Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Political cards

2011-07-12T00:49:44Z

StevenAA:

'''Political cards''' are tactics used by [[liberals]], [[athiests]], [[homosexuals]], [[women]] or indeed nearly any non-conservative in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of [[bridge]], where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards. Indeed, there are 52 political cards (although conceptually there could be many more or less), just as in a deck of cards for bridge.

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a [[political card]] against the [[Tea Party Movement]], due to its amorphous nature.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Political card
!Meaning
!Example
!Advantage
!Disadvantage
|-
|sexist card
|allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting block within the Democratic party.
|[[Lawrence Summers]] was driven from his presidency of [[Harvard]] for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men
|safe haven for angry liberals and women
|implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government
|-
|race card
|Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist
|Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008
|prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
|the boy who cried wolf.
|-
|hate speech card
|Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance.
|
|programed response for liberal failures.
|mimics liberal talking points
|-
|anti-gay card
|Calling opponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality.
|Used against [[Rick Santorum]] leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006
|assumes the posture of [[civil rights]] advocacy.
|African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8</ref>
|-
|intolerant card
|demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology.
|
|in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant
|
|-
|uneducated card
|Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president.
|Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and [[liberals]] destroyed him by playing this card.
|A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot.
|Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states.
|-
|extreme card
|in typical [[MSM]] [[newspeak]], anything right of center or not liberal.
|Bill and [[Hillary Clinton]] persistently referred to the Republican [[Newt Gingrich|Contract with America]] as extreme; [[President Clinton]] ultimately signed 7 of 10 Contract items in to law.
|Prior to the [[9/11 attacks]], was used interchangeably with "[[terrorist]]" by mainstream media sources.
|Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2004/pdf/liberal_media.pdf The Liberal Media, ''Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It''], Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.</ref>
|-
|global warming denier card
|opposition to using [[junk science]] to promote political [[activism]].
|[[Global warming]] activists have likened climate change to Nazi atrocities. <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html</ref>
|equates moderates with ignorant fascists.
|belittles and denigrates victims of the [[Nazi]] [[holocaust]].<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html</ref>
|-
| anti-environment card
|
|
|
|
|-
| insensitive card
| failure to behave in a [[politically correct]] manner.
|
| ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority.
| not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal [[tripe]].
|-
|greedy card
|Portraying [[capitalist]]ic ideas or actions as greedy
|Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue.
|Most people care about money and fairness.
|Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans)
|-
|fundamentalist card
|seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism.
|[[Richard Dawkins]] screed, ''[[The God Delusion]]''.
|puts [[Billy Graham]] and [[bin Laden]] in the same boat.
|A majority of Americans are neither atheist nor [[secular humanist]]s.
|-
| creationist card
|
|
|
|
|-
| birther card
| claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks
|
| hides the question of [[natural born citizen]]
| exposes the original meaning of [[natural born citizen]].
|-
|conspiracy theory card
|the one making the charge cannot explain facts.
|Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
|provides plausible reasons for the simple minded.
|contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories.
|-
|[[homophobia]] card
|an irrational fear.
|Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's [[Proposition 8]] was deemed homophobia.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html</ref>
|Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks.
|Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay.
|-
|[[Dominionist]] card
|implies [[evangelical]] [[Christian]]s want to impose an [[Iran]]ian style [[theocracy]] on the United States.
|Used by [[misogynist]]s to attack [[Michelle Bachmann]]. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/KeepLeft/michele-bachmann-john-quincy-adams_n_885868_94606213.html]
|appeals to the fears of [[atheist]]s and religious bigots.
|based on social [[pseudoscience]], [[propaganda]], and journalistic hacks.
|-
|"Responsible" Republicans card
|Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly [[RINO]]s, are "responsible."
|"During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/</ref>
|Who killed Responsible Republicans? [[Bill Kristol]], of course. <ref>Ibid.</ref>
|In 1990 President [[George H.W. Bush]] was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge.
|-
|millionaires and billionaires card
|[[class warfare]]
|[[President Obama]] said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." <ref>The ''[[Washington Post]]'' Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html it is essentially meaningless]. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."</ref>
|appeals to voters motivated by [[envy]]
|politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires.
|-
| abortion card
|
|
|
|
|-
|gun nut card
|slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons
|
|
|angers those with guns
|-
|working families card
|class warfare
|See Democratic Talking Points, [[2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Democratic_National_Convention|2008 Presidential Nominating Convention]], from the ''[[New York Times]]''. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/democrats-talking-points-on-the-convention/]
