Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Roseanne Barr

2012-08-14T21:39:09Z

Poonj:

'''Roseanne Cherrie Barr''' (born November 3, 1952) is the next President of the United States, a [[Socialism|socialist]] comedian, actress, writer and [[liberal]] activist.

On July 25, 1990, Barr performed a controversial rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" before a Cincinnati Reds-San Diego Padres baseball game in San Diego, California. She seemed to not take the national anthem seriously and sang the song as loudly as possible, and her rendition of the song sounded "screechy".<ref>"The fat lady sang. Actually, she screeched. Then she scratched her crotch and spat." [http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136617/index.htm Sports Illustrated], August 06, 1990 - Tom Kirkjian</ref> Following her rendition, she mimicked the often-seen actions of players by spitting and grabbing her crotch as if adjusting a protective cup. The song and the closing routine offended many in the audience, and it was replayed frequently on television, drawing further attention and criticism of her disrespectful rendition.

During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Barr was a supporter of [[Hillary Clinton]] for president and was very critical of [[Barack Obama]], describing him as "an empty suit selling hope in lieu of Truth." Like many Clinton supporters, as soon as Obama won the Democratic nomination, Barr immediately recanted her previous statements and became an Obama supporter. She has also described former [[Vietnam War]] POW Senator [[John McCain]] as "the most racist right wing Republican ever."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/01/barak_obama.php |title=Barack Obama at Roseanne World |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref>

Despite her far left-wing positions, she has actually been critical of the "gay rights" movement. A 1992 ''Playboy'' magazine article quoted a letter in which Barr used numerous homophobic slurs to try to insult then ''USA Today'' reviewer Matt Roush.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/monitor.html |title=Maledicta Mirror |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref> On April 6, 2007, during Barr's show on California's KCAA radio, she commented that "gay and lesbian people definitely practiced a divide and conquer mentality where, you know, it always has to be about them" and that gay people "don't care about minimum wage, they don't care about any other group other than their own self because you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing and sometimes I wonder."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/04/wherein_we_chan_1.html |title=Wherein we channel our inner Darlene Conner}}</ref>

In November of 2008, Barr once agained sparked controversy by verbally attacking minority groups. In a post on her blog, she attacked [[Jew]]s, [[Catholic]]s, and [[Mormon]]s.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/11/06/roseanne-barr-register-mormon-catholic-churches-judaism-pacs</ref> A few days later, she posted another opinion piece on her blog in which she attacked [[African-American]]s.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/11/10/roseanne-barr-now-lecturing-blacks-over-prop-8-vote</ref>

On December 30, 2008, Barr posted a message on her website in which she wrote that the state of [[Israel]] is "a Nazi state".<ref>http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/12/i_told_my_friend_dont_go.php</ref> In July of 2009, she once again sparked controversy when she appeared in a photo shoot for the crudely named ''Heeb'' magazine dressed as Adolf Hilter. In one photo, Barr is seen taking burnt gingerbread "Jew Cookies" out of an oven.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/30/roseanne-barr-dressed-hitler-bakes-burnt-jew-cookies</ref>

She sought the [[Green Party]] nomination for President in the [[2012 Presidential election]], but Jill Stein was chosen instead. She is currently running as the candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party. Speaking for the [[Occupy Wall Street]] protests in November 2011, Roseanne called for rich people to face "re-education or execution" through some sort of Gulag. She was up to her violent ways again when in April 2012, she joined [[Spike Lee]] in sending out the personal address of the parents of Hispanic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman during the Trayvon Martin case while the [[New Black Panthers]] had a bounty on him.

