Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal tricks

2009-07-05T21:33:04Z

Marlowe: /* Honorary Degree */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint ==
# Win an argument through luck
# Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
# atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
# (me not learnded enough)
# ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
# death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
# it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
# no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
# Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
# No material thing is truly cool
# there is a shortage in piety
# disproving Christianity is for dummies
# kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
# (see #1)
# call someone a [[racist]] when they are a [[nepotist]]
# some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
# vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
# if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
# justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Claiming expertise==

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--[[User:Krishnapooja|Krishnapooja]] 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your examples are deficient because they do not represent ''claiming'' expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
::How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

==Adding to the list==
Hey! I've got number 20! "Uses logic instead of relying on what the Bible/Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson told them to do."
Does that sound like a fair addition, you know, considering the fact that this article already makes your work with this encyclopedia look ridiculous and childish? Grow up, guys. No one's going to take the conservative viewpoint seriously if you keep cranking out this drivel. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 16:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::As mean-spirited as that is, jparenti, I agree. This "list" should be removed for making conservatives look bad. But watch yourself because language like that will get you blocked in a hurry.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 17:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==essay==

this is an opinion piece, and should therefore be labelled an essay.

==some points==

here are some flaws in some of these arguements.

1. "when did you stop beating your wife?" is conservapedia now pro-domestic violence? or do we just think its an ok thing to joke about.
2."pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?
3."live and let live-prayor in school" no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time (i.e. not in a special block of time where everyone must pray) that is fine. the issue liberals have with school prayor is when it becomes a state-sanctioned activity.
4."it doesnt hurt to try" Abortion. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.

i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.

{{unsigned|michaeljw}}

:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sorry for not knowing that phrase. but you refused to answer the rest of my arguments and just blocked me. do you have a response to anything else i said?
-[[user:michaeljw]]

: Your account has been blocked for 3 days now. We're building an encyclopedia here, not sitting around in idle chatter. Add value, or go elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

A response to his points:

2.''pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?'' One doesn't 'become' unintelligent; espousing atheism is one sign of a low level of intelligence and understanding to begin with.

3. ''no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time'' Classroom prayer is proven to have benefiots in terms of the application, conduct and achievement of the students. We do not advocate that all students have to pray. If they wish, they can use the short time allocated at the start of class to meditate, to think about their lunch, or even to have reveries about 'Professor' Dawkins: each to his or her own. But they have no right to deny the opportunity of prayer to others. +

4. ''no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.'' But that is precisely what proselytising Liberals do, through their sponsorship of 'pro choice' and publicicing abortion clinics. The answer is pre-marital chastity. +

5. Environmentalists have a profoundly ahistoric and blinkered viewpoint. Climate has always changed; some species die out. That is the way of things.

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Michaeljw, allow me to also add my comments. I tend to stay away from pages such as this, as I don't consider them encyclopaedic, but on this one I did add a couple of points including one that you have queried. I also think that some of the points on the page may not be well expressed, but have some basis for being there.
# "When did you stop beating your wife", as Bugler pointed out, is a well known example of the logical fallacy known as a ''loaded question''. "i dont really expect an honest reply" is not the same thing; for one thing it's not even a question. It may be an example of ''poisoning the well'', though.
# Contrary to Bugler, atheism does not equal low intelligence, at least as we normally understand and measure intelligence. This is obvious from the fact that some very intelligent people have been atheists. But then that is not what the page says. Rather, it appears to be (this is one that's not well written) rejecting the ''opposite'' idea, that anybody who is ''not'' an atheist has low intelligence. Atheism and theism depend on ''beliefs'', not intelligence. Having said that, I will agree that atheism is at the very least logically dubious.
# If you put restrictions on praying, such as in school, then you have indeed stopped people praying ''freely''.
# I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, although perhaps it just gets back to that poor wording I mentioned. I don't ever recall anyone saying "it doesn't hurt to try" in connection with abortion.
# This is the one that I contributed, and I don't agree with Bugler's answer. As Christians, we should look after the creation that God has given us, being good stewards of it. So I support the preservation of endangered species. However, much of the opposition to whaling is from an ideological point of view, and is not based just on preserving endangered species. The minke whale, for example, is only "endangered" by drawing a long bow. But do environmentalists say that we should not kill whales that are really endangered, but other whales are okay to kill (even if in limited numbers so that they don't become endangered)? No, they are against killing whales ''at all''. Your argument is that there is no real comparison between (a) an unimportant thing like something "inappropriate" on television, and (b) a very important thing like the "slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species". Part of my answer is that (b) is not as important as you make it out to be. The other part of my answer is that (a) is more important that you make it out to be. The stuff on TV that many object to is stuff that helps lower the moral standards of our society, standards which forbid robbery, murder, rape, and so on. So keeping that stuff off TV would do a lot of good for society. But liberals have the dismissive attitude that if we don't like it, the solution is to simply not watch it. The point is that they don't apply this standard to killing whales because ''they'' consider that important, but dismiss our concerns that ''we'' consider important.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I just went through and did some capitalizing and changed a bit of the grammar. Nothing ''major'' but it was a pretty extensive edit. However, there were a few I just didn't know what to do with. Numbers 13-16, as well as 20 just don't seem to...fit. They seem like they'll be good points if someone can reword them so they fit with their surroundings. I can't think of how this should be done, so hopefully someone else can.

I think the main problem is that, although they may sound ok when spoken, they're just too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia. [[User:JParker|JParker]] 17:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Honorary Degree ==
I'm curious about the inclusion of 'Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".' in the list. I work in academia and I realize that my sample size is not huge, and that, assuming the institution is accredited, anybody with an honorary doctoral degree can elect to use the title doctor - and figures such as Ben Franklin have. Nevertheless, rolling your eyes at someone who just has an honorary degree but who insists on "doctor" is usually considered the conservative position, rather than the liberal one, and in most cases the honorary degree system at most universities is a bunch of lib hooey anyway, tossing out degrees based on celebrity. While I'm sure that libs love to jump all over the rare conservative honorary degree recipient, discouraging the use of "doctor" by people that haven't really completed a normal course of study is really the conservative take. (I suspect that libs love using "doctor" for honorary degree recipients because they give someone a way to look way more qualified than they really are.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:I agree. The liberal position would seem to be the reverse of what's in the list - I feel it would be more along the lines of "Though this person has not completed the course of study to 'earn' the degree, this person has shown him/herself to be competent in this field, and is honorarily awarded the title in lieu of this." Of course, it's usually a popularity contest, as you mentioned. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I think the history behind that comment is that liberals first stridently objected to my mother receiving an honorary degree (from Washington University), and then stridently objected to a few references to her as "Dr." shortly afterward. They protesteth too much. Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of liberals who never earned the rank of full professor, yet called themselves that, and liberals defended it. See, e.g., [[Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:::Cool cool. I've edited the line to make it a bit stronger and to avoid giving the impression that not calling honorary recipients "doctor" is the default liberal position, since they're more than willing to use it for their own. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::::No, not cool at all, DaveB7. Your edit comment says fixing periods and caps, yet you were using [[deceit]], and removed the word [[liberal]] as well, altering the meaning of the entry. Now I will be looking over all of your edits....and if I find that is your pattern, and I suspect I will....well, you know (or should know) what I will do. The default liberal position, BTW, is to always keep a double standard, applying one to conservatives, another for their own. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:09, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::: I agree with the rhetoric used in accepting and promoting honorary degrees on a case by case basis varies based on the ideology of the person being awarded and the people who are not, but I meant that the idea behind the degrees is liberal. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 17:32, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal tricks

2009-07-05T21:32:33Z

Marlowe: /* Honorary Degree */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint ==
# Win an argument through luck
# Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
# atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
# (me not learnded enough)
# ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
# death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
# it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
# no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
# Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
# No material thing is truly cool
# there is a shortage in piety
# disproving Christianity is for dummies
# kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
# (see #1)
# call someone a [[racist]] when they are a [[nepotist]]
# some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
# vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
# if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
# justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Claiming expertise==

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--[[User:Krishnapooja|Krishnapooja]] 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your examples are deficient because they do not represent ''claiming'' expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
::How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

==Adding to the list==
Hey! I've got number 20! "Uses logic instead of relying on what the Bible/Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson told them to do."
Does that sound like a fair addition, you know, considering the fact that this article already makes your work with this encyclopedia look ridiculous and childish? Grow up, guys. No one's going to take the conservative viewpoint seriously if you keep cranking out this drivel. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 16:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::As mean-spirited as that is, jparenti, I agree. This "list" should be removed for making conservatives look bad. But watch yourself because language like that will get you blocked in a hurry.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 17:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==essay==

this is an opinion piece, and should therefore be labelled an essay.

==some points==

here are some flaws in some of these arguements.

1. "when did you stop beating your wife?" is conservapedia now pro-domestic violence? or do we just think its an ok thing to joke about.
2."pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?
3."live and let live-prayor in school" no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time (i.e. not in a special block of time where everyone must pray) that is fine. the issue liberals have with school prayor is when it becomes a state-sanctioned activity.
4."it doesnt hurt to try" Abortion. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.

i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.

{{unsigned|michaeljw}}

:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sorry for not knowing that phrase. but you refused to answer the rest of my arguments and just blocked me. do you have a response to anything else i said?
-[[user:michaeljw]]

: Your account has been blocked for 3 days now. We're building an encyclopedia here, not sitting around in idle chatter. Add value, or go elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

A response to his points:

2.''pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?'' One doesn't 'become' unintelligent; espousing atheism is one sign of a low level of intelligence and understanding to begin with.

