand to Reason]
* [http://www.leaderu.com/menus/theology.html Leadership U]
* [http://www.worldview.org Worldview Academy]

'''Videos on atheism:'''

*[[Atheism videos|Videos on atheism]]

'''Websites, articles and videos focusing on atheism:'''

*[[Atheism website resources]]
*[[True Free Thinker]].
*[http://www.fixed-point.org Fixed Point Foundation] — Committed to publicly defending Christianity by empowering Christians and challenging skeptics.
*[[Atheism Analyzed]]

=== Creation science ministries and other resources===
* [http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Science]

[[Conservapedia]] articles on evolution and creation science:

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Creation science]]

=== Bible prophecy articles and websites ===

'''Analysis of Bible prophecy from Christian scholars/apologists'''

*[http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html#c8 Science speaks - Prophetic accuracy] by Dr. Peter Stoner
*[http://www.drjbloom.com/public%20files/PubTheoData.pdf Public Theology and Prophecy Data - Factual Evidence that Counts for a Worldview] by Dr. John Bloom, Robert C. Newman, and Hugh G. Gouch, Jr.
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-16.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP1W1299.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist - Part Two] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ AboutBibleprophecy]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm Prophecy about Jesus]

'''Rebuttal to atheist Steven Carr concerning Bible prophecy:'''

*[http://www.tektonics.org/af/carrs01.html Steven Carr's The Jury Is In Chapter 11: Rebuttal] by [[JP Holding]]

=== Biblical inerrancy resources ===
* [http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
* [http://www.christian-thinktank.com Christian Thinktank]
* [http://www.inerrancy.org/ Inerrancy.org]
* [http://www.christianthinktank.com/ A Christian Thinktank]
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/sort-2-1-100-title Alleged Bible discrepancies] by Apologetics Press

== Resources for becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]
''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[http://www.jesusfilm.org/film-and-media/watch-the-film Jesus film - free access]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

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

[[Category: Christian Apologetics]]

Adolf Hitler

2012-07-08T03:30:07Z

MarkGall: rv

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|200px]]
| name =Adolf Hitler
| birth =April 20, 1889 Braunau am Inn, Austria–Hungary
| parents =Alois Hitler (Schicklgruber) Klara Pölzl
| religion =Roman Catholic (rejected)
| spouse =Eva Braun
| children =none
| death =April 30, 1945 Berlin, Germany
| deathmanner =Suicide by gunshot
| education =Realschule Linz, Austria
| country =[[Third Reich|Germany]]
| military =16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment Imperial German Army (1914-1918)
| rank =''Obergefreiter'' (Lance Corporal/Private First Class)
|burial = none, burned.
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[National socialism]] (Nazism)
| party =German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1920–1921) National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1921–1945)
| dictatordate =March 23, 1933
| war =[[World War II]]
| deathnumber =12,000,000+ exclusive of battle casualties
20,000,000 to 25,000,000 altogether

Rummel: 21,000,000
}}
'''Adolf Hitler''' was the Austrian-born Chancellor and President of [[Germany]] from January 30, 1933 until his death on April 30, 1945. He was also the leader (German: ''Der Führer'') of the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (''National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'', or [[Nazi]] Party) which gained political power through threat, intimidation, and outright violence throughout Germany in the aftermath of the [[First World War]]. Adolf Hitler was an [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[racist]] and [[socialism|socialist]] (see also: [[evolutionary racism]]).<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref><ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Hitler’s policies and beliefs resulted in the [[Genocide|mass extermination]] of the [[Jews]], [[Gypsies]], and other peoples he considered “[[Racial Supremacy|inferior]]” throughout central and eastern [[Europe]] and were directly responsible for the outbreak of [[World War II]], which caused the deaths of untold millions on and off the battlefield and ended only after Hitler's [[suicide]] in his Berlin bunker.

==Early life==
[[File:Hitler Roses.jpg|thumb|Roses by Adolf Hitler.]]
Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, [[Austria]]. Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was a customs official who was himself born out of wedlock, carrying for a time his mother's name, Schicklgruber. By 1876 he had his baptismal entry corrected in his church records, establishing his father as Johan Heidler, which was altered slightly to Hitler.

When his father retired the family moved to Linz, Austria, where it remained a favorite for young Adolf for the rest of his life, and where he gave his wish to be buried. When Alois died in 1903 he left enough of a pension to support his wife and children; Adolf would take his and live off of it in Vienna after leaving school, dreaming of becoming an artist. Although somewhat competent as a painter of landscapes and architecture, his renderings of humans were considered “lifeless” and “crude” by the standards of the Academy of Fine Arts, and his application was rejected twice. Remaining in [[Vienna]], he moved from one cheap flop house to another, painting postcards and advertisements to earn a meager living after his allowance had dried up. By then he had developed traits which characterized his life as a whole: secretiveness, loneliness, a Spartan mode of everyday life, and a hatred of the cosmopolitan, multinational character that was the makeup of Vienna. ''He never sought a proper job or regular employment. Instead he immersed himself in the works of [[Hegel]], [[Nietzsche]], and the anti-Semitic writings of the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He loved the operas of Wagner, and the stories of the Nordic Gods... In early 1910, he entered a shelter for the homeless, populated in the main by poor Jews, on Meldemenstrasse, and was eating at soup kitchens. By this time he had pawned all his belongings. '' <ref> [http://socyberty.com/history/young-adolf-the-adolescent-hitler-and-beyond/ Young Adolf: The Adolescent Hitler and Beyond.] </ref>

==Who And What He Was==
[[Image:Cupid Complaining to Venus by Lucas Cranach.jpg|150px|left|thumb|This painting, one of the best-loved paintings in the National Gallery, had once belonged to Hitler. New evidence has come to light that Lucas Cranach's ''Cupid Complaining to Venus'', currently on loan to an exhibition in Bristol, hung on the sitting-room wall of his flat in Munich. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/28/art.secondworldwar Hitler owned painting now in National Gallery]</ref>]]
[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote famously, and most eloquently about Hitler in 1998:
<blockquote>''"At the same time that he terrorized his adversaries, he knew how to please, impress and charm the very interlocutors from whom he wanted support. Diplomats and journalists insist as much on his charm as they do on his temper tantrums. The savior admired by his own as he dragged them into his madness, the Satan and exterminating angel feared and hated by all others, Hitler led his people to a shameful defeat without precedent. That his political and strategic ambitions have created a dividing line in the history of this turbulent and tormented century is undeniable: there is a before and an after. By the breadth of his crimes, which have attained a quasi-ontological dimension, he surpasses all his predecessors: as a result of Hitler, man is defined by what makes him inhuman. With Hitler at the head of a gigantic laboratory, life itself seems to have changed."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"How did this Austrian without title or position manage to get himself elected head of a German nation renowned for its civilizing mission? How to explain the success of his cheap demagogy in the heart of a people so proud of having inherited the genius of a Wolfgang von Goethe and an Immanuel Kant?"''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"Was there no resistance to his disastrous projects? There was. But it was too feeble, too weak and too late to succeed. German society had rallied behind him: the judicial, the educational, the industrial and the economic establishments gave him their support. Few politicians of this century have aroused, in their lifetime, such love and so much hate; few have inspired so much historical and psychological research after their death. Even today, works on his enigmatic personality and his cursed career are best sellers everywhere. Some are good, others are less good, but all seem to respond to an authentic curiosity on the part of a public haunted by memory and the desire to understand."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"We think we know everything about the nefarious forces that shaped his destiny: his unhappy childhood, his frustrated adolescence; his artistic disappointments; his wound received on the front during World War I; his taste for spectacle, his constant disdain for social and military aristocracies; his relationship with [[Eva Braun]], who adored him; the cult of the very death he feared; his lack of scruples with regard to his former comrades of the SA, whom he had assassinated in 1934; his endless hatred of [[Jews]], whose survival enraged him — each and every phase of his official and private life has found its chroniclers, its biographers."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"And yet. There are, in all these givens, elements that escape us. How did this unstable paranoid find it within himself to impose gigantic hope as an immutable ideal that motivated his nation almost until the end? Would he have come to power if Germany were not going through endless economic crises, or if the winners in 1918 had not imposed on it conditions that represented a national humiliation against which the German patriotic fiber could only revolt? We would be wrong to forget: Hitler came to power in January 1933 by the most legitimate means. His [[Nationalist Socialist Party]] won a majority in the parliamentary elections. The aging [[Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg]] had no choice but to allow him, at age 43, to form the new government, marking the end of the Weimar Republic. And the beginning of the [[Third Reich]], which, according to Hitler, would last 1,000 years."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"From that moment on, events cascaded. The burning of the [[Reichstag]] came only a little before the openings of the first concentration camps, established for members of the opposition. Fear descended on the country and squeezed it in a vise. Great writers, musicians and painters went into exile to France and the U.S. Jews with foresight emigrated toward Palestine. The air of Hitler's Germany was becoming more and more suffocating. Those who preferred to wait, thinking that the Nazi regime would not last, could not last, would regret it later, when it was too late."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people — not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy. Did they not see the hateful mask that covered his face? Did they not divine the catastrophe he bore within himself?<ref name="time">http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html"''</ref></blockquote>

{{Clear}}

==Beliefs==
Despite the common myth that Hitler was an atheist, Hitler was actually a confirmed [[Roman Catholic]] Christian. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”. However, he was not very strong in his religious beliefs, and it is likely he only mentioned [[Christianity]] in his speeches to gain the votes and favor of both Catholics and Protestants.

=== Hitler, Nazism and socialism ===

''For more information please see:'' [[Nazism and socialism]]

[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was [[socialism|socialistic]] was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] Adolf Hitler.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a [[socialism|socialist]] state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}}

=== Hitler and the Theory of Evolution ===
''For more information please see:'' [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

[[Image:Hitlerrisetopower.jpg|right|225px|thumb]]
The staunch [[evolution|evolutionist]] Stephen Gould admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|[Ernst] Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

Robert E.D. Clark in his work ''Darwin: Before and After'' wrote concerning Hitler's evolutionary racism:
{{cquote|The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (''Mein Kampf''). <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1675</ref>}}

Hitler wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work ''Darwin, Before and After'' the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: “Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches”.<ref name="courier">http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> ]]
Richard Hickman in his work ''Biocreation'' concurs and wrote the following:
{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his [[psychosis]], it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. <ref>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm</ref>}}

Noted evolutionary [[anthropology|anthropologist]] Sir Arthur Keith conceded the following in regards to Hitler: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.<ref name="courier" />

[[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of ''Harper’s'' magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in [[Europe]], it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

[[Richard Dawkins|[Richard] Dawkins]] deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of ... an insane and unscientific [[eugenics]] theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-finally-said-it-dawkinss-hysterical-scientism/</ref>}}

[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==War==
[[Image:Hitler munich1914.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler in the crowd in Munich, 1914, reacting to the news of Germany's entry in the First World War.]]
By 1913 Hitler was in Munich, Germany, with war clouds on the horizon. Classified as unfit for service in the Austrian army (possibly by faking, as he did not like the thought of serving Austria) in 1914, he volunteered for the German army, joining the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment, greeting the war with enthusiasm, and finding the military discipline and comradeship satisfying. He served during the entire [[First World War]] as a messenger carrying dispatches between units, and often at the front lines under fire; he was wounded in 1916, and gassed in 1918. His bravery during this time earned him the [[Iron Cross]], 2nd Class, in December, 1914, and in August 1918 he was awarded the Iron Cross, 1st Class – a rare decoration for a corporal. But the gassing would take him out of the war and into a hospital, where he would be told the heart-wrenching news of Germany’s defeat the following November.

==Path to power==
After the war ended, Hitler's future seemed uncertain. There was much discontent among demobilized veterans because of the lack of employment. The German military had felt it had not been defeated; indeed, the German Army stood on foreign soil when the Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 and not a square inch of German soil had been occupied. This was despite the fact that the German Army's strongest position, the Hindenburg line, had been broken by the Allies, and the German Army itself was in full retreat. However, the Army felt they had done their job, and the nation had been "stabbed in the back" by a gang of traitors who sought to lay hands on the Fatherland. The "myth" that Germany had been defeated was the "big lie" Hitler spoke of, as if repeating it often enough would cause people to believe it.

After his discharge from the hospital, Hitler acted as an army political agent, assigned in Munich to gather information on the various political parties which had spring up amid the social chaos following Germany’s defeat. In September, 1919, he was given orders to investigate the relatively-minor German Workers’ Party (''Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''); intrigued by the party’s apparatus and its racial, pan-German nationalism, he joined, becoming its 55th member; he left the army soon after and devoted himself to improving the party’s propaganda, as well as his own position within.

Conditions in Germany fostered the development of the party. Economic woes brought widespread discontent, added to the furor surrounding the loss of the war and the harsh terms heaped upon Germany by the Allied Powers in the Versailles Peace Treaty. Bavaria’s traditional separatism from the central government in Berlin made current conditions especially sharp, and Hitler was savvy enough to take full advantage of them. When he joined, he found the party ineffective in leadership and uncertain as to its aims; he accepted the party program, but regarded it as a means to an end. He caused friction with other members of the party, and their attempts to control him caused a threat of resignation; realizing that the future of the party now depended on Hitler, who clearly had a talent of organization, fund collecting, and above all, speaking, they declined to accept it; from July, 1921 Hitler was regarded as the party leader with nearly unlimited power. From his party newspaper, ''Völkischer Beobachter'' (“Popular Observer”), he spewed out endless propaganda. His meetings where he spoke grew from handfuls to hundreds, and then on to thousands. A man of charismatic personality, he quickly attracted a circle of loyal and devoted followers: Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Göring, and Rudolf Hess.

Munich was also a gathering place for former servicemen dissatisfied with conditions in the country; members of the Freikorps, which had been organized after the war from army units that refused to return to civilian life; and those civilians who plotted against the republic. Many of these men joined the Nazi Party. Among them was a staff member of the district command who had joined the German Workers’ Party before Hitler, Ernst Röhm, a pudgy man with a scared face who saw his own ambition in helping further Hitler’s rise within the party. Röhm recruited what came to be known as the “Brown Shirts”, the violent squads used to attack socialists and communists, and to protect party meetings whenever Hitler was speaking. By 1921 they were organized into a private army called the ''Sturmabteilung'', abbreviated to S.A.

==The Beer Hall Putsch==
Germany in 1923 was marked by social and political unrest caused by hyperinflation. In this time Hitler was able convince [[Erich Ludendorff]], an accomplished general and leader of the German forces in the first World War, to join him in a coup d'etat (''Putsch'' in German). When Hitler learned that the nationalist prime minister of Bavaria was giving a speech to 3000 officials in one of Munich's biggest beer halls (the Haufbrau Haus), he ordered his paramilitaries to surround the building. Hitler went inside and took the prime minister hostage, announced a revolution, and attempted to convince him to join the coup against Berlin and become member in his new administration. The Bavarian prime minister agreed under pressure, but informed the nation via radio later that night that he did not support Hitler. The prime minister also informed the federal government in Berlin; the putsch had begun to fail.

The next morning, 9 November 1923, Hitler and Ludendorff were marching with approximately 2000 partly armed supporters through Munich in a show of strength to regain the momentum. In the ensuing fight between Hitler's marchers and a cordon of police and army units at least 14 Nazi supporters and three policemen were killed and hundreds wounded. Ludendorff handed himself over to the authorities, while Hitler fled soon after the fighting began. Hitler was arrested a few days later at a friend's house, were had been in hiding since the failed coup. Ludendorff was acquitted of all charges, while Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison (he would do eight months). <ref>http://history1900s.about.com/cs/thirdreich/a/beerhallputsch_2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/putsch2.htm</ref> The Bavarian prime minister, who foiled the plan, was killed in 1934 in the "Night of the Long Knives".

===''Mein Kampf''===
{{main|Mein Kampf}}
Hitler had his inner circle as frequent visitors in his prison cell, which was made more comfortable due to his celebrity. While there, he dictated to Rudolf Hess the first volume of ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' (“My Struggle”), his political autobiography and a compendium of his many ideas, including his [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]] ideas.

Hitler believed in the inequality of the races, nations, and individuals as part of the natural order of mankind, and chief among them was the exalted “Aryan race”, and the greatest of the Aryans were the Germans. It was the German, according to Hitler, that gave the world civilization and the arts; to safeguard the German people as a race (the “Volk”), they would need to be united under a single leader (the Führer), where they would be protected from their three principle enemies: Marxism, which included social democracy as well as communism; democracy and its mob-rule, as shown by the failings of the Weimar Republic; and above all what Hitler called the poisoners of humanity, the Jews. “Rational anti-Semitism must lead to systematic legal opposition,” he wrote in 1919. “Its final objective must be the removal of the Jews altogether.” In Mein Kampf, he told the world that the Jew was the “destroyer of culture,” “a parasite within the nation,” and “a menace.”

From "Mein Kampf":
{{cquote|The Jew "... he blares out his merits to the rest of the world until people really begin to believe in them. Anyone who does not believe in them is doing him a bitter injustice. In a short time he begins to twist things around to make it look as if all the injustice in the world had always been done to him and not the other way around." <ref> [http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.]</ref> }}

{{cquote| Hitler portrays Jews as leaders in politics and banking, both groups seeking to strengthen their cause, [[Zionism]], to ensure Jewish domination. From his Social Darwinist perspective, Hitler perceived a racial war as inevitable and he sought to halt the "[[Jewish]] drive towards world conquest"... As Berlin collapsed around him, Adolf asserted: "Out of the ruins of our towns and monuments hatred will grow against those finally responsible for everything, International Jewry." <ref> [http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=32043&amid=30237234 Mein Kampf – The Text, its Themes and Hitler’s Vision] Robert Carr dissects a book frequently referred to but seldom read. </ref>
}}

==Rebuilding the Nazi Party==

[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in car, saluting passing S.A. at one of many parades.]]
Internal dissension within the party caused it to languish while Hitler was in prison. When he was released he saw difficulties in the country that had not existed before the Putsch, namely currency reform that brought economic stability, and the scaling back of the war reparations as a result of the Dawes Plan. Hitler was also forbidden to speak in public, and remained so until 1928; nonetheless he worked to rebuild the party and re-establish his own position within it as leader, despite Gregor Strasser’s opposition in northern Germany. By 1927 the number of Nazis was in the hundreds of thousands.

A new period of political and economic instability began with the onset of the Great Depression which threw millions out of work in Europe and North America. To campaign against the [[Young Plan]] (a second renegotiation of war reparations payments) Hitler made an alliance with one of Germany’s leading nationalists, Alfred Hugenberg, whose newspapers enabled Hitler to reach a national audience for the first time. The alliance also had another advantage: it enabled him to seek support from many in business and industry who controlled funds going into politics, and who themselves were desirous of seeing Germany under the control of a strong anti-Soviet and anti-Communist regime. The subsidies Hitler received placed the Nazi Party on a strong financial footing, enabling him to make his emotional appeal to the lower middle class and the unemployed in his faith that Germany would recover from its suffering and be a great nation once more. The alliance with the industrialists also demonstrated another aspect of Hitler, a skill of effectively using those that would use him, which many would discover when it was too late.

The electoral strength of the Nazis grew during the Depression, as unceasing propaganda accused the government of failing to improve conditions for the working man. By the fall of 1930 the Nazis captured more than 18 percent of the vote, compared to just 2.6 percent in 1928. Hitler captured 36.8 percent of the vote when he opposed Paul von Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election; his mass following put him in such a strong position that he entered a series of closed-door intrigues with Franz von Papen, Oskar Hindenburg, and Otto Meissner, all sharing a fear and loathing of a communist government. Despite the party losing votes in the November, 1932 election, Hitler insisted on nothing less than the office of chancellor for himself. For him, it was all or nothing. Hindenburg offered it to him on January 30, 1933.

==In power==
Almost immediately, Hitler established himself as dictator. Less than a month after taking office, on February 27 the Reichstag building was set on fire under mysterious circumstances (but officially blamed on a feeble-minded Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe); Hitler soon after succeeded in getting several decrees passed removing much of the freedom guaranteed the constitution in the name of state security, and which also allowed an intensified campaign of violence against dissidents. Incredibly, in a special election set in those conditions on March 5, the Nazis won 43.9 percent of the vote. On March 21, the new Reichstag assembled at the Potsdam Church, as much a show of unity between the old guard under Hindenburg and the Nazis as it was a show of peace. Two days later the Enabling Act was passed, giving Hitler full powers; with the exception of the Nazis, all other political parties, including those which had helped pass the Enabling Act, ceased to exist within three months. Many of their leaders were imprisoned in concentration camps.

===Night of the Long Knives===
[[Image:HitlerRohm1933.JPG|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with Ernst Röhm in 1933]]
[[File:Diego Rivera, Hitler, Panel of Mural for the New Workers School, New York City, 1933..jpg|thumb|left|Hitler by [[Diego Rivera]], 1933.]]
Hitler, however, did not wish to start an immediate revolution. In order to implement his ideas he still needed the support of the army. But he did have one growing problem that was a thorn in the army’s side, the million-plus men of the S.A. and their leader, Ernst Röhm, who wanted nothing less than the merger of the S.A. into the army, with himself in overall command. At first, Hitler tried getting Röhm’s support by persuasion, but Hitler’s inner circle was for removing him by any means possible. On June 29, 1934, Hitler ordered a purge, flew towards a resort near Munich where a number of S.A. leaders were vacationing, and had them all arrested; many would be shot without trial. Refusing to shoot himself when offered, Röhm was killed in his cell at Dachau, his last words, ironically, “Mein Führer, mein Führer!” <ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/roehm.htm</ref><ref>http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/Rohm.html</ref><ref>http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/innenpolitik/roehm/index.html</ref>
On July 13, Hitler gave speech in the Reichstag, announcing that some seventy-four individuals had been shot for threatening the stability of the Reich.
:''"If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people…It was no secret that this time the revolution would have to be bloody; when we spoke of it we called it 'The Night of the Long Knives.' Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot." ''
Hitler also used this event to settle his account with other opponents, such as Georg Strasser, who stood for a more socialist and less racist national socialism, and the former Bavarian prime minister who foiled the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Satisfied that the S.A. leadership was thoroughly broken up (thousands of S.A. members were either arrested or killed that night), the army approved of Hitler’s actions. Hindenburg died a few days later on August 2, and Hitler merged the office of president with the chancellorship, and with it the supreme command of the German armed forces. During this time the world was slowly recovering economically from the Depression, but it quickened in Germany, coincidently with Hitler’s rise to power. Taking credit for the recovery made him very popular, bringing him a 90 percent approval rating in a voter plebiscite that year.