==References==
<div class="references-small"><div class="references-2column"><references /></div></div>

==External links==
*[http://www.roseanneworld.com/ Roseanne's website and daily blog]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Barr, Roseanne}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2012-08-14T21:37:38Z

Poonj:

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with childbirth==
When it is born, a baby changes. Its white blood cells change, it uses its lungs for the first time and its blood takes a different route through its heart. It is at this point that human life begins. Before this, a foetus is just part of its mother's body, like an extra limb. When it is born, it becomes its own person and is no longer an extra bit of the mother.I personally believe that the baby's first breath is its soul being breathed into it, signifying the start of its life. Before the first breath, the baby is just a shell of a person or the potential to be a person, like a car without its engine. When the white blood cells change from those of a foetus to those of a baby, they change the blood from support blood into Life Blood, which no-one can live without. If a baby did not go through these changes, it would not survive. Pregnancy prepares a foetus for life, but does not create it. Childbirth creates life. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 12:54, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.
: But if someone stole an unattached exhaust pipe, they wouldn't be charged with Auto Theft. They'd probably be charged with petty larceny, depending on the value of the pipe. The reason for this is because being something that will eventually be part of a car doesn't make it a car. So why are cells that will eventually be part of a human considered human by themselves? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::Because humans have a ''[[soul]]''. I agree that the tailpipe analogy is a poor one, but it doesn't retract from the fact that the divine spark of life that separates from the animals is present from the moment of conception. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 15:09, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==Life Begins at Conception==
Two hundred years ago a one month premature fetus was not expected to live outside the womb. Today, with the advancement of medical knowledge and care, a one month premature human fetus is almost surely expected to be able to be brought to a fully independent and functional mature human being capable of sustaining life on it’s own. As medical abilities advance it seems entirely possible that a two month premature fetus could be expected to survive outside the womb and continue to maturity. It would seem that, one day future, medical advancements could also nurture a three month premature fetus with the same result. Logically, with great advancement in medicine, wouldn’t it seem possible that someday a fertilized egg could be nurtured to full maturity? An acorn planted in an appropriate environment and with adequate nurturing is expected to become a mighty oak. Just so, the fertilized human ovum, in the right environment, is expected become a fully functional baby. An acorn will never become a human nor a fertilized ovum an oak tree. In the bible, God speaks of the mystery of a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh. I think we can extrapolate this mystery to include a sperm being joined to an ovum and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh, as well. Life is in the acorn and life is also in the fertilized egg.
Life begins with conception. --[[User:WPA|WPA]] 14:52, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

But what about the fact that about half of all fertilized eggs do not implant in the womb. Are those living souls as well? --[[User:TomRRughlyn|TomRRughlyn]] 1:49, 2 March 2012 (EDT)

==Never==

Life is a very complicated term, it's hard to argue that something is not alive, even harder to argue that something is, what are our standards for what is non living and what is living in this largely deterministic universe? [[User:Poonj|Poonj]]

Karl Marx

2012-08-14T21:29:51Z

Poonj:

{{Sociology}}
[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was the most influential of all socialist thinkers and the creator of a system of thought called [[Marxism]]. He helped organize the international socialist movement. His ideas motivated radical political activists who joined his call to overthrow capitalism. Marxism argued that all events in history are caused by economic forces, especially class conflict between owners and workers. Marx depicted the inevitable evolution from [[feudalism]] to [[capitalism]] (which happened, he argued, during the [[French Revolution]]), to [[socialism]], which was about to happen as soon as the workers got organized. Many intellectuals accepted Marx's "scientific" analysis and prediction. In recent decades there has been little interest in Marx among economists or historians, who nearly unanimously conclude his analysis was faulty and his predictions were wrong{{Citation needed}}, but there is much more among critics of literature, especially in university English departments.
==Personal Life==
Karl Heinrich Marx was born into a happy, wealthy middle-class home in the Rhineland city of Trier, in Germany. On both sides of his family, he came from a long line of Jewish rabbis; but his father Heinrich Marx (1782-1838), an intellectual and highly respected lawyer, had his family converted to Lutheranism in 1824 when young Marx was six. Intellectually and culturally, Marx was Protestant, not Jewish. Marx received a good classical education; at age 17, he spent a year in the University of Bonn's law faculty and soaked up its cultural romanticism. At age 18 he became engaged to aristocratic Jenny von Westphalen (1814-1881), daughter of Baron von Westphalen, a prominent member of Trier society, granddaughter of a famous general, and also descended from Scottish nobility. She interested Marx in romantic literature and in the socialist Saint-Simonian movement.
===Intellectual roots===
In 1836 Marx transferred to the University of Berlin, at the time the foremost scholarly center in the world. He abandoned his superficial romanticism and came under the influence of the philosophy of the recently deceased [[G. W. F. Hegel]]. which dominated German thought. Lectures were less important than long conversations with Young Hegelian intellectuals, notably Bruno Bauer; they sought to use Hegelianism to battle the German religious, political, and philosophical status quo. After completing his doctoral thesis (which dealt with the atomic theories of Democritus and Epicurus), Marx at first hoped to obtain teaching post. When Bauer was dismissed for unorthodoxy in 1842, Marx turned to journalism and began writing for the ''Rheinische Zeitung,'' an opposition daily backed by liberal Rhenish industrialists. He soon became its editor, but the paper was closed by the authorities in May 1843, following an expose by Marx of the miserable poverty of farm workers in the Moselle vinyards, a piece of work that led him, as his friend [[Friedrich Engels]] later said, "from pure politics to economic relationships and so to socialism."