3. ''no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time'' Classroom prayer is proven to have benefiots in terms of the application, conduct and achievement of the students. We do not advocate that all students have to pray. If they wish, they can use the short time allocated at the start of class to meditate, to think about their lunch, or even to have reveries about 'Professor' Dawkins: each to his or her own. But they have no right to deny the opportunity of prayer to others. +

4. ''no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.'' But that is precisely what proselytising Liberals do, through their sponsorship of 'pro choice' and publicicing abortion clinics. The answer is pre-marital chastity. +

5. Environmentalists have a profoundly ahistoric and blinkered viewpoint. Climate has always changed; some species die out. That is the way of things.

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Michaeljw, allow me to also add my comments. I tend to stay away from pages such as this, as I don't consider them encyclopaedic, but on this one I did add a couple of points including one that you have queried. I also think that some of the points on the page may not be well expressed, but have some basis for being there.
# "When did you stop beating your wife", as Bugler pointed out, is a well known example of the logical fallacy known as a ''loaded question''. "i dont really expect an honest reply" is not the same thing; for one thing it's not even a question. It may be an example of ''poisoning the well'', though.
# Contrary to Bugler, atheism does not equal low intelligence, at least as we normally understand and measure intelligence. This is obvious from the fact that some very intelligent people have been atheists. But then that is not what the page says. Rather, it appears to be (this is one that's not well written) rejecting the ''opposite'' idea, that anybody who is ''not'' an atheist has low intelligence. Atheism and theism depend on ''beliefs'', not intelligence. Having said that, I will agree that atheism is at the very least logically dubious.
# If you put restrictions on praying, such as in school, then you have indeed stopped people praying ''freely''.
# I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, although perhaps it just gets back to that poor wording I mentioned. I don't ever recall anyone saying "it doesn't hurt to try" in connection with abortion.
# This is the one that I contributed, and I don't agree with Bugler's answer. As Christians, we should look after the creation that God has given us, being good stewards of it. So I support the preservation of endangered species. However, much of the opposition to whaling is from an ideological point of view, and is not based just on preserving endangered species. The minke whale, for example, is only "endangered" by drawing a long bow. But do environmentalists say that we should not kill whales that are really endangered, but other whales are okay to kill (even if in limited numbers so that they don't become endangered)? No, they are against killing whales ''at all''. Your argument is that there is no real comparison between (a) an unimportant thing like something "inappropriate" on television, and (b) a very important thing like the "slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species". Part of my answer is that (b) is not as important as you make it out to be. The other part of my answer is that (a) is more important that you make it out to be. The stuff on TV that many object to is stuff that helps lower the moral standards of our society, standards which forbid robbery, murder, rape, and so on. So keeping that stuff off TV would do a lot of good for society. But liberals have the dismissive attitude that if we don't like it, the solution is to simply not watch it. The point is that they don't apply this standard to killing whales because ''they'' consider that important, but dismiss our concerns that ''we'' consider important.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I just went through and did some capitalizing and changed a bit of the grammar. Nothing ''major'' but it was a pretty extensive edit. However, there were a few I just didn't know what to do with. Numbers 13-16, as well as 20 just don't seem to...fit. They seem like they'll be good points if someone can reword them so they fit with their surroundings. I can't think of how this should be done, so hopefully someone else can.

I think the main problem is that, although they may sound ok when spoken, they're just too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia. [[User:JParker|JParker]] 17:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Honorary Degree ==
I'm curious about the inclusion of 'Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".' in the list. I work in academia and I realize that my sample size is not huge, and that, assuming the institution is accredited, anybody with an honorary doctoral degree can elect to use the title doctor - and figures such as Ben Franklin have. Nevertheless, rolling your eyes at someone who just has an honorary degree but who insists on "doctor" is usually considered the conservative position, rather than the liberal one, and in most cases the honorary degree system at most universities is a bunch of lib hooey anyway, tossing out degrees based on celebrity. While I'm sure that libs love to jump all over the rare conservative honorary degree recipient, discouraging the use of "doctor" by people that haven't really completed a normal course of study is really the conservative take. (I suspect that libs love using "doctor" for honorary degree recipients because they give someone a way to look way more qualified than they really are.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:I agree. The liberal position would seem to be the reverse of what's in the list - I feel it would be more along the lines of "Though this person has not completed the course of study to 'earn' the degree, this person has shown him/herself to be competent in this field, and is honorarily awarded the title in lieu of this." Of course, it's usually a popularity contest, as you mentioned. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::I think the history behind that comment is that liberals first stridently objected to my mother receiving an honorary degree (from Washington University), and then stridently objected to a few references to her as "Dr." shortly afterward. They protesteth too much. Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of liberals who never earned the rank of full professor, yet called themselves that, and liberals defended it. See, e.g., [[Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

:::Cool cool. I've edited the line to make it a bit stronger and to avoid giving the impression that not calling honorary recipients "doctor" is the default liberal position, since they're more than willing to use it for their own. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::::No, not cool at all, DaveB7. Your edit comment says fixing periods and caps, yet you were using [[deceit]], and removed the word [[liberal]] as well, altering the meaning of the entry. Now I will be looking over all of your edits....and if I find that is your pattern, and I suspect I will....well, you know (or should know) what I will do. The default liberal position, BTW, is to always keep a double standard, applying one to conservatives, another for their own. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:09, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::: I agree with the rhetoric used in accepting and promoting honorary degrees on a case by case basis varies based on the ideology of the person being awarded and the people who are not, but I meant that the idea of the degrees themselves is liberal. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 17:32, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal tricks

2009-07-04T19:33:31Z

Marlowe: /* Honorary Degree */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint ==
# Win an argument through luck
# Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
# atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
# (me not learnded enough)
# ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
# death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
# it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
# no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
# Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
# No material thing is truly cool
# there is a shortage in piety
# disproving Christianity is for dummies
# kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
# (see #1)
# call someone a [[racist]] when they are a [[nepotist]]
# some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
# vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
# if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
# justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Claiming expertise==

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--[[User:Krishnapooja|Krishnapooja]] 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your examples are deficient because they do not represent ''claiming'' expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
::How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

==Adding to the list==
Hey! I've got number 20! "Uses logic instead of relying on what the Bible/Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson told them to do."
Does that sound like a fair addition, you know, considering the fact that this article already makes your work with this encyclopedia look ridiculous and childish? Grow up, guys. No one's going to take the conservative viewpoint seriously if you keep cranking out this drivel. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 16:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::As mean-spirited as that is, jparenti, I agree. This "list" should be removed for making conservatives look bad. But watch yourself because language like that will get you blocked in a hurry.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 17:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==essay==

this is an opinion piece, and should therefore be labelled an essay.

==some points==

here are some flaws in some of these arguements.

1. "when did you stop beating your wife?" is conservapedia now pro-domestic violence? or do we just think its an ok thing to joke about.
2."pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?
3."live and let live-prayor in school" no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time (i.e. not in a special block of time where everyone must pray) that is fine. the issue liberals have with school prayor is when it becomes a state-sanctioned activity.
4."it doesnt hurt to try" Abortion. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.

i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.

{{unsigned|michaeljw}}

:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sorry for not knowing that phrase. but you refused to answer the rest of my arguments and just blocked me. do you have a response to anything else i said?
-[[user:michaeljw]]

: Your account has been blocked for 3 days now. We're building an encyclopedia here, not sitting around in idle chatter. Add value, or go elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

A response to his points:

2.''pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?'' One doesn't 'become' unintelligent; espousing atheism is one sign of a low level of intelligence and understanding to begin with.

3. ''no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time'' Classroom prayer is proven to have benefiots in terms of the application, conduct and achievement of the students. We do not advocate that all students have to pray. If they wish, they can use the short time allocated at the start of class to meditate, to think about their lunch, or even to have reveries about 'Professor' Dawkins: each to his or her own. But they have no right to deny the opportunity of prayer to others. +

4. ''no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.'' But that is precisely what proselytising Liberals do, through their sponsorship of 'pro choice' and publicicing abortion clinics. The answer is pre-marital chastity. +

5. Environmentalists have a profoundly ahistoric and blinkered viewpoint. Climate has always changed; some species die out. That is the way of things.