|Postures [[Democrat]]s as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children.
|Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families.
|-
| against teacher-led prayer in our public schools card
|
|
|
|
|-
|[[Godwin's Law|Godwin]] card
|invoking the name of Hitler.
|Liberal [[George_Soros#2004_Presidential_Elections_in_the_United_States|George Soros]] likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime.
|appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists.
|typical oppressive tactic.
|-
|[[McCarthyism]] card
|accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of [[Joseph McCarthy]]
|
|baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun.
|Requires no morals or conscience.
|-
| liberal mocking card
| mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues
| ''The Daily Show''
|
| makes person look petty
|-
|[[Liberal redefinition]] card
| changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes
|
|
|
|-
| trickle down card
| anti-free market agitprop
| [[Nobel Laureate]] [[Paul Krugman]] claims GOP Zombies will eat Obama's brain for extending the Bush tax cuts. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/20/paul-krugman-says-gop-zombies-are-going-eat-obamas-brain Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain], ''Newsbusters.</ref>
| apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists.
| Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html</ref>
|-
| misuse of statistics card
|
|
|
|
|-
| Islamophobia card
|
|
|
|
|-
| Mediscare card
|
| Used to win a special congressional election for a [[Democrat]] in a [[Republican]]-leaning district in [[New York]] in 2011
|
|
|-
|Third rail card
|Proposals to reform [[Social Security]] result in political suicide.
|Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.<ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail</ref>
|Slander your opponent for proposing solutions.
|Political and economic stagnation.
|-
|Patriot card
|Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist.
| "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm</ref>
|Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control.
|Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic.
|-
|Immigration card
|implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area.
|The promised [[DREAM Act|Obama Dream Act]], a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41.
|Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win.
|Most immigrants come to America seeking conservative values, such as a [[right to work]], lower taxes, being free of big government oppression, etc.
|-
|free speech card
|cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech
|
|
|
|-
| cherry picking data card
| selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't
| Conservapedia
|
| dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples
|-
| never-admitting-a-mistake card
| inability to admit a mistake; lack of [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindness]]
|
|
|
|-
| nativist card
|
| Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
|
|
|-
|Nixon's Southern Strategy card
|implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].
| "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8123561/nixons_southern_strategy.html Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community], Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.</ref>
|labels Southerners as racist.
|ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, [[George Wallace]] received 49 [[electoral votes]] exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.<ref>Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml]</ref>
|-
|neo-confederate card
|implies [[Civil War]] buffs want to bring back [[segregation]] and [[slavery]].
|On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, [[MSNBC]]'s liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the [[Confederacy]], [[secession]], [[slavery]] and racism.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html</ref>
|intimidating to conservative Bluedog Democrats.
|may backfire and evoke [[bipartisanship]].
|-
|redneck card
|implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist
|most often applied to [[Ron Paul]] supporters
|pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, [[Red State]] dwellers, and others in flyover country.
|When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority.
|-
|[[NASCAR]] card
|insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist
|NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican.<ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican</ref>
|Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the [[Pentagon]]'s sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html</ref>
|NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans.
|-
| bitter and cling to guns or religion card
| Why don't common people vote Democrat?
| Used by Obama and [[Howard Dean]].
| Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them.
| Insulting to average voters.
|-
| denying [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] card
|
|
|
|
|-
| [[Anti-Americanism|Anti-American]] card
| Denying [[ American exceptionalism|American exceptionalism]]. Trouts out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Deceit|deceit]] card
| Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Poe's law|Poe's]] card
| Impersonation of [[Conservatives]] to discredit their positions.Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation.
|
|
|
|-
| Elite card
| claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful / claiming that somebody is evil because he doesn't get around with some people
|
|
|
|-
| Compassion card
| arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion
|
|
|
|-
| Hypocrite card
| claiming some inconsistency in positions
| pro-lifer must oppose death penalty
|
|
|-
| Guilt by association card
| insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist or otherwise in contact
|
|
|
|-
| Google bomb card
| sabotaging Google searches
| [[Rick Santorum]]
|
|
|}

Total number of cards: 52 out of a goal of 52.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:political cards]]

User:StevenAA

2011-07-12T00:43:40Z

StevenAA:

Many people don't see what's directly in front of them.