[[Ludwig Feuerbach]] (1804-72) in his 1841 book ''The Essence of Christianity'' strongly influenced Marx, who responded with "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law. Introduction (1843-44), which includes his famous line that "religion is the opium of the masses." Marx wanted freedom ''from'' religion, claiming there would no longer be a need for it once socialism succeeded.

In 1843, Marx married Jenny von Westphalen and composed a lengthy manuscript definitely rejecting Hegel's apologia for contemporary German politics. Unemployable in Germany, Marx decided to emigrate to Paris.
===Paris and Brussels===
In Paris Marx discovered a hothouse of innumerable socialist sects. A proposed journal collapsed, and he plunged into a program of exhasutive readfing in politics, history and economics. In 1844 Marx composed a series of treatises known as the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" or "Paris Manuscripts," in which he finally espoused "communism". He began a lifelong friendship and collaboration with
[[Friedrich Engels]], whose father was a partner in a cotton firm in the English city of Manchester. Engels supplied Marx with a practical knowledge of the daily workings of capitalism, as well as generous cash subsidies and the one firm intellectual friendship that lasted until death.

On expulsion from Paris in the autumn of 1844, Marx settled (for the next three years) in Brussels, renewing his study of economics. He visited England, with Engels as his guide, and in London met the leaders of the League of the Just, a semiclandestine club of emigre German artisans. In Brussels Marx founded a network of correspondence committees to keep German,
French, and English communists and socialists informed about each other's ideas and activities and to introduce some theoretical unity into the movement.

He devoured the works of economists [[Adam Smith]], [[David Ricardo]], the comte de [[Saint-Simon]], and many others. He rejected the individualistic radicalism of [[Pierre Joseph Proudhon]] and attacked him in ''The Poverty of Philosophy'' (1847), an early attempt to systematize his own thought.

By 1847 the League of the Just was conscious of a need for a more firm theoretical foundation. Marx and Engels were approached and proved eager to help. During two long congresses in London, Marx's ideas were accepted in principle by the organization, now renamed the Communist League, and Marx was commissioned to set them down in writing.

==Communist Manifesto==
The classic "Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engles called for the working classes to rise in rebellion. Eric Hobsbawm has argued there was a "triumphal march" of capitalism after the European revolutions of 1848-49, which proves that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in their prognosis of the rapid intensification of [[class conflict]] and the destruction of capitalism. From 1848-49 onward the European bourgeoisie implemented successfully various reforms that insured their hegemony and confounded the prognosis of the "Manifesto".