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Michaeljw, allow me to also add my comments. I tend to stay away from pages such as this, as I don't consider them encyclopaedic, but on this one I did add a couple of points including one that you have queried. I also think that some of the points on the page may not be well expressed, but have some basis for being there.
# "When did you stop beating your wife", as Bugler pointed out, is a well known example of the logical fallacy known as a ''loaded question''. "i dont really expect an honest reply" is not the same thing; for one thing it's not even a question. It may be an example of ''poisoning the well'', though.
# Contrary to Bugler, atheism does not equal low intelligence, at least as we normally understand and measure intelligence. This is obvious from the fact that some very intelligent people have been atheists. But then that is not what the page says. Rather, it appears to be (this is one that's not well written) rejecting the ''opposite'' idea, that anybody who is ''not'' an atheist has low intelligence. Atheism and theism depend on ''beliefs'', not intelligence. Having said that, I will agree that atheism is at the very least logically dubious.
# If you put restrictions on praying, such as in school, then you have indeed stopped people praying ''freely''.
# I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, although perhaps it just gets back to that poor wording I mentioned. I don't ever recall anyone saying "it doesn't hurt to try" in connection with abortion.
# This is the one that I contributed, and I don't agree with Bugler's answer. As Christians, we should look after the creation that God has given us, being good stewards of it. So I support the preservation of endangered species. However, much of the opposition to whaling is from an ideological point of view, and is not based just on preserving endangered species. The minke whale, for example, is only "endangered" by drawing a long bow. But do environmentalists say that we should not kill whales that are really endangered, but other whales are okay to kill (even if in limited numbers so that they don't become endangered)? No, they are against killing whales ''at all''. Your argument is that there is no real comparison between (a) an unimportant thing like something "inappropriate" on television, and (b) a very important thing like the "slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species". Part of my answer is that (b) is not as important as you make it out to be. The other part of my answer is that (a) is more important that you make it out to be. The stuff on TV that many object to is stuff that helps lower the moral standards of our society, standards which forbid robbery, murder, rape, and so on. So keeping that stuff off TV would do a lot of good for society. But liberals have the dismissive attitude that if we don't like it, the solution is to simply not watch it. The point is that they don't apply this standard to killing whales because ''they'' consider that important, but dismiss our concerns that ''we'' consider important.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I just went through and did some capitalizing and changed a bit of the grammar. Nothing ''major'' but it was a pretty extensive edit. However, there were a few I just didn't know what to do with. Numbers 13-16, as well as 20 just don't seem to...fit. They seem like they'll be good points if someone can reword them so they fit with their surroundings. I can't think of how this should be done, so hopefully someone else can.

I think the main problem is that, although they may sound ok when spoken, they're just too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia. [[User:JParker|JParker]] 17:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Honorary Degree ==
I'm curious about the inclusion of 'Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".' in the list. I work in academia and I realize that my sample size is not huge, and that, assuming the institution is accredited, anybody with an honorary doctoral degree can elect to use the title doctor - and figures such as Ben Franklin have. Nevertheless, rolling your eyes at someone who just has an honorary degree but who insists on "doctor" is usually considered the conservative position, rather than the liberal one, and in most cases the honorary degree system at most universities is a bunch of lib hooey anyway, tossing out degrees based on celebrity. While I'm sure that libs love to jump all over the rare conservative honorary degree recipient, discouraging the use of "doctor" by people that haven't really completed a normal course of study is really the conservative take. (I suspect that libs love using "doctor" for honorary degree recipients because they give someone a way to look way more qualified than they really are.)

: I agree. The liberal position would seem to be the reverse of what's in the list - I feel it would be more along the lines of "Though this person has not completed the course of study to 'earn' the degree, this person has shown him/herself to be competent in this field, and is honorarily awarded the title in lieu of this." Of course, it's usually a popularity contest, as you mentioned. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2009-07-04T19:24:12Z

Marlowe:

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Possibly 1960, when Kennedy was elected. At the dawn of TV, Kennedy set up the debate to his advantage, in what is known as the 1960 effect. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Liberals might, who would wish, by employing their [[Liberal tricks]], to smear a Conservative politician by implying illegality where none existed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:13, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that we're missing the argument here. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers said "Under God" at some point, but whether the original writing of the Pledge contained that phrase. It did not. And not all Founding Fathers were quite as up-standing Christians as George Washington was. We can and will continue to debate whether "Under God" should be in the Pledge, but as to whether Ms. Palin was correct in her comment, I believe debating is a moot point. She meant (and I think it is clear, though many I'm sure will disagree) that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they said it with an "Under God." They did not.

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Ethics Violation? ==

According to the report, she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits the the use of a public office for personal gain, but was also "proper and lawful." [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/ STORY] Should this section be updated to include this? I have the full report here if someone would like to use that as the reference, or I can do it. The PDF is 260+ pages, though:( [http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf REPORT] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: This is silly. I doubt we want to waste time on it. Executives can and should fire people. It should happen more often than it does. Your "was found in" doesn't say who did the finding and what their political views are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::The "finding" was done by a bipartisan committee charged by the Alaskan State Legislature with investigating improprieties of this nature. The investigation concluded that while Palin has the authority to fire executive-branch staff, she abused the responsibility to fire for just cause, since the investigation also found committee found that Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was based in part on a personal grudge and vendetta against her former brother-in-law, who Monegan refused to fire without cause. Conservatives are supposed to support hiring and firing on merit, and when Palin abused the powers she was entitled to use for personal reasons, she crossed an ethical line even if she didn't commit an illegal act. Considering how some people on CP obsess over Obama's "alleged birth" in Hawaii or the non-Christian nature of his name as "legitimate" issues, Palin's ethically questionable conduct as an elected official is absolutely relevant to an assessment of her candidacy for national office. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree with this post, and what I think should be included are 1) the partisan breakdown of the committee, 2) the second portion of the finding (that her actions were also "proper and lawful") with '''equal''' importance, and 3) the issues raised by the campaign over the committee and the campaign's proposed (and still ongoing, I believe) alternative. I didn't mean to imply that I just wanted something added about her being found in violation of state ethics law, but maybe a section explaining the context and the rest. Sorry if I gave you that impression. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 12:03, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The conclusions at the end of the section don't strike me as accurate. The report showed that the ethical issues were in the pressure that Palin allowed to be brought on Monegan to fire Wooten. It contained substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Todd Palin and others that clearly showed a pattern of abuse by permission, rather than direct acts by Palin herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

:Show me one person who said that Sarah Palin told them to take any steps at pressure that they did. Quite the contrary, all documentation shows that she was not involved. The report decided that didn't matter -- Palin herself needed to be censored anyway. Is it any wonder she wanted to be investigated by a group of Democratic appointments by the former governor believing that even they would be more fair than the posse that was put together? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::Well, for a start there's the sworn testimony of former Alaskan State Trooper Colonel Julia Grimes. In volume I of the [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20081010_TROOPER.pdf investigation report], pages 10-11, there are statements from her as to how she was contacted by both Todd and Sarah Palin on separate occasions. The Palins recounted examples of what they considered discipline-worthy conduct on the part of Trooper Woten (Palin's brother-in-law). Todd Palin had no official right to make calls like he did on behalf of the Governor, and Colonel Grimes cited Alaska Statute AS.39.25.080 to Mr. Palin, as part of explaining why state employees are prohibited from discussing personnel issues with anyone else. It was cutting off the conversation with Todd Plain that led to the follow-up call from Sarah Palin, in which Gimes testified of Palin: "Her questions were how can a trooper that behaves this way still be working and was concerned that we were taking this seriously and that we cared". I'm not going cut-and-paste additional excerpts of the report since it's available via the link, but anyone who reads it can see the pattern of additional improper questioning and intervention by Todd Palin and pressure by Governor Palin. Sarah Palin is politically smart enough to avoid breaking the law (which the report properly concluded she didn't), but the pattern of her actions was a violation of her trust per the Alaskan Statutes. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I fully agree with Dinsdale here. I think the article reflects what he has said, I have said, and what the report has said with adequate documentation as to who authored it and the campaign's issues with the handling of the investigation. To be honest, this was not really an "October surprise" and I doubt it will come to much as the findings were relatively mild in the scheme of things. Dinsdale provides more than enough sufficient commentary on this subject. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:Now that the debate is over, how impartial was the moderator (Gwen Ifill)?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::It is my understanding that she was considered to have been fair by the majority of the people watching, myself included. There can always be some points of differences and contentions, but, ironically, she came across as far more even-handed than most of the 'impartial' moderators or news anchors giving political interviews. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I found her to be fair as well - I don't think either participant would be justified in claiming otherwise. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Alaskan Independence party==

there should be something about the aip. if there is in depth speculation about obama's ties to bill ayers, a man whom he has denounced, we should be fair and talk about how palin told the aip, an extremely anti american group, to "keep up the good work".

:What is accurate and fair to state is that Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, per the Division of Elections in Alaska. Republicans are misleading in trying to connect Obama with actions Ayers participated in decades before they met, given that the context in which they met had nothing to do with Ayers' earlier activities. Sarah Palin, by contrast, knowingly consented to her husband's participation in a pro-separatist party for a 7-year period that included her time as Mayor of Wasilla. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree DinsdaleP. From my own perspective, McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate was a bit rapid fire and a bit impulsive, if you ask me. I'm not sure he knew as much about her past when he chose her as he retroactively learned.