===Beginnings of expansion===
In matters of state, the running of domestic affairs was left to subordinates, which was something Hitler had little attention for. Foreign policy always peaked his interest, in so much as to the advantages of a “Greater Germany”, which was his chief ambition. The first part of realizing this, according to ''Mein Kampf'', was to be a reunion of the German peoples within Europe; the second would be an expansion of Germany to the east (lebensraum). Expanding would mean a renewed conflict with the Slavic peoples, whom Hitler intended to serve as slaves to the “New German Order.” To follow through on his ambitions, he would have to remove Poland and the Soviet Union as countries; France also would have to be stabilized in the west, as she was Germany’s enemy for more than a century. He counted as possible allies Italy, with its fascist government under [[Benito Mussolini]], and Britain, whom he regarded as having a similar, Teutonic heritage.
[[Image:Hitler6-thumb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with his dog, Blondie.]]
Before any of his ambitions could take place, there was one thing he detested which needed immediate removal: the restrictions placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Posing as a man of peace to allay suspicions, he insisted that he was a champion of Europe wishing only for the removal of the inequalities leveled by the treaty, and posturing as a shield against Bolshevism. In October, 1933, he had Germany withdraw from the [[League of Nations]]. The following January he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland. His individual repudiations of parts of the treaty were followed by offers of negotiations for new agreements, while maintaining Germany’s limited ambitious nature.

While this was going on, Germany was steadily building up the armed forces. Rigorous training using wooden guns and trucks marked as “tanks” got needed battlefield training for officers. Potential fighter pilots began their training in gliders at public demonstrations – Germany, under terms of the treaty, was not allowed an air force – and later they would fly in new civilian stunt planes and transports, which on the drawing board were designed to be rapidly turned into fighters and bombers. Conscription was introduced in January, 1935, and in June of that year Hitler successfully signed a naval treaty with Britain, giving him rights to a respectable navy; but even while the ink was drying, Germany was secretly building a large U-boat fleet.

The matter of reuniting the German peoples came into being in July, 1934, and here Hitler overreached. German organizations were covertly aiding Austrian Nazis in the overthrow of their government, culminating in an attempted revolt as well as murdering Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. When the attempt clearly failed, Hitler denied involvement. In January, 1935, a plebecite was introduced in the Saarland; more than 90 percent voted to return the territory to Germany. Then in March, 1936, came his greatest slap to the Versailles Treaty: against the advice of his generals, and in open defiance of France and Britain, he ordered troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. Germany was once again becoming the leading power in continental Europe. By October, 1936, Germany had signed an alliance with Italy, proclaiming a “Rome-Berlin axis,” followed by the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. All three countries would sign a single, mutual alliance pact, the following year.

==Anschluss==

Removed from their offices in January 1938 were Hjalmar Schacht (economic ministry); Werner von Fritsch (soldiers’ representative); and Konstantin von Neurath (foreign office); the reason being was they were not fully accepting of Nazism. Beginning his plans of German conquest, he started with Austria. Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor, was invited to Berchtesgaden in February, where he was browbeaten and forced to sign an agreement placing Austrian Nazis in the government. When Schuschnigg resisted and announced a plebiscite for Austrian voters concerning independence, Hitler ordered German troops into Austria, completely taking over the country within days. His return to Vienna was in triumph; enthusiastic crowds greeted him by the tens of thousands, in sharp contrast to the scenes of privation he had gone through there in his youth. Austria was annexed (Anschluss) to the Reich a short time later.

While the Anschluss was going on, Hitler was speaking in friendly terms with Czechoslovakia; nearly as soon as Austria ceased to exist, Hitler proceeded with his plans against the Czechs. The northwestern region of Czechoslovakia was the Sudetenland, inhabited by a German minority, and the leader of them, Konrad Henlein, was instructed to make impossible demands for those Germans on the Czech government. In the interest of preventing a general war (which Hitler wanted), Mussolini and British prime minister Neville Chamberlain concluded a peaceful agreement in Munich on September 30, giving Hitler the Sudetenland without firing a shot. Chamberlain would return to Britain, waving the agreement signed between himself and Hitler, declaring it to be “peace for our time”, but his act of appeasement would ensure the peace would last only a few more months. Despite assurances that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demands, “Czechia”, as the remainder of Czechoslovakia was called, became a German protectorate on March 15, 1939, when Hitler ordered it occupied. Just over a week later, Lithuania was forced to cede to Germany the territory of Memel (Klaipeda), on the border of East Prussia.

==Poland==
Poland’s turn was next, and listening to the rumblings was France and Britain, which signed guarantees of mutual assistance to the Polish nation should it be attacked by Germany. Hitler also signed pacts: a “Pact of Steel” with Italy, strengthening the alliance between Rome and Berlin, and then a treaty that caught many off-guard: a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union on August 23. A secret clause in the pact allowed for the simultaneous invasion of Poland, and the division of the country in the center from north to south. Poland was invaded on September 1; two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler assumed his own war strategy. Poland was conquered within weeks, and when a desired peace accord with Britain failed to materialize, he ordered the army to prepare for a western offensive. Norway was invaded and occupied, forestalling a British move on that country; Denmark was occupied by April, 1940. Hitler than adopted General Erich von Manstien’s plan for an offensive against France itself, which would move through neutral Belgium’s Ardenne Forest on May 10, taking that country as a matter of convenience, as well as avoiding the static fortifications of France’s Maginot Line. The German forces, extremely successful in their operations, reached the coastal ports on the English Channel in 10 days; Holland and Belgium both surrendered within days. But south of Dunkirk was where the army was ordered to halt. Hitler had hoped even at this stage in the battle that Britain would commit to peace; instead, the halting of the German army allowed the British to remove 170,000 fighting men.

On June 10, Italy entered the war as German tanks were sweeping across northern France. Hitler signed an armistice with France on June 22, the signing taking place in the same rail car at the same site where the Germans surrendered in 1918.

Having failed in getting the British to sign an armistice, Hitler prepared his forces for “Operation Sea Lion,” the invasion of Britain. However, the Luftwaffe was defeated in its attempt to gain air superiority over British airspace, also known as the Battle Of Britain, which forced the permanent postponement of Sealion.

Facing the failure of the British to give in, Hitler started to prepare to double-cross his erstwhile partner in the Poland conquest, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. Then Mussolini invaded Greece, got bogged down in the Balkans, and the threat loomed that he would lose his whole army there. Hitler found it necessary to come to his aid, while at the same time taking direct control of Yugoslavia in the wake of the overthrow of the pro-Nazi government.

==Barbarossa==
The attack on Soviet Russia began June 22, 1941. Rapid in its advancement, the German army captured a large swath of territory between the Baltic and Black seas, and captured close to 3,000,000 prisoners. But Hitler, already micro-managing military operations, became overbearing to his generals; he preferred to go after many targets, while his generals argued for a single objective. A few miles in front of Moscow, the German army was halted by a Russian offensive in December, as well as something he had absolutely no control over: the severe Russian winter.

In the lands already occupied by German forces, S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler was preparing the ground for Hitler’s new German order. Expelling the Jews from Germany was the first step, and this was carried out by laws and decrees beginning in 1933; the Germans would switch to outright force in 1939, as Jews were first deported en-masse to Poland, then walled into ghettos after the occupation began. By 1941, a policy crafted under S.S. general Reinhard Heydrich had changed expulsion for extermination in what was called "a final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). The system of concentration camps was supplemented by the creation of specialized killing centers in the occupied countries, especially in Poland, where camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzac “processed” thousands of victims daily. Some six million Jews died during what was called the [[Holocaust]], as well as an additional five million Slavs, Gypsies, the handicapped, the aged, and many others that the Nazis considered “subhuman” in accordance with German racial policies.<ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm</ref>

==Beginning of the end==
[[Image:Adolf_hitler6.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in 1944, by now looking tired and strained.]]
Hitler grew increasingly strained by the end of 1942, depending on large amounts of drugs supplied by his physician, Theodor Morell, as a result of the twin defeats of El Alamein (which he lost the bulk of his Afrika corps to British general Montgomery), and Stalingrad (where he lost an entire army of 250,000 men to the Russians). He spent more time in his headquarters in East Prussia, and his time in the public eye ceased to exist. He refused to visit bombed German cities, and, as with Stalingrad, refused to allow German armies to withdraw from the battlefield when the situation was lost. Still, he could make stunning, decisive decisions when called for, such as the commando raid that resulted in the rescue of Benito Mussolini from Italian partisans in July, 1943.

But the defeat of Germany in the war was looming closer. Hitler’s relations with his leading commanders grew strained, the more so as he allowed units of the S.S. to take positions traditionally held by the army. The line at the eastern front was slowly being pushed back by the Soviets, while in the Atlantic his U-boats campaign had faltered. German cities were constantly being bombed, and a successful invasion on the Normandy coast of France in June, 1944 marked the beginning of the end.

===Assassination attempt===
[[Image:NWT Hitler dead.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Hitler's death as covered by the ''New York Times'', May 2, 1945.]]
Seeing Germany’s chances of surviving the war were desperate, a group of officers plotted to assassinate Hitler, planning several attempts in 1943-44, but nearly successful on July 20, 1944, when a bomb hidden in a briefcase by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg went off under a table that Hitler and others were leaning over; four were killed outright, several suffered injuries, but Hitler escaped relatively unharmed (the bomb itself was set down away from Hitler behind a solid oak table leg, saving him). The conspirators were quickly rounded up; Stauffenberg was shot. The remainder were put on show trials and condemned to hang on meat hooks with piano wire. It was said that Hitler enjoyed watching film of their executions. As a result of the bomb, Nazi members were employed at key positions within the army, removing any trace of the army’s independence.

Within months nearly all of the territory occupied by Germany was now in Allied hands. A last offensive in December, 1944 to take the port of Antwerp, Belgium, failed. Hitler had by them grown ill; his hopes for a German victory bordered on the fantastical and the imagination. By January, 1945 he had moved into his command bunker in Berlin, where he gave orders deploying fictional divisions to counter the ever-closer Soviets. When all seemed lost, he gave out his final orders: first, appointing Admiral Karl Dönitz as head of the state and his successor, and Josef Goebbels as chancellor; and second, dictating his last political will which was an attempt to justify his life’s work.

On April 29, he committed the one truly-chivalrous act of his life: he married Eva Braun, his long-time mistress. After retiring to his room in the bunker the next day, Eva took poison, and Hitler put a bullet in his head. In accordance with his wishes, both bodies were burned. His Third Reich would outlive him for another week.

[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote the following in [[Time Magazine]] regarding Hitler:
{{cquote|Adolf Hitler or the incarnation of absolute evil; this is how future generations will remember the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers [[Mussolini]] and [[Franco]] were novices. Under his hypnotic gaze, humanity crossed a threshold from which one could see the abyss. "Before Hitler, we thought we had sounded the depths of human nature," argues Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler." "He showed how much lower we could go, and that's what was so horrifying. It gets us wondering not just at the depths he showed us but whether there is worse to come. The power of Hitler was to confound the modernist notion that judgments about good and [[evil]] were little more than matters of taste, reflections of social class and power and status. Although some modern scholars drive past the notion of evil and instead explain Hitler's conduct as a reflection of his childhood and self-esteem issues, for most survivors of the 20th century he is confirmation of our instinctive sense that evil does exist. It moves among us; it leads us astray and deploys powerful, subtle weapons against even the sturdiest souls." <ref name="time" />}}

All in all, Hitler survived over forty assassination attempts. The Stauffenburg attempt was the closest anyone ever came to killing Hitler. George Elser, a communist, came very close in 1938, having planted a bomb in a beam that Hitler stood in front of while giving a speech. Luck saved Hitler, as he left the hall early and twelve minutes later the bomb exploded.

== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ==

''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]

In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

== External links ==
[[File:Hitler Siegestor Munich Victory Gate.jpg|thumb|Watercolor of the Arch of Triumph in Munich by Hitler.]]
*[http://www.eucontest.org/go.php?pdf=www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%201994.pdf Extracts From Mein Kampf by Hitler]
*[http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.] Full text.
*[http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm Adolf Hitler ORIGINAL Watercolor Artworks.]
*[http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/ Hitler Was a Leftist]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/medical.htm STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH], FROM THE OPENING STATEMENT BY TELFORD TAYLOR, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.] Retrieved from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

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

==Sources==
*[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.htmlA Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend], Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Hitler, Adolf}}

[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Evolutionary Racists]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]
[[Category:War criminals]]

Best of the public

2012-07-08T03:29:31Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 992317 by Toboucha (talk)

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''"best of the public"''' is an approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview with ''Conservapedia'' and first published on December 3, 2009:<ref>Tom Breen. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/ Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation], ''Yahoo! News'', December 03, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|<big>'''The best of the public is better than a group of experts.'''</big>}}
The concept then became a topic of discussion in the interview with the owner of ''Conservapedia'' on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009.<ref>[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly], ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.</ref> In early February 2010, [[Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] implicitly endorsed the concept of the "best of the public" with this response to a question by a state college student:<ref>http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/clarence_thomas_rejects_ttt_label_for_his_law_clerks.php</ref>
{{cquote|I think there are smart kids a lot of places. ... [T]here is a bias. If you look at smart bloggers — or self-proclaimed smart bloggers — they referred to my clerks last year as TTT — 'third tier trash.' That's the attitude that you're up against.}}
Another way of expressing this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people." The enigmatic [[Christian]] term the "[[Son of Man]]" embodies how inspiration comes from the ostensibly ordinary rather than the esteemed experts. Most [[prophet]]s were also ordinary men.

==Examples==

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project. Other examples of approaches using the "best of the public" include:

===Intellectual examples===

*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|earliest Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] was written by an anonymous individual, yet its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*the solution of one of the greatest unsolved problem of our time, the [[Poincaré conjecture]] (see below)
*[[Ronald Coase]], an originally obscure economist, developed the now-accepted [[Coase theorem]] despite nearly unanimous rejection and opposition by experts
*[[Evariste Galois]], an unknown teenager, developed [[group theory]] and it took the mathematical experts a century to appreciate it
*[[Alexander Hamilton]], the most intellectually productive of the [[Founding Fathers]], was abandoned by his father, orphaned by the premature death of his mother, and then orphaned again by the suicide of his adopted father; he was stigmatized due to his social background and excluded from the local [[British]] school for it.
*the principle of trial by a jury of one's peers
*letters to the editor
*the design of Vietnam War Memorial (competition won by a college student, featuring ordinary soldiers)
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)
*an obscure, unsuccessful author, [[Herman Melville]], wrote the greatest novel in English literature, ''[[Moby-Dick]]''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, [[William Shakespeare]], produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Electoral College]] was intended to be composed of the best of the public, who would judge who was best qualified to be President.
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*design of the distinctive Coca-Cola glass bottle, which resulted from a public contest in 1915.
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]]
*Layman Allen devised games like "WFF 'n proof" and Equations which reduced absenteeism, increased math achievement and achieved voluntary integration in the segregated Chicago school system. [http://o.b5z.net/i/u/6035566/f/pdfs/articles/chicagoreader.pdf]
*[[Homeschooled]] students tended to dominate the annual Math Counts competition to such an extent that the competition changed the rules to ban teams of homeschoolers from participating. <ref>http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2760:homeschoolers-count-national-math-competition-bans-homeschoolers&catid=49:people&Itemid=132</ref>

===Moral examples===

*[[Mary]], the mother of [[Jesus]]
*[[Stephen]], the first martyr
*Prophets in the [[Old Testament]]
*Lenny Skutnik, the [[Mississippi]] native who dove into the icy [[Potomac River]] to rescue passengers from the crashed airplane on Jan. 13, 1982.<ref>"I wasn't a hero," Lenny Skutnik said. "I was just someone who helped another human being. We're surrounded by heroes. What made this different was that it was caught on film and went all over the world." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202052.html]</ref>

=== Political and legal examples ===

*[[William Penn]]'s approach to colonial [[Pennsylvania]], which even advertised to attract hard-working settlers of all ethnicity and religious beliefs; as a result [[Philadelphia]] quickly became the most prosperous and highly populated city in colonial [[America]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] embraced and embodied the best of the public in his speeches and political philosophy, and personified it by his own political ascendancy outside of the party establishment
*the recall of the governor, the attorney general, and another top official in North Dakota in 1921 -- who were corrupt politicians devoted to state ownership of industry -- was organized and achieved by someone who never held public office<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/opinion/recalling-the-first-recall.html?pagewanted=1</ref>
*the "[[common law]]" developed over centuries based on many day-to-day judicial decisions, relying on logic, custom and precedent, and such law was considered better than a statute drafted by one or a few experts
*the [[Australian]] 2020 summit employed the best of the public by bringing together 1,000 people from all over Australia to discuss and make plans for the country's future.<ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/summit-not-just-another-talkfest/story-e6frg726-1111115465754</ref>

===Musical examples===

*"Battle Hymn of the Republic," the only significant song by Julia Ward Howe, written in the dark during a pre-dawn inspiration
*"I Can See Clearly Now," a massive one-hit wonder by Johnny Nash in 1972
*"American Pie," the only hit by Don McLean, one of the most thoughtful ballads to top the charts for several weeks
*"You Light Up My Life," the only hit by Debbie Boone, was a tribute to God that topped the charts for many weeks
*"Sunshine" (1971), which was not only a one-hit wonder by Jonathan Edwards, but it was included in his album only because a preferred song had been accidentally erased.<ref>here was a song on the album called ‘Please Find Me,’ and for some reason the engineer rolled over it. It got erased. We spent hours looking for it. We fired the engineer and put ‘Sunshine’ in its place.” [http://www.jonathanedwards.net/general/presskit-biography.php]</ref>
*"Ice Ice Baby" was the "B-side" filler panned by "experts" which became a massive hit because a disc jockey played it by chance; allegedly written by Vanilla Ice when he was 16<ref>"There's just something about the way its hook — a sample from Queen and David Bowie's ''Under Pressure'' — grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor." [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318500,00.html]</ref>
*[[American Idol]]
*"[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]," the [[national anthem]] of the United States

:''(add more one-hit wonders)''

=== Military examples ===

*Eddie Rickenbacker, who had to drop out of school at age 12 in order to support his mother after his father died, became the "American Ace of Aces" with 26 victories in [[World War I]] (despite being relatively old), survived on a life raft for 54 days after his plane went down in [[World War II]] (despite being over 50 years old), and later spoke out for [[conservative]] views; Rickenbacker, a phenomenal race-car driver when WWI broke out, was rejected for flying but then fixed [[Billy Mitchell]]'s car and persuaded him to give Eddie a chance at aviation.<ref>http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_rickenbacker.html</ref>

===Athletics===

Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill.
====Competitions====
*The [[Olympic Games]],<ref>Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.</ref> known for setting the most world records
*The [[Chicago Marathon]], known for setting records for the fastest American marathons
*The [[Tour de France]].<ref>In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.</ref>

====Achievements====
*Arthur Ashe, son of a policeman, at the relatively old age of 31 crushed the nearly invincible 22-year-old Jimmy Connors in 1975 to become the only African American men's Wimbledon singles champion;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_2798000/2798971.stm</ref> Ashe won this upset with an ingenuous strategy of using offspeed volleys unfamiliar to the hard-hitting Connors.
*Dick Fosbury invented the Fosbury Flop despite criticism by all the experts. He won the 1968 Gold Medal with it, and now nearly everyone imitates his style.
*Bob Beamon, an obscure 22-year-old long jumper who barely qualified for the 1968 Olympic finals after fouling out on most attempts, then broke the world record by nearly two feet. In the preceding 30 years, the world record for the long jump had increased by only about 8 inches.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-bob-beamon.html</ref>
*An unsuccessful Olympian, the medical student Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute barrier for the mile, which some experts considered impossible; now the record is 3:43.
*A little-known pitcher, Don Larsen, threw the only perfect game in [[World Series]] history (Game 5, 1956)
*[[David]], a boy of slight build, defeated the most feared warrior of all time, the mammoth [[Goliath]]
*Kurt Warner, one of the greatest football quarterbacks,<ref>Warner is the only quarterback who has led two ''different'', hapless teams to three Super Bowls.</ref> was originally cut by the Green Bay Packers, denied a tryout by the Chicago Bears, and ultimately only given a chance due to another player's injury.
*Tom Brady, arguably the best quarterback of all time,<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2646827</ref> was given a chance at the NFL only after the experts had chosen 198 other players ahead of him in the 2000 NFL draft. He got to play only when Drew Bledsoe, chosen first by the experts in the 1993 draft, was injured.
*The Dallas Mavericks, having few stars, swept the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers and then crushed the star-studded Miami Heat to win the 2011 [[NBA]] title.
*[[Jeremy Lin]], denied college basketball scholarships, left undrafted by the [[NBA]] and cut by a weak NBA team, joined the 8-15 Knicks and then took them on a seven-game winning streak, including wiping the floor with [[liberal]]-promoted [[Kobe Bryant]] of the favored Lakers
*a very longshot underdog colt, ridden by a [[Kentucky Derby]] rookie, won the fabled race in an enormous upset in 2012.
:''(add more)''

===Science and technology===
*the greatest river engineer ever, James B. Eads, lacked any formal education and his revolutionary successes (such as the Eads Bridge) were opposed by leading experts<ref name="Eads bridge">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/peopleevents/p_jbeads.html</ref>
*perhaps the greatest health program of the 20th century, using a new term he coined for his program ("[[aerobics]]"), was developed by military physician Kenneth Cooper outside of a major medical research facility
*"Moldy" Mary Hunt, a low-level lab worker, used a rotten cantaloupe to facilitate the first ''mass'' production of [[penicillin]].<ref>"Then, in 1943, Mary Hunt, a lab worker in Peoria, Illinois brought in a cantaloupe melon. It was said to have been infected with a 'pretty, golden mould'. This mould was 'Penicillium chrysogeum'. It yielded about 200 times as much penicillin as Fleming's mould. Florey used x-rays to mutate the mould, which eventually gave 1000 times the yield of penicillin from the original." [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11777&start=0&sid=270d7f1ec3dc7c97bbb3c84a264676cc]</ref>
*the [[free software]] movement and its ongoing development of the [[Linux]] operating system
*the development of a heavier-than-air, [[fixed wing]] aircraft by the [[Wright Brothers]], despite opposition and mockery by aviation "experts."
*[[Henry Ford]]'s mass-production techniques, which turned automobiles from a curiosity into the backbone of American industry despite Ford's lack of formal education.
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
*[[Steve Wozniak]] developed the first popular personal computer from a garage-based operation
*[[Leonardo Da Vinci]] is one of the most well known designers in history, yet was illiterate in Latin, and never attended a university.
*distributed computing projects such as [[Folding@home]] that combine the computing power of hundreds of thousands of standard home PCs to solve computationally intense problems.
*the [[intelligent design]] theory explaining the origins of our universe.
*Tired of being denied a voice in the elite liberal media, [[Conservative media]] finds its voice and is widely popular; [[FOX News]], Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, NewsMax, ''[[National Review]]'', Worldnetdaily.com.
*New astronomical discoveries are regularly reported by amateur astronomers, to then be published by "experts", advancing their careers in the process.
*The leading and most innovative internet browser, [[Firefox]], was developed in a not-for-profit effort outside of the multi-billion-dollar [[Microsoft]] and [[Google]] empires.
*[[Mikhail Kalashnikov]] was drafted by the Russian military, and despite being trained in poetry and literature, eventually was made a firearms designer. He drew upon inspiration from Russian literature, and the Bible to focus on simplicity, and dependability. This simplicity resulted in the atheist experts rejecting his designs, and declaring them unworkable. The experts were however ultimately proven wrong, when one of his designs went on to win an open design contest, and became the single most reliable and prevalent firearm in the world: the [[AK-47]].
*In 1919, philanthropist Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to the first person to fly a solo, non-stop flight between New York and Paris. Although many wealthy aviation experts attempted to win this prize, it was an unknown amateur pilot named [[Charles Lindbergh]] who won it.
*In 1873, [[homeschooled]] [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[James Clerk Maxwell]] discovered the system of equations bearing his name that describe [[electromagnetism]].