===Revolution of 1848===
Just as soon as the "Communist Manifesto" appeared, the middle classes and intellwectuals of Europe rose in rebellion. The first of the revolutions of 1848, broke out in Paris. Marx rushed back to Paris at the invitation of the liberal provisional government that had replaced the government of King Louis Philippe. By March 1848, the revolution had reached Prussia, and in Berlin King Frederick William IV had
been compelled to grant an elected parliament, a free press, and the convening of an assembly to draw up a new constitution. Marx hurried to Cologne (part of Prussia), and resumed his journalistic activities, concentrating his energies on a new paper, the "Neue Rheinische Zeitungvineyards," which under his editorship favored an alliance between the German workers' movement and the more progressive elements of the middle class. By autumn, 1848, the revolution had been defeated in France and in the Austrian
Empire. Marx still favored such an alliance and refused to support separate working-class candidates in elections. Not until April 1849, a month before the final collapse of the revolution in Germany, did he change tactics and advocate separate working-class political action. But it was far too late. Marx returned
once again to Paris, expecting the revolution to succeed there; it did not and he was expelled in July 1849. Marx returned to London to begin his long exile.
===London===
The early years in London were characterized by grinding poverty, due quite as much to Marx's inability to manage his finances as to their inadequacy. Three of his six children died. Three of his daughters reached maturity, as did an illegitimate son borne by the Marx family servant, a son whose true parentage remained a secret until after Engels' death. In 1856 a small legacy enabled Marx to move into a more adequate house, but what he conceived to be the necessity of keeping up appearances soon renewed
his financial difficulties. Not until 1864 did the death of his mother and a legacy from an old Communist comrade, bring him substantial relief. But as Marx's pecuniary worries receded, his health deteriorated; he was plagued by boils from head to foot. Despite these difficulties, Marx enjoyed a very warm home life. He loved to play with his children, and the week regularly culminated with a Sunday picnic accompanied by singing and recitations from Shakespeare.

Marx rejoined the Communist League and resumed his journalistic activities. But the study of economics had convinced him that "a new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new
crisis," an economic crisis.

==Marx's views==
===Russia===
Initially, Marx's attitudes were marked by Russophobia, pronounced anti-Pan-Slavism, and assessments of Russia as an outpost of European reaction and counterrevolution, and even as the head of a conspiracy to block the world revolution. With time, however, Marx came to consider Russia as the country in which the outbreak of the revolution was most likely. In his research for successive volumes of Capital, he read Russian theoretical works by, among others, Vasili Bervi-Flerovski and A. I. Koshelev. Marx's attitudes to the anticipated peasant revolution in Russia remained ambivalent; to a certain degree he feared its occurrence, suspecting that it could take on an "Asiatic" hue.<ref>Ewa Borowska, "Marx and Russia," ''Studies in East European Thought'' 2002 54(1-2): 87-103. ISSN: 0925-9392
Fulltext: [[Ebsco]] </ref>
===Civil society===
Hungarian scholar László Tüto has argued that Marx believed that the bourgeois revolutions meant the worldwide historical liberation of the individual from the hierarchies of traditional societies. However, this liberation carried its own price. On the one hand, civil society and the state separated from each other in the bourgeois system, and as a result the individual became intrinsically split into a private person and a citizen of a state, two forms of existence that became opposed to each other. On the other hand, the economic freedom of private persons as members of civil society could only survive in the service of the spontaneous mechanisms of the market, that is, if people made themselves the tools of the tangible powers of the economy: goods, money, and capital. After the decline of freely competitive capitalism (into monopoly capitalism) this economic freedom was pushed into the background because of the property hierarchies. Freely competitive capitalism was characterized by the basic tendency of revolutionizing the means of production, and Marx concluded that the continuation of this tendency could only be ensured by going beyond the capitalist system to a socialist environment for civil society.
===Dictatorship of the proletariat===
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was introduced by Marx and Engels, and later used by [[V. I. Lenin]] and [[Joseph Stalin]] to justify their totalitarian rule. They controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union in the name of the proletariat (which had no voice.) Marx and Engels believed in the need for such a dictatorship during the transition to communism following the takeover by the proletariat. They envisaged some undefined form of absolute sovereignty of the people in a radical democratic state based on universal and equal suffrage. Supposedly the dictatorship would allow the proletariat to abolish bureaucracy and private ownership of the means of production, using force and repressive or dictatorial methods to overcome the inevitable resistance by the bourgeoisie. Lenin, however, saw the concept in terms of a dictatorship exercised not by a democratically chosen majority but by a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|vanguard minority revolutionary party]]; he eventually accepted the need for a state bureaucracy, and his more extreme opposition to the bourgeoisie led him to favor their exclusion and disenfranchisement to the benefit of the urban working class.
===Alienation===
Marx's theory of alienation was often employed to criticize religious, political, and economic divisions. However, the fact that it was basically about individuals and could only with great difficulty be applied to society made it a misleading tool when used in sociology.
===Globalization===
The ''Communist Manifesto'' was expressed in terms the 21st century calls globalization. It argued that it was the "historic mission" of the capitalist bourgeoisie to establish markets throughout the world and that four lessons could be drawn from this fact: members of the proletariat do not share the same nationality as the bourgeoisie, the proletarian "globalization" will in fact supercede that of the bourgeoisie, exploitation and class warfare will destroy the national barriers between members of the proletariat, and the proletariat has a duty to overthrow the ruling classes in each nation.