:I disagree with Dinsdale, misleading trying to connect Obama with Ayers? The only misleading on the subject is by Obama. The decision to pick Palin was brilliant and satisfied nearly all who didn't like Romney or Huckabee, Pawlenty offered nothing. What we've learned about Sarah is that the left can't stand her and there is nothing to bring her down beside innuendo and smears. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::Obama met Ayers when the latter was on a board working to improve schools, decades after his involvement with the Weather Underground. For Palin to claim that this is "palling around with terrorists" makes it sound like Ayers is still active in that regard (he's not) or that Obama and Ayaers have a close relationship outside of their collaboration on the Annenberg project (they don't). So if she's making stump-speech claims based on falsehoods, that's misleading in my book, and poor behavior for a Christian. It's also interesting that while Ayers' activities with the Weather Underground took place when Obama was a child, Palin ''as an adult'' chose to condone her husband's participation in a separatist group, and made presentations to the same group herself as a politician. Her adult associations with the AIP and its active members is a lot more relevant than trying to create a connection between Obama and the actions Ayers took place in decades ago.
::Oh, and when I learned something about Palin and found it disturbing, I ''did'' the fair thing and researched it to make sure it was factual and not innuendo and smears. The response (not from you, Jpatt) was to be blocked and have the findings removed, instead of their truthful nature being challenged with evidence. That's a real shame, when the truth is supposed to matter here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Maverick ==

Here's what I'm bothered by. Palin tosses the concept of her and McCain as "Mavericks" around quite liberally...yet she fails to explain what she means by this self-identification. In the VP debate, she referred to herself and McCain as "a couple of Mavericks" six times (at least that's what I counted). What does it mean to be a Maverick???!?!?! Yet, she never went further with her explanation... [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not a maverick in Wasilla, but definetly as Governor. She has explained her stance, liberals refuse to listen. Must she explain the definition of Maverick to satisfy the left?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Image ==

In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== 2012 ==
Is it too soon to mention 2012 on this page? According to Townhall (here: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/11/palin_puts_brutal_2008_behind_her,_looks_to_2012 ) Gov. Palin has said she would "plow through that door" (ie become the nominee) if it's God's will and conditions are right.
:If you wish to include a tasteful entry that is fine. I should point out though that the way many of the news organizations reported it was basically a lie. The part about doing it only if it is God's will is important -- and was often left out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Unless she has a telephone to God I think wording reflecting that she will do it if ''she feels'' it is God's will would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

==Russia and Alaska==
I have an idea about an article showing the contemporary and/or historical influence of Russia and Alaska. I have been to Russia before. Over the past 300 years, I have read that Russian traders constructed several [[Russian Orthodox]] churches, now in the State of Alaska. These still stand, I have read. Does anyone have or can take a picture of one and give it to '''CP'''?

I think a simple, factual article like that (mentioning Saint Herman of Alaska, a Russian Missionary to Alaskian Eskimos) would help people to understand what Palin means when she cites Alaska's ongoing invovlement with its neighbor. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 09:55, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: Sounds great. You can create new entries, and I look forward to learning from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==The Future==

I'm not removing this section, but it needs some sourcing for the opinions that are being expressed. If not, I'd suggest that they be relocated to an essay because they currently appear to be a set of pro-Palin comments with no encyclopedic basis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

*I added a citation for the item, Dinsdale. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== My last edits ==

"a typical example" rather than "an example" is editorializing and unnecessary padding, as worded with "an" it is still written in a very conservative way, a professional conservative way. Also Palin is criticized for hunting, its a stupid reason to criticize someone, and reveals the ignorance of some of her detractors, but it does happen and since it is true and relevant it probably belongs here. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Bad Links ==

#47 and #48 link to articles that no longer exist so there would seem to be no basis for statement made in the sentence that refers to them. Can anyone find the articles?

==Where is the "Bridge to Nowhere?"==
Why isn't this on her page? That seems pretty important.

*~Yawn~ Important to whom? It was a contrivance of political convenience by both politicians and the media. That isn't especially notable, don't you think? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:11, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

But you think Obama POSSIBLY being a muslim is important enough to put on his page? CP is supposed to be filled with facts and unbiased truth. Not unverified purported rumors.[[User:GordonF|GordonF]]

: Yes, Obama is president and the verified facts put on his entry are of sufficient importance. Why do those facts bother you so much???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Wow! Check out this dishonesty from the left-stream media ==

The recent vandalization of this page made me check out the reference given:

<blockquote>
In light of her experience, and subsequent break up with the father of her child, Brostol Palin has since stated that she sees abstinence only education as "not realistic." [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/]
</blockquote>

You go to that link and see this:

*In her first interview since giving birth, the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said having a child is not "glamorous," and that telling young people to be abstinent is "not realistic at all."

And then you come to a link in the middle of the article:

[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/#cnnSTCVideo Watch Bristol Palin say that abstinence is "not realistic at all"]

Okay, so then when you click on that link and watch the video, the reporter states:

"..she also went on to say that stopping teen sex is quote 'not realistic at all.'"

But at no point in the video is Bristol shown saying anything of the sort. When you watch what she actually said, it's quite a bit different that what is being reported (imagine that!).

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eixcsj7FI6I YouTube clip from interview]

"Everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all."

It's obvious she means that even with abstinence being promoted, realistically some kids are still going to choose to have sex. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:10, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:The liberal view of sex is that it always okay among any parties competent to "consent". They absolutely refuse to consider any alternative. So, the idea that young people might benefit from being advised to abstain from premarital sex is abhorrent to them.

:The lie comes from their assumption that abstinence education '''cannot''' ever work; the truth is merely that they '''hope''' it does not work.

:The sexually immoral are desperate to hang on to their sin of choice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:*More from Bristol, in her own words, [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp here.] CBS even played a clip from ABC. And in an interesting behind-the-scenes nugget, take a look at how the CBS transcript refers to anchor Chris Cuomo, who conducted the GMA interview...typical liberal media deceit! [http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/bristol_palin_and_levi_johnston_in_a_he_said_she_said_morning_show_face_off_115827.asp] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

::I believe that we should seriously consider a law making it illegal to have sexual relations outside of marriage. It's a shame we no longer have people in office who aren't afraid to legislate based on their Christian beliefs and moral values.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:52, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Resignation ==

We should update this with her recent resignation. I'd prefer to have someone quote from the full text of the speech - most articles I've seen/read haven't even mentioned it, they've just stated that she announced she wouldn't be running again for governor and would be leaving office sometime before the end of July. The transcript is on her website here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Thanks![[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 15:24, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Animal rights

2009-07-03T20:22:24Z

Marlowe: Addendum about animals having morals/Peter Singer ref

The '''animal rights''' movement (sometimes called the animal liberation movement) is a [[liberal]] philosophical movement which seeks to obtain for [[animal]]s the same rights that [[human]]s have. Most animal rights activists oppose the practice of using animals as [[commodity|commodities]] or [[property]].<ref name="about.com">[http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/a/ARtenets.htm The Basic Tenets of the Animal Rights Movement] </ref>Typically, animal rights activists oppose [[hunting]], [[animal testing]], wearing [[fur]], and the consumption of [[meat]]. Many practice a [[vegetarian]] or vegan diet. Some activists (especially those who identify themselves as animal liberationists) even disagree with the practice of owning [[pet]]s and seeing-eye dogs.<ref name="acmain">[http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 ActivistCash.com]</ref>

Detractors from the animal rights movement argue that since animals do not have the capacity to make [[morality|moral]] decisions they can not be given the same rights as humans.<ref name="about.com" /> Some opponents even argue that the goals of the movement are not animal liberation, but placing restrictions on the lives of other people.<ref>[[Center for Consumer Freedom]], [http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage.cfm/topic/8 ''Animal Rights'']</ref> It should be noted that many prominent animal rights proponents, including [[Peter Singer]], do not propose that animals have the capacity to make moral decisions. Rather, they argue that because humans have the capacity to make moral decisions, it is up to humans to make the moral decision about whether or not we treat animals in an acceptable manner. <ref> Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2009 </ref>

[[David Gelernter]] argues:
{{cquote|The moral universe of Judaism and Christianity centers unequivocally on man. Human beings have rights and moral duties—kindness to animals being one. Animals have neither. The duty of kindness to animals is a duty owed not to nature but to God, a morally crucial distinction.<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_the_immorality.html</ref>}}

Perhaps the real aim of the animal rights is to justify [[abortion]].
If [[human beings]] are no better than animals, and if we can kill animals when we want (as for food or clothing), why can't we kill unborn humans? [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0830letter.asp]

==See Also==
*[[Humane Society of the United States]]
*[[PETA]]
*[[ASPCA]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Political Movements]]

Talk:Animal rights

2009-07-01T20:50:24Z

Marlowe:

I removed a total logical fallacy - someone claiming that the real agenda of animal rights was to allow abortions. You have to be pretty hung up on conspiracy theories to believe that. [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 16:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)

*There may be something to that point but it's badly phrased: "If human beings are no better than animals, and if ''we can kill animals when we want'' (as for food or clothing), why can't we kill unborn humans?" (my emphasis)

*Because if you a are a ''true'' animal rights activist, and you believe that people and animals are equal, then you will ''prohibit'' the killing animals ''and'' the killing of unborn babies, see? It's more of a logical error on their side. and that should be more evident. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:18, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

I think this article has genuinely misinformed roots: the purpose for the animal right/animal liberation movement is not to give equal rights to animals, but to give "equal consideration for rights" to animals based on sentience, which they would classify as the ability to feel pain and project pain into the future. There are some other things which seem out of place (like the moral argument - the main supporters of animal rights, like Singer and Taylor, both mention the moral argument in their works and don't embrace that as a point or even consideration). Would it be okay to edit the article with this in mind? Thanks! [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 16:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-24T23:01:59Z

Marlowe: /* Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains about 8,000 different words.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref>

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Nine new conservative terms that originated in the 1600s, for example, are: action-at-a-distance, biased, demagogue, efficiency, Good Samaritan, phonics, productive, self-defense and veracity. Twice as many insightful new conservative terms originated in the following century, and that total doubled again for the 1800s, and doubled yet again for the 1900s. Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays. Since then the following terms were created, forming a pattern by century (1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s) of 11-22-44-88.<ref>This was the pattern as of June 13, 2009, but it will continue to grow as more conservative insights are added. Visitors are encouraged to add terms with dates.</ref> Layers of new terms are being discovered and added to this list in the pattern of 1-2-4-8 by century from 1612-2000.

