Talk:Main Page/archive73

I didn't check who added that section, but really, less is more. Especially when every sentence contains at least one of the names:

Conservapedia's Richard Dawkins article is approaching 200,000 views! Will atheist Richard Dawkins accept Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's gracious offer for a debate rematch before Conservapedia's Richard Dawkins article reaches 200,000 views? Considering that Richard Dawkins lost a public debate to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and then claimed that the debate never took place , the rabbi's offer to once again debate Mr. Dawkins is quite generous. According to Rabbi Boteach, Mr. Dawkins has yet to respond to the offer to have a second debate. Is Mr. Dawkins afraid he would lose a second Dawkins-Boteach debate as well? WorldNetDaily wrote regarding the Dawkins-Boteach debate: "In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed..."

(I could've gone further and highlight the word "rabbi" every time, too.)

The debate thing is an interesting factoid, but it's too long a story to fit into a brief news blurb. It's too complicated and longwinded to actually make people go "Wow!"

I would cut it off after the "200,000 views?" bit and wikilink the "gracious off for a debate rematch" to the according section in the Dawkins article. It's called teasing, and it serves to make people interested. --RonyB 20:55, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I've trimmed it down, although not as much as your last paragraph suggests! I've removed duplicate references, trimmed the wordiness, and removed a sentence and word saying that the offer of a second debate was 'generous' and 'gracious'. I don't know how we can characterise an opportunity for Dawkins to lose again as either of them! Philip J. Rayment 02:46, 22 February 2009 (EST)

PJR, Dawkins is not worthy to unloose the latchet of Boteach's shoe, let alone lose a debate to him again.  :) I personally find the debate offer to Dawkins quite generous. :) By the way, have you read what some of the bloggers have said about the proposed Dawkins-Craig debate?[1][2] conservative 04:33, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The Main Page today appears to accuse a former Congressman, Gary Condit, of conspiracy to murder Chandra Levy. Is that intentional? --TonySidaway 11:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, it does come just shy of accusing him, but strangle enough, the linked article practically exonerates him. Mixed message? --ShawnJ 14:39, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Strangle enough, eh?--TaroMasuki 23:50, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The article made the question, based upon confessions allegedly made to an inmate. What could make the plot thicken, so to speak, would be a simple check on whether or not a wire transfer of $25,000 was made to the suspect's family in El Salvador. Karajou 01:05, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It seems too speculative to me, because no reputable news source suggests it. For an encyclopedia, which after all has to look to the long term and not just the next edition, to be advancing wilder suggestions than the newspapers, doesn't seem to sit well with the mission of encyclopedias in general, or Conservapedia in particular. --TonySidaway 07:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I'd like to suggest that items posted in the "News" section focus more on things that have happened than speculation about what might happen. In the instance of the CMI headline, for example, there's the following text:

"Will Creation Ministries International have a bone crushing main article on atheism which utterly refutes the claptrap of atheistic thought and will this happen soon?"

That is speculation, not news, and it's premature to describe a forthcoming article as "bone crushing" or "utterly refuting the claptrap of atheistic thought" until the article actually comes out for readers to evaluate. There's no need to censor all mention of this topic, but it would be more professional and appropriate to simply stick to the known facts and state that "Conservapedia has learned that CMI is planning to publish major articles critiquing atheism and agnosticism, and will provide updates on this as soon as these articles are available." --DinsdaleP 14:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

If I am not mistaken, there were similar complaints about my predictions concerning the Conservapedia atheism article and its likely future status at a very popular search engine. By the way, if you see the atheist Bill Gates of MSN fame, tell him Conservapedia says hi! conservative 23:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

My point was that there is a difference between speculation and news. When something happens, report it as news, but to populate the "News" section of the main page with speculation about what may happen because people here want to see it is not news, and detracts from the professionalism of the site. It would be better to establish a distinct "Op-Ed" section, or for items like this, a distinct section called "Conservative Trends To Watch". Just a constructive suggestion. --DinsdaleP 09:10, 23 February 2009 (EST)