===Finance===

*Studies show that the public does as good a job at picking good stock investments as the experts do. For example, stock market indexes typically outperform funds managed by experts.

===Exploration and discovery===

*Despite billions of research dollars, technical experts and equipment for professional astronomers, amateur astronomers play a crucial role in outer space discoveries. ''See [[Comet Lovejoy]]''
*Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, despite near-unanimous expert opinion that his first voyage was doomed to failure. On his second voyage, he successfully returned to the same place he had previously reached, despite the limited navigational skills of the experts of the time.

===Journalism===
*As noted in Conservapedia's breaking news, the [[lamestream media]] is being replaced by [[YouTube]] videos of breaking news.<ref>Fernandez, Richard. "A Wired World in its Own Mirror." March 11, 2011. Pajamas Media. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/11/a-wired-world-in-its-own-mirror/?singlepage=true</ref>
*Large media outlets have begun presenting amateur reports from viewers. This began with [[CNN]]'s iReport<ref>http://ireport.cnn.com</ref> and later was adopted by [[Fox News]] (uReport<ref>http://ureport.foxnews.com</ref>) and others.

== Obstacles Created by Experts ==

Experts have self-interest in defending their theories, even if incorrect, and in perpetuating the system that has rewarded and applauded them. Some experts receive prodigious sums by promoting theories that are false or implausible, either in the media or in courtrooms.

Most experts reasonably fear loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position disfavored by [[liberal]]s.

===Examples===

One expert said about the revolutionary design of the Eads bridge to transport heavy ships by railroad over the [[Mississippi River]]:<ref name="Eads bridge"/>
{{cquote|I deem it entirely unsafe and impracticable.}}
The Eads bridge continues to stand to this day.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_footage.html</ref>

==The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand==

The concept of best of the public was first articulated on [[Conservapedia]], although the effects have been observed by many great thinkers over the years. In a free society where the best of the public is allowed the latitude to excel, benefits accrue on many levels. [[Adam Smith]], the father of capitalism, observed this principle in effect; in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', he described how the best of the public, when given the freedom to generate wealth, could generate a net beneficial and uplifting effect that goes beyond their individual enterprises. Smith called this the "[[Invisible Hand]]." However, he confined his observations to the sphere of economics, whereas the "Best of the Public" principle operates on many different levels.

Marriage and family, for example, serve as an illustration of the principle in the social arena. When marriage is allowed to function without government interference and misguided attempts at social engineering, the result is strong families; the best of the public raise children of superior virtue and character, who in turn grow up to pass those values on to their children. This, in turn, leads to a net positive effect on society known as the [[Invisible Hand of Marriage]].

The same uplifting principle can be seen in any situation in which the best of the public is allowed to freely function and attain its potential. Events like the Olympics and the Tour de France permit the best of the public to strive on a physical level, resulting in many new record-breaking performances. While the principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] demonstrates the benefits that can result.

==Opposition to the Best of the Public==

===Government restrictions===
History demonstrates that the best of the public can only thrive in a free society. The cream cannot rise to the top if it is weighted down; eagles cannot soar if they are shackled by an oppressive government. This understanding is at the heart of conservative wisdom.

For example: it is only in a [[free market economy]] that the best of the public will be truly free to drive innovation, develop new technologies, and generate new wealth. In an overly-regulated economy, the incentive to excel is greatly reduced. Innovation is replaced by stagnation, and achievement by mediocrity.

===Elite gatekeepers===
Likewise, in an academic environment in which elite "experts" serve as gatekeepers, truly innovative research is frequently squelched in favor of orthodoxy and blind consensus. The chilling effect "scientific experts" can have on honest research was clearly demonstrated by the [[Climategate]] scandal. Even when such "experts" do not actively conspire to suppress dissent, their use of expertise and consensus as a bully pulpit can still silence opposing (and possibly correct) viewpoints.

===Mobs===
It is important to note the difference between "Best of the Public" and "mob rule." Simply allowing the loudest or most numerous voices to prevail is not the same thing as allowing the best of the public to drive achievement. Sites such as [[Wikipedia]] operate on the principle of mob rule, and as a result, are plagued with bias, inaccuracy, and an inability to differentiate between significant insights and trivia.

One of the most pointed illustrations of this difference is the [[United States]] itself. The [[Founding Fathers]], despite not naming it, applied the "Best of the Public" principle in their attempts to craft a new government. Realizing the danger of mob rule, they rejected a pure democracy in favor of a democratic Republic--a system designed to ensure that, while all of the public would have a voice in their new government, the best of the public would guide that government as elected representatives. In so doing, they clearly affirmed that they believed the best of the public was better than a group of experts; in contrast, the nations of Europe still firmly subscribed to the notion that government should be in the hands of elite "experts" (the ruling families and nobility.)

===Obscurity===
The "best of the public" must be able to be heard. There are millions of books published, and even more books self-published without approval of traditional publishing houses. Many authors protest<ref>Paul Biba. [http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/18/self-publishing-e-books-and-legitimacy-part-3-of-a-series/ Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series], teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm Prime Palaver #6]", Eric Flint</ref> that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

==Experts versus the Best of the Public==
Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of [[groupthink]] and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.<ref>See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.</ref>

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university. In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field. He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject. Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished. Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources. Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye. Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A. He very well might disagree with the experts' point of view; at the very least, he would have a much better knowledge of its shortcomings.

A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.

== Solution of the Poincaré Conjecture ==

The solution to the [[Poincaré conjecture]], one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known [[Gregori Perelman]] who worked on his own and merely posted his solution on the internet. He had never been offered a permanent job and was critical of the lack of openness among mathematical experts as he described a rare exception:<ref>[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added)], Encyclopedia of World Biography.</ref>
{{cquote|He actually told me a couple of things that he published a few years later. He did not hesitate to tell me. Hamilton's openness and generosity—it really attracted me. '''I can't say that most mathematicians act like that'''.}}
At great monetary sacrifice, Perelman refused to accept the awards conferred on him by experts after they eventually recognized the brilliance of his proof. A leading expert was accused of improperly trying to take credit for Perelman's work.

The Steklov Institute apparently declined to re-elect Perelman as a member in 2003, supposedly because the experts continued to doubt his proof. Reportedly Perelman has quit mathematics and was "jobless, living with his mother in St. Petersburg, and subsisting on her modest pension." He was quoted as saying:<ref>Mike Ciavarella. [http://imechanica.org/node/3360 Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers], imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.</ref>
{{cquote|I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. ... It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated.}}

In 2006, the mathematical establishment delivered another backhanded compliment to Perelman's achievement: he was awarded the [[Fields Medal]] on a shared basis with (1) an Obama-supporter who had jointly worked on a number theory problem, (2) a French mathematician-actor, and (3) a younger countryman who had achieved far less. This four-way split of the prize with far less significant achievements was inappropriate. Perelman declined this prize also.

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
* [[Expert Error]]
* [[Independent review]]
* [[Essay:Everyday Heroes]]
* [[Free software movement]]
{{Conservapedia}}
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Federal Budget Deficit

2012-07-04T01:26:07Z

MarkGall: /* Liberal spending and incredible increase in deficit */

'''Federal Budget Deficit''' is the difference in any year between the [[government]] revenue and the government spending. The national [[debt]] is the cumulative unpaid total of the annual [[deficit]]. The government essentially always runs a deficit, in large part due to [[Medicare]] expanding far beyond [[CBO]] expectations.

As reported by ''[[USA Today]]'':<ref>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm</ref>

:Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later. The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition. Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined. Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

==Liberal spending and incredible increase in deficit==
In 2008, the deficit was $248 billion. However, during former President George W. Bush's final year in office, when he adopted a significantly more liberal policy than in his previous year, the deficit skyrocketed to $1.4 trillion. Current President Barack Obama has done little to fix this, having deficits remaining in the trillions <ref>http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html</ref>

== See also ==
*[[National debt]]
*[[Federal]]
*[[Federal Communications Commission]]
*[[Civil liberties]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]

ObamaCare

2012-07-04T00:59:31Z

MarkGall:

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|right|150px]]
'''ObamaCare''',<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/president-reagan-on-government-run-health-care</ref> more formally known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''," will impose massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance, beginning in 2014. ObamaCare is the biggest handout by [[liberals]] to a single interest group -- the health insurance industry -- in [[America]]n history. Even a [[Democrat]] Senator recently admitted: ObamaCare "cost [[Obama]] a lot of credibility as a leader."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/222259-sen-webb-says-president-obamas-health-law-cost-him-a-lot-of-credibility-as-a-leader</ref> On June 28, 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld ObamaCare -- by only one vote, 5-4 -- as being within the taxing power of the federal government. In essence, the Court said to Obama: you did raise taxes, and it's called ObamaCare.

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> AAPS observes that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref>

ObamaCare was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law furthers the process of [[Socialism|socializing]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system begun with [[Medicare]].<ref>Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed ObamaCare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: ObamaCare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of ObamaCare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which is unprecedented in American history. Through legislative mandates, ObamaCare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.
[[File:Obama care tax.jpg|right|300px]]
On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that, while Obamacare exceeded Congress’s authority under the commerce clause, the law was a permissible tax under the Constitution. <ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf]</ref>. The constitutionality of Obamacare was originally challenged under the theory that it exceeded the limitations of the commerce clause; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against ObamaCare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over ObamaCare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared ObamaCare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

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

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

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

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

== Basic Requirements ==

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

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

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

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

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

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

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

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

Requires family policies to include children up to age 26.

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

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

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

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

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

=== Employer Requirements ===

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

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

=== Medicaid ===

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

=== New Bureaucracy ===

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

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

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

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

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

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

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

===Privacy Rights===

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

==Rationed Care==

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

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

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

==Disinformation==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== External links ==
*[http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Full text of Obamacare, aka Affordable Healthcare Act]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov/news/brochures/info-for-small-businesses.pdf Official site info for small businesses; statement there will be penalties against employers]
*[http://www.castlibrary.com/free_books Three Days of Argument: Obamacare On Trial Audiobook] - Complete coverage of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200- Key Points video]
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ ObamaCare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*[[Fox News|FoxNews.com]]: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of ObamaCare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].

{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

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

1 AD

2012-07-04T00:51:17Z

MarkGall: sp

'''1 AD''' is the first year of the 1st century of the 1st millennium; along with the start of the Anno Domini calendar ([[Secularized Language|Secularized]] to Common Era).

It was year 754 of the [http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/ab%20urbe%20condita ab urbe condita], or the date since the traditional founding of [[Rome]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Years]]

Banjo

2011-08-13T15:21:05Z

MarkGall:

The '''banjo''' is a stringed musical instrument, usually played in [[folk]] music or [[bluegrass]] music. The instrument features a long [[fret]]ted neck and a body that looks like a drum, with a (usually artificial) skin stretched over a circular frame. While strongly identified with [[American]] musical traditions, the ancestor of the modern-day banjo most likely comes from West [[Africa]], brought by slaves in the late seventeenth century to [[Jamaica]] and the southern American colonies. It reached its present form in the second half of the nineteenth century, when it began to be commercially sold throughout the United States.<ref>Jay Scott Odell and Robert B. Winans. "Banjo." In ''New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'' and ''Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online'', http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/01958 (accessed January 12, 2010).</ref>

Most banjos have 5 strings (though the shorter tenor banjo has only four), one of which is shorter, and is played as a drone in the background.
Banjos with 4 strings are tuned as DGBD, and banjos with 5 strings are tuned as GDGBD.<ref>http://www.folkofthewood.com/Images10/tuning5stringbanjo2.jpg</ref> Thus a banjo strummed with no strings fretted sounds a G major chord.

There are two main ways of playing the banjo, bluegrass style (also called Scruggs style, or three-finger style) or clawhammer (also called old-time, or frailing) style.

Bluegrass banjo requires the player to play a series of complex patterns ("rolls"), picking individual strings in quick succession, emphasizing the notes of the melody. To achieve this, a player wears picks on two of his fingers and the thumb, with his hand held stationary over the strings. This style was developed in the mid [[20th century]] by bluegrass musician [[Earl Scruggs]]. It is more common in the United States than clawhammer, but is sometimes considered more technically difficult.

Clawhammer has the player picking the notes of the melody interspersed with strumming all the strings together. This style is older than bluegrass style and is usually easier to learn. In the usual style, only the thumb and index finger are used, and strings are struck by the back of the fingernail.

The banjo is also popular in [[Ireland]] where it is often played in [[Celtic music]]. The banjo was brought to Ireland from the [[United States]] by returning emigrants. In addition to its use in bluegrass and old-time music, the banjo was an important instrument in early [[jazz]], and in recent times has been used in a variety of genres, including [[classical music]] and [[rock and roll]].

Notable banjo players include Eddie Peabody, Grandpa Jones, "Stringbean" Akeman, Earl Scruggs, Ralph Stanley, Bill Keith, and more recently Tony Trischka and Bela Fleck. Comedian [[Steve Martin]] is also a talented banjo player, and won a Grammy in 2002 for a performance with a group that included Earl Scruggs.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:String Instruments]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-12T19:37:54Z

MarkGall: /* Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive2|Archive 2]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-09T02:20:20Z

MarkGall: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ barry goldwater

==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
*[[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]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, 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 for the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[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.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Army Officer and Writer. First president of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern Turkish state.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - 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)
*[[Denis Healey]] - UK Chancellor, soldier (beach-master at Anzio)
*[[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]] - 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 ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[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 and arguably the single most influential politician anywhere in the 20th century; previously a lawyer specialising in land ownership.
*[[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 [[Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer

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

*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

== Other ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia.

(please add examples)

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

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T04:21:27Z

MarkGall: oops, he's already there

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before Senator of Wisconsin.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[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]], and architect of the fall of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[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

== 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

== 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]]
(please add examples)

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

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T04:21:06Z

MarkGall: Herbert Hoover

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - mining engineer
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before Senator of Wisconsin.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[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]], and architect of the fall of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[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

== 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

== 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]]
(please add examples)

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

Earl Scruggs

2011-08-08T00:40:46Z

MarkGall: stub to get rid of red link

'''Earl Scruggs''' is an American [[bluegrass]] pioneer, who developed and popularized the three-finger style of [[banjo]] picking, now almost universally used by bluegrass players and known as "Scruggs' style". Scruggs got his start playing the banjo for Bill Monroe's already popular group the "Blue Grass Boys" in 1945. Three years later he left and partnered with guitarist Lester Flatt to form the Foggy Mountain Boys, later known simply as Flatt and Scruggs, with whom he performed for more than twenty years. The duo were great stars of bluegrass during this period, and were later jointly inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Scruggs authored numerous works that would go on to become bluegrass standards, including "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" and "The Ballad of Jed Clampett".

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T23:29:10Z

MarkGall: rand paul

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[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
*[[Thomas Jefferson]] - land surveyor <ref>[http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/surveying Surveying]</ref>
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] - land surveyor, tavern keeper, storekeeper, postmaster, lawyer <ref>[http://www.surveyhistory.org/abraham_lincoln_-_the_surveyor1.htm Abraham Lincoln - The Land Surveyor]</ref>
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician)
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist)
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the Governor of [[Florida]]

== Not yet influential in politics ==

*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[Herman Cain]] - CEO of Godfathers Pizza and accomplished businessman
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

(please add examples)

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

Banjo

2011-08-07T22:59:28Z

MarkGall: a bit of expansion

The '''banjo''' is a stringed musical instrument, usually played in [[folk]] music or [[bluegrass]] music. The instrument features a long [[fret]]ted neck and a body that looks like a drum, with a (usually artificial) skin stretched over a circular frame. While strongly identified with [[American]] musical traditions, the ancestor of the modern-day banjo most likely comes from West [[Africa]], brought by slaves in the late seventeenth century to [[Jamaica]] and the southern American colonies. It reached its present form in the second half of the nineteenth century, when it began to be commercially sold throughout the United States.<ref>Jay Scott Odell and Robert B. Winans. "Banjo." In ''New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians'' and ''Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online'', http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/01958 (accessed January 12, 2010).</ref>

Most banjos have 5 strings (though the shorter tenor banjo has only four), one of which is shorter, and is played as a drone in the background.
Banjos with 4 strings are tuned as DGBD, and banjos with 5 strings are tuned as GDGBD.<ref>http://www.folkofthewood.com/Images10/tuning5stringbanjo2.jpg</ref> Thus a banjo strummed with no strings fretted sounds a G major chord.

There are two main ways of playing the banjo, bluegrass style (also called Scruggs style, or three-finger style) or clawhammer (also called old-time, or frailing) style.

Bluegrass banjo requires the player to play a series of complex patterns ("rolls"), picking individual strings in quick succession, emphasizing the notes of the melody. To achieve this, a player wears picks on two of his fingers and the thumb, with his hand held stationary over the strings. This style was developed in the mid [[20th century]] by bluegrass musician [[Earl Scruggs]]. It is more common in the United States than clawhammer, but is sometimes considered more technically difficult.

Clawhammer has the player picking the notes of the melody interspersed with strumming all the strings together. This style is older than bluegrass style and is usually easier to learn. In the usual style, only the thumb and index finger are used, and strings are struck by the back of the fingernail.

The banjo is also popular in [[Ireland]] where it is often played in [[Celtic music]]. The banjo was brought to Ireland from the [[United States]] by returning emigrants. In addition to its use in bluegrass and old-time music, the banjo was an important instrument in early [[jazz], and in recent times has been used in a variety of genres, including [[classical music]] and [[rock and roll]].

Notable banjo players include Eddie Peabody, Grandpa Jones, "Stringbean" Akeman, Earl Scruggs, Ralph Stanley, Bill Keith, and more recently Tony Trischka and Bela Fleck. Comedian [[Steve Martin]] is also a talented banjo player, and won a Grammy in 2002 for a performance with a group that included Earl Scruggs.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:String Instruments]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T22:17:39Z

MarkGall: carter

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[George Washington]] - successful military general and real estate investor
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician)
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer

== Not yet influential in politics ==

*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (Saturday Night Live)
*[[Herman Cain]] - CEO of Godfathers Pizza and accomplished businessman
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist (Fermilab)

(add examples)
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T22:11:32Z

MarkGall: only a house member, but one of the few scientists in congress

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[George Washington]] - successful military general and real estate investor
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician)

== Not yet influential in politics ==

*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (Saturday Night Live)
*[[Herman Cain]] - CEO of Godfathers Pizza and accomplished businessman
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist (Fermilab)

(add examples)
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T22:05:13Z

MarkGall: clarify

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Ron Paul]] - doctor (private practice)
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (Saturday Night Live)

(add examples)
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T22:03:16Z

MarkGall: ron paul, plus a handful of senators who come to mind. maybe we should also exclude lawyers, who comprise a large part of the senate?

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Ron Paul]] - doctor
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian

(add examples)
[[Category:Essays]]

Conservapedia talk:Writing plan

2011-08-06T19:10:41Z

MarkGall: /* Examples? */

Good to see the rule under which I was blocked finally being written.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:38, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.135.49.177&diff=180656254&oldid=180638564 I tried asking a user to do this once on Wikipedia]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 My request was quickly shot down] with the edit summary "rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.135.49.177&diff=181131550&oldid=181119795 My attempt to enforce this] backfired.

Feh. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 00:26, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Is this a new Commandment? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:38, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps someone could better illustrate what a writing plan is. I got blocked for asking what one was, when it was demanded of me, and this article doesn't make it clear at all. --[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 14:38, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Examples? ==

I think it would be helpful if this page linked to some examples of well-received writing plans, to give some guidance as to the expectations. Do any such examples exist? -- I don't think in my time at CP I ever saw anyone actually submit a writing plan, they tended to just get banned. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:59, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:It's similiar to 90/10; the idea is to cut down discussion and get an editor focued on mainspace contribs. Ed is the only sysop I've ever seen do this [http://cp.noym.net/1221d0ffdd3dc93f], but sysops do not have the power to issue instructions to editors anymore. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:50, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Let me be clear on this, it appears a recent block was ''for'' failure to follow instructions to submit a writing plan, whereas the idea is supposed to be submit a writing plan to get unblocked, I think. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That may be the idea, but has anyone actually submitted a writing plan, ever? If not it seems this might not be a very effective policy (or it's extremely effective, if the goal is just to give a premise for blocking) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:10, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Writing plan

2011-08-06T17:59:06Z

MarkGall: links to examples?