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|Newton's acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to electrostatics and quantum mechanics and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to this development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom also, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|falsifiability
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distingushing feature
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"[W]e [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!<ref>This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary</ref>
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|The ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by the Supreme Court. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with such distractions
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}
__TOC__ 

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing at a remarkable geometric rate of growth, by doubling each century:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|11
|-
|1700s
|24
|-
|1800s
|48
|-
|1900s
|94
|-
|2000s
|4 (preliminary)
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[limousine liberal]]
|hypocrite
|rich promoting causes which they themselves don't adhere to
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|28 (8 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|4
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]

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

[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:Marlowe

2009-06-22T00:46:48Z

Marlowe:

"Phillip Marlowe" is the private eye from the novel ''The Big Sleep''; "Sam Spade" is the private eye from ''The Maltese Falcon''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:12, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

: Hahaha, I always get the two mixed up. Good call :) [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:15, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
::They're both good movies as well, with Bogart in the lead. :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
:::I've only seen Maltese Falcon. I suppose I need to see The Big Sleep asap!! [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 20:46, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

User:Marlowe

2009-06-19T18:15:49Z

Marlowe:

Borrowed from Phillip Marlowe, the private eye from [[The Big Sleep]].

User talk:Marlowe

2009-06-19T18:15:27Z

Marlowe:

User talk:Marlowe

2009-06-19T18:15:15Z

Marlowe:

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?

2009-06-19T18:14:08Z

Marlowe: /* Yes */

{{Debate}}

The following is a posting that I made on Talk:Barack Obama several months ago, but that never sparked any discussion. I was hoping the theory might encourage more reactions if I made it into a debate page.

"I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany." It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?"

I look forward to a vigorous and respectful debate. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==Yes==

I'll give this topic another gentle push. Much has been made of the fact that Obama retook his Oath of Office without a Bible, and a number of Conservapedians have speculated that he actually used a Qu'ran. By the principle of Occam's Razor, however, it's logical to assume that he used nothing at all - a sign that his true belief system is not Islam, but atheism. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:46, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

:If he believes that "He is the Messiah", that would make him an atheist because God doesn't worship God. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think you can apply Occam's Razor to assumptions - Occam's Razor would seem to dictate in this situation that you not make assumptions as none of them would be more correct than the other. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it seems apparent that he doesn't have much faith, or (if he does) considers himself more of a "humanist" than anything. It's not uncommon for political leaders to adopt a religious belief in order to become elected. Atheists will vote for a religious person, but religious parties will not vote for an atheist. Obama could be an agnostic, as well. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

==No==

No, he is a Muslim, as documented at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] and elsewhere on this site. His apparent lack of devotion is just as well explained by his being a Muslim observing taqiyya. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:But if his being a Muslim "just as well explains" his lack of devotion as his being an atheist, how can you be so certain that [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] has converged on the correct explanation for his behavior? --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

John Dewey

2009-06-19T18:10:13Z

Marlowe: /* Progressive Education */ Made attributions, corrected grammatical errors.

'''John Dewey''' (1859-1952) was a major American philosopher and a leading [[liberal]] commentator on public affairs. After 1900 he became a leading exponent of [[pragmatism]] or as he called it, "[[instrumentalism]]". Dewey was especially influential as the philosopher of "progressive education." He sought the reconstruction of society through education in which children discovered knowledge for themselves rather than repeat rote learning. Dewey was one of the main intellectual forces behind American liberalism, 1900-1930, especially in his emphasis that the spirit of democracy has to be lived daily rather than be merely a procedural device for elections.

Although pragmatism faded in importance in American philosophy after 1930, it has seen a revival since the 1980s with the writings of [[Richard Rorty]], [[Hilary Putnam]], and others. Dewey was a very prolific writer, with dozens of books and 766 articles in 151 different periodicals. His style, however, tended toward vagueness.[[File:Dewey-time.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' June 4, 1928; [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,731843,00.html read the cover story]]]
==Career==
Born in Vermont to an old Yankee family, Dewey was brought up in a religious environment of pius Congregationalists. He attended the University of Vermont, taught school for three years, then attended the new graduate university, John Hopkins, receiving his PhD in 1884 with a a doctoral dissertation on a phase of Kant's psychology. At this stage Dewey was a strong Hegelian.

Dewey taught philosophy at the University of Michigan until 1894, when he was called to the University of Chicago, where President W. R. Harper was creating overnight one of the world's two or three greatest universities. Dewey headed the School of Education, and worked closely with philosophers and with the intellectuals based at [[Hull House]]. His now adopted the philosophy of [[pragmatism]] that had been developed by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] and [{William James]]. By 1903 the "Chicago school" of Pragmatic Instrumentalism was in full swing, and the educational experiments initiated in Dewey's "laboratory school" were beginning to influence educational theory at leading universities. After fighting with Harper Dewey went to Columbia University in 1904, where he was based until his retirement in 1930. Worldwide recognition was seen in his invitations to consult on educational policy with emerging nations, notably China, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, and the Soviet Union.
===Anti-Communism===
Dewey played a major role in stopping Communist infiltration of the American intellectual community and in developing a liberal anti-Communist policy. He generally supported American foreign policy, including both World Wars, and was a strong opponent of both the Soviets and the Nazis. His argument that true liberals have to reject cooperation with Communists became the accepted liberal position.

Dewey was a longtime supporter of labor unions and in 1932-33 played a key role in purging Communists from the teachers' union, arguing they were not truly dedicated to education. He rejected the Communist position that the purpose of the union is to join the "class war" in order to promote the "cause of workers against employers." Nevertheless the Communists took control of the union and in 1935 Dewey helped start the Teachers Guild, a new anti-Communist union for teachers in New York City. In 1935 the national union expelled the Communist local and made Dewey's Teachers Guild the official union.

Dewey chaired the 1937 “trial” of [[Leon Trotsky]], held in Mexico City. The trial absolved Trotsky of attempting to assassinate [[Joseph Stalin]] and incite war against the Soviet Union. Overall, the hearings constituted a decisive moment in American liberalism, which had previously been uncritical in its praise of Soviet Communism. By the time of the trial. Dewey and many American liberals began to examine the Russian Revolution more closely and became convinced of its corruption.<ref> Jay Martin, "John Dewey and the Trial of Leon Trotsky," ''Partisan Review'' 2001 68(4): 519-535. 0031-2525 </ref> At no time in his career was Dewey a [[Marxist]]; indeed he was a sharp, hostile critic of Marx.

==Democracy==
Dewey was perhaps the foremost theorist of democracy since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Dewey's emphasis on grass roots participation rather than elite rule has been adopted by conservatives.

In the 1920s Dewey engaged in a major debate with journalist [[Walter Lippmann]] (1889-1974) on the impact of the technology on democracy. Both agreed that the communications revolution had created a large and more complex world, that political and social institutions had not kept pace with the changes wrought by technology, that the masses were more susceptible to propaganda, and that modernity threatened democracy. Their critiques diverge on solutions, especially whether or not democracy could be saved. While Lippmann saw the public as unredeemable and subject to mass manipulation, Dewey thought that more public involvement in socio-political affairs was needed and that tools of mass communication could be used to this end.<ref> Walter Lippmann, ''Public Opinion'' (1922) and ''The Phantom Public'' (1925); John Dewey, ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)</ref>

In his writings from the 1920s and 1930s, Dewey placed his concept of participatory democracy in opposition to both classical liberalism and the technocratic elitism of Lippmann. Whereas classical liberalism saw in democracy the means for reconciling individual interests, Dewey upheld democracy precisely because the communication that it fostered enabled the individual to identify and understand his interests within a moral framework. In practice, however, Dewey found in the individualist assumptions behind classical liberalism the strongest arguments against leaving policy decisions in the hands of Lippmann's "responsible administrator."<ref> Matthew Festenstein, "The Ties of Communication: Dewey on Ideal and Political Democracy," ''History of Political Thought'' 1997 18(1): 104-124. 0143-781x </ref>

Dewey feared that the growth of specialization would cause the fragmentation of both knowledge and the intellectual community. Dewey opposed leadership by social scientists, believing they would alienate people and keep them from participating in the democratic process. Instead, he put his faith in the creation of an educated public, whose individualism would give way to common interests, resulting in a political environment within which social issues could be discussed, debated, and decided.

==Progressive Education==
Progressive education maintains that children should be the center of the educational universe, that children can be active learners who learn best by experience rather than by memorization, that a nurturing environment is essential to the educational process, and that women are ideally suited as teachers. Dewey did not believe students could learn well without teachers to help link their prior experience to the experience available in school.

By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.

Diane Racitch posits that progressive educators encountered a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that in general was not receptive to new methods of education. The failure of Dewey's ideas can be attributed to his assumption that schools exist to promote learning by students, she claims.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref>

===Favors local control of schools===
Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref>

==Impact on China ==
Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. Pragmatism was replaced by Marxism after 1949, but Dewey's reputation has been revived since the fall of Mao.