This site is risking a libel accusation by describing Heath Ledger as a "drug abuser" in its news headline. The official cause of his death was an accident caused by a mix of prescription drugs. [3] People who have accidents are not abusers, they had accidents, and this characterization should be removed unless hard evidence is provided to back it up. Frankly, it's more appropriate to characterize Rush Limbaugh as "drug abuser Rush Limbaugh", but because he's a conservative icon that would never happen despite his hypocrisy in speaking out against drug use while concealing his own addiction. --DinsdaleP 09:22, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It isn't libel if the person is dead. However you have a point about the cause of death. --TonySidaway 09:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Good point about the law. That doesn't make the characterization any less wrong, though, and I hope the headline is corrected to remove the "drug abuser" reference. --DinsdaleP 09:50, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Checking the news reports, the finding was "accident, resulting from the abuse of prescription medications", so to that extent Ledger was found to have abused drugs, at least as far as the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York is concerned. [4]--TonySidaway 12:45, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Good research, TonySidaway. My reading of the reference you provided is that the situation was more complex than simple drug abuse, and many questions remain. If the term "drug abuser" is to stay on the front page (and I would not characterize it quite that way), we should at least add the reference that TonySidaway has provided, to explain/justify the use of the term. This is a real person, who left behind loving parents and a beautiful young child, and we should be careful not to imply something negative for which the evidence is unclear. --Hsmom 13:40, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I have several problems with the unnecessary insults being leveled against Heath Ledger in the news page. Ledger was being recognized for his skill in performing a role, not for living a perfectly moral life. The headline is equivalent to those who tried to demonize Charlton Heston because of his opposition to gun control, which I also found entirely tasteless. I actually respect the Academy more for giving Ledger the win. They are usually rather snooty when it comes to comic book film adaptations, but in my opinion Ledger was absolutely brilliant in his performance. --Nicholas 13:27, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The real demonstration of liberal Hollywood elitism at the Oscars was in the nominations, not the people. The exclusion of immensely popular movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man (both of which showed the maturity of the comic book movie genre, something the Academy should be more forthright in acknowledging) and more lighthearted fare like Tropic Thunder and WALL-E (with a lampoon of Hollywood elitism and corruption in Tropic Thunder, and a warning about the dangers of government control of corporations in WALL-E) shows how isolated from mainstream society the Academy has become. In the good old days, everybody had already seen the Best Picture nominees before they were announced because they were popular movies that the public liked. Movies like E.T., Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Braveheart would never become contenders for Best Picture nowadays because of the elitism and isolation of Hollywood's actors, writers and directors. Rather than leveling repetitive attacks on the more prolific of Hollywood liberals, we should emphasize how far Hollywood has moved away from America. --Ampersand 15:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ampersand, based on the passion with which you defend the comic genre in Hollywood, can I guess that your name is a nod to "Y:The Last Man"? --Nicholas 10:11, 24 February 2009 (EST)

• It always amazes me how liberals will wiki lawyer the truth, refusing to allow anything done by their idols to be called what it was. Ledger, plain and simple, abused prescribed narcotics. Taking pills or substances, in amounts greater than, or more often than instructed, is abuse. Your spinning it notwithstanding, your parsing words that normal people will not do, is a glaring example of liberal deceit. Millions of people take drugs, potentially dangerous ones, according to their directions, every day. I suggest you busy yourselves watching re-runs of Perry Mason, instead of trying to parse and spin the truth. According to all reports, Ledger was a troubled young man. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 10:50, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, Ledger was troubled. Which is sad in my opinion. He overdosed on prescription medication, which resulted in his death. It was prescription drug abuse, no doubt, but any speculation as to whether it was intentional or not is just that, speculation. But that is beside the point of my argument. The award was not given to Ledger as a commentary on his life choices, Jerry Lewis received that particular award. Ledger received an Oscar recognizing his excellence in a role. I believe he deserved it. Whether or not Ledger's performance was worthy of the award is of course a matter of opinion and debatable, but using a dead man's final accomplishment as ammunition against an unrelated topic is just in bad taste.--Nicholas 12:53, 24 February 2009 (EST)

When I see liberals saying as much to the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, perhaps then some change will come, Nicholas. But so long as liberals seek to hold conservatives to a higher standard than they do themselves, I doubt much change will come. The awards given out, like to Penn, merely reflect Hollywood Values, which have proved to be ones not shared by the majority of Americans, witness the dismal financial returns of George Clooney's and Michael Moore's latest yawns. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:35, 24 February 2009 (EST)

This headline contains an inaccuracy due to misunderstanding of the fostering procedures in England and Wales: "Decisions by socialized healthcare officials can kill you. British hospital places HIV children in the care of foster parents."