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-11T12:23:53Z

StevenAA:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)==

The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents:

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-10T18:27:19Z

StevenAA: liberal trolling

Laugh track

2011-07-09T17:59:49Z

StevenAA: gr

A '''laugh track''' is pre-recorded laughter played in a repetitive manner to create the false illusion of other people laughing at jokes during a television show. It is designed to have a [[Pavlovian]] effect on viewers, particularly dimwitted ones.

Over time, a laugh track has a deadening effect on the intelligence of the real audience. [[Liberals]] rarely object to it, although it is not used in many sitcoms created by established liberals, including [[Tina Fey]] (''30 Rock''), Larry David (''Curb Your Enthusiasm''), [[atheist]] Ricky Gervais (''The Office''), Mitchell Hurwitz (''Arrested Development''), Greg Daniels and Michael Schur (''Parks and Recreation''), and Dennis Leary (''The Job''). Sitcoms which mostly portray non-family topics such as ''The Big Bang Theory'', the highly sexualized ''How I Met Your Mother'' and ''Rules of Engagement'' use them - they all run on [[CBS]]. Likewise M*A*S*H creator (and former Huffington Post blogger) Larry Gelbart famously wanted the series to run without a laugh track, but was overruled by the network (a compromise was reached in which most O.R. scenes omitted the track).

Laugh track

2011-07-09T17:56:18Z

StevenAA: clearing somethin up here

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-09T17:38:18Z

StevenAA: /* Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)==

The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents:

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-08T20:57:00Z

StevenAA: /* Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) */

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-08T20:55:31Z

StevenAA: /* Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) */

User:StevenAA

2011-06-29T20:53:30Z

StevenAA: Blanked the page

User:MrHumpty

2011-06-29T20:50:05Z

StevenAA: Liberal Vandalism and bad scence for art

Talk:Social media

2011-06-29T20:35:00Z

StevenAA: /* Is this a Joke */ Liberal trolling, go back to Wikipedia

== Jim DeMint and social media ==

[[Jim DeMint]] is one of the few solid guys in Washington D.C. DeMint has 93,000 Twitter fans.[http://twitter.com/#!/JimDeMint] Jim DeMint's Facebook page has 137,000 plus likes.[http://www.facebook.com/senatordemint] DeMint is one of the most active Republicans on social media and definitely one of the most staunchly conservative Republicans. I don't see any evidence of him losing any credibility due to his use of social media. My guess is that he has staff help manage his social media accounts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:13, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
:Also, my guess is that DeMint uses his Facebook account to raise funds (he has a give tab on his Facebook account) and to help rally and communicate with his followers. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:32, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== Newt Gingrich and social media ==

I am not a big fan of [[Newt Gingrich]], but he does say quite a few things I agree with. Newt Gingrich has over 1,300,000 Twitter followers.[http://twitter.com/#!/newtgingrich] Newt Gingrich's Facebook page has over 138,000 likes.[http://www.facebook.com/newtgingrich] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:18, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

:Both good points, Conservative. I think the important difference is between a public figure who maintains an account on these sites and a person who wastes a lot of time doing nothing worthwhile on those same sites. For Gingrich or DeMint, a facebook or twitter page is an important publicity tool, but I doubt either of them spends much time on them - as you say, they no doubt have a staff to help them with that kind of thing [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:31, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
:::One more example, I don't agree with [[Gerald Celente]] on everything and I thought he went out on a limb in 2010 regarding a financial collapse and underestimated the degree to which the [[Federal Reserve]] can and will jury-rig the financial system through the use of short term measures that harm the long term economic health of the U.S. But nonetheless, there are a lot of members of the right and left media who do have respect for the guy because he does have a great track record as far as trend forecasting. You can certainly disagree with Celente on various points, but it is hard to make the case that he is not a serious guy given his track record at trend forecasting. Celente has over 11,000 Twitter followers.[http://twitter.com/#!/geraldcelente] I do think that social media can be used to raise cash for politicians and gain publicity. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:02, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
::::One more thing, I don't know how successful Facebook is at raising cash for politicians, but in May of 2009, it appears Facebook was merely a way to augment fundraising for non-profits and inferior to other methods.[http://jvaconsulting.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/to-nonprofits-seeking-cash-facebook-app-isnt-so-green/] I am guessing things have not changed, but this is only a hunch. On the other hand, Obama has over 21,000,000 likes on his Facebook page plus he has a donate button. As much as I disagree with Obama's fiscal policies, senseless wars and social policies, I have to believe he is raising cash at Facebook. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:20, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== Scott Brown and social media ==