==Dewey and religion==
Dewey mostly avoided religious topics. Important exceptions include his 1892 address "Christianity and Democracy" given to the University of Michigan Students' Christian Association and his 1933 Terry Lectures at Yale University—the basis of his 1934 book ''A Common Faith''. In ''A Common Faith'' Dewey attempted to somehow separate the experience of the "religious" from the supernatural aspects of "God" and "religion".<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=lIGBQMkw-v8C ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey''], Daniel F. Rice, 1993, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-1345-4, pages 43-58 (these pages are Chapter 5 titled "A Common Faith") </ref> According to the scholar Steven C. Rockefeller, Dewey was an American [[Feuerbach]] and keenly interested in gutting what he saw as Christianity's "false" and "harmful" supernatural characteristics. Both Dewey and Feuerbach believed that they possessed a deep philosophical understanding of Christianity. Their shared belief rejected the [[Incarnation]] and all other biblical miracles.<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=LOc6q5lmEj8C ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism''], Steven C. Rockefeller, Columbia University Press, 1991, ISBN 0231073488, ISBN 9780231073486, 683 pages
* Choice v. 29 (March 1992) p. 1094 Title: John Dewey
"The way in which Rockefeller (Middlebury College) has presented the generally accepted two periods of Dewey's development (childhood through the Michigan years and from Chicago on) enables him to show the continuous role of religion in Dewey's life and thought as his thought evolved. What emerges is not only a broadened perspective on Dewey's naturalism, but the best intellectual biography of Dewey that we have. . . . The book fills a need that George Dykhuizen's The Life and Mind of John Dewey {BRD 1973} did not, despite all that work's value as a factual resource."
*Library Journal v. 116 (March 1 1991) p. 91
"Rockefeller shows how Dewey's evolving thought was closely related to the events and experiences in his life, and he interweaves both throughout the narrative, rather than considering them separately--a very effective strategy. . . . Aside from its value as a major study of Dewey's life and thought, this work has great value in showing how contemporary sensibilities which are persuaded by the natural-scientific worldview can, at the same time, maintain a religious orientation." </ref> Dewey viewed conservative Christianity (i.e., protestant [[fundamentalism]] and mainline [[Catholicism]]) as a dark, evil lair harboring political enemies if not intellectual rivals of his own philosophy and its emphasis on "intelligence" as well as "religious" feelings. This can be seen in part in a 1924 essay titled "Fundamentals" written for the ''New Republic''<ref>''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism'', Steven C. Rockefeller, p.442 </ref>
{{cquote|Those traditionalists and literalists who have arrogated to themselves the title of fundamentalists recognize of course no mean between their dogmas and blank, dark, hopeless uncertainty and unsettlement. Until they have been reborn into the life of intelligence, they will not be aware that there are a steadily increasing number of persons who find security in ''methods'' of inquiry, of observation, experiment, of forming and following working hypotheses.}} Dewey was surprised by the strong sway that [[neo-orthodoxy|neo-orthodox]] figures like [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] were coming to hold over the [[liberal]] academy—his 1934 ''A Common Faith'' was a reaction towards, what was to him and other religious/secular humanists, a still very unacceptable and even repulsive form of Christianity. For not only did Niebuhr never deny, but he sometimes upheld biblical supernaturalism.

==Quotes==

*"education is all one with growing; it has no end beyond itself,"
*"education consists primarily of transmission through communication,"
*"education is a constant reorganizing or reconstructing of experience."

==Further reading==
* Anderson, Elizabeth. "Dewey's Moral Philosophy" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/ online]
* Caspary, William R. ''Dewey on Democracy'' (2000) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/108990927?title=Dewey%20on%20Democracy online edition]
* Cuffaro, Harriet K. ''Experimenting with the World: John Dewey and the Early Childhood Classroom.'' (1995). 123 pp.
* Dykhuizen, George. ''The Life and Mind of John Dewey.'' (1973). 429 pp., good biography [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/33424285?title=The%20Life%20and%20Mind%20of%20John%20Dewey online edition]
* Feffer, Andrew. ''The Chicago Pragmatists and American Progressivism.'' (1993). 279 pp. schoalrly study of Dewey and George Herbert Mead
* Festenstein, Matthew. "Dewey's Political Philosophy" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political online]
* Fott, David. ''John Dewey: America's Philosopher of Democracy.'' (1998). 167 pp.
* Hoy, Terry. ''The Political Philosophy of John Dewey: Towards a Constructive Renewal'' (1998) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/30559291?title=The%20Political%20Philosophy%20of%20John%20Dewey%3a%20Towards%20a%20Constructive%20Renewal online edition]
* Kloppenberg, James T. "Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking?" ''Journal of American History'' 1996 83(1): 100-138. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945476 in JSTOR]
* Leddy, Tom. "Dewey's Aesthetics" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-aesthetics/ online]
* Martin, Jay. ''The Education of John Dewey: A Biography'' (2002) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/113357825?title=The%20Education%20of%20John%20Dewey%3a%20%20A%20Biography online edition]
* Murphy, John P. ''Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson'' (1990) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/59431778?title=Pragmatism%3a%20From%20Peirce%20to%20Davidson online edition]
* Rockefeller, Steven C. ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism.'' (1991). 683 pp.
* Ryan, Alan. ''John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism.'' (1995). 395 pp.; a major scholarly interpretation
** Alter, Stephen G. "The Pitfalls Of Comparative Context: Deweyan Democracy in Transatlantic Perspective". ''Reviews in American History'' 1997 25(1): 89-94. 0048-7511; review essay on Ryan (1995); [http://www.jstor.org/stable/30030750 online at JSTOR]
* Welchman, Jennifer. ''Dewey's Ethical Thought.'' (1995). 229 pp.
* Westbrook, Robert B. ''John Dewey and American Democracy'' (1991), the standard scholarly biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/john-dewey.jsp online books by and about Dewey]
===Primary sources===
* Dewey, John. ''The Collected Works of John Dewey'' (37 vol. 1961-1991). ''The Early Works: 1892-1898'' (5 volumes); ''The Middle Works: 1899-1924'' (15 volumes); ''The Later Works: 1925-1953'' (17 volumes); [http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/deweycollection.htm contents]
[[File:Dewey-works.jpg|thumb|left|580px]]

===Selected books by Dewey===
* Dewey, John. '' Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics‎'' (1891) [http://books.google.com/books?id=dDwSArwOof4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''The School and Society'' (1899, 1915). [http://books.google.com/books?id=GWYWAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''How We Think'' (1910, 1933)
* Dewey, John. '' The influence of Darwin on philosophy: and other essays in contemporary thought‎'' (1910) [http://books.google.com/books?id=XJYYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education‎'' (1916) [http://books.google.com/books?id=8P0AAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Reconstruction in Philosophy'' (1920) [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUg8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. '' Letters from China and Japan‎'' (1920) [http://books.google.com/books?id=WwoqJ-MdZoUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Human Nature and Conduct'' (1922) [http://books.google.com/books?id=1SwWAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)
* Dewey, John. ''Experience and Nature'' (1925, 1929)
* Dewey, John. ''The Quest for Certainty'' (1929)
* Dewey, John. ''A Common Faith'' (1934)
* Dewey, John. ''Art as Experience'' (1935)
* Dewey, John. ''Experience and Education'' (1938)
* Dewey, John. ''Logic, The Theory of Inquiry'' (1938).
* Dewey, John. [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=john+dewey&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&as_isbn=&as_issn= full text of books online]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:philosophers|Dewey, John]]
[[category:Progressive Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dewey, John}}
[[Category:1920s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

Talk:John Dewey

2009-06-19T18:08:29Z

Marlowe: Created page with 'Can we at least have the comments by Ravich placed within some kind of descriptor or attribution? It feels a little unseemly to treat every source as absolute fact. ~~~~'

Can we at least have the comments by Ravich placed within some kind of descriptor or attribution? It feels a little unseemly to treat every source as absolute fact. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:08, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

User:Marlowe

2009-06-18T20:49:35Z

Marlowe:

Borrowed from Phillip Marlowe, the private eye from [[The Maltese Falcon]].

User:Marlowe

2009-06-18T20:49:21Z

Marlowe: Created page with 'Based off of Phillip Marlowe, the private eye from The Maltese Falcon.'

Based off of Phillip Marlowe, the private eye from [[The Maltese Falcon]].

Talk:Film noir

2009-06-18T20:44:36Z

Marlowe:

In what way was Marlowe selfish in [[The Maltese Falcon]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:26, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. I suppose it could be the flippant way he treated Archer's death, but he did cast out Miss O'Shaughnessy (sp?) even though he admitted he may have loved her. While I wouldn't characterize him as "selfish" I would say he was driven and focused. Uncouth also seems strange, because Marlowe is very proper with Gutman and others when he needs to be, he's just unpredictable.

I took my username from this character:) [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 16:36, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:Wasn't there a line in the movie about him doing "such unpredictable things"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:: When he tells O'Shaughnessy he's turning her in, she says it to him (again, I think). [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 16:44, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

John Dewey

2009-06-18T20:42:38Z

Marlowe: /* Progressive Education */ removed unsourced, highly opinionized and poorly written comment.

'''John Dewey''' (1859-1952) was a major American philosopher and a leading [[liberal]] commentator on public affairs. After 1900 he became a leading exponent of [[pragmatism]] or as he called it, "[[instrumentalism]]". Dewey was especially influential as the philosopher of "progressive education." He sought the reconstruction of society through education in which children discovered knowledge for themselves rather than repeat rote learning. Dewey was one of the main intellectual forces behind American liberalism, 1900-1930, especially in his emphasis that the spirit of democracy has to be lived daily rather than be merely a procedural device for elections.