The link refers to a case in which, according to the cited source, Newham Council social services department withheld information about children's HIV status when fostering them out. British hospitals do not allocate children to foster parents. --TonySidaway 09:28, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The article states the Newham council (social workers) of Newham hospital in regards to lying and drug treatments. Noted and I will change. --jpatt 09:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Newham Hospital is not run by Newham Council. Councils do not run hospitals in the UK. An independent body known as Newham University Hospital NHS Trust runs the hospital. The council took the decision to withhold the information, apparently in an interpretation of Article 8 (Privacy) of the ECHR. What has confused you, I think, is the involvement of the Child Protection department at Newham Hospital. --TonySidaway 09:47, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Indeed, you may be correct. My angle is the "right of the mother's confidentiality about her HIV". That is the hospital records (state control) in collusion with social services (state control), urging privacy priority over the well being of the foster parents. Unless someone differs with that conclusion (other than you), I will not be making any further changes.--jpatt 10:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I don't object to that interpretation (it's a matter of opinion). However the reference to "Decisions by socialized healthcare officials" is inaccurate because the decision in question was made by social services. One might refer to "Decisions by social services officials", and this would make the headline at least factually accurate. --TonySidaway 12:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Decisions by socialized healthcare officials can kill you. In Britain, HIV children are placed in the care of foster parents. In political correctness gone nuts, the parents aren't notified of the children's condition. ' Putting the human right of the mother's confidentiality about her HIV status above the right of the foster carers to know is wrong. It's playing Russian roulette with people's lives.' [13]

I have a different issue with this item. It states, In Britain, HIV children are placed in the care of foster parents. I cannot imagine that this is true - that all children who may be HIV+ are placed in foster care. I assume that this child was placed in care because his parents were unable or unfit to care for him, irrespective of his HIV status. In addition, I believe that the phrase HIV children should be HIV+ children. In addition, this item states In political correctness gone nuts, the parents aren't notified of the children's condition. This reads as if the nationwide policy is that foster parents not be notified, but in my reading of the article it seems like this was a situation where a single council interpreted the guidelines wrongly, rather than this being a standard policy across Britain. This is an interesting and important item, but it needs to be rewritten to be more accurate. --Hsmom 13:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

TonySidaway is perfectly correct. Social Services and the NHS are two entirely seperate organisations, structered differently and funded differently. Social Services is a Local Government service (i.e. run by the local council); Hospitals, clinics, surgeries, etc; come under the umbrella of the local Health Authority which answers directly to National Government, not Local Government. As to the importance of the difference in this regard—by statute the hospital cannot (ever, except when a court order is made specifically to the contrary) give out information regarding the health of mother or child if the mother witholds consent for that information to become known (because of patient confidentiality), Social Services has the discretion to realease that information to the relevant people, should they believe it necessary.--Ieuan 13:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

HsMom is right--I hadn't realised until now that the main page contained such a glaring error. Of course HIV positive children in the UK remain with their parents, just as any other child, as long as their parents are able to look after them. --TonySidaway 14:08, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Jpatt - Thanks for changing HIV to HIV+. The sentence In Britain, HIV+ children are placed in the care of foster parents. still needs to be changed. It implies that all HIV+ children are placed in care, because they are HIV+, but that is not the case. HIV+ children, like HIV- children, are placed in care when their parents are unable, unwilling, or unfit to care for them. Here's my suggestion to improve the item. I've changed Britain to East London because the practice does not seem to be nation-wide.