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:11:58Z

MarkGall: /* Yea */ add votes collected by User:Conservative

<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. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==
*[[User:Conservative]]
*[[User:TerryH]]
*[[User:Karajou]]
*Mystery Sysop 1
*Mystery Sysop 2

(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))

==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?)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T19:08:06Z

MarkGall: /* Nay */ my vote

<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> ''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 resisting User:Conservatives efforts to invoke [[mob rule]]. I will however do what I can to help if that were to happen.''
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yea==

==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 loose 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?)

Women in Science and Mathematics

2011-07-20T12:02:24Z

MarkGall: cleanup

Although there have been relatively few females in science and mathematics historically, modern women are increasingly pursuing careers in science. The number of females earning advanced degrees in science and math has significantly increased since 1980, and if male interest in science and enginnering degrees continute to lag, women are poised to overtake men in earning [[Stem|STEM]] degrees.<ref>http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_049141.pdf</ref>

Here are a few noteworthy female scientists and mathematicians:

*Florence Bascom—First female American geologist,

*Jocelyn Bell—Astronomer, discovered the first pulsar.

*Gerty Theresa Cori—Received the Nobel prize for her discovery of the process by which glycogen (a carbohydrate used by animals for energy storage, analogous to starch in plants) is broken down into lactic acid. <ref>http://nndb.com/people/144/000128757/</ref>

*Edith Flanigen— Developed molecular sieves and invented the process for forming synthetic emeralds, important to early lasers.

*Rosalind Franklin— Used the process of x-ray crystallography to determine the molecular shape of DNA, her work was then used by Watson and Crick to form the Double Helix theory of DNA structure. Died before she could be awarded the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

*Elaine Fuchs—Biochemist whose research on the molecular chemistry of skin revolutionized dermatology.

*Sophie Germain—Mathematician who did important work in number theory and proved [[Fermat's last theorem]] for all <math>n \leq 100</math>, one of the best results until Wiles.

*M. Katharine Holloway & Chen Zhao— co-developed protease inhibitors, antiviral chemicals used to extend the lives of AIDS victims.

*Hypatia—First notable female mathematician, born in 370 AD, provided revolutionary commentary on several ancient mathematical works, such as "Apollonius".

*[[Ada Lovelace]]—Collaborated with [[Charles Babbage]] on what was arguably the first computer (though it was never built) and arguably the first computer programmer (though there is controversy on this.)

*Mary Lyon— Pioneered lab experience as an integral part of undergraduate chemistry education after founding one of the first women's colleges in the United States.

*Barbara McClintock— Made groundbreaking developments in the study of the cytogenetics and the visualization of the corn genome, received the Nobel prize in Medicine for her efforts in 1983.

*Lise Meitner—Physicist, discovered nuclear fission, with Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassner. Namesake of [[Meitnerium]].

*[[Grace Murray Hopper]]—A very early [[computer programmer]], led the development of the first high-level computer language, [[COBOL]].

*Emmy Noether — laid the groundwork for [[commutative algebra]], one of two mathematicians whose name has become so ubiquitous in modern usage that it is spelled in lowercase.

*Ida Noddack (physicist)

*[[Marie Sklodowska Curie]]—Physicist/chemist, discovered [[Polonium]] and [[Radium]], namesake of [[Curium]].

*Nettie Maria Stevens—Ended the debate on sex determination through her research on the X and Y chromosomes.

==References==
<references/>

Women in Science and Mathematics

2011-07-20T03:08:30Z

MarkGall: bios for the math folks

Although there have been relatively fewer females in science and mathematics historically, modern women are increasingly pursuing careers in science. The number of females earning advanced degrees in science and math has significantly increased since 1980, and if male interest in science and enginnering degrees continute to lag, women are poised to overtake men in earning [[Stem|STEM]] degrees.<ref>http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_049141.pdf</ref>

Here are a few noteworthy female scientists and mathematicians:

*Florence Bascom—First female american geologist,

*Jocelyn Bell—Astronomer, discovered the first pulsar.

*Gerty Theresa Cori—Recieved the noble prize for her discovery of the process by which glycogen (a carbohydrate used by animals for energy storage, analogous to starch in plants) is broken down into lactic acid. <ref>http://nndb.com/people/144/000128757/</ref>

*Edith Flanigen— Developed molecular sieves and invented the process for forming synthetic emeralds, important to early lasers.

*Rosalind Franklin— Used the process of x-ray crystallography to determine the molecular shape of DNA, her work was then used by Watson and Crick to form the Double Helix theory of DNA structure. Died before she could be awarded the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick.

*Elaine Fuchs—Biochemist who's research on the molecular chemistry of skin revolutionized dermatology.

*Sophie Germain (mathematician); did important work in number theory, proved [[Fermat's last theorem]] for all <math>n \leq 100</math>, one of the best results until Wiles.

*M. Katharine Holloway & Chen Zhao— co-developed protease inhibitors, antiviral chemicals used to extend the lives of AIDS victims.

*Hypatia—First notable female mathematician, born in 370 AD, provided revolutionary commentary on several ancient mathematical works, such as "Apollonius".

*[[Ada Lovelace]]—Collaborated with [[Charles Babbage]] on what was arguably the first computer (though it was never built) and arguably the first computer programmer (though there is controversy on this.)

*Mary Lyon— Pioneered lab experience as an integral part of undergraduate chemistry education after founding one of the first women's colleges in the United States.

*Barbara McClintock— Made groundbreaking developments in the study of the cytogenetics and the visualization of the corn genome, received the Nobel prize in Medicine for her efforts in 1983.

*Lise Meitner—Physicist, discovered nuclear fission, with Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassner. Namesake of [[Meitnerium]].

*[[Grace Murray Hopper]]—A very early [[computer programmer]], led the development of the first high-level computer language, [[COBOL]].

*Emma Noether (mathematician); laid the groundwork for [[commutative algebra]], one of two mathematicians whose name has become so ubiquitous in modern usage that it is spelled in lowercase.

*Ida Noddack (physicist)

*[[Marie Sklodowska Curie]]—Physicist/chemist, discovered [[Polonium]] and [[Radium]], namesake of [[Curium]].

*Nettie Maria Stevens—Ended the debate on sex determination through her research on the X and Y chromosomes.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Theories of New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight

2011-07-19T22:19:39Z

MarkGall: Essay?

== Move to essay? ==

I can't claim comprehensive cognizance of the countless controversies concerning Conservative's curious contributions, but isn't this junk supposed to be in Essay: space? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:19, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Hooke's Law

2011-07-19T22:13:32Z

MarkGall: fix redlinks

'''Hooke's Law''' states that the force exerted by a stretched or compressed spring is a restoring force and is linearly proportional to the distance that the spring is stretched or compressed beyond its relaxed length. The formula for Hooke's law is <math> \vec F = -k \vec x </math> where k is the spring stiffness constant which has units of newtons per [[meter]] and <math> \vec x </math> is the displacement from the equilibrium position.

The negative sign here is to indicate that the force is in the direction opposite the displacement. For example, if <math>\vec x</math> is to the right, then <math>-k \vec x</math> is to the left, indicating that the mass is pulled back towards the spring.

The force <math> \vec F = -k \vec x</math> can be interpreted as a vector field depending on the displacement vector <math>\vec x</math>. Since this field is the gradient of the function <math>\frac{1}{2} k|\vec x|^2</math>, this means that <math>\vec F</math> is a [[conservative field]]. As a result, <math>E = \frac{1}{2} k|\vec x|^2</math> is conserved, and is the potential energy stored in the string. Moreover, <math>E</math> depends only on <math>\vec x</math>, and not the path that the particle takes to get to <math>\vec x</math>, and so it is said to be a path independent quantity.

It should be noted that in reality, Hooke's law is merely an approximation, and no physical spring actually has precisely this behavior. However, for most materials a version of Hooke's law holds for reasonable ranges of <math>\vec x</math>. This is called the ''elastic range'' of the material.

If a particle moves only under the influence of the force exerted by a spring, then Newton's second law (<math>\vec F = m \vec a</math>) implies that its displacement satisfies the second-order [[differential equation]] <math>m\ddot{\vec x} = - k \vec x</math>. This is solved by <math>\vec x(t) = \vec x_0 \cos(\omega t)</math>, where <math>\omega = \sqrt{k/m}</math> is the frequency of oscillation: thus the particle moves in a "[[sine|sine wave]]" shape. This is an example of simple harmonic motion.

[[Category:Physics]]

User talk:MarkGall

2011-07-19T22:11:19Z

MarkGall: /* Welcome back */ thanks!

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 10 June 2009 (EDT)}}

Hello there, Mark! I am truly glad to see that you are adding new pages for Obama's "Czars." So far, so good for a newcomer to Conservapedia!
-[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Czars... ==

<big>Great work, Mark, but can we please consolidate these into one Obama Czar article?</big> --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:10, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

:As before, I'm happy to merge them -- I only created seperate pages since it was requested on the main page by DeanS to fill in red links he added to [[Obama Administration]]. What should the new article be titled, and how would you recommend laying it out? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 16:44, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

::One would have to find the articles, as they are not linked from the Obama Administration page. If you can do that, provide the links, I can move them onto the same page, entitled Obama Administration Czars. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:31, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

:::Here they are:
:::[[Alan Bersin]], [[Steven Rattner]], [[Gil Kerlikowske]], [[Paul A. Volcker]], [[Carol Browner]], [[Jeffrey Zients]], [[Cameron Davis]], [[Nancy-Ann DeParle]], [[John Brennan]], [[Dennis Blair]], [[Kenneth R. Feinberg]], [[Cass R. Sunstein]], [[Vivek Kundra]], [[Adolfo Carrion, Jr.]], [[Gary Samore]]
:::These are all linked at [[Obama Administration]] (the sixth section, "czars"), which ought to be updated accordingly. I can go through and clean up the redundant information once your merge is finished. Thanks! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:46, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

== String Theory ==

Thanks for adding the attributions to Givental, Lian, Liu, and Yau. Don't ask me why I left out such an important credit.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

*Lotrsw86? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:13, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

::Who/what is Lotrsw86? If you suspect me of having another username, I assure you that's not the case. I hope it's clear from my contributions by now that I'm not a vandal. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

==Math articles==
If you please, try to place an example of a problem within the math articles that are posted. For instance, in your [[Fundamental group]] article there could be a problem within each subtopic, broken down in a step-by-step manner to lead the reader in understanding and solving it. Think this is possible? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like your idea about problems in the math articles. The issue here is that it's difficult to come up with problems on the fundamental group that could really be answered at this level. An exposition at this level doesn't give the reader the knowledge to solve any real problems. I don't even prove what the fundamental group of the circle is -- a proof requires much more theory than is in the article, but the intuition is clear. I could ask for intuitive guesses about fundamental groups, but just about every space that a new reader knows about is given as an example already! I will try to think something up, I'm sure it can be done.
:In the article [[differential geometry]] which I did a bit of work on a couple weeks ago, I inserted "motivating questions" in a few places, to indicate why someone would care about it. I can certainly do this in the fundamental group article. Actually, I was thinking that on the front page [[mathematics]], it would be neat to put motivating questions under all the headers you created, to give a flavor of these areas of mathematics. What do you think of that idea? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 09:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I added two problems/solutions to [[fundamental group]]. What do you think? One is for conceptual understanding, while one tests ability to manipulate the definitions. I'll try to add more. What do you think? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:51, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

== big bang ==
You undid my edit; why? The list of astronomers I posted contained many people who are far more knowledgeable than either Arp or Burbidge, as evidenced by their continued research in the field of cosmology. While Arp and Geoff might be fine astronomers, they certainly do not understand the preponderance of data that contradicts their pet theories; if their's are notable names to be attached to an article in opposition to the Big Band Theory, why should the names of proponents not be included?

:You added a useless list of mostly obscure scientists. It did nothing to improve the exposition of the article and created the appearance that the theory is more widely supported among scientists than it actually is. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 16:53, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

==Edit summaries==

Hi, Mark. Could you be more specific than ''reinserted some correct info'' when you edit difficult or advanced articles like [[Infinity]]? Our readers and contributors need to know WHAT is being inserted and WHY. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:My apologies. I was reinserting some correct information which I had inadvertently removed when taking out some apparent vandalism, and didn't think to state what it actually was. That material's been there for some time so I hope it won't be controversial, but I'll try to pay more attention in the future. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:28, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

::Excellent edit summary here. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Windows_bugs&curid=87465&diff=701666&oldid=701664&rcid=768499] Keep this link for a get-out-of-jail-free card! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:42, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

Mark, it just dawned on me that you might enjoy teaching a math course here to high school homeschoolers. Just a thought for you to consider ...--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:42, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

:Mr. Schlafly, I would certainly love to do that at some point. Unfortunately, for now I don't have time to put in the effort it would require to do it well -- I'm busy enough teaching undergrads (who I suspect are much less motivated than the homeschoolers here!) and keeping up with my own work. I'd consider it at some point in the future, perhaps next year so I can develop materials over the summer. I saw that you once tried to start up a [[Conservapedia:Critical_Thinking_in_Math|math course]] here -- if enough interest materializes again, I'd be happy to be an assistant teacher and help out as much as I'm able! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:49, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, that's fine and I appreciate your work ethic! Maybe I'll get a math course started sometime early next year, and with your help it can grow.

:: The advantage of teaching with the wiki software is that a course can improve dramatically each time it is taught. I'm seeing that with the Economics course now. Thanks again for your insights and effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Templates etc. ==

(Sorry about ping-ponging this thread all over my page, Andy's page, and your page, but it will be finished very soon.)

Thanks for weighing in on this. I've made the "H" change, calculus; I don't think there's any issue about that one.

On the "A" change (topology/Riemann), I've been going back and forth in my mind about how to do this. I don't think that it being an open question or not is really important. These things are really just decorations. Though I think the best description should be along the lines of "You should know what the equation to the left is talking about before reading this article." (Sort of like the "You must be this tall to go on this ride" signs at amusement parks :-) Or maybe it should be stronger, as in "You should know what this is talking about ''and be able to solve it''." Which of course means Riemann is not suitable. And I think the higher homotopy groups would cut me out. :-( My topology study ended at about the point of the higher homotopy groups. :-( In any case, by the "and be able to solve it" criterion, which works for the other 3 templates, pi-1 of S-1 is about right.

In any case, let me know if this is OK, or if you want pi-m of S-n, and we can let Andy re-protect them. Unprotecting the two lower ones ("E" and "M") was not necessary; it was never my intention to modify those, but I was in too big a hurry last night, at 12 minutes past midnight, to deal with such subtleties. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 09:51, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, sounds good to me. \pi_1(S^1) is about the right level. Thanks for fixing this! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:19, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== Incompleteness Theorem ==

Mark:

I'm planning to work on the issues of logic, completeness, undecidability, and the Gödel incompleteness theorem next. Basically, everywhere I look, I see things to do, and I happened to look at the [[Undecidable]] page and the [[Axiom]] page. The latter is fairly straightforward -- the characterization of the axioms of geometry being "challenged" by Non-Euclidean geometry needs to be clarified.

But the "undecidable" stuff needs a lot more care. I'm pretty sure I understand the issues, but I'm not 100% sure, so I want to run it by you. It seems to me that essentially all of the material about "Famous undecidable statements" is wrong. These may be statements that are at the edge of what ZF and ZFC mean, but they don't relate to the Gödel incompleteness theorem. And "undecidablility" is about the Gödel incompleteness theorem, ''not'' about the axioms of ZF.

My understanding is that the Gödel incompleteness theorem says, roughly
:*Any logical system rich enough to express integer arithmetic is "incomplete" in the sense that it is not true that, for every well-formed formula F, either F or not F is a theorem (has a proof in that logic).
The logical systems being analyzed by Gödel are simple logics about integers, with nowhere near the sophistication of ZF or ZFC. The non-provability of AC in plain ZF is not really what the Gödel incompleteness theorem is about. You simply add AC, get ZFC, note that the result is still consistent (that is, you now have a trivial proof of AC because it is an axiom, but you do not have a proof of not-AC) and move on.

Hence, it seems to me that all the things in the article related to AC (Banach-Tarski, Continuum hypothesis, large cardinals, non-measurable sets) belong in a different article, since they distract from Gödel's contribution. Only the halting problem (a result from the closely related field of theoretical computer science) is directly relevant to Gödel. And that's what "decidability" should be about.

Of course, fact that neither AC nor not-AC has a proof in ZF is an example of incompletness, but it's not what Gödel was talking about. That is, plain ZF is incomplete, but incomplete logics are a dime a dozen. Gödel showed that ''no'' logic rich enough for integers could be complete.

Does this make sense?

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:07, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:Hi Patrick,

:Logic's not my forte (you may have noticed I haven't really touched those articles), but I believe everything you say is correct. I am certain that the only thing on the list of "undecidable problems" which is actually undecidable is the halting problem. "Undecidable" is certainly not the same thing as "not provable within ZF", and choice is independent of ZF, not undecidable. Your statement of incompleteness is also good, and I think understandable.

:If you haven't seen it, there's a nice little book called "Godel's Proof" by Nagel that sketches the proof (in 100+ pages) in a fairly nontechnical way. I couldn't give a formal statement of the theorem, but your summary is more or less the same as the one there. I'm looking forward to seeing the article!

== [[Dirichlet's theorem]] ==

Thanks for explaining the requirement!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:No problem... thanks for catching the error in the statement! Can't believe I missed that one. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:48, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

== Functors ==

Sorry to mess up your elegant article on mathematical functors with low-class computer stuff, but there are probably more people familiar with the latter usage. :-(

Was the material on contravariant functors OK? I remember learning about this back in college. The cohomology functor is contravariant, right?

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 15:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:My article's not elegant at all! It's just a cleanup until the CP treatment of category theory gets redone (if ever; I don't think it's a high priority). Thanks for adding the CS definition -- I'd heard the term, but never knew what it was before! I think the ideal situation would be a single page about basic notions in category theory -- definition of category, examples, definition of functor, examples, definition of natural transformation, examples, .... It doesn't make sense to me for functor to have its own page. I'd put things like "pushout square" and "adjoint functor" on their own pages, if they were ever written, but I'm not sure they belong here.

:You're right on about contravariant functors. I probably should've mentioned it. Sometimes these days when people write "functor" they just mean covariant functor, and a controvariant functor from A is just regarded as a covariant functor from A^op (A with all arrows reversed). It's definitely more illuminating this way, and cohomology is indeed an example.

:The other example I'm thinking about adding is Hom(-,V) and Hom(V,-), both functors from Vect_k to Vect_k. Given a fixed vector space V, Hom(-,V) is the functor that sends an object W in Vect_k to the set of linear maps from W to V, which is itself a vector space. The first of these is contravariant and the second is covariant (or the other way, I always get it wrong), and it's easy to write down why. It's a nice pair of examples in an easy-to-understand category. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:00, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

== Awesome work! ==

Great job on some of these math articles, especially all that content to diffeomorphism! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:57, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks! I'm not really sure what to do with that one -- the notion and examples are obvious to anyone who knows what a smooth manifold is, but not very useful to anyone else. It's a hard thing to motivate. But hopefully the exotic spheres will be news to some. Jump in if you have any ideas to make it easier to read for people with less background!

If you like the geometric style argument we talked about on [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]], you should check out "Visual Complex Analysis" by Tristan Needham, a doctoral student of Roger Penrose. It's full of cool geometric arguments for complex analysis and Riemann manifolds that I haven't seen anywhere else. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:11, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:I'm a big fan of that book! I was a teaching assistant in a complex analysis course a couple years ago, and almost all of my review sessions (an hour a week) consisted of presenting the arguments from Needham to try to convince the students the theorems were plausible! My intuitions in physics are really bad, I ought to work on seeing things like that. Do you know any physics books along those lines? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::Oh, that's awesome! I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Needham at USF, in private sessions my senior year, and I know for a fact that he is working on a similar book for differential geometry. He based the methods of the book off of Newton's Principia, which uses tons and tons of geometric arguments (and a similar lack of rigor!), and Misner Thorne Wheeler is another book recommended by Dr. Needham, and riddled with geometric arguments. Even if you're not interested in GR, it's an excellent resource for differential geometry. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:05, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Actually, I had a Fields medalist professor recommend once that we all read Needham's book, that's where I heard about it in the first place. I wish the differential geometry one had come out earlier -- my text had almost no geometry at all. GR is something that I'm hoping to understand better -- I'll definitely give Misner Thorne Wheeler a look. Thanks! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::::A Fields medalist professor? That's so cool, who is it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:20, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Typo==
Good work MarkGall, you have become a real contributor here.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:29, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

I've learned a great deal from you Mark. Your catching the typo was one of many examples. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:31, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Blocking and editing ==

Mark, you've received well-deserved blocking and night editing. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks, I appreciate it! Yet another distraction from those late-night problem sets. Is there a page where I can learn how to block correctly? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 19:19, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Gravity ==

I finally got around to reading the gravity material in [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness]],
and there are a lot of correct things, a few things that may miss the point slightly, and a few instances of people talking past each other unnecessarily.

First, you are absolutely right that the divergence theorem establishes an exponent of exactly 2 for divergenceless vector fields in flat Euclidean space. But there's no reason to require that the gravitational "field" be divergenceless. In fact, it could be argued that "dark energy" creates the nonzero divergence, if people used a pure classical gravitational "field", which they don't.

Remember that Newton's formula was a mathematically exact consequence of Kepler's laws (ellipses, focus, equal-area law, etc.), which were an exact geometrical formulation from Brahe's not-completely-exact observations. And that all this was done hundreds of years before the divergence theorem. Newton was exactly matching Kepler's laws, and therefore set the exponent to exactly 2. That was exactly the correct thing to do, in terms of the observations available at the time.

But I think the reasoning in terms of geometry and divergences and "the force spreading out over a greater area" isn't right. The notion of forces being inversely proportional to the square of the distance is something that comes from optics and electromagnetism. We know that light power must diminish exactly as the square of the distance because it contains energy, energy is conserved, and the vacuum is completely transparent. But there is no such requirement for the gravitational "field" of the Sun. It doesn't emit energy. If gravity worked differently, Kepler's geometrical laws might have been different, and Newton very well might have made the force inversely proportional to r3. He was fitting data; he knew nothing about divergences or the flatness of space.