I have never been a big fan of the Republican politician [[Scott Brown]] in terms of all his policies which is not surprising as Massachusetts Republicans are more liberal.[http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/01/18/the-not-so-conservative-politics-of-scott-brown/] Nevertheless, he was the lesser of two evils and I am glad he beat the Democrat. More to the point, he did manage to win an election and in January 0f 2010 it has reported he had over 140,000 Facebook supporters.[http://techrepublican.com/blog/facebooks-permanent-place-politics] Given the younger generations growing influence as the baby boomers, Silent Generation and Greatest Generation age and pass on, I don't think politicians can ignore social networking websites. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:07, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

Those are interesting observations about a few politicians. I don't think any of them, however, have embraced [[Facebook]] as their primary platform as much as [[Obama]] and [[Palin]] have. Also, note that the long-term effects of the above efforts are not contrary to what the entry suggests: DeMint has not run for president, Gingrich is running but is struggling to gain credibility, and Brown's popularity may have been short-term, just as the entry observes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
::Here is an interesting article: [http://e-strategyblog.com/2009/01/barack-obamas-online-fundraising-machine/ Obama's online fundraising machine] I think it is reasonable to believe that the social media websites drove some of that money to Obama's coffers. I don't think Obama's Facebook outreach is going to be a cause of his political demise though and I don't think it has hurt him so far and it is rather the economy that has suppressed his favorability numbers. I also don't see Facebook hurting Jim DeMint. More importantly, for the last 30 years most American Presidents kept piling onto the Federal deficit. Obama is continuing that tradition and even more so than G.W. Bush. However, I think the effects of a growing US Federal deficit, the continuing deindustrialization of the US, the failed liberal education system and the rotting inner portions of many US cities is coming to a head and Obama is going to be left holding the bag in 2012 and not be re-elected due to a deteriorating economy. Furthermore, if there is a financial meltdown during Obama's term, I think he will be painted as another Herbert Hoover. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:59, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:::As far as Sarah Palin, I think what hurts her is that she has to be willing to crack open the books and learn foreign policy issues and I agree with George Will that America is ideological conservative and operationally liberal in many cases and they don't want the domestic austerity tough medicine that Palin believes needs to be done. Also, I think financial realists like Rand Paul and Ron Paul supporters don't believe that Palin is going to cut the military budget. I also think many people are turned off because she did not finish her term as Alaska governor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:18, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

== Citations ==

<nowiki>[Facebook is] contributing to a large number of divorces: 80% in one report<ref>http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_updates-on-social-networking-sites-cause-divorce-survey_1551319</ref> and 20% in an earlier report.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6857918/Facebook-fuelling-divorce-research-claims.html</ref></nowiki>

It may have taken only 8 sec to find these citations, but that's when the real work starts: it's not enough to just skim an article, you have to really read it, weigh its credibility and eventually check its source for yourself as journalists tend to be notoriously sloppy. This wasn't done for the above citations, and so they became a textbook example of what-can-go-wrong-with-citations.