Although pragmatism faded in importance in American philosophy after 1930, it has seen a revival since the 1980s with the writings of [[Richard Rorty]], [[Hilary Putnam]], and others. Dewey was a very prolific writer, with dozens of books and 766 articles in 151 different periodicals. His style, however, tended toward vagueness.[[File:Dewey-time.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' June 4, 1928; [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,731843,00.html read the cover story]]]
==Career==
Born in Vermont to an old Yankee family, Dewey was brought up in a religious environment of pius Congregationalists. He attended the University of Vermont, taught school for three years, then attended the new graduate university, John Hopkins, receiving his PhD in 1884 with a a doctoral dissertation on a phase of Kant's psychology. At this stage Dewey was a strong Hegelian.

Dewey taught philosophy at the University of Michigan until 1894, when he was called to the University of Chicago, where President W. R. Harper was creating overnight one of the world's two or three greatest universities. Dewey headed the School of Education, and worked closely with philosophers and with the intellectuals based at [[Hull House]]. His now adopted the philosophy of [[pragmatism]] that had been developed by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] and [{William James]]. By 1903 the "Chicago school" of Pragmatic Instrumentalism was in full swing, and the educational experiments initiated in Dewey's "laboratory school" were beginning to influence educational theory at leading universities. After fighting with Harper Dewey went to Columbia University in 1904, where he was based until his retirement in 1930. Worldwide recognition was seen in his invitations to consult on educational policy with emerging nations, notably China, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, and the Soviet Union.
===Anti-Communism===
Dewey played a major role in stopping Communist infiltration of the American intellectual community and in developing a liberal anti-Communist policy. He generally supported American foreign policy, including both World Wars, and was a strong opponent of both the Soviets and the Nazis. His argument that true liberals have to reject cooperation with Communists became the accepted liberal position.

Dewey was a longtime supporter of labor unions and in 1932-33 played a key role in purging Communists from the teachers' union, arguing they were not truly dedicated to education. He rejected the Communist position that the purpose of the union is to join the "class war" in order to promote the "cause of workers against employers." Nevertheless the Communists took control of the union and in 1935 Dewey helped start the Teachers Guild, a new anti-Communist union for teachers in New York City. In 1935 the national union expelled the Communist local and made Dewey's Teachers Guild the official union.

Dewey chaired the 1937 “trial” of [[Leon Trotsky]], held in Mexico City. The trial absolved Trotsky of attempting to assassinate [[Joseph Stalin]] and incite war against the Soviet Union. Overall, the hearings constituted a decisive moment in American liberalism, which had previously been uncritical in its praise of Soviet Communism. By the time of the trial. Dewey and many American liberals began to examine the Russian Revolution more closely and became convinced of its corruption.<ref> Jay Martin, "John Dewey and the Trial of Leon Trotsky," ''Partisan Review'' 2001 68(4): 519-535. 0031-2525 </ref> At no time in his career was Dewey a [[Marxist]]; indeed he was a sharp, hostile critic of Marx.

==Democracy==
Dewey was perhaps the foremost theorist of democracy since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Dewey's emphasis on grass roots participation rather than elite rule has been adopted by conservatives.

In the 1920s Dewey engaged in a major debate with journalist [[Walter Lippmann]] (1889-1974) on the impact of the technology on democracy. Both agreed that the communications revolution had created a large and more complex world, that political and social institutions had not kept pace with the changes wrought by technology, that the masses were more susceptible to propaganda, and that modernity threatened democracy. Their critiques diverge on solutions, especially whether or not democracy could be saved. While Lippmann saw the public as unredeemable and subject to mass manipulation, Dewey thought that more public involvement in socio-political affairs was needed and that tools of mass communication could be used to this end.<ref> Walter Lippmann, ''Public Opinion'' (1922) and ''The Phantom Public'' (1925); John Dewey, ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)</ref>

In his writings from the 1920s and 1930s, Dewey placed his concept of participatory democracy in opposition to both classical liberalism and the technocratic elitism of Lippmann. Whereas classical liberalism saw in democracy the means for reconciling individual interests, Dewey upheld democracy precisely because the communication that it fostered enabled the individual to identify and understand his interests within a moral framework. In practice, however, Dewey found in the individualist assumptions behind classical liberalism the strongest arguments against leaving policy decisions in the hands of Lippmann's "responsible administrator."<ref> Matthew Festenstein, "The Ties of Communication: Dewey on Ideal and Political Democracy," ''History of Political Thought'' 1997 18(1): 104-124. 0143-781x </ref>

Dewey feared that the growth of specialization would cause the fragmentation of both knowledge and the intellectual community. Dewey opposed leadership by social scientists, believing they would alienate people and keep them from participating in the democratic process. Instead, he put his faith in the creation of an educated public, whose individualism would give way to common interests, resulting in a political environment within which social issues could be discussed, debated, and decided.

==Progressive Education==
Progressive education maintains that children should be the center of the educational universe, that children can be active learners who learn best by experience rather than by memorization, that a nurturing environment is essential to the educational process, and that women are ideally suited as teachers. Dewey did not believe students could learn well without teachers to help link their prior experience to the experience available in school.

By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref>

===Favors local control of schools===
Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref>

==Impact on China ==
Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. Pragmatism was replaced by Marxism after 1949, but Dewey's reputation has been revived since the fall of Mao.

==Dewey and religion==
Dewey mostly avoided religious topics. Important exceptions include his 1892 address "Christianity and Democracy" given to the University of Michigan Students' Christian Association and his 1933 Terry Lectures at Yale University—the basis of his 1934 book ''A Common Faith''. In ''A Common Faith'' Dewey attempted to somehow separate the experience of the "religious" from the supernatural aspects of "God" and "religion".<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=lIGBQMkw-v8C ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey''], Daniel F. Rice, 1993, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-1345-4, pages 43-58 (these pages are Chapter 5 titled "A Common Faith") </ref> According to the scholar Steven C. Rockefeller, Dewey was an American [[Feuerbach]] and keenly interested in gutting what he saw as Christianity's "false" and "harmful" supernatural characteristics. Both Dewey and Feuerbach believed that they possessed a deep philosophical understanding of Christianity. Their shared belief rejected the [[Incarnation]] and all other biblical miracles.<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=LOc6q5lmEj8C ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism''], Steven C. Rockefeller, Columbia University Press, 1991, ISBN 0231073488, ISBN 9780231073486, 683 pages
* Choice v. 29 (March 1992) p. 1094 Title: John Dewey
"The way in which Rockefeller (Middlebury College) has presented the generally accepted two periods of Dewey's development (childhood through the Michigan years and from Chicago on) enables him to show the continuous role of religion in Dewey's life and thought as his thought evolved. What emerges is not only a broadened perspective on Dewey's naturalism, but the best intellectual biography of Dewey that we have. . . . The book fills a need that George Dykhuizen's The Life and Mind of John Dewey {BRD 1973} did not, despite all that work's value as a factual resource."
*Library Journal v. 116 (March 1 1991) p. 91
"Rockefeller shows how Dewey's evolving thought was closely related to the events and experiences in his life, and he interweaves both throughout the narrative, rather than considering them separately--a very effective strategy. . . . Aside from its value as a major study of Dewey's life and thought, this work has great value in showing how contemporary sensibilities which are persuaded by the natural-scientific worldview can, at the same time, maintain a religious orientation." </ref> Dewey viewed conservative Christianity (i.e., protestant [[fundamentalism]] and mainline [[Catholicism]]) as a dark, evil lair harboring political enemies if not intellectual rivals of his own philosophy and its emphasis on "intelligence" as well as "religious" feelings. This can be seen in part in a 1924 essay titled "Fundamentals" written for the ''New Republic''<ref>''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism'', Steven C. Rockefeller, p.442 </ref>
{{cquote|Those traditionalists and literalists who have arrogated to themselves the title of fundamentalists recognize of course no mean between their dogmas and blank, dark, hopeless uncertainty and unsettlement. Until they have been reborn into the life of intelligence, they will not be aware that there are a steadily increasing number of persons who find security in ''methods'' of inquiry, of observation, experiment, of forming and following working hypotheses.}} Dewey was surprised by the strong sway that [[neo-orthodoxy|neo-orthodox]] figures like [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] were coming to hold over the [[liberal]] academy—his 1934 ''A Common Faith'' was a reaction towards, what was to him and other religious/secular humanists, a still very unacceptable and even repulsive form of Christianity. For not only did Niebuhr never deny, but he sometimes upheld biblical supernaturalism.

==Quotes==

*"education is all one with growing; it has no end beyond itself,"
*"education consists primarily of transmission through communication,"
*"education is a constant reorganizing or reconstructing of experience."