Andy also makes the very valid point that a mathematical theory must obey physical observations, and, if it doesn't, that theory needs to be re-examined. So the question might well have been worded as:
*Do you think that is impossible that the correct behavior of gravity is that of Newtonian gravity, but with the gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001, rather than 1/r2?
We could make other similar questions:
*Do you think that is impossible that the formula F = ma (or E = mc2, or E = hν, or any other famous formula) is not correct?
But formulating the gravity question in terms of an exponent of 2.00000001 may not be the right way to formulate the question. It is well known that alternative exponents don't work. This was tried around 1900, to explain the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury, but it didn't work. There is no one exponent that works for both Mercury and Earth. General Relativity is the accepted better explanation, though it is known that there are problems with that -- quantum gravity, cosmological constant, dark energy, and a peculiar behavior of the Voyager spacecraft.

Now one ''could'' ask whether the person is openminded enough to question the "experts" that have analyzed the Mercury data, and understand General Relativity, and have crunched the numbers. After all, very few people have crunched the numbers; they depend on perceived "experts". So, in view of question 13, this may be a valid question to ask:
*Do you think it impossible that General Relativity is not correct?
But I doubt that many people who doubt General Relativity believe that going back to Newton's theory with a different exponent is the way to go. Unless, of course, they have crunched those numbers.

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 00:17, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:You raise some interesting points. To your question "Do you think that is impossible that the correct behavior of gravity is that of Newtonian gravity, but with the gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001, rather than 1/r2?", I might still answer no, on the grounds that if there is divergence in the gravitational field, then I wouldn't consider the force to be Newtonian gravity: you need dark energy, or an object creating a force from outside itself (possibly I'm wrong about this -- would you agree with this statement at least?)
:I agree that a theory must fit observation, and some question along these lines would be fine -- it strikes me as odd to ask things about gravity being an inverse square law, since (at least as I understand physics), outside of the Newtonian context we don't really want think about gravity as a force with such and such strength at such and such distance anyway. And if we're talking about gravity not being an inverse-square law, then to me, we're no longer talking about Newtonian physics anyway. Some of your other suggested formulae I don't know the derivations of -- I bet there's another one that I'd prefer to use for this question.
:I also like your point about trusting experts in science. To some extent, this is necessary -- I'm not sure I have any personal reason to believe in the germ theory of disease, much less general relativity: I'm just taking someone's word for it. Obviously how much we should trust the experts on a particular subject depends on a lot of things. I bet some philosopher of science has thought hard about this -- I'd be interested to read the results! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT) (hope I didn't forget to respond to anything!)
:Fantastic job on [[complex number]], by the way.

I'm sorry for butting in here, but something caught my eye:

*"Do you think it impossible that General Relativity is not correct?"

As physicists, we rarely talk about theories in terms of "correct" or "incorrect," simply because there's more nuance to it than that. Theories are tools, so we tend to judge them not in terms of absolute right and wrong, but rather in terms of degrees of usefulness.

Consider the Newtonian formulation of gravity. Under certain conditions, like the motions of planetary bodies in the solar system farther from the sun than the Earth is, the Newton equations provide very accurate predictions. That is, if you put known values into the equations and get answers out, the answers will very closely match your observations. But under other conditions, like the motion of Mercury, the Newton equations give answers that don't match observations. Does that mean the equations are absolutely incorrect? Well, no. It just means that those equations aren't a ''complete'' formulation of gravitation. They're an approximation. Which is why today physicists typically refer to the "Newtonian approximation," rather than the Newtonian theory.

For hundreds of years, Newton's formulation of gravity was believed to be ''correct.'' Later, we made observations that showed Newton's formulation was an approximation, not a complete description of how bodies behave in gravitational fields. Does that mean that Newton's formulation is now ''incorrect?'' No, it just means we better understand the limits of Newton's approximation.

Which brings me back to my point: As of today, we have ''no'' understanding whatsoever of the limits of general relativity. So far, every observation we've made about the universe, from falling apples to the motions of the most distant galaxies, fit perfectly into general relativity. Does that mean general relativity is ''correct?'' Of course not! It just means that general relativity appears to be a ''very good'' approximation. If we later discover the limits of that approximation — say for example, observations of certain astronomical objects can't be explained within the math of general relativity — does that mean general relativity is ''incorrect?'' No, that would just mean we better understand the limits of the approximation.

If we want to talk about the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of a theory, we need to understand (in my opinion) that we're operating on a spectrum. At one end, we have "this theory makes no predictions at all that agree with observations." At the other, we have "every prediction this theory makes agrees with observations." Most theories in physics lie somewhere to the right of the middle of that spectrum: most predictions made by theory X are supported by observations, but not all of them. Only a few theories are on the far right edge of the spectrum, where ''no'' observations have yet been made that contradict the theory. These theories are, for obvious reasons, generally the youngest of all theories, simply because we're not motivated to come up with new theories until existing theories have been called into question by observation.

Right now, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and the Standard Model are all on the far right edge of the spectrum. To date, none of those theories has been contradicted by experimental evidence. Of those, my personal opinion is that the Standard Model is the closest to being contradicted. Under that theory, given certain circumstances ''X'' there's a 95% confidence that we'll detect the Higgs. So far, we haven't detected the Higgs at that energy level, or some significantly higher energy levels. Does that mean the Higgs doesn't exist? No, it just means we failed to find it in places where the theory says it ''could'' have been found. So we keep looking. If it doesn't appear after a good, long search, then the Standard Model will need revising. In that case, will the Standard Model be declared "incorrect?" No, we won't just toss it in the bin and start over. We'll say "Okay, the Standard Model is incomplete, let's improve it."

Theories like the various quantum gravity and electrostrong proposals aren't anywhere on that spectrum yet, because we've yet to refine them to the point where they make unique testable predictions. A theory that doesn't predict anything that isn't predicted by another theory isn't really a theory at all; it doesn't go "out on a limb." Once quantum gravity and electrostrong theories are mature enough to go out on that limb, then we'll be able to judge whether their predictions match up with observations.

Part of the challenge, of course, is that theoretical physics has very nearly explained everything that's ever been observed. In order to come up with new, better theories, we need new observations, and for that we're going to need better telescopes and colliders. Right now, the theoreticians are a couple of steps ahead of the engineers, and believe me when I say it's a frustrating time to be a physicist.

Anyway, getting back to the point: Is it possible that general relativity is not ''complete?'' Of course it is. I'll even go one step further and say that it's ''practically guaranteed'' that general relativity is incomplete, just like Newton's theory before it was incomplete, and Galileo's theory before that was incomplete. But in order to call general relativity (or any other theory in physics) ''incorrect,'' it seems to me that we'd have to put it all the way at the end of that spectrum where ''none'' of the predictions made by the theory match up with observations. That's simply not true, so in that interpretation, no, it's not possible that general relativity is "not correct."

So if you want to think of it this way, the question can be answered truthfully with either a yes or no, depending on what "incorrect" means when we apply it to a theory in physics.

Science in general, and physics in particular, concerns itself with objective truth, the observed versus the unobserved, seen versus unseen. But a theory is not a statement of objective truth. It's just a tool for making predictions, and as such it's neither correct nor incorrect, but instead is described as being more useful or less useful.

Anyway, I suppose that's neither here nor there, but I saw this discussion here and felt like chiming in with my perspective.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:17, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for your post, KSorenson. It's quite well-put, and I think I more or less agree with your points. Unfortunately I'm pretty busy tonight (problem set), so I can't read too carefully or make much of a response now -- please don't interpret this as a lack of interest (or objection to "verbosity")! I'll try to post something once I have time to read more carefully. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:44, 12 November 2009 (EST)

== Pictures, etc. ==

(Now that things have quieted down to the point where I don't have a 75% failure rate when I try to view a page.)

Warning -- long, rambling message!

About gravity:

:... if we're talking about gravity not being an inverse-square law, then to me, we're no longer talking about Newtonian physics anyway.

Yes, someone else had mentioned the point that Newton's law is Newton's law, and Newton said 2.0; case closed. You would have to call it something else. That's why my "straw man" question had been carefully worded "... the correct behavior of gravity is that of Newtonian gravity, but with ...".

The issue of trusting experts (I'm not about to reconstruct a few thousand years of science experiments in my basement; the Hubble telescope won't fit) is central to the whole question, and is what the "quantifying openmindedness" question should be aimed at. But I have no idea how to phrase that question in the right way.

About complex numbers: Thanks for the kind words. I need all the public support I can get.

I see that my picture request has gotten noticed by an admin (Jpatt). I had been about to ask you, here, to do what you could to get some action, since I'm staying strictly off of admins' talk pages. But Jpatt's "If he provides the pic link, no problem" comment shows that either he doesn't appreciate the difficulty, or else I don't appreciate what "pic link" means. I need to either mail the jpeg to someone (and the normal Conservapedia "email this user" feature doesn't take attachments) or I need to be given access to some web site, somewhere on the planet, that I can upload it to. And no, I'm not going to create a facebook account :-(

About the Riemann mapping theorem: Conformal map displays, that is, graphs of horizontal and vertical lines as mapped under analytic functions, are very pretty to look at. Can you outline for me what the square/circle function would be? I may have known it at one time, but I sure can't remember it now. It sort of goes crazy in the "corners", I believe.

As far as software to create it, I recall that William Beason had once named "winplot", something that I had never heard of. But I looked at the WP page for a random diagram (Argand diagrams from their complex number article, naturally!), and they have some nice pictures, with the usual explanation of how they got them. Answer: Matlab! For example, go to the "geometric interpretation of the operations" section of their "complex number" page. (I won't give the URL; I can't stand the captcha.) Click on a picture; look at the properties. You'll see the actual Matlab code. So we could do this sort of thing. But I don't have Matlab; it's hugely expensive. Further looking around shows that there's a free program from the FSF called GNU Octave. This might be worth checking out. That is, if either of us finds ourselves with an enormous excess of spare time :-) If this works out, we should be able to put something on the [[Tips for writing math and science articles]] page.

There's also a little graphing program I wrote for my own use that might be able to be pressed into service.

About the "imaginary number" fiasco. This guy needs to be watched carefully. Not with a "bot", but with human eyeballs. I think he's a fairly obvious parodist trying to get his jollies by singlehandedly creating another Bible translation / Stephen Colbert phenomenon. He has a zero chance of succeeding in any case; he won't get 2 million Google hits with that kind of garbage. I had planned to revert with an edit comment along the lines of "We have a higher standard of logic here; proving that there is no real number satisfying X doesn't show that there is no complex number satisfying X." His "proof" makes no sense anyway, even though it's a proof of something that can be shown in 1 or 2 lines.

Then I saw that you had jumped in, and figured that I ought to jump in with a redirect.

Oh, I see he's at it again, at 13:00 EDT. I'd rather not engage him personally; I'm keeping a low profile, especially on talk pages.

:Thanks for the tip about graphing. The usual way to construct conformal maps between polygons and a circle is using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz%E2%80%93Christoffel_mapping Schwartz-Christoffel mappings]. Unfortunately this is a bit of a pain to compute, but I think the square <-> circle example is a particularly nice one for people who have seen this before, and might not be too impressed by circle <-> upper half plane or other such. I'll take a look at your suggestions when I have a chance -- I think I may have tried to do this in mathematica once as well. Unfortunately I don't have upload rights to help you, but I'll keep at that talk page.
:I've got my eye on Mr. Conservative Math Project too. I do not think he will be long for this site; I'll ban him if he posts any more nonsense. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:38, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Userbox ==

I thought you might like this userbox. [[Template:User weapon‎]]--[[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 21:37, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks! It's a bit conflicted with the beliefs expressed in my other userbox, but I can appreciate the sentiment (: --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block ==

Great block and reversions this evening, Mark! Meanwhile, I'm going to see how Calculus is covered in your superb [[Majoring in Mathematics]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks! I think calculus might not be in there at all yet, but it probably ought to be. Maybe there can be a section called "basic tools" or something at the top, dealing with calculus and linear algebra. The outline of the article is growing faster than I have time to fill it in! Please do add your new suggestions to the page, and I'll keep working whenever I have time. It's the middle of the semester now, and things are getting busy again. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:14, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

== Good Bezout's theorem addition ==

Great addition of Bezout's theorem!

I wonder if we have enough on advanced calculus, though admittedly that is often handled in engineering rather than math departments. Perhaps it is folded into differential geometry in most math departments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:37, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

== MemeShock ==

Here's the language engineering site I was mentioning:

http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=memeshock&init=quick#/group.php?gid=12621914298&ref=search&sid=26704564.4138542612..1

And here's our dictionary of terms. (3.0 edition)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12621914298&v=app_2373072738&ref=search#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

== Bezout, etc. etc. ==

I've been given some nice graphing software (by a former editor on this site!), and I think I can create some nice graphs for your material on Bezout's theorem. My guess would be that the things we would want are
*A parabola and a slanted straight line, showing two intersections.
*Two ellipses, similar but rotated from each other, showing four intersections.
*Two cubics—exaggerated Chebyshev polynomials to show all the kinks—tilted relative to each other, and showing nine intersections.
I have created the third of these.

Do you agree that that's about the quantity and examples that are appropriate? They will have to be uploaded by the same mechanism as before—email to Jpatt.

Now my question. You seem to be interested in putting this stuff (along with a lot of other stuff) in the "majoring in math" article. It seems to me that this material should be in a page by itself. The same could be said for many of the other items. What is your vision for "majoring in math"? Is it OK to make brief mention of all these topics and then point to the various other articles? Or do you want it to be more or less self contained?

On other matters, the vector space stuff looks very interesting. I find myself drawn in many directions at once, with nowhere near enough time to do what I'd like. I've been doing some stuff with deduction/induction (as you may have noticed), and several other topics have caught my attention. And I haven't finished with the "number" hierarchy! I think rationals, reals, and complexes are done, but there are integers and natural numbers still to do. And I'd like to do a really good jobs with Peano's axioms as part of the natural number overhaul. And, of course, put Dedekind's "God made the integers..." quote at the top of the whole thing :-) And I still haven't finished the real analysis, what does "compact" really mean, etc. etc. So little time, so much to do.

Speaking of induction/induction, DWiggins needs watching, as SRFoster did before him. They both seem to have a modus operandi of: put in something that looks plausible but is in fact obviously wrong to any mathematically literate person, then repeatedly argue the point when called out on it. (There are a few people from farther back who also did this sort of thing.)

There are probably some other things to talk about, but that's enough for now. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 18:00, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

:Those sound like good examples for Bezout -- I didn't really have anything in mind. Thanks for taking the initiative on that one. I'm hoping that Majoring in Math can contain just a paragraph or two about each of these problems, with heavy emphasis on examples and motivation and probably no rigor in even stating theorems. I really would like it to be a more-or-less self-contained presentation, with links to other pages for more detail. I think my blurbs there should be at about the level of the introductory text to full articles on these topics (though many of them don't have full articles, or need them). I do think the scope of that page might be getting a bit out of control for this to be reasonable... I'll try to shorten it up a bit. Is there anything in particular that's already written that you'd suggest splitting off? I'm certainly welcome to any suggestions for that page, as it's still in a fairly early state.

:It looks like you're doing a great job on the "number" articles -- let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I've been doing most of my serious work on Majoring in Math, since I don't think there's too much point in making small improvements to articles that need to be overhauled, and I don't have much time at all for editing these day, so I might as well focus on something. I'm not planning to do much else to [[vector space]] for now -- I just noticed that this fairly fundamental article was in pretty bad shape, so I tossed in a few examples. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:16, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Blocking the Colbert vandal ==

It was a very nice catch! I was also quite amused at it - I rediscover Conservapedia as a dusty, old, bookmark in my links, see if its still alive, and aha! A vandal! Some things never change - but thanks, it's nice to be back nonetheless. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 19:39, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Thoughts on [[Field theory]]? ==

Do you have any thoughts on defining [[field theory]]? Improvements welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:Looks like a solid start to me. I'm no physicist, but I'm always one for motivating examples at the beginning of an article. Maybe write down the gravitational field and resulting motion for some simple system? I think Newtonian gravitation is usually called a "classical field theory" or something along those lines, without requiring any sort of carrier particle. I'll jump in with my thoughts when I have a chance, but I'm drowned in work this week.
:PS: I'm not sure about the claim that GR requires/predicts gravitons -- it's my understanding that gravitons come out of QFT, a framework in contrast with the GR understanding of gravity as resulting from curved spacetime. But my knowledge here is really just from pop physics books I read a few years back -- hopefully someone with a better understanding can clarify. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 22:32, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::We should discuss the "classical" field theories first—Newtonian gravity and Faraday/Maxwell electrodynamics. They give a clear flavor of what a "field" might be. (Though Newton had never heard of fields; his gravity became a "gravitational field" centuries later.) Then we should mention that General Relativity is also a field theory of sorts, but it involves tensor fields that are far beyond the scope of CP. (Alas, GR is just too hairy for non-experts, and we can't do anything about it.) Only then should we go into quantum field theories. By the way, gravitons relate to quantum field theories, and were not in the original GR. I believe they arise from Yang-Mills gauge theories, which were invented in 1954, long after GR (1915). [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:47, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::PatrickD's sounds like an ideal layout to me: I think it will be helpful to distinguish between these various sorts of field theories, and we can give extremely explicit examples in the case of gravity and electromagnetism. I'll pitch in where I have an idea, but this article probably isn't my top priority right now. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 22:58, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::I think the contemporary meaning of "field theory" requires a force field (waves or particles or GR), and so I question whether classical gravity, with its action-at-a-distance, qualifies under contemporary usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::That's quite possible, I don't know much about contemporary usage patterns. Even so, I think that presenting these as "classical field theories" could go a long way in clarifying the comments about the other field theories in the article (since they're much easier to understand), even if we don't want to include these as field theories proper. We can include some material on the differences to clarify this point. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:42, 2 November 2009 (EST)

== Malik Hasan ==

In both cases there is a severe problem of alienation. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:58, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, fine to leave it in then. I cleaned up the grammar a bit. I think a couple more sentences of context saying how the cases are similar would make it seem less out-of-the-blue. Sorry for my mistaken edit! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 16:00, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:: There is not a medical statement to support that both have that problem; that is why I used: "could" in the article. Please fix it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:02, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::: Done. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 16:05, 12 November 2009 (EST)

== What gives? ==

You've proven yourself a valuable contributor to the articles, debates, and projects on this site, but all of a sudden you disagree with the whole Conservapedia project and end contribution fullstop? What gives, Mark? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:57, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:With Douglas on this one. Take some time and really think about this, Mark. You're clearly a very valued, knowledgeable editor. I would hate to see you go. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:59, 17 November 2009 (EST)

::Mark, we'll miss you if you don't reconsider. Hope you can return.

::This comes on the heels of:

::*a discussion of data contrary to relativity
::*the news of retaliation against the Kansas City Chiefs football star for comments he made on the internet
::*several liberals saying it's just fine to retaliate against people for what they say, on their own time, on the internet.

::Free speech -- and free thought -- are disappearing my friends. But not on this site. This site will remain a beacon of free and productive thought and speech.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:09, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Hi Mark, I blocked Ksorenson. She retired and left a snotty parody using Larry Johnson's the fag comment routine. I just moved her along for good. It would be nice if science and math were not politicized but liberals have their paws all over education, they are the culprit, the cause, we are the effect. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:30, 17 November 2009 (EST)

== Why KSorenson left ==

Mark,

I too was quite disturbed when I saw KSorenson had left and been blocked. However, I discovered on our local liberal vandals' website (I'm sure you know the URL), which had seen her user page before it was deleted, that she left not over "ideological" challenges without "any scientific basis", but over the Larry Johnson news item appearing on the main page.
{{quotebox|I can't in good conscience associate with a site that characterizes ''<nowiki>[[what he said]]</nowiki>'' as 'criticisms of homosexuality.'" And then I said that I can't continue to contribute and respect myself at the same time.}}
I wish she hadn't departed. She was definitely a boon to our science pages; I only hope [[User:PatrickD|other editors]] can bring up the slack. Fortunately, [[User:BringBackKate]] was wrong about why she left. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:20, 17 November 2009 (EST)

==Welcome back==
Sorry for the incorrect information in the deletion log [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User_talk%3AMarkGall]. It appears you've been unblocked for sometime, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMarkGall] and may perhaps never should have been blocked in the first place. Our apologies, and welcome back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:04, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for restoring my pages. I think my block was self-inflicted, so I'll take the blame for that one. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:11, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Women in Science and Mathematics

2011-07-18T17:16:59Z

MarkGall:

There have historically been very few noteworthy female scientists or mathematicians.

Here are a few:

*[[Marie Sklodowska Curie]]—Physicist/chemist, discovered [[Polonium]] and [[Radium]], namesake of [[Curium]].

*Lise Meitner—Physicist, discovered nuclear fission, with Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassner. Namesake of [[Meitnerium]].

*Emma Noether (mathematician)

*Sophie Germain (mathematician)

*Ida Noddack (physicist)

*Jocelyn Bell—Astronomer, discovered the first pulsar.

*[[Grace Murray Hopper]]—A very early [[computer programmer]], led the development of the first high-level computer language, [[COBOL]].

*[[Ada Lovelace]]—Collaborated with [[Charles Babbage]] on what was arguably the first computer (though it was never built) and arguably the first computer programmer (though there is controversy on this.)

User:MarkGall

2009-11-20T16:50:09Z

MarkGall: I take issue with your accusation of "vandalism / lies". Everyone here knows full well I am guilty of neither.

User:MarkGall

2009-11-17T18:49:40Z

MarkGall:

The extent to which politics is injected into the math and science articles here (as well as everything else) has become too much for me. I am leaving this site effective immediately. It appears that soon CP won't have a single remotely qualified editor working on (or even monitoring) these pages. - Mark

Talk:Liberal wordiness

2009-11-17T18:05:10Z

MarkGall:

== New article ==

Liberal wordiness I think is the backbone of liberal deception. I'm making this article with the following goals.
 