==Theories==
Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as a fundamentally moral movement with no base in practical science. Marx's solution was to create an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.
===Dialectic===
The [[dialectic]]al method which was employed by Marx was developed by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]. Though concepts of dialectics had existed in philosophical theory since [[Plato]], Hegel systematized the idea more thoroughly than any previous thinker. For Hegel, reality is a reflection of the unfolding of Absolute Spirit, roughly meaning knowledge. Thus Hegel saw the contradictions of Enlightenment philosophy (such as between subject and object, mind and nature, etc) as phases in the development of Absolute spirit. These contradictions would be resolved dialectically through the progress of Absolute Spirit.

Marx argued that Hegel's dialectic was upside down. Instead of being based in human knowledge, the dialectical contradictions were based in human social reality. For Marx, the contradiction between subject and object in philosophy was a reflection of the actual contradiction between workers and employers under capitalism. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature.

===Means of production===
The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".
===Capitalism===
[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal contradictions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]] would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises when the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, thus creating "[[surplus value]]" over and above the value of the wages advanced. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.
===Socialism===
It's important to note, however, that Marx never argued in any sustained fashion that socialism was inevitable: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx's view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbachexhaustivereadingsemi-clandestineémigréEngelsintellectuals, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, supersede1957</ref>, and his feelings toward the subject are not entirely clear. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opiate of the masses," yet he also stated that religion is "the heart of a heartless world." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed." During the Russian Revolution, the Russian Communist Party was highly critical of religion (likely seeing it as a threat to their Marxist agenda) and, after taking over, sought to destroy all forms of it.

===Anti-semitism===
Karl Marx is often labeled an [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating Jew" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

It should be noted, that Marx was raised in the German Protestant culture, not in the Jewish culture of his ancestors. Furthermore, Marx's metaphorical use of Judaism and money was standard for intellectuals of his time, including Jews. Moses Hess, for example, self-consciously Jewish and proto-Zionist, used language almost exactly similar to Marx's in his "On the Money System." The equation of Judaism with money was standard for Marx's period, even by Jews.<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1977/kmtr1/app1.htm]</ref>

Anti-semitism did become a major force in Germany in the late 19th century, but all the leaders of that movement rejected Marx.

== Academy Marx versus Public Marx ==

Marx in the academy and Marx in the public sphere are two different figures. It is an axiom within the academy that Marx in the public sphere is a vulgar misappropriation; even Marx once commented, "I am not a Marxist", referring to the treatment of his theory amongst his own contemporaries; this largely displays, at least, the freedom of interpretation intrinsic within Marx and the volatility of his content.

This misappropriation is likely largely a result of Marx's own Communist Manifesto and its popularity within post-war socialist activism in the US. The Communist Manifesto is only a drop in an ocean of Marx's work and theory, and not even the most relevant one. The complexity of Marx's work has actually enabled some contemporary theorists to find his work as a support of capitalism, while others interpret it as a trenchant critique of capitalism; and in fact it is both. Marx is actually very clear that capitalism is the most powerful mode of production available. What is debated is whether resistance to capitalism is intrinsic to itself, and whether the entire world marches inevitably towards capitalism.