==Further reading==
* Anderson, Elizabeth. "Dewey's Moral Philosophy" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/ online]
* Caspary, William R. ''Dewey on Democracy'' (2000) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/108990927?title=Dewey%20on%20Democracy online edition]
* Cuffaro, Harriet K. ''Experimenting with the World: John Dewey and the Early Childhood Classroom.'' (1995). 123 pp.
* Dykhuizen, George. ''The Life and Mind of John Dewey.'' (1973). 429 pp., good biography [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/33424285?title=The%20Life%20and%20Mind%20of%20John%20Dewey online edition]
* Feffer, Andrew. ''The Chicago Pragmatists and American Progressivism.'' (1993). 279 pp. schoalrly study of Dewey and George Herbert Mead
* Festenstein, Matthew. "Dewey's Political Philosophy" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political online]
* Fott, David. ''John Dewey: America's Philosopher of Democracy.'' (1998). 167 pp.
* Hoy, Terry. ''The Political Philosophy of John Dewey: Towards a Constructive Renewal'' (1998) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/30559291?title=The%20Political%20Philosophy%20of%20John%20Dewey%3a%20Towards%20a%20Constructive%20Renewal online edition]
* Kloppenberg, James T. "Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking?" ''Journal of American History'' 1996 83(1): 100-138. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945476 in JSTOR]
* Leddy, Tom. "Dewey's Aesthetics" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2009) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-aesthetics/ online]
* Martin, Jay. ''The Education of John Dewey: A Biography'' (2002) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/113357825?title=The%20Education%20of%20John%20Dewey%3a%20%20A%20Biography online edition]
* Murphy, John P. ''Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson'' (1990) [http://www.questiaschool.com/read/59431778?title=Pragmatism%3a%20From%20Peirce%20to%20Davidson online edition]
* Rockefeller, Steven C. ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism.'' (1991). 683 pp.
* Ryan, Alan. ''John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism.'' (1995). 395 pp.; a major scholarly interpretation
** Alter, Stephen G. "The Pitfalls Of Comparative Context: Deweyan Democracy in Transatlantic Perspective". ''Reviews in American History'' 1997 25(1): 89-94. 0048-7511; review essay on Ryan (1995); [http://www.jstor.org/stable/30030750 online at JSTOR]
* Welchman, Jennifer. ''Dewey's Ethical Thought.'' (1995). 229 pp.
* Westbrook, Robert B. ''John Dewey and American Democracy'' (1991), the standard scholarly biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/john-dewey.jsp online books by and about Dewey]
===Primary sources===
* Dewey, John. ''The Collected Works of John Dewey'' (37 vol. 1961-1991). ''The Early Works: 1892-1898'' (5 volumes); ''The Middle Works: 1899-1924'' (15 volumes); ''The Later Works: 1925-1953'' (17 volumes); [http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/deweycollection.htm contents]
[[File:Dewey-works.jpg|thumb|left|580px]]

===Selected books by Dewey===
* Dewey, John. '' Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics‎'' (1891) [http://books.google.com/books?id=dDwSArwOof4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''The School and Society'' (1899, 1915). [http://books.google.com/books?id=GWYWAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''How We Think'' (1910, 1933)
* Dewey, John. '' The influence of Darwin on philosophy: and other essays in contemporary thought‎'' (1910) [http://books.google.com/books?id=XJYYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education‎'' (1916) [http://books.google.com/books?id=8P0AAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Reconstruction in Philosophy'' (1920) [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUg8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. '' Letters from China and Japan‎'' (1920) [http://books.google.com/books?id=WwoqJ-MdZoUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''Human Nature and Conduct'' (1922) [http://books.google.com/books?id=1SwWAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:john+inauthor:dewey&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&num=30&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES full text online]
* Dewey, John. ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)
* Dewey, John. ''Experience and Nature'' (1925, 1929)
* Dewey, John. ''The Quest for Certainty'' (1929)
* Dewey, John. ''A Common Faith'' (1934)
* Dewey, John. ''Art as Experience'' (1935)
* Dewey, John. ''Experience and Education'' (1938)
* Dewey, John. ''Logic, The Theory of Inquiry'' (1938).
* Dewey, John. [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=john+dewey&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1923&as_isbn=&as_issn= full text of books online]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:philosophers|Dewey, John]]
[[category:Progressive Era]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dewey, John}}
[[Category:1920s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

Talk:Film noir

2009-06-18T20:36:31Z

Marlowe:

Talk:Film noir

2009-06-18T20:36:04Z

Marlowe:

Assisted suicide

2009-06-18T20:33:01Z

Marlowe:

'''Assisted suicide''' is when someone facilitates the [[suicide]] of another [[person]]. This usually refers to supplying the means ([[drugs]], [[weapon]]s, or situation) for the other person to be able to take their own [[life]]. Technically it is different from [[murder]] or [[euthanasia]] as the action of terminating the life is in the hands of the person who [[death|dies]]. However, [[moral]]ly the [[assistant]] is an [[accomplice]] to the act and may be legally [[guilty]], though the person who is to die would not be guilty of a [[crime]] whether or not he or she survived (in the United States).

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

Suicide

2009-06-18T20:31:06Z

Marlowe: Included assisted suicide, created United States section

'''Suicide''' is the [[crime]] or [[sin]] of killing oneself; it is a sin throughout all of [[Christianity]], and a mortal sin in [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition; it is also a very grave sin within [[Islam]].

==United States==
In the United States suicide is not a crime, however [[assisted suicide]] is considered a crime in most states (often akin to homicide). Oregon <ref>http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/</ref> and Washington <ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/05/washington-passes-initiative-1000-legalizing-physician-assisted-suicide/</ref> are the only two states in the [[United States]] which currently allow assisted suicide. Both states enforce strict mandates on the availability and administration of the procedure.

Many advocates for assisted suicide claim that this is one of the few situations where the act itself is legal, and yet the assistance of the act is a crime.<ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/eol/arguments.html#1</ref>

==Scope of the Problem==
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the [[United States]] in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among [[native American]]s. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide. Christians are 93% more likely to commit suicide than those of other faiths.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). ''Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative''. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==
The [[United States Army]], which has about one million soldiers, reported 99 suicides in 2006, which is less than 0.01%. About half were [[soldier]]s/officers under 25. According to Colonel [[Elspeth Ritchie]], psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General [[Gale Pollock]], the primary motivation for these suicides had nothing to do with military service, and instead were due to "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

== External links ==
* Demme, Greg, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5680 Suicide: What’s the problem?] 2nd April, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)

{{DivineComedy}}
[[category:culture]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Film noir

2009-06-18T20:16:07Z

Marlowe:

'''Film noir''' - [[French]] for "dark film" - is a [[movie|cinematic]] term used to describe a motion picture stylized to create a mood of moral ambiguity. "Good guys" are often inseparable from "bad guys," good may not always win, and the purported "hero" of the film may not be a likable character. While ''film noir'' was applied in early [[Hollywood]] without this problem, in modern times, ''film noir'' pictures often include sexuality, nudity, and characteristics that make the films not family-friendly. Realistic, rather than glorified, depiction of [[violence]] has always been characteristic of ''film noir'' technique.

Examples, without spoilers, are:
- ''The Maltese Falcon'', a famous movie starring Humphrey Bogart as an uncouth, selfish, but effective private detective in 1940s [[San Fransisco]]. One of the most famous films of all time, this is bassed off of [[Dashiell Hammett]]'s novel of the same name.
- ''Brick'', a 2005 movie about a teenage girl's disappearance and her ex-boyfriend's search to uncover the truth. Well noted for it's atmosphere and environment, this movie takes place in a suburban setting and involves high school age characters.

[[Category:Entertainment]]

Film noir

2009-06-18T20:15:40Z

Marlowe: Pan's Labyrinth is not film noir - it's magical realism. Added another example instead.

'''Film noir''' - [[French]] for "dark film" - is a [[movie|cinematic]] term used to describe a motion picture stylized to create a mood of moral ambiguity. "Good guys" are often inseparable from "bad guys," good may not always win, and the purported "hero" of the film may not be a likable character. While ''film noir'' was applied in early [[Hollywood]] without this problem, in modern times, ''film noir'' pictures often include sexuality, nudity, and characteristics that make the films not family-friendly. Realistic, rather than glorified, depiction of [[violence]] has always been characteristic of ''film noir'' technique.

Examples, without spoilers, are:
- ''The Maltese Falcon'', a famous movie starring Humphrey Bogart as an uncouth, selfish, but effective private detective in 1940s [[San Fransisco]]. One of the most famous films of all time, this is bassed off of [[Dashiell Hammet]]'s novel of the same name.
- ''Brick'', a 2005 movie about a teenage girl's disappearance and her ex-boyfriend's search to uncover the truth. Well noted for it's atmosphere and environment, this movie takes place in a suburban setting and involves high school age characters.

[[Category:Entertainment]]

Coretta Scott King

2009-06-18T20:10:39Z

Marlowe:

'''Coretta Scott King''' (April 27, 1927 - January 30, 2006) was the widow of slain civil rights leader [[Martin Luther King]]. While not as vocal, she continued his legacy of seeking equal rights for minorities and guarding the memory of her husband. <ref> http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/kin1bio-1</ref>

Some prominent [[African American]] leaders were estranged from Ms. King.

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:King, Coretta Scott}}

[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Civil Rights Leaders]]

Coretta Scott King

2009-06-18T20:08:48Z

Marlowe: Included her death, changed tense of article to past tense

'''Coretta Scott King''' (April 27, 1927 - January 30, 2006) was the widow of slain civil rights leader [[Martin Luther King]]. While not as vocal, she continued his legacy of seeking equal rights for minorities and guarding the memory of her husband.

Some prominent [[African American]] leaders were estranged from Ms. King.

{{DEFAULTSORT:King, Coretta Scott}}

[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Civil Rights Leaders]]