=== the 20% figure ===
''Mark Keenan, Managing Director of Divorce-Online said: "I had heard from my staff that there were a lot of people saying they had found out things about their partners on Facebook and I decided to see how prevalent it was I was really surprised to see 20 per cent of all the petitions containing references to Facebook. ''

That's where the 20% figure pops up. You are not the only to fall for it:

''The confusion crested last week when Perry Drake, senior manager of media relations for Loyola University Health System in Chicago, put together a news release touting a Loyola psychologist's expertise on relationships and social media. Finding the 1-in-5 figure online, Mr. Drake led the news release with the headline: "Don't let your marriage be among the 1 in 5 destroyed by Facebook." ''

This is from an article in the [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194563288753204.html Wallstreet Journal] which checked the 1-in-5 number:
''The 1-in-5 number originated with an executive at an online divorce-service provider in the U.K. Mark Keenan, managing director of Divorce-Online, which allows Britons to file uncontested divorces at low cost, had just launched the company's Facebook page and wondered what role Facebook has in precipitating divorces. After determining that the word "Facebook" appeared in 989 of the company's 5,000 or so most recent divorce petitions, he had Divorce-Online issue a news release in December 2009 stating "Facebook is bad for your marriage." Mr. Keenan acknowledges that his company's clients aren't necessarily representative of all divorces, and he adds that his firm never claimed that Facebook actually causes 20% of divorces. "It was a very unscientific survey," Mr. Keenan says.''

So, this number is bogus.

=== the 80% figure ===
Source: DNA India. Not a publication you find in the list of [[Essay:Best News Sources]]. The figure is so incredibly high that one should have doube-checked it in the first place, using a more trustworthy source. But you won't find one: Why? Well, reading not only the first sentence of the article, but also the second, we get:

''Did you know the innocuous updates have been fodder for 80% of marriages crumbling across the globe? A survey released by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers last year, pointed out that 81 per cent of divorce lawyers had lifted off information like status messages, posts on a friend’s walls, photos, comments or even tweets from Facebook and Twitter in the previous five years as grounds for divorce. ''

Obviously an example of bad journalism! The alarmistic first sentence is not confirmed by the by the second one: Not 80% of all marriage are destroyed by social media, but 80% of all divorce layers used this media. It isn't said whether they do so in all their cases - or perhaps only occasionally. And, more important, they do so to lift information. If your lawyer bills you for looking up your wife's lover in the yellow pages, you don't state that ''phone-books destroyed our marriage''.

So, reading these sentences should have been enough to discard the source - and to have a look where it got its news. That's not complicated: it took it from a [http://www.aaml.org/about-the-academy/press/press-releases/e-discovery/big-surge-social-networking-evidence-says-survey- press release] of the AAML, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers:

''An overwhelming 81% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys say they have seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence during the past five years, according to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). ''

So, networking evidence is used in an increasing number of divorces. That's all. And that is no surprise. But again, it doesn't say that facebook even contributed to the divorces.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:03, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I see pros and cons to social media. I do think that insufficient parental supervision is a big factor in many cases of it being abused when it comes to young people. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 11:48, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

==Twitter==
As a user of both services, I find Twitter to be much less personal and not social networking like. A feed is a good description of activity at Twitter. It's like having a latest in the news page. URL links are predominately of news stories. While both Twitter and Facebook share some characteristics, such as ego trip to gain more followers, Twitter is not a place to hang out hours upon end; no games, no built-in picture exchange (must use 3rd party services for this), hardly any compilation of personal data, no advertising. I do take exception to this statement,

''"facebook pages or twitter feeds, where the near-total absence of conservative voices allows the most absurd nonsense to be applauded by 'followers'." ''

I seek out and friend only conservatives. Absurd nonsense is frowned upon and you know you are in the wrong when followers leave you. I do feel much of the information presented is repetitive. If you are anti-Obama such as me and you friend like-minded individuals, a steady feed of negativity is present day after day. Does the good outweigh the bad? The jury is out.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:08, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

HBO

2011-06-27T22:27:22Z

StevenAA: adding shows

'''HBO''', an abbreviation of '''H'''ome '''B'''ox '''O'''ffice, is a non-standard cable television network. As a dedicated provider, not intermixed with [[broadcast]] television, HBO faces comparably low restrictions on content, [[obscenity]], [[profanity]], and other decency regulations, and uses its freedom to create television shows with a more ''[[film noir]]'' feel to them.