Regardless of Marx's nuances and the usefulness of his theory for all perspectives of inquiry, even conservative ones, he continues to be misappropriated in the public. This is noticeable in the mildly anecdotal evidence that to even mention Marx is virtual political suicide. The academy refers to this phenomenon as the anti-intellectualism of the American public.

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]
*[[Max Weber]]
==Bibliography==
* Avineri, Shlomo. ''The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx'' (1970) [http://www.amazon.com/Political-Thought-Cambridge-Studies-Politics/dp/0521096197/ref=sr_1_21/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887351&sr=8-21 excerpt and text search]
* Berlin, Isaiah. ''Karl Marx: His Life and Environment'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/53992776?title=Karl%20Marx%3a%20His%20Life%20and%20Environment online edition], excellent overview by leading non-Marxist scholar
* Carver, Terrel, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Marx.'' 1992. 357 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Marx-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521366259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192896360&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], streee on philosophy
* Cohen, Gerald Allen, and G. A. Cohen. ''Karl Marx's Theory of History'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Theory-History-Gerald-Allen/dp/0691070687/ref=sr_1_42/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887474&sr=8-42 excerpt and text search]
* Elster, Jon. ''Making Sense of Marx.'' 1985. 556 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Studies-Marxism-Social-Theory/dp/0521297052/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192896566&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Elster, Jon. ''An Introduction to Karl Marx'' (1986) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Karl-Marx-Jon-Elster/dp/052133831X/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192896566&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Hobsbawm, Eric J., ed. ''Marxism in Marx's Day.'' 1982. 349 pp.
* Kolakowski, Leszek. ''Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, the Golden Age, the Breakdown.'' (3 vol. 1981, 2005). 1504 pp. covers Marx and all the Marxists [http://www.amazon.com/Main-Currents-Marxism-Founders-Breakdown/dp/0393060543/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192896392&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative scholar; strong emphasis on philosophy
* McLellan, David. ''Karl Marx: A Biography'' (4th ed. 2006)
* Mehring, Franz. ''Marx: The Story of His Life'' (1918) [http://www.questia.com/read/3077782 online edition] [http://www.marxists.org/archive/mehring/1918/marx/index.htm another online edition]
* Oakley, Allen. ''Marx's Critique of Political Economy: Intellectual Sources and Evolution.'' Vol. 1: 1844-1860. Vol. 2: 1861 to 1863. (1984-85). 266pp, 342 pp.
* Rader, Melvin Miller. ''Marx's Interpretation of History.'' 1979. 242 pp.
* White, James D. ''Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism.'' 1996. 416 pp.
*Wurmbrand, Richard. ''Marx and Satan.'' 1986

===Primary sources===
* ''The Portable Karl Marx'' edited by Eugene Kamenka (1983) [http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Karl-Marx-Viking-Library/dp/014015096X/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887156&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Marx, Karl. ''Karl Marx: The Essential Writings'' (1986) ed. by Frederic L. Bender [http://www.questia.com/read/94876762?title=Karl%20Marx%3a%20The%20Essential%20Writings online edition]
* Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. ''The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophic-Manuscripts-Communist-Manifesto-Philosophy/dp/087975446X/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887156&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. ''The Communist Manifesto'' (1848) [http://www.amazon.com/Communist-Manifesto-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140447571/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887156&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Marx, Karl. ''Karl Marx: The Essential Writings'' ed by Frederic L. Bender. (2nd ed. 1986) 516 pgs. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94876758 online edition]
* Marx, Karl. ''Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy'' ed. by Martin Nicolaus (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Grundrisse-Foundations-Critique-Political-Classics/dp/0140445757/ref=sr_1_38/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192887474&sr=8-38 excerpt and text search]
* Marx, Karl. ''Capital: A Critique of Political Economy'' (1906), 865pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=IpJC7HNskeYC&dq=inauthor:karl+inauthor:marx&num=30&as_brr=1 online ediition]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}

[[Category:German Politics]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:German Philosophers]]
[[Category:Marxism]]

Talk:Mainstream media

2012-08-14T21:27:55Z

Poonj:

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and [[deceit]], as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

== Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Brian, speedy posting, asking questions and then making even more massive changes, without allow 24 hours for others to respond, is [[deceit]]ful. You cannot say you are inviting a "dialog" and then not give others a chance to see your ideas. Dialog is not getting one agreement, with one idea, and then doing many things, predicated on that one agreement. You not only re-directed, but you also made large content changes as well, all without getting feedback. That, as I have said elsewhere, isn't allowed here. Or on WP for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Merging of MSM and Mainstream Media Articles==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking to this, we now have duplicate info on both MSM and Mainstream Media. For example, the removal of the blog info on CBS that TK did on this page has not been done on the other page. Yet another reason for a merge is that spelling and grammatical mistakes fixed on one page now exist on another. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 16:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. The world will not end if this situation continues for another 24 hours, Brian. I have messaged TerryH, and am more than content to await his feed-back. My agreement with something so obvious as the need for a merger is not in play here. What is in play is a new editor making massive and liberal-biased edits to those articles, all without discussion, or allowing time for any to take place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:52, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I stand by my firm belief that I greatly improved the article, and I do not agree that I added liberally biased information - on the contrary, I added clear proof that Fox News is the utterly dominant force in the media today!

You seem to suspect me of trying to push this article liberal, but I'd love you to understand that the very isolation conservatives feel from what is widely aired in the MSM is VERY MUCH shared by liberals. Both strong conservatives AND strong liberals complain loudly about the MSM, and both percieve it to have opposite bias. That is uncontestable, and is the ONLY theme that i wish to introduce to this article. What they would both DO about the percieved bias is a different matter, but those with strong views on BOTH sides of the political debate strongly disapprove of the MSM. And I think it unfair and low to accuse me of something so vile as deceit. I believe I have been the most open of any of you in this debate.

I have an answer to all this. I will stand back and make no edits until next week, and we'll see how we all get along. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 17:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*The growth of [[Fox News Channel]] is not within Conservative circles, but the great middle ground. And even though they are a force in Cable viewers, compared to the MSM nightly news shows, they are still small. So therefore they cannot be MSM as yet. CNCB and MSNBC, are merely house organs of the larger NBC. What makes Fox News seem "Conservative" is the huge ratings of some of its pundits, and the fact that Fox, in stories, actually seeks out sources, so as to be fair and balanced, includes the POV's of religious and right wing people. That is what reporting used to be about, before being hijacked by liberal ideologues. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Note: MSM is used by the CDC to denote male sex with men[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

The following sec could be added when more examples are collected, as has been done, and are daily seen, but i am pretty busy or out of that right now.

===Notable Examples===

On June 30, 2000, the Boston Globe carried an AP selection which labeled as "Best Quote", a statement by "Survivor" contestant "Rudy," which equated the Bible with toilet paper.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011227.asp</ref><ref>http://static.record-eagle.com/2000/jul/9letter.htm</ref> (The hard evidence for the first is in my physical file cabinet, a photocopy.)

On Jan. 1, 2002, an short AP article in the news section of the The Boston Globe, reported that a [[Pentecostal]] church in Alamogordo, N.M. had burned Harry Potter books. The article then "reported" that Hitler's socialist part also burned offending literature, in an obvious attempt to equate them.<ref>http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr2002.htm</ref> The paper would not print or respond to a letter objecting to the above. (two links to the story are not from the Globe, one notes the source as the AP.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

In an email exchange between Brian Camenker now leader of MassResistance and long-time Globe editor, Peter Accardi, the latter explained that one reason they refused to print Camenker's letter opposing gay marriage, was "We don't print letters that promote bigotry." Another reason was that the Globe needed to reflect its readership, which was liberal. He also denied that homosexuals could change their sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4324&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport</ref>

== MSM has multiple meanings. ==

MSM is often used to denote "men who have sex with men", to differentiate homosexual males from men who have sex with men but may personally identify as heterosexual (but with a desire for sex with other men) and bisexuals, often used for epidemiological reasons, etc. [[User:Poonj|Poonj]]

Talk:Mainstream media

2012-08-14T21:26:59Z

Poonj: /* MSM has multiple meanings. */ new section