1. A full explanation of liberal wordiness, so that the reader can be aware of it 
2. Many Examples that properly demonstrate the idea and how it is deceptive 

== Deletion ==

Another user has proposed this article for deletion, and I have to say I agree. The premise itself is ridiculous and seems to have been devised solely within the context of this website. Of course a literary theorist is going to use more complex language than a statesman, they're addressing completely different audiences. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:24, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:The audiences is a fair point, but I'd have you compare spades with spades: the down to earth speeches of conservatives with the confusing, rambling diatribes of a Kerry or Clinton; the incomprehensible nonsense of liberal marxist-revisionist historians with easy-to-comprehend conservative histories. Actually, the matter of audience is very important, as liberals ''try'' to exclude their audience. "Can't understand? Just trust the experts, US." I see the article's creator is an uncertain user, but the topic is a real one, as you can see from its place in [[Liberal style]]. Perhaps improve or correct before crying wolf? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)

::If it's in [[Liberal style]], then it doesn't need it's own article. This is embarrassing. It needs to be deleted as a work of parody. Now. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:41, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::It exists in Liberal style as a bullet point, #2: "a high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance," which could use better development. If User:Epic416 has created the article as a mockery, he's done a pretty poor job, as it simply restates what User:Aschlafly has been saying for some time: liberals talk a lot without saying anything. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::::It's not merely personal opinion, but the collective opinion of Americans, who considered Bush far more accessible and understandable than Kerry, who was thought needlessly academic. As for objective analysis, I wonder how it could be done. [[Linguistic_Analysis_of_Candidates]] analyzed republicans from one metric (conservatism), so objective analysis of content should be doable, if more complex. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 17 November 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not debating the fact that liberals are more verbose, or "wordy." What I'm debating is that the statement/opinion doesn't require or even '''deserve''' its own article. It was clearly created as a work of parody—by a user who has no other contributions—to create a mockery of this site. At the very least, move it to the Essay category if you insist on keeping it. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:54, 17 November 2009 (EST)
::::And? It's rather sad mockery as the user has only outlined the truth. I was going to say "if the article [[Bigotry]] had been created by a parodist, would you be inclined to delete it?" Then I made the mistake of actually checking, and discovered that it ''was'' (the user and content were obscene, so you needn't look at it yourself). Truth is truth, and if moronic parodists think they're mocking us by inserting truthful statements, something tells me we're not losing. As to your point about ''deserving'' an article, your opinion is fair, and the issue should be opened to wider contribution. I think it is, and I think MarkGall is concurring, tacitly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:00, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::::Honestly, I would be inclined to move this to the Essay: space, but I'd say the same of [[Liberal style]] itself, as neither is encyclopedic. I'll defer to the admins to decide what's appropriate here; certainly that's not deletion. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:05, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Liberal wordiness

2009-11-17T17:47:48Z

MarkGall: a bit of self-promotion

Liberal wordiness is part of [[liberal deceit]] and is a pattern of using overly pompous and drawn out language to express simple points. The goal is to confound the reader in the hopes they will give benefit of doubt to the writer.

See, for example, the work of liberal academics, especially literary theorists, who use confusing language to make themselves look smart. Compare the speeches [[conservative]] statesmen, who do their utmost to make their ideas understood by any and all, and liberal statesmen, who emphasize above all the complexity of issues, treating complexity as something impenetrable to the common man.

== Conservapedia ==
Due to the prevalence of endless liberal disputation, Conservapedia has adopted the [[90/10 rule]] which undermines pointless wordiness by demanding content. Liberal wordiness is an important metric employed in [[Essay:Quantifying Liberal Style]], where an attempt is made to quantify this characteristic wordiness.

== See also ==
* [[Liberal style]]

{{liberalism}}

User talk:MarkGall

2009-11-17T03:16:34Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 721050 by Nhart (Talk)

Cantonese cuisine

2009-11-17T00:19:12Z

MarkGall: nice article... just fixing one of the links

'''Cantonese cuisine''' ([[Traditional Chinese]]:廣東菜; [[Simplified Chinese]]:广东菜; [[Hanyu Pinyin|Hanyu pinyin]]: ''Guǎngdōng cài''; [[Jyutping]]: ''Gwong2 dung1 coi3'') is one of the most famous varieties of [[China|Chinese]] cuisine, originating in [[Guangdong]]. It is perhaps the most well-known Chinese cuisine overseas, because many people from Guangdong and [[Hong Kong]] emigrated far and wide. It is highly regarded in China as one of the eight great traditions of Chinese cuisine.

==Background==
Cantonese cuisine's main emphasis is fresh ingredients, such as vegetables, meat, and seafood. However, dried and preserved food are sometimes used in order to give the food flavor, such as [[century egg]]s, pickled cabbage, Chinese sausage, and fermented tofu. Cantonese sauces are mild, unlike Sichuan and Hunan sauces, and are used only to enhance, not overpower, the food's flavor. The main cooking techniques are steaming and [[stir-frying]], which preserve the food's natural [[vitamin]]s and nutrients and seals in the flavor. Roasted meat, or ''siu mei'' (燒味) is another popular feature of Cantonese food, and is essentially the Cantonese equivalent of [[rotisserie]] meats.

==Famous dishes==
*[[Char siu bau]]
*[[Dim sum]]
*[[Chow mein]]
*[[Shark fin soup]]
*[[Wonton]]
*[[Fried rice]]

[[Category: Chinese Food]]

==See Also==
*[[Hunan cuisine]]
*[[Sichuan cuisine]]

Cryptography

2009-11-16T19:24:22Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 720894 by AlexQR (Talk); it had better not be!

'''Cryptography''' is the writing of [[secret]]s. The word 'cryptography' comes from the [[Greek]] 'cryptos', secret, and 'graphos', writing.

All of cryptography can be described as one of two methods: (this assertion has become debatable since the dawn of [[quantum cryptography]])

== Codes ==

[[Code]]s are, in their simplest terms, replacing words and phrases in a message with other words and phrases whose meaning is known to the recipient. For example:

Take the phrase: "The bombers require a fighter escort at Newcastle, 2300 hours"

There are many ways to encode this. Some appropriate rules must be created and shared with the recipient. Because to anyone who intercepts the message, something that sounds like a code could arouse their suspicions, causing the message to be "cracked" (decoded) or to be destroyed or otherwise delayed. Therefore it is wise to create a code that produces innocent sounding messages:

:11.00pm, Newcastle: Mother birds look for duckling flock

The above message simply substitutes "mother bird" for bomber, "duckling" for fighter and "flock" for escort. The message could now be transmitted, and if intercepted could easily be mistaken for a diary entry of a birdwatcher.

Codes also include methods of hiding a message within a seemingly normal message (used frequently by POW's). A famous example of this is the [http://www.flickr.com/photos/8443340@N06/sets/72157600242068267/ September 1992 edition of Autocar]

James May amused himself while compiling a top 100 list of the cars that year arranged the capitalised letters across many pages to spell out "So, you think it's really good yeah? You should try making the bloody thing up. It's a real pain in the arse" (punctuation and spaces added for clarity).

Of course there is a very obvious problem with codes, find out the rules governing what is substituted for what and an intercepted message can be read easily. And in order to produce any useful codesets, large "dictionaries" were required by both sender and receiver.

== Ciphers ==

Cipher: a method of changing the plaintext (normal written word) into ciphertext and back again.

A cipher can be as simple, or as complex, as the user requires. For the most part (see RSA later for exception) ciphers require both a rule and a key. The key is used by the recipient of the message to turn the ciphertext back into plaintext using the reverse of the rule.

'''Some examples of ciphers:'''

:Plaintext: "HELLO WORLD"

Even without substituting letters as commonly done in ciphers, by reflecting the message, words, or blocks of letters it is possible to make it difficult to decrypt the message without knowing the rule, even for computers. Note that processes like this are not commutative.

:Word Reversal: "OLLEH DLROW"

:Message Reversal: "DLROW OLLEH"

:3-Letter block reversal: "LEH OLROWDL"

Using a cipher historically attributed to Julius Caeser, wherein the letters are moved along in the alphabet by the number of letters represented by the key (note Z+1 = A). This example uses a key of 1

:Caeser: "IFMMP XPSME"

However this cipher can be easily broken by modern computers as it uses a 1:1 alphabet substitution. It can be made more secure by encrypting each letter with a different key. In this example the letter key will be its position in the text.

:Letter Key Caeser: "IGOPT DWAVO"

Note that although O appears twice in the ciphertext, the first time it represents an L, the second time a D, making this a much harder cipher to break.

== Historical Uses Of Cryptography ==

Generally speaking, cryptography has been the sole domain of governments. All governments of the world have a branch dedicated to the interception and decryption of encoded information. In [[America]], this is the [[CIA]]; in [[Britain]], it's [[MI5]]; in [[Vatican City]] it's [[Iscariot]] (Vatican Section XIII).

Cryptography has played a large part in many wars. In the [[World War I|First World War]], [[Mata Hari]] was responsible for carrying messages back and forth for the [[German]] government, causing the deaths of thousands of [[French]] soldiers.<ref>http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/matahari.htm</ref> In the [[World War II|Second World War]], [[British]] soldiers captured the crew and The [[Enigma machine]] of German [[U-boat]] [[U-571]], leading to the decryption of [[Nazi]] communications and the end of the war.

Other examples of the importance of cryptography include Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

[[Ethel Rosenberg]] and [[Julius Rosenberg]] sold US atomic secrets to the [[USSR]] at the height of the [[Cold War]]. They were convicted and executed in the electric chair at [[Sing Sing]] prison.

== Modern Uses Of Cryptography ==

Currently the most common form of cryptography is [[public key encryption]]. This relies on the fact that it takes significantly (order 108 times) longer to find two prime factors of 1000 or more digit numbers than it does to multiply the numbers together to create the 1000 digit number in the first place.

In this system there are two keys, the first is the "private key", which only the '''recipient''' knows. The second is the "public key" which can be sent freely to anyone, allowing them to encrypt messages with it such that only the owner of the private key can decrypt them. These public keys are calculated from the private keys, but as they are often over 1000 digits long and would take many decades to calculate the private key from them (RSA, the most commonly used encryption protocol uses 2048 digit numbers which would take over 4000 years to crack with a desktop computer).

This technology is put to use mostly on the internet. It allows sensitive data, eg. credit card numbers, phone numbers, social security numbers etc. to be transmitted without fear of interception and use by malevolent third parties. All internet banking and shopping uses this technology (whenever you see "https://" instead of "http://" in the address bar a public key algorithm is in use, most likely RSA".

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/03.html Kryptos]

[[category:information technology]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]

Real analysis

2009-11-16T19:23:43Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 720893 by AlexQR (Talk)

{{Math-h}}
'''Real analysis''' is a field in [[mathematics]] that focuses on the set of [[real number]]s, their properties, [[sequence]]s and [[function]]s. Included in this branch of mathematics are the concepts of [[Limit_%28mathematics%29|limit]]s and [[convergence]], [[calculus]], and properties of real-valued functions such as [[continuous|continuity]]. It also includes [[measure theory]].

For the purposes of this article, "analysis" will be limited to the generalization and extension of the concepts of calculus, using the concepts of elementary [[point-set topology]].

The reader should be quite familiar with the concepts of calculus, especially limits and continuity. In particular, the reader should be comfortable with the ramifications of the phrase "[[Limit_%28mathematics%29|for every epsilon]]".

==Open sets==

Open sets (and, by extension, closed sets, which are just the complements of open sets) are the fundamental concept of analysis. Analysis and topology are really just the study of open sets.

Before giving the definition of open sets in Euclidean space, we present some examples. Readers who are aware of the general intuitive notion of open sets should find these examples familiar.

===In one dimension===

The simplest open sets in 1-dimensional Euclidean space (formally called <math>\mathbb{R}^1</math>; informally called the real numbers of the "real line") are '''open intervals'''. An open interval consists of those numbers lying strictly between two endpoints a and b. In set-theoretic notation:
::<math>\{ x\ |\ a < x 

A shorter notation for this set consists of the two endpoints in parentheses:
::<math>( a, b )\,</math>

A '''closed interval''' (we will have more to say about closed sets later) would include the endpoints. It is commonly denoted with brackets:
::<math>[ a, b ] = \{ x\ |\ a \le x \le b \}</math>

An interval that includes one endpoint but not the other is called semi-open:
::<math>[ a, b ) = \{ x\ |\ a \le x 

::<math>( c, d ] = \{ x\ |\ c < x \le d \}</math>

When drawing pictures of intervals, those same symbols are typically used:

::::''Need a picture here!''

Open intervals are not the only open sets. Any union of open intervals is an open set. For example:
::<math>\bigcup_{N \textrm{\ is\ an\ integer\ } \geq 2} (N, N+1/N)</math>

Bizarrely defined sets like the one above are commonly used as examples and counterexamples in analysis and topology.

===In two or more dimensions===

In two or more dimensions the situation becomes more complicated, because even simple open sets can come in an endless variety of shapes. The fundamental open set (equivalent to an open interval) is the '''open neighborhood''', also called an open ball. An open neighborhood has a center point and a nonzero radius, and is the set of all points whose distance from the center is strictly less than that radius. In set-theoretic notation:
::<math>\{ x\ |\ \|x-C\| < r \}\,</math>
The double-stroke absolute value sign is the '''norm''' or the '''metric distance function'''. In the common case it is the Euclidean/Pythagorean distance:
::<math>\|a-b\| = \sqrt{(a_1-b_1)^2 + (a_2-b_2)^2}\,</math> in two dimensions (similarly for higher dimensions)
The double-stroke absolute value sign is similar to the usual absolute value operation, generalized to arbitrary dimensions or other metric spaces.

It is easy to see that, in two dimensions, an open neighborhood is the interior of a circle. It does '''not''' include the actual boundary of the circle, because it consists of the points whose distance from <math>C</math> is '''strictly less''' than <math>r</math>. This point is crucial—the whole subject of analysis and topology depends on it!

To draw a picture of an open neighborhood, use a circle bounded by a dotted line:

::::''Need a picture here!''

(To make a closed ball, the formula would be:
::<math>\{ x\ |\ \|x-C\| \le r \}\,</math>
and the picture would be a solid circle. But open neighborhoods are the important sets from a theoretical standpoint.)

==Definition of open set==

Here is the proper theoretical definition:

Definition: A set is '''open''' if it contains a neighborhood of each of its points.

What this means is that a set <math>X</math> is open if, for every point <math>x</math> in <math>X</math>, there is a neighborhood <math>N</math> such that <math>x \in N</math> and <math>N \subseteq X</math>. This construction is shown in the following diagram:

::::''Need a picture here!''

If the point <math>x</math> were allowed to lie exactly on the edge of <math>X</math>, it wouldn't be possible to draw a nonzero neighborhood around <math>x</math> that lies in <math>X</math>. So the important feature of <math>X</math>'s openness is that no point can lie exactly on its edge. Every point in <math>X</math> must be some finite distance back from the edge, which makes it possible to draw a neighborhood around it.

==Theorems==

Here are a few extremely fundamental and far-reaching theorems. Some of them are surprisingly simple:

Theorem: Neighborhoods are open sets.

Proof: Suppose a neighborhood has center <math>C</math> and radius <math>r</math>. If a point <math>x</math> is in that neighborhood, its distance from <math>C</math> must be strictly less than <math>r</math>, call it <math>k</math>.
::<math>\|x-C\| = k,\ \ \ k < r\,</math>
Place a new neighborhood, of radius <math>(r-k)/2</math>, around <math>x</math>. Every point in that neighborhood has a distance less than <math>k + (r-k)/2</math> from <math>C</math>. That distance is less than <math>r</math>, so every point in the new neighborhood is in the original neighborhood, so the new neighborhood lies within the original one.

Theorem: Any union of open sets, including unions of an infinite number of open sets, is an open set.

Proof: If a point <math>x</math> lies in the union, it must lie within one of the constituent open sets. There must be a neighborhood of <math>x</math> contained in that constituent open set. That neighborhood must be contained in the union.

Theorem: The intersection of two open sets is an open set.

Proof: Let <math>X = P_1 \cap P_2</math>, and let <math>x \in X</math>. Then <math>x \in P_1</math> and <math>x \in P_2</math>. Since <math>P_1</math> and <math>P_2</math> are open, there must be neighborhoods <math>N_1 \subseteq P_1</math> and <math>N_2 \subseteq P_2</math> that contain <math>x</math>. Whichever of those two neighborhoods has the smaller radius will be a subset of both <math>P_1</math> and <math>P_2</math>, so it will be a subset of <math>X</math>.

This theorem can be extended for any '''finite''' intersection, but it does not work for infinite intersections. Here is an example:

Let <math>P_i</math> be an infinite sequence of ever-decreasing open intervals:
::<math>P_i = \{ x\ |\ -1-1/i < x < 1+1/i \}\,</math>
for integer <math>i \ge 1</math>
The intersection of all of the <math>P_i</math>'s is the closed interval
::<math>[ -1, 1 ]\,</math>
which is not open.

So the topological rule of thumb is:
::'''Any''' union of open sets is open.
::Any '''finite''' intersection of open sets is open

Theorem: The null set (empty set) is open.

Proof: It needs to contain a neighborhood of each of its points. But it has no points.

Theorem: The entire space is open.

Proof: We need a neighborhood of each point in the space. The neighborhood centered on that point, with radius 1, will do the trick.

This means that the real line is open. It is '''not''' an open interval, because that interval would have to be "<math>(-\infty, \infty)</math>", and '''infinity is not a number'''. The real line is an open '''set''', because it is:
::<math>\mathbb{R}^1 = \bigcup_{n}\ (n-1, n+1)</math>
over all integers <math>n</math>. (Infinite unions are allowed, even though infinity is not a number.)

Theorem: Every open set is a union of neighborhoods.

Proof: It contains a neighborhood of each of its points; those are its constituent neighborhoods.

This means that any open set in the plane, for example, is a union of open circles. (It is also the union of open rectangles, open diamonds, open 5-pointed stars, and so on. This is a consequence of the invariance of the metric in defining a topology.)

In the field of topology, a collection of open sets, whose unions comprise all of the opens sets that exist, is called a '''basis'''. So what we have just shown is that the open neighborhoods (open intervals, open circles, open spheres, etc.) are a basis for the topology of finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces.

==Closed sets==

Definition: A set is '''closed''' if its complement is open.

That's all there is to it.

Because of some simple theorems of set theory, including DeMorgan's laws, some of the preceding theorems relating to open sets can be reformulated for closed sets.

Any intersection of closed sets, including the intersection of an infinite number of closed sets, is closed.

Any union of a finite number of closed sets is closed.

The null set is closed.

The entire space (for example, the real line) is closed.

==Limit points, and the other definition of closed sets==

Closed sets are sometimes given a different definition, as sets containing their limit points.

[[category:mathematics]]

Majoring in Mathematics

2009-11-16T06:01:50Z

MarkGall: added "further reading". additions welcome!

This article is intended to provide a brief introduction to what college mathematics is all about. It is aimed at high school students who have enjoyed mathematics in high school, and are starting to think about what to study in college. This article is a work in progress -- please expand and leave suggestions at the talk page. The theorems and ideas mentioned here aren't all things that you'll necessarily encounter in classes; indeed, most of them you probably won't. Instead, they are presented to indicate the sorts of thinking and methods that go into mathematics, and the sorts of problems that mathematicians work on today.

Here is an outline of what I hope to write.

== What College Mathematics is Not ==
Before we look at the sorts of problems that actually ''are'' dealt with by mathematics in college, let's look at some that are not. Rest assured, many of the most painful aspects of math classes you've taken before aren't so bad in college!
# Simply learning more advanced versions of mathematical ideas from high school. Tired of learning tricks for integration? Majoring in math won't just teach you new methods to integrate functions -- if you've taken an introductory calculus class, chances are you already know the important ones! What it will do is force you to think carefully about basic questions about what an integral is. Given some subset of space, what does it really mean to find its volume?
# Doing lots of computations. Chances are you'll have to do a few, but most mathematics in college is based around "proofs" -- very careful and rigorous arguments which show that mathematical statements are true. Many proofs won't involve any computations at all!
# Learning a bag of tricks to do Olympiad-type problems. If you've ever taken the AMC, Math League, or other similar competition tests, and not done well, don't worry! Much of these tests check nothing more than whether you're familiar with some collection of techniques for solving special problems. One math professor at Harvard keeps in his desk a copy of a math competition on which he scored a perfect 0/120. Mathematical theory goes far beyond these problems.

Instead, college mathematics is about developing new ways to rigorously approach a wide array of problems. More than aiming to find tricky techniques to solve certain problems, it is about building powerful approaches that solve many problems, and learning to think rigorously about them.

== Major Topics of Study ==
Given that a math major won't just be getting more practice at the sorts of math encountered in high school, what is it about? Here's a list of some of the major fields that are the foundation of a mathematics education.

For each field, I plan to give a very general description and to describe a few problems/theorems that are nice results and capture some of the essence of a subject. I'll aim for a few paragraphs about each one. Then I will give a problem or two that is a much more open-ended question that has motivated the development of large amounts of theory. For now I have no written about any of these -- please leave feedback and suggestions on the talk page and I will try to arrive at the best set of motivating problems!

=== Algebra ===
# How many positions are there for a Rubik's cube. Brief discussion of group theory, and how a group acts on the Rubik's cube.

==== Bezout's theorem ====
It's a very basic fact that two lines intersect at exactly one point. But we can ask a similar question about other shapes. At how many points do two parabolas intersect? A circle and a line? The graphs of two cubics? A circle and a line may intersect at either 0 points (for example, the unit circle <math>x^2+y^2=0</math> and the line <math>y=2</math>), 1 point (if the line is tangent to the circle), or 2 points. It's easy to see that we can arrange for two parabolas to intersect at four points: just consider the examples <math>y=x^2-10</math> and <math>x=y^2-10</math>. Similarly, we can up with two cubics that intersect at nine points. You might be noticing a pattern here: a parabola is defined as the set of solutions to a polynomial equation in two variables, whose biggest exponent is 2: we say that a parabola has degree 2. For the same reasons, we say that a line has degree 1, and a cubic as degree 3. Bezout's theorem then gives a very rough answer to our question: a curve of degree m and a curve of degree n intersect in at most mn points.

We have seen that sometimes the number of intersections is less than this, but Bezout's theorem, properly generalized, says that the number of intersections is in fact ''equal'' to mn: in the case of the circle and the line given earlier, there are exactly two solutions as predicted, if we allow <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> to be complex numbers. Similarly, a point of tangency is in some sense a "double intersection", and should count twice: if we nudged the line just a little bit, the point of intersection would turn into two distinct points. After we make these adjustments (counting complex solutions, and counting points of tangency multiple times), Bezout's theorem provides a simple and elegant answer to our original motivating question: curves of degree m and degree n intersect at exactly mn points!