Examples of programming include:
*''Rome'' - a show chronicling the rise of [[Augustus Caesar]], from the death of [[Julius Caesar]], to the death of [[Marc Anthony]]. The show ran two seasons to critical acclaim. Profanity, nudity, and sexuality are common.
*''Big Love'' - a [[drama]] following the lives of a [[polygamy|polygamist]] [[Mormon]] family in [[Utah]], struggling to differentiate themselves from a family history that connects them with an abusive polygamist compound. The show, while ''prima facie'' glorifying polygamy, instead seeks to prove that it is impossible to practice in a principled manner. Profanity and sexuality are common.
*''True Blood'' - a [[dramedy]] in which Vampires walk among humans as equals, made possible through artificial blood called "True Blood". There are also werewolves and witches. The show tries heavily to decunstruct the conservative Southern States of the USA, tools in this are sex, obsenity, profanity, murder. Christian are portayed as moronic fanatics. In the show evolution is a fact.
*''Treme'' - A [[drama]] portraying the problems of the people of [[New Orleans]] after the [[Hurricane Katrina]].
*''Sex and the City'' - the name says it all. The show has no basis other then sexual "adventures" of four New Yorker women in there mid-thirties. Two follow-up movies were produced.
*''In Treatment'' - a daily drama about a psychologist and it's patients.
*''The Sopranos'' - a drama about an Italian-American [[mobster]] family. Often credited for the developement of the "Quality Television Series".

[[category:Entertainment]][[Category:Television]]

North Korea

2011-06-27T17:24:44Z

StevenAA: /* Anti-American and other propaganda */ link to actual propaganda

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It is ruled by self-absorbed dictator and 'Dear Leader' [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the 'Great Leader' [[Kim Il Sung]].

* They suffer from an incredible blackout of knowledge about the outside world. The control on the population exceeds anything the world has seen to date. [http://significatojournal.com/help-the-world/freedom-human-rights/north-korea-the-prison-nation]

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its "Supreme People's Assembly" is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament. [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/]

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual "news" and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Il]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership; in contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anethesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily "sightseeing spots for foreigners." KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshipping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the KWP and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-il--General Secretary of the KWP; Supreme Commander of the People's Armed Forces; Chairman of the National Defense *Commission; son of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to D.P.R.K. Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propogate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim and his son, Kim Jong-il. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South started the Korean war and that the North was victorious.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

An extensive collection of North Korean propanganda, most of them Anti-American, can be found [http://www.nikopopp.com/NorthKoreanPropaganda/ here].

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialled on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to De-nuclearizethe Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU Documentary on current conditions in North Korea]
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Hangul

2011-06-27T17:12:15Z

StevenAA:

'''Hangul''' (''hangeul'') is the [[alphabet]] used today to write [[Korean language|Korean]].

It was introduced by [[King Sejong]] in the 15th century in an effort to increase literacy. Sejong boasted that a clever person could learn Hangul in a day, while a fool could learn it in a week. However, Hangul wasn't widely used until the early 20th century.

In [[South Korea]], Hangul is used alongside [[Chinese characters]], or ''[[Hanja]]'' in Korean. However, in [[North Korea]], only Hangul is used to write Korean as Chinese characters are not allowed in official publications, beacuse they are seen as "bourgeois".

[[Category: Alphabets]]
[[Category: Korea]]

Korean language

2011-06-27T17:09:04Z

StevenAA: usage of chinese characters

'''Korean''' ([[Hangul]]: 한국어; [[Hanja]]: 韓國語; ''Hangugeo'') is a language spoken by all the people in [[Korea]] and a few million other people all over the world, especially in the [[United States]], [[China]], and the former [[USSR]].

Korean has no known language that it is related to, possibly except [[Japanese language|Japanese]]. It is often classified as an [[Altaic languages|Altaic language]], because of it being an agglutinative language.

It is written in the [[Hangul]] alphabet, which was created by [[Sejong|King Sejong]] in the 15th century to increase literacy. However, hangul wasn't formally adopted until the early 20th century. Sometimes, Korean uses [[Chinese character]]s (''hanja''), which are most commonly used in personal names on name tags and signs and historical texts. They are also used to specify the meaning of certain words because the corresponding writing in Hangul is unclear.

==See Also==
*[[Japanese language]]
*[[Korea]]
*[[Altaic languages]]

[[Category: Altaic languages]]
[[Category: Korea]]