# Is the quintic solvable in radicals? And what in the world does this problem have to do with group theory?
# The ancient Greeks were fascinated by geometric constructions with straightedge and compass. They could bisect angles and take square roots, but they couldn't trisect angles or take cube roots. Why not?

==== Algebra and Number Theory ====
The development of the modern field of algebra has been deeply influenced by research in number theory. An example of a problem from number theory that has provided far-reaching motivation for work in pure algebra has been the question of unique factorization.

It's a well-known fact, the [[fundamental theorem of arithmetic]], that every integer can be factored in a unique way as the product of prime numbers. It's natural to wonder whether this unique factorization holds in other simple rings, for example, the set of complex numbers whose real and complex parts are both integers (for example, <math>3+7i</math>). These are the so-called Gaussian integers, and there is a good notion of "prime", and that every Gaussian integer can be uniquely factored into primes! For example, 7+0i is a Gaussian prime, while 5+0i is not: <math>5+0i</math> factors as <math>(2+i)(2-i)<math>, and both <math>2-i</math> and <math>2+i</math> are prime. In general, it turns out that
a Gaussian integer <math>a+bi</math> is prime if either one of <math>a</math> or <math>b</math> is zero, and the other is a prime congruent to three mod 4, or if <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are nonzero, and <math>a^2+b^2</math> is a prime (in the usual sense).

So unique factorization works well for the Gaussian integers, but what about other settings? An example similar to the Gaussian integers is the set of real numbers of the form <math>a+b\sqrt{7}</math>: note that <math>(a+b\sqrt{7})(c+d\sqrt{7}) = (ac+7bd)+(ad+bc)\sqrt{7}</math>, so the numbers of this form are closed under multiplication. Here too, and in many other cases, there is a good notion of unique factorization. It was formerly assumed that <math>\mathbb Z[\sqrt{d}]</math> would have unique factorization, but this turns out not to be the case. Consider the ring of complex numbers of the form <math>a+b\sqrt{-5}</math>. We can write <math>6 = 2 \cdot 3 = (1-\sqrt{-5})(1+\sqrt{5})</math>. A bit more work shows that both of these are prime factorizations, and they're not equivalent! This discovery necessitated the careful investigation of unique factorization, a purely algebraic notion that had not been seriously considered. Ernst Kummer proposed a proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] which failed only because it assumed some properties of unique factorization, but further consideration of this problem led to a revolution in algebra.

=== Linear Algebra ===
If you throw a beach ball into the air, letting it spin in any way whatsoever, and then catch it, all of its rotations will comprise one rotation about some axis. That is, there will be two "poles" that will end exactly where they started, and all other points will just have rotated around them. What does this have to do with orthogonal operators? What does it have to do with the fact that every cubic equation has at least one real root?

If you do the same with a ring (e.g. a Hula Hoop), spinning it and letting it fall on its original "footprint", there will be no points that land exactly on their original position (except in the case in which it didn't move at all.) What does this have to do with the fact that quadratic equations are ''not'' guaranteed to have any real roots?

(Something about eigenvectors of distinct eigenvalues of an orthogonal/Hermitian matrix being orthogonal, can't think of a cute example just now.)

=== Geometry ===

In college math, "geometry" does not refer to more work on Euclidian high school geometry. Instead, college geometry includes a challenging field known as "differential geometry." This includes Tensor Calculus, Riemannian Geometry,
Covariant Vector Fields, Minkowskian Manifolds, and General Relativity.

Some problems include:

# The Theorema Egregium - that there exists a quality inherent to a surface no matter how it is "bent."
# What happens if we remove some the Euclidean postulates taught in high school? Specifically, the parallel postulate?

==== The Double Bubble Conjecture ====
You've probably noticed that when you blow a soap bubble, it quickly stretches into a nearly spherical shape. But why should a bubble tend towards a spherical conformation, instead of a cube or an icosahedron? According to physics, the bubble will tend toward a shape with the lowest energy, and the physical effect of surface tension is that this lowest energy is achieved when the bubble is in the shape with the least possible surface area enclosing a given volume. For example, if we want to enclose one cubic inch of air, the smallest surface that could contain it is a perfect sphere. The proof of this case, for a simple bubble, involves techniques from the mathematical study of [[differential geometry]], but turns out not to be too difficult. Related problems in finding minimal surfaces, however, turn out to be quite fiendish, and involve computations of "mean curvature" related to the notions of curvature defined above. The double bubble conjecture is one such.

*insert a picture here!

What is the smallest possible surface area for two bubbles joined stuck together, each enclosing some fixed volume? Thinking back to childhood experience, we know such bubbles end up as two partial spheres, connected together at a perfectly flat surface. But there are many other possibilities: why couldn't it be two tetrahedra, connected along some wavy surface? Quite sophisticated mathematical techniques are needed to prove this seemingly obvious result. The proof was not completed until 2000, by a team of mathematicians including [[User:RSchlafly|Roger Schlafly]].

=== Topology ===
==== The Bridges of Konigsberg ====
The earliest roots of the modern study of topology (and [[graph theory]] in particular) lie in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s investigations of a famous puzzle from the 1730s. The town of Konigsberg (now [[Kaliningrad]]) was bisected by a river, which contained two large islands. There were seven bridges connecting the islands, as indicated in the accompanying image. The problem asked for a walk through the town which would cross each bridge exactly once: every bridge must be crossed once, and none more than once.

[[Image:Konigsberg.jpg|center|alt=Layout of Konigsberg|Layout of Euler's Konigsberg]]

Euler proved that no such path existed, with the following simple and elegant argument: observe that the path one takes while on the islands is irrelevant to the problem at hand, and that all that matters is the order in which the bridges are traversed. Every time one enters one landmass by means of a bridge, he leaves it by means of another. This means that the number of bridges entering and exiting each landmass must be even, except possibly the landmass in which he starts and the one in which he ends (since he does not both enter and exit these). However, in Konigsberg, each of the four landmasses is served by an odd number of bridges! This means that no tour of the sort desired is possible.

This argument is fundamentally a "topological" one because of the recognition that the rigid shapes and geometry of the problem make no difference. If the shape of the islands were changed, or a bridge were moved but stayed between the same two islands, the solution of the problem would not be affected. The only thing that matters is the number of islands and which islands are connected by bridges. The modern field of topology is at its heart the study of geometric objects whose rigid shape is not important.

# Connection between topological spaces and algebraic groups
# Ham sandwich theorem (easy to state, harder to motivate solution. Possibly there's something better.

==== How can we tell the difference between a sphere and a torus? ====
This is the sort of question that motivated the development of the field of topology for many years. Recall that a [[torus]] is the shape of an inner tube, or the surface of a donut: it is a two-dimensional surface with one whole. If a torus were made out of clay, one could stretch and squish it, but it is intuitively clear that no amount of stretching could possibly deform in into a sphere: it's simply impossible to get rid of the hole! Similarly, a sphere made out of clay can't be deformed into a torus without ripping it. The question of why the two shapes are not the same is fundamentally a topological one: we are interested in some intrinsic geometric properties of these objects, but not their specific rigid shapes.

It turns out that methods from [[algebra]] provide the easiest way to prove that it is impossible to deform a sphere into a donut. Observe that a sphere has the following property: given any loop drawn on the sphere (say, a rubber band stretched around it somehow), it is possible to "contract" that loop to a point (i.e., to scrunch up the whole rubber band at one place). On the other hand, if a rubber band is placed on a donut in such a way that it loops around the central whole, there is no way to contract it to a single point. A crucial observation in the field of algebraic topology is that if a space can be obtained by squeezing and stretching a sphere, then it will still have the property that every loop is contractible. Since a torus doesn't, we conclude that it must be fundamentally different from a sphere. Arguments like this are the basis for the field of [[algebraic topology]], and this problem of contracting loops in a space is studied using the [[fundamental group]].

=== Analysis ===
# Riemann mapping theorem. State this in terms of conformal mappings of the unit disk and draw lots of pictures!

==== Fixed points ====
Often in mathematics or physics, it is interesting to think about what happens when we apply the same function repeatedly. For example, one might take a calculator, punch in a random number, and then hit the button "[[cosine|cos]]" repeatedly. What happens when we do this? If you try it, you might see something that looks like this:1.3, 0.267499, 0.964435, 0.569881, 0.841965, 0.665998, 0.7863, 0.706469, 0.760659, 0.724382, 0.748909, ...

It looks like these are getting closer and closer to some fixed number, and if you hit the button a few more times, you'd discover that indeed these terms approach some constant around C=0.739085. This is the value of C for which cos(C) = C. There's no way to solve for this C algebraically, but we can see from the [[intermediate value theorem]] that there must be some value of C for which this is the case, since cos(0) > 0 but cos(1) < 1.
Generally, a value x is called a '''fixed point''' of a function f if f(x)=x, and it is interesting to study when a function must have a fixed point. Although many functions have no fixed points, there are theorems that give certain conditions under which any function must have a fixed point.

One of the most famous such theorems is the Brouwer fixed-point theorem, which says in its simplest form that any continuous function <math>f: D^2 \to D^2</math> has a fixed point. This fact has a very intuitive description: if we take a sheet of graph paper (so we can label each point with coordinates), crumple it up, and set it on top of another sheet of graph paper, then there is some point on the crumpled up sheet which is directly above the corresponding point on the second sheet! While this sounds like a simple fact, proving it rigorously relies on the techniques of [[algebraic topology]].

Another celebrated example of a fixed point theorem is known as Sharkovsky's theorem. In addition to fixed points, some functions have points for which repeating the function several times yields the same result: for example, a value of x for which cos(cos(cos(x))) = x is called a 3-periodic point of the function cosine. Sharkovsky's theorem is the surprising result that if a continuous function f has points of period 3, then it has points of all other periods! For example, consider the quadratic <math>f(x) = -\frac{5}{2} x^2 + \frac{7}{2} +1</math> has f(0) = 1, f(f(0)) = f(1) = 2, f(f(f(0))) = f(f(1))=f(2) = 0. So 0 is a point of period 3 of f(x). Sharkovsky's theorem implies that there are points of every other period. For example, there is some x such that f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(x)))))))=x! Solving this explicitly would involve solving a polynomial of degree 14, an impossible task. But Sharkovsky's theorem guarantees that there is '''some''' value of x satisfying this.

==== Mathematical Billiards ====
Imagine that you're playing a game of pool on a standard rectangular table, but with a twist: there's no friction, so after you hit the ball, it continues along its trajectory forever. Obviously if you hit the ball so that its path is perpendicular to one of the walls of the table, it will bounce straight back, then off the opposite wall, straight back again, etc.: the ball will follow a repeating pattern of bouncing between the two walls forever. Similarly, if you aim just right, you can hit the ball so that it moves in a diamond-shaped path forever, bouncing off the middle of the sides of the walls repeatedly. A trajectory of the cue ball is called "periodic" if it's like one of these, in that the ball eventually ends up back where it started, and moving in the same direction. A trajectory is said to have "period p" if it hits the wall exactly <math>p</math> times in the course of this repeating cycle. The two examples given above have periods of two and four, respectively. One question we might ask is whether there is an orbit of period <math>p</math> for every possible choice of p. Can you come up with a path on the standard billiards table that has period 3? If not, can you prove that one doesn't exist?

As is often the case is mathematics, we attempt to generalize these results on periodic orbits to other situations. What if the billiards table is not rectangular, but triangular? It's true, but extremely difficult to prove, that given any triangular billiards table, there exists a periodic orbit of '''some''' period. The existence of periodic orbits is an extremely subtle question. This can be generalized even further, to ask whether all polygons admit periodic orbits. What about polyhedra? Can you imagine some periodic billiards orbits on a cube-shaped "table" (no gravity! think billiards in space).

The orbits that aren't periodic turn out to be just as interesting as those that are. Imagine that you place the cue ball at random on your billiards table, and smack it in some random direction. Chances are it won't end up in a periodic orbit -- putting the ball in a periodic orbit requires a very careful shot. So the ball will bounce around forever without retracing its path. But will it ever come back to the point where it started, perhaps moving in a different direction? The answer to this question is "no", but the Poincare Recurrence Theorem gives a somewhat satisfactory replacement: given any distance (e.g., an eighth of an inch), and any angle (e.g. two degrees), after some amount of time, the ball will be within that distance of its starting point, and directed within that angle of its initial path! This is a very suprising fact.

While this problem seems extremely elementary, sophisticated mathematical techiques from a range of fields of geometry and analysis have been brought to bear on it. Even so, many easily-stated questions remain open.

# Periodic orbits in billiards in polyhedra. I think it should be possible to say some interesting things about this but with some real content. Possibly there's a better idea.

Hard problem: What does an integral really mean? Babble a bit about integrating the characteristic function of Q.

=== Probability and Statistics ===
# Discussion of Benford's law, application to recognizing fraud.
# Understanding the concept of the "random variable"
# Proving the Central Limit Theorem

Motivating problem: Deriving conclusions from rarely occurring events, such as multiple no-hitters by the same pitcher. Specifically, how many no-hitters must a pitcher toss before one can conclude from that evidence alone that he is a great pitcher?

===Partial Differential Equations===
If you take a uniform circular metal disk and hold the temperatures at the periphery to some fixed pattern (say, lighting fires at some places and applying ice at others), and give it plenty of time to reach equilibrium, can you calculate the final temperature at every point inside? What does this have to do with Fourier series? (Hint: It has '''everything''' to do with Fourier series. This is the problem that Joseph Fourier was studying when he invented the series.)

=== Other fields ===
# Logic: still need a good problem
# Number theory: connected to the other fields above in many ways. Prime number theorem?
# Set theory: some discussion of axioms, maybe talk about AoC.
# applied mathematics, emphasizing the solution of partial differential equations which are essential to mechanical engineering

=== Related fields ===
Many other subjects are often considered parts of mathematics as well. Depending on specific undergraduate programs, a math major may or may not be required to take courses in these areas, but many of the same ideas are used in these subjects as in the others.
# Computer science: something about algorithmic complexity: maybe the fact that primality testing may be done in polynomial time?
# Computer science: How can Fourier transforms be used to multiply enormous integers much faster than normal methods?
...

=== Interplay ===
None of these fields exists in a vacuum, and there is rich interplay between them. If you insert "algebraic" or "differential" before the name of just about any branch of math, you get a more specialized, but important field. Motivate some of these connections:
# Algebra+topology: discussion of fundamental group.
# Analysis+topology: discuss conservative fields, and hint at de Rham cohomology without actually saying those words.
# Algebra+analysis: find a good simple example of a Lie group showing up in the study of some differential equations.

== So What? ==
After finishing a major in mathematics, most people don't keep working in pure math. But the ways of thinking and skills that the study of mathematics provide make available a wide range of career opportunities.

Specifically, mathematicians seeking to remain connected to their field pursue career opportunities in:
*actuary or insurance work
*defense-related work
*market trading analysis for investment banks
*mathematical modeling

Less-related fields that are also of some interest to mathematicians are:
*computer programming
*accounting
*K-12 teaching

Some mathematicians enter entirely unrelated fields. Math majors have the highest average scores of students in any field on the LSAT and GMAT, the tests required for entrance into law school and business school <ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1430654</ref>: the skills acquired in studying mathematics in invaluable in the logic section of the LSAT and for subsequent careers in law.

== Further Reading ==
Numerous expository books cover the topics mentioned on this page, along with many others, in a very accessible way. Below are a few recommended books whose content is comparable to that of this article.
# ''Mathematics: The New Golden Age'', by Keith Devlin. Accessible discussions of many important ideas.
# ''Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities'', by Ian Stewart. A similar book covering the exciting side of mathematics and requiring little background.
# ''Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics'', by John Derbyshire. Focuses on the famous [[Riemann hypothesis]] and related material.
# ''Hexaflexagons, Probability Paradoxes, and the Tower of Hanoi: Martin Gardner's First Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Games''. A collection of articles by one of mathematics' foremost expositors.

Axiom of Choice

2009-11-15T18:02:55Z

MarkGall: comment on usage

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''') in set theory states that "for every nonempty set there is a function that chooses an element from each set." This axiom is powerful because by assuming the existence of such a function, one can then manipulate the function to prove otherwise unprovable theorems. This axiom is controversial because it assumes the existence of a function without demonstrating that it exists, or knowing all of its characteristics. This axiom has been used to prove an apparently absurd result, as in the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.

To better understand the Axiom of Choice, consider alternative descriptions of it:

The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of [[set]]s, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Therefore, "We can choose one [[element]] from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set."

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

Here is another description of the Axiom of Choice:<ref>http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html</ref>

::Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. The function f is then called a choice function.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differing, consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space.<ref>http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/linearalgebra/basis/basis.html</ref> In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice leads to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is observe that the "pieces" constructed in the course of the paradox are not Lebesgue measure, so there is no way that this process could ever be carried out with a physical object.

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

== Usage ==
Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians prefer to avoid the Axiom of Choice when possible. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The avoidance of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The general situation is this: some results (for example, Tychonoff's theorem) simply can't be proved without assuming the axiom of choice. When proving theorems, mathematicians prefer to proceed using as few axioms as possible, and it is now understood that there are some theorems which can be proved without the axiom of choice, and some that can not. It is well-understood which theorems fall into which category. In some branches of mathematics, for example functional analysis, the use of the axiom of choice is ubiquitous because of reliance on things like the Hahn-Banach theorem (though this theorem can be proved using a strictly weaker axiom).

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== See also ==

*[[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] [[set theory]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Axiom of Choice

2009-11-15T17:54:15Z

MarkGall: to the best of my knowledge this is simply not true. the citation of vos savant's book is telling, since she later more or less retracted the entire thing because it was so full of nonsense

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''') in set theory states that "for every nonempty set there is a function that chooses an element from each set." This axiom is powerful because by assuming the existence of such a function, one can then manipulate the function to prove otherwise unprovable theorems. This axiom is controversial because it assumes the existence of a function without demonstrating that it exists, or knowing all of its characteristics. This axiom has been used to prove an apparently absurd result, as in the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.

To better understand the Axiom of Choice, consider alternative descriptions of it:

The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of [[set]]s, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Therefore, "We can choose one [[element]] from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set."

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

Here is another description of the Axiom of Choice:<ref>http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html</ref>

::Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. The function f is then called a choice function.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differing, consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space.<ref>http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/linearalgebra/basis/basis.html</ref> In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice leads to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is observe that the "pieces" constructed in the course of the paradox are not Lebesgue measure, so there is no way that this process could ever be carried out with a physical object.

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

== Controversy ==
Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians prefer to avoid the Axiom of Choice when possible. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The avoidance of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== See also ==

*[[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] [[set theory]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Axiom of Choice

2009-11-15T17:52:20Z

MarkGall: clarify wording

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''') in set theory states that "for every nonempty set there is a function that chooses an element from each set." This axiom is powerful because by assuming the existence of such a function, one can then manipulate the function to prove otherwise unprovable theorems. This axiom is controversial because it assumes the existence of a function without demonstrating that it exists, or knowing all of its characteristics. This axiom has been used to prove an apparently absurd result, as in the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.

To better understand the Axiom of Choice, consider alternative descriptions of it:

The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of [[set]]s, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Therefore, "We can choose one [[element]] from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set."

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

Here is another description of the Axiom of Choice:<ref>http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html</ref>

::Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. The function f is then called a choice function.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differing, consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space.<ref>http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/linearalgebra/basis/basis.html</ref> In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice leads to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is observe that the "pieces" constructed in the course of the paradox are not Lebesgue measure, so there is no way that this process could ever be carried out with a physical object.

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

The highly publicized proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] relies on the Axiom of Choice, which was one of the points of criticism by [[Marilyn vos Savant]] in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref>

Interestingly, it has been proven that any theorem of [[number theory]] which uses the Axiom of Choice may be proven in a different way unaided by the axiom.<ref>http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

== Controversy ==
Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians prefer to avoid the Axiom of Choice when possible. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The avoidance of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== See also ==

*[[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] [[set theory]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Axiom of Choice

2009-11-15T17:47:00Z

MarkGall: reorder sections: let's introduce the axiom before discussing its status in classrooms

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''') in set theory states that "for every nonempty set there is a function that chooses an element from each set." This axiom is powerful because by assuming the existence of such a function, one can then manipulate the function to prove otherwise unprovable theorems. This axiom is controversial because it assumes the existence of a function without demonstrating that it exists, or knowing all of its characteristics. This axiom has been used to prove an apparently absurd result, as in the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.

To better understand the Axiom of Choice, consider alternative descriptions of it:

The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of [[set]]s, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Therefore, "We can choose one [[element]] from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set."

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

Here is another description of the Axiom of Choice:<ref>http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html</ref>

::Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. The function f is then called a choice function.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differing, consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space.<ref>http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/linearalgebra/basis/basis.html</ref> In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice has led to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is to show that physical spheres are not [[Lebesgue measurable]].<ref name="kuro5hin" />

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

The highly publicized proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] relies on the Axiom of Choice, which was one of the points of criticism by [[Marilyn vos Savant]] in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref>

Interestingly, it has been proven that any theorem of [[number theory]] which uses the Axiom of Choice may be proven in a different way unaided by the axiom.<ref>http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

== Controversy ==
Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians prefer to avoid the Axiom of Choice when possible. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The avoidance of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== See also ==

*[[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] [[set theory]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2009-11-15T16:56:02Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 720443 by Humblemastermind (Talk)

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
:* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
:* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
:* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
:* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
:* 15%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 10%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
:* 5%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: a genuine divine experience that can not be explained.
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[The Simpsons]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
:*Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks) </ref>
:*For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zGOuAAAACAAJ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies], D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107. </ref> This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Residue calculus

2009-11-15T16:31:36Z

MarkGall: i refuse to believe this is true until someone can actually name a mathematician who does

The '''residue calculus''' is a method of definite [[integration]] which relies heavily on [[Cauchy's residue theorem]]. The idea is to rewrite a definite integral on the [[real]] line as limit of integrals in the [[complex plane]] which are, in some sense, easier to compute.

==Example==
Here is a simple example. Suppose we want to find the [[integral]] of <math>\log(x)/(1+x^2)</math> from 0 to <math>\infty</math>. We begin by choosing an [[analytic]] branch of the [[logarithm]], defined everywhere in <math>\mathbb{C}</math> except for the line consisting of negative purely imaginary numbers (that is, <math>\log(z)=\log|z|+i\arg(z)</math> where <math>\arg(z)</math> is specified to take values in <math>(-\pi/2,3\pi/2)</math>. Now, choose real numbers <math>r,R</math> where <math>0<r<1</math> and <math>R>1</math>. Then, let <math>\Gamma(r,R)</math> be the positively oriented [[contour]] consisting of the clockwise upper semicircular [[arc]] from <math>-r</math> to <math>r</math>, the directed [[line segment]] from <math>r</math> to <math>R</math>, the anticlockwise semicircular arc from <math>R</math> to <math>-R</math>, and the directed line segment from <math>-R</math> to <math>-r</math> (this looks like a rainbow in the complex plane).

The reason we chose this contour is that it necessarily avoids the inevitable singularity of the logarithm at 0, and it includes inside of it, the pole of the function <math>f(z)=log(z)/(1+z^2)</math>. By Cauchy's residue theorem, we have <math>I:=\int_{\Gamma(r,R)}f(z)\,dz</math>= <math>2\pi i</math> times the residue of the [[pole]] at <math>z=i</math>. This is easily calculated, and it is equal to <math>\pi/4</math>. Thus, the integral evaluates to <math>\pi^2 i/2</math>.

The idea is to now take <math>r\rightarrow 0^+</math> and <math>R\rightarrow\infty</math>. Some easy calculations (left to the reader) show that the integrals along the semicircular arcs vanish, leaving us with only the integrals along the [[real axes]]. For <math>(0,\infty)</math> we get back the integral we are trying to calculate <math>I</math>, and on <math>(-\infty,0)</math> we get (since arg here is equal to <math>\pi i</math>): <math>I+\pi i\int_{-\infty}^0 dz/(1+z^2)=I+\pi^2 i/2</math>Thus, plugging everything back in, <math>2I+\pi^2 i/2=\pi^2 i/2</math>, so <math>I=0</math>.

[[Category:Calculus]]
[[Category:integration]]

Talk:General theory of relativity

2009-11-15T02:42:29Z

MarkGall:

==Higher math template?==

Question: I know we have this template for sections that get into early-undergrad math:

{{Template:Math-h}}

But the quantitative section is going to make (gentle) reference to tensor algebra and some aspects of differential geometry. Do we have a template that somehow conveys "this section is hard-core math, but don't be scared?" Or maybe something that gets across the idea that you don't have to follow everything in this section to understand this article?

==Proofread?==

I'm going to leave this page half-done for tonight and pick it up tomorrow. Anybody available to give what's there right now a proofread? I'd love any and all feedback. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 18:45, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:The math is way out of my depth, but I tried clarifying the section about Eddington's experiment. It now says what I think it said - if I'm way off-base, please correct me. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)
::Yep, everything in there seems okay. Can't wait to read the rest of the article.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 19:14, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::Yeah, I'm struggling with the math. The math of general relativity is hellishly complex, to the point where only a small number of exact solutions have been found in nearly a century. But I think ''examining'' the mathematics, even if it's in a superficial way, could really help the motivated student understand what the theory ''means,'' and to understand what it does and doesn't predict. I'm not planning to dive into covariant and contravariant tensor transformations or the expansion of the Christoffel symbols, but I'm trying to provide a sort of nickel tour of the equations. To your right, we see the stress-energy tensor; it's like mass. To your left, we see the Ricci tensor; it's a contraction of one of the vector fields of the Riemann with its dual, leaving the fully traceless Weyl tensor to describe gravitational radiation and yeah, I think you see my point. It's challenging.

:::But the math is so ''pretty.'' Really, it's like a jigsaw puzzle, and every piece has a really clear physical interpretation. ''This'' piece describes how the volume of a sphere in curved spacetime differs from the volume of a sphere in flat spacetime; it's a direct representation of the shape of spacetime in a gravitational field. ''This'' piece represents the plain, old, warm-and-friendly Pythagorean theorem; it's really no more complicated than that! ''This'' slot here is where you put the energy of the vacuum in order to model a vacuum-dominant expanding universe. The math is ''gorgeous,'' and I want to find a way to share that with kids without boring them or scaring them off.

:::Anyway, the Mercury thing really deserves its own section under tests of general relativity, I think. It's such an important prediction from the points of view of astronomy, theoretical physics ''and'' the modern history of science. I'll turn my attention to it after I finish the quantitative section, unless somebody wants to dive into it.

:::Thanks for the feedback, you guys! Enjoy your Friday night. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:25, 13 November 2009 (EST)

The templates are math-e, math-m, math-h, and math-a, for elementary, middle-school, high-school, and advanced. But the detailed content suggests some overlap. (By the way, I made them, based on earlier work by, I think, DanielB.) If anything deserves a "math-a", it's this! Math-a was intended for discussion of things like topology, the axiom of choice, the Riemann hypothesis, etc. That is, stuff really at the outer edges of CP's mission.

I know a fair amount about this subject, and about presenting it in a palatable way. I will look at the page over the weekend. There are many other things on my plate, but this has just gone to the top of the list. I'll deal with the Peano postulates later.

Kate: I will send you the paper on tensor calculus that we discussed.

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 20:31, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== Idea for presenting this ==

The General Relativity seems to be the place to be this weekend!!!!!

I've done some thinking about how we can explain, semi-adequately, what is going on, at an acceptable educational level. We all know that adequate explanations for lay people just don't exist. But we're making an effort.

Here's an idea that I had: Put something in, probably in front of your sections on T_mu_nu and G_mu_nu, about fictitious forces, and how curved coordinate systems, and curved manifolds, lead to these forces.

First, some kind of spacetime diagram, completely flat, with x going straight left to right, t going straight up, and some events labeled "me, now" at the origin, "me, 5 minutes from now" up the page, "My neighbor's house, now" to the right, and a diagonal line for my neighbor walking to my house and arriving in 5 minutes. An explanation that these are "world lines". Mine goes straight up, and my neighbor's goes diagonally. We show coordinate "graph paper" lines, all rectilinear.

Next, figure 2: a diagram showing the frame of reference of a car traveling uniformly down the street. The formerly vertical lines are now slanted. My neighbor appears to be walking faster in my frame of reference, and he arrives at my house at x=-5 or whatever. He is now behind me, because my car moved.

Point out that a "flat coordinate system" is one in which the coordinate lines are straight. That means they make boxes that are either parallelograms or rectangles. They don't have to be rectangles. The coordinate system of figure 2 is still flat. Point out also, that both the stationary observer in front of my house (figure 1) and the observer in the car (figure 2) don't feel any fictitious forces. They are in inertial frames of reference.

Now do figure 3. This is a car that starts out at rest at t=0, and accelerates. We show the formerly vertical coordinate lines as being curved. (They're parabolas, I believe.) This is a "curved coordinate system", characterized by curved coordinate lines. (You and I know that it's not that simple -- curved? What does that mean? It means they aren't geodesics. We can't get into that. It involves Christoffel symbols. We just draw curved lines and leave it at that.) We also point out that someone in the accelerating car ''feels a [fictitious] force'', even though he is "at rest" in his coordinate system.

Then we state the fundamental principle: ''If you are in a curved coordinate system, you will feel fictitious forces.'' A fictitious force is traditionally something that arises from some kind of acceleration, such as an accelerating vehicle, or a centrifugal force, or a Coriolis force.

Then we state the ''equivalence principle'' -- gravity perhaps can be explained as a fictitious force. We can point out that this principle had sort of been known for a long time before Einstein.

Now let's look at curved coordinate systems. Put up a piece of polar graph paper. This is a curved coordinate system. But, no problem -- it's a flat piece of paper. The ''manifold'' (we're using that term, right?) is flat; it just happens to have a curved coordinate system. This is equivalent the the accelerating car. By pressing down on the accelerator of the car, we intentionally put ourselves into a curved coordinate system, but the manifold itself is flat. The observer standing on the sidewalk can attest to that.

Now let's look at curved ''manifolds''. We say, in a hand-wavey sort of way, that there are "curved manifolds", and that the surface of a sphere is an example of a curved 2-dimensional manifold. And we state (we can't possibly prove it, or even rigorously define the terms, at this level of exposition) that ''curved manifolds have only curved coordinate systems''. There is no flat coordinate system on the surface of the sphere. Flat manifolds, like the spacetime diagrams of figures 1, 2, and 3, have both flat and curved coordinate systems. People living in the curved coordinate systems will feel fictitious forces.

We make some hand-wavey statement that the curvature of a manifold arises from somethng called the "metric tensor", "Riemann's tensor", "Ricci's tensor", and "Einstein's tensor". If we know the metric tensor, we can tell whether the manifold is curved. If it is (that is, Einstein's tensor is nonzero), then the manifold is curved, all possible coordinate systems are curved, and there is no global coordinate system that is free of fictitious forces. (Of course, we can make a coordinate system that is locally flat -- just jump down an elevator shaft.)

Then we say that the essence of General Relativity, and its explanation of gravity, is that gravity appears to be a fictitious force for which ''no flat coordinate system exists'', and hence it arises from the ''curvature of the manifold itself'', as given by Einstein's tensor. Which is the left side of the equation.

I really think this will be better than the exhibits of balls rolling around on curved surfaces that we see in science museums. A lot of handwaving, but we just may be able to do this a bit better than most elementary treatments.

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 15:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:By luck (whether good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader) that's pretty much the curriculum for the first six weeks of my intro to general relativity course. I mean beat for beat: we start out reviewing special relativity and transformations from orthonormal coordinates to oblique coordinates, which takes us into the hyperbolic trig interpretation, then we do curvilinear coordinates and the equivalence principle. I use the unit 2-sphere and tidal forces to introduce the concept of an obstruction, which gets us into the metric and parallel transport. That's usually when I say, "Okay, just assume everything I'm about to tell you is true and trust me," and I do a couple hours of tensor algebra so we can talk Riemann.

:I'm ''not'' a good candidate to boil all that down into something suitable for a precocious high-schooler. That's why I used the same story I told my niece when she asked me what I do for a living. Except we actually went out to the back yard trampoline with a tennis ball. (Her adorable and patient aunt played the part of the sun in our little model solar system.)

:I'm all for putting it in terms of geometry rather than balls and surfaces, if you think you can explain it in a way that gives a good intuitive grasp of the ideas. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 16:29, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Oh, also I'm going to move your advanced-math-ahead warning sign down to the quantitative section and replace the some-math-ahead warning sign. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 16:30, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::I'm always on the lookout for math articles that would actually be useful to write, so let me know if there's anything that could help give background for this article -- I can write about geodesics or curvature or whatever else comes in here (these both have pages already, but they're rather silly). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 19:51, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Oh, thank you so much for offering. I spent some time this afternoon thinking about the next section; it's obviously more math-intensive than the first. The subjects I'm going to have to at least ''touch on'' in order to write it are obviously curvature as a concept, parallel transport as a way to quantify curvature and the metric tensor as an extension of the Pythagorean theorem. I don't ''want'' to get into tensor contraction (the Riemann->Ricci thing) unless I have to to explain that the Einstein tensor only represents ''part'' of the curvature of spacetime, and the other part is where gravitational radiation is expected to appear.

:::Any of that sound like ripe picking for math articles? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:06, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::Sure, I'll work on [[curvature]] (pretty sure I can improve what's on there now!). I'm thinking I'll start off talking about curvature of hypersurfaces in R^3 and the idea of parallel transport (illustrated on the round 2-sphere, probably), then define the Riemann curvature tensor (roughly -- we'll see about actually defining tensors) via holonomy. My thinking is that it probably then makes most sense to define sectional curvatures next and then say a bit about scalar and Ricci curvature. This all comes with the disclaimer that my expository abilities aren't really up to par, but I'll try to at least get the groundwork in place. I probably won't really start until Monday, but I'll see if I can't get a start tomorrow. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:23, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::: HA! Yeah, I'd say we can do better than that for [[curvature]]. ;-) If it were me writing it (and I'm glad it's not; thank you) from the perspective of a physicist, the point I'd emphasize is that it is ''not'' possible to put a consistent set of Cartesian coordinates onto a curved surface. If the surface is curved, then it cannot be flattened by a coordinate transform, period. So you ''have'' to deal with the curvature. That's the point I emphasize when I do "differential geometry for dummies." But of course, your article won't be for budding physicists, it'll be for budding mathematicians or anybody who's interested. So I'll support whatever choice you make. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:46, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) My take on this, and what I'm thinking of doing for my work on this article (feel free to steer me in a different direction if you disagree) is:
*There are flat coordinate systems. (''We'' know this as Christoffel symbols = 0, but that's beyond our scope for the article.) When dealing with spacetime, if you are in a flat coordinate system, you don't feel any "fictitious forces" (accelerations). Your system is intertial.
*There are curved coordinate systems. (Nonzero Christoffel symbols, geodesics are hairy.) When dealing with spacetime, you feel fictitious forces.
*There are flat manifolds (Riemann=0.)
*There are curved manifolds (Riemann !=0.)
*A flat manifold may have flat or curved coordinate systems. In physics, we could be in a rotating or accelerating frame of reference. But we can always find a flat coordinate system. That is, the curvature of the coordinate system can be "transformed away" (for example, by stepping off the amusement park ride.)
*A curved manifold has '''NO''' flat coordinate systems. At least not globally. You can't step outside.

Then we say that gravity is really just a fictitious force (equivalence principle), and it arises because the spacetime manifold itself is curved. It can't be globally transformed away.

Obviously, I come at this from a physicist's perspective (though my major was in math.) It sounds as though Mark is planning the mathematicians' approach for the curvature article. The two articles will make interesting, and excellent, reading.

[[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:32, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:These suggestions sounds good to me -- I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive, either. I can start off talking about "flat coordinate systems" and maybe even throw in something about map projections (the Mercator kind, I mean) and the theorema egregium (this is supposed to be written for [[Majoring in Mathematics]] anyway, though JacobB who suggested it seems to have disappeared). This can all be integrated with what I'll say about surfaces in R^3. I'm a bit wary of saying much about Christoffel symbols since then we'd have to say a bit about connections, which I'd rather avoid -- I think geodesics are a more intuitive thing, and require a lot less other stuff to define if we're willing to wave our hands a bit (but if they're needed for the relativity article I can certainly define). Then I can start babbling about parallel transport and then actually define the curvature tensor. It's probably better if one of you write the physics-y stuff about fictitious forces here, but I can take a shot at it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:42, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:General theory of relativity

2009-11-15T01:23:01Z

MarkGall:

Talk:General theory of relativity

2009-11-15T00:51:56Z

MarkGall:

Stephen Colbert

2009-11-14T23:06:11Z

MarkGall: Undo revision 720158 by Blahblahblahblah (Talk)

[[File:Stephencolbert2.jpg|thumb]]

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer, a comedian, and an actor. Colbert claims to be [[Catholic]] and an erstwhile Sunday school teacher<ref>http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/</ref>, and a self-proclaimed [[liberal]] [[Democrat]]. <ref>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 Rolling Stone Interview, Oct 31, 2006</ref>

Colbert began his career at [[Comedy Central]] in the year 2000 on the show ''Strangers with Candy''. He later left in order to become a correspondent on ''[[The Daily Show|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'', where he began to build what would later be the character he would play on ''The Colbert Report''. He was well-regarded on the show, and was occasionally guest-hosting when Stewart had to be elsewhere.

Due to his work on ''The Daily Show'', he won three [[Emmy Awards]] and two [[Peabody Awards]] along with the other writers.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0170306/awards IMDB List of Stephen Colbert Awards </ref> <ref>http://128.192.29.189/news/pressrelease.asp?ID=151 List of 2007 Peabody Award Winners</ref>

==''The Colbert Report''==

In 2005, Colbert left ''The Daily Show'' in order to become the host of a spinoff, ''The Colbert Report''.

In the show, Colbert plays a satirical right-wing political talk show host. This personna was largely based on [[Bill O'Reilly]], who has a friendly rivalry with the show.

''The Colbert Report'' has a very loyal following which the Colbert character often uses for his various pranks. For example, in every public vote for naming something, Colbert urges his fans to vote for him.

In his recurring segment "The Word", which is a parody of O'Reilly's "Talking Points", Colbert coined the word "truthiness" in order to refer to the quality possessed by statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood.

Colbert has poked fun at [[Wikipedia]] and its apparent democratization of truth. He has coined the word "Wikiality" (as opposed to "reality") and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles. In August of 2006, he encouraged users to state that the population of African [[elephants]] had tripled in the last decade. Colbert's point was that if enough people believe something, it becomes "the truth". Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to prevent further vandalism.

Recently, Colbert had viewers write in his name to a public vote done by [[NASA]] to name a new room addition to the [[International Space Station]]. Colbert's cult-like followers won the contest for him with an astonishing 230,539 total votes, 40,000 more than NASA's choice of Serenity.

Stephen Colbert recently has gained attention in the media with his satirical mocking of [[Fox News]]'s [[Glenn Beck]]. Colbert has mocked Beck's claims that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is a racist and that Obama is a socialist.

==Call to vandalize Conservapedia==
After learning about [[Conservapedia]]'s [[Conservative Bible Project|initiative to remove "liberal bias" from the Bible]], Stephen Colbert urged his followers to insert him into the planned conservative rewrite as a Biblical figure.<ref>{{cite episode
| title = The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 10-7-2009
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle}}</ref> This was followed by mass vandalism by Colbert fans.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709438&oldid=709432 Example of vandalism on the Stephen Colbert article]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29&diff=prev&oldid=709520 Example of vandalism on the Genesis 1-8 page of the Conservative Bible Project]</ref>

== See also ==

*''[[The Daily Show]]''

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Colbert, Stephen}} 
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Television Show Hosts]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Majoring in Mathematics

2009-11-13T18:23:14Z

MarkGall: clarification of intent of article

Functor

2009-11-13T16:31:10Z

MarkGall: add some fluff to the intro

The term '''functor''' has two distinct meanings.

==In Pure Mathematics==
In [[category theory]], a '''functor''' is a map between categories satisfying certain relations. Functors can be thought of as expressing relations between categories, and have a wide range of applications. For example, given a problem about topological spaces, one might apply some functor (say, taking the homology groups), and obtain an equivalent problem about vector spaces. Since problems about vector spaces are generally much easier to answer than those about general topological spaces, this may make it easier to understand the original problem.

Functors, in a sense, provide for categories what group [[homomorphism|homomorphisms]] do for groups. To be precise, a function <math>F : \mathcal C \to \mathcal D</math> between two categories associates to each object <math>X \in \textrm{Ob } \mathcal C</math> an object <math>F(X) \in \textrm{Ob } \mathcal D</math>, and to each morphism <math>f \in \mathcal C(X,Y)</math> a morphism <math>F(f) \in \mathcal D(FX,FY)</math> such that:
:<math>F(\textrm{id}_X) = id_{F(X)}\,</math>
:<math>F(g \circ f) = F(g) \circ F(f)</math>.
Functors are the fundamental objects used to relate structures between different categories.

The traditional terminology for the above is a "covariant functor", to distinguish it from "contravariant functors", which reverse the direction of compositions, and instead satisfy
:<math>F(g \circ f) = F(f) \circ F(g)</math>.
We will see an example of this below.

=== Examples ===
Algebraic topology was the first field in which the usefulness of the notion of a functor was recognized. A basic example is the [[fundamental group]] functor <math>\pi_1 : \textbf{Top}* \to \textbf{Grp}</math>. The action on objects is defined by sending a topological space to its fundamental group <math>\pi_1(X)</math>. Recall that a map between two topological spaces <math>f : X \to Y</math> induces a map <math>f_* : \pi_1(X) \to \pi(Y)</math> by <math>f_*([\gamma]) = [f \circ \gamma]</math>. Set <math>\pi_1(f) = f_*\,</math> so defined. The functoriality of <math>\pi_1</math> boils down to the fact that <math>F(\textrm{id}_X) = \textrm{id}_{\pi_1(X)}</math>, that is, the identity map on a topological space induces the identity map on its fundamental group, together with the fact that <math>F(g \circ f) = F(g) \circ F(f)</math>, explained at [[fundamental group]].

A simple example arises in the category of vector spaces. Fix a vector space <math>V</math>. We can define a functor <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,-) : \textrm{Vect}_k \to \textrm{Vect}_k</math> by
#An object <math>A</math> (that is a vector space) is sent to <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,A)</math>, the vector space of linear maps from <math>V</math> to <math>A</math>. We can think of these linear maps as matrices.
#A linear transformation <math> \phi : A \to B</math> (i.e., an element of <math>\textrm{Hom}_{\textrm{Vect}_k}(A,B)</math> is sent to a linear transformation <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,A) \to \textrm{Hom}(V,B)</math> by setting <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,-)(\phi) = (f \mapsto \phi \circ f)</math>. I other words, the image of <math>\phi</math> is supposed to be a linear transformation from <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,A)</math> to <math>\textrm{Hom}(V,B)</math>: it is defined by sending a linear transformation <math>f : V \to A</math> to <math>\phi \circ f : V \to B</math>.

We can similarly obtain a contravariant function <math>\textrm{Hom}(-,V)</math> by
#An object <math>A</math> is sent to the vector space of linear maps <math>\textrm{Hom}(A,V)</math>.
#A map <math>\phi \in \textrm{Hom}(A,B)</math> is sent to a linear map <math>\textrm{Hom}(B,V) \to \textrm{Hom}(A,V)</math> by <math> \phi \mapsto (f \mapsto f \circ \phi)</math>. Given a linear map from B to V, we get one from A to V by composing with <math>\phi</math>. Note that morphisms now compose in the opposite direction: that is why this is a contravariant functor.

==In Computer Science==
In computer science, the term "functor" is short for "function operator", also called a "function object". It is essentially a class method with no name. Many modern programming languages support this. For example, in [[C++]] one can define a function object with the "operator()" notation, that is, a definition of what parentheses mean after an object.
class C {
public:
int operator()(int i, int j) { return k+i*j; }
int k;
.....
};

.....
C MyObject;
MyObject.k = 3;
int r = MyObject(4,5);
.....

We have effectively defined a nameless method for class C. Instead of making a named invocation like "MyObject.func(4,5)", we just write "MyObject(4,5)".

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Computer Science]]