Decisions by socialist officials can kill you. In East London, in a case of political correctness gone nuts, foster parents aren't notified that a child in their care is HIV+. ' Putting the human right of the mother's confidentiality about her HIV+ status above the right of the foster carers to know is wrong. It's playing Russian roulette with people's lives.' [5]

Note also that the article does not mention whether the Newham council is in fact socialist. I realize that the medical system in Britian is socialist, but as I read the article, it was not the medical professionals but instead the social workers who work for the Newham council in East London who made the decision. Thus we do not know if the sentence Decisions by socialist officials can kill you accurately reflects the situation.
(FYI - babies born to HIV+ mothers often test positive for HIV, but they may or may not actually BE positive. The test looks for antibodies, and an HIV+ mother could pass these antibodies to her child in the womb even if the baby does not contract HIV, so the antibodies can be present even in a child who is not HIV+. As the article says, it takes about 18 months for the antibodies from the mother to pass from a baby's system, so the baby's true HIV status cannot really be determined until then. Of course, if a baby tests HIV+, it is wise to take precautions so as not to spread the disease, even if the baby may in the end not be HIV+.)--Hsmom 08:46, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I made changes accordingly, testing accuracy.--jpatt 22:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Decisions by socialist institutions can kill you. In London, HIV+ children are placed in the care of foster parents. In political correctness gone bizarro, the parents aren't notified of the children's condition, putting entire families at risk. ' Putting the human right of the mother's confidentiality about her HIV+ status above the right of the foster carers to know is wrong. It's playing Russian roulette with people's lives.' [6]

jpatt, I love your use of the term "bizarro" - very colorful. I also like your addition of putting entire families at risk. However, the first and second sentences still have problems. 1) Is the Newham council a "socialist institution"? That wasn't clear in the article - they could be Tories for all we know - more research would be needed to determine the political persuasion of the council. Perhaps it should be changed to Decisions by social workers can kill you. 2) Are HIV+ children routinely placed in the care of foster parents, solely because they are HIV+? The article does not imply that's the case, but our item implies that it is. You could simply change it to "some HIV+ children", which would make it clearer. Let's get this one right - it's an important story. --Hsmom 17:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry Hsmom, I have to disagree on further changes. Regardless of the party in control (e.g. Tories), the underlying story is about Newman council decisions and this is in fact a government agency, a.k.a. in the U.K. as a socialist institution, see http://www.newham.gov.uk/ Also, the article states 'This happens all the time and it's putting foster carers and their children at terrible risk.' --jpatt 12:06, 26 February 2009 (EST)

1) The Newham mayor, councilpeople, and MP's are almost all Labour. I couldn't find any from the Socialist party. I think "Labour" would be a much more specific, accurate term than "socialist". To characterize all of Britain's government as socialist seems like calling all of the US's government Democrat, which I don't think would be accurate.

2) The way I read the article, "This happens all the time" refers to the HIV+ status of children who are in care not being disclosed. It does NOT imply that children who are HIV+ are routinely taken into care solely because of their HIV+ status. This part: In London, HIV+ children are placed in the care of foster parents. In political correctness gone bizarro, the parents aren't notified of the children's condition, putting entire families at risk. should be re-written to remove the inaccurate sentence, for example like this: In political correctness gone bizarro, London foster parents aren't notified of their foster children's HIV+ condition, putting entire families at risk.

At this point, I realize it probably won't be changed. --Hsmom 13:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)

My favorite Mom here. I would be willing to change if you propose a rewrite, for the record. I still do not wish to change Socialist, it is accurate. I would classify Welfare programs in the U.S. as socialist institutions as well. I would even label President Roosevelt a socialist president. We in Wikiproject:News want to be accurate. We need your input HSMom, team player! --jpatt 14:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)

How's this for a compromise? I've given up on the socialist issue (I guess I can see your point of view), changed the HIV+ part (to my version), and cleaned up the punctuation. It's ready to cut-and-paste. Thanks for your enthusiasm! --Hsmom 15:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)

---

Decisions by socialist institutions can kill you. In political correctness gone bizarro, London foster parents aren't notified of their foster children's HIV+ condition, putting entire families at risk. "Putting the human right of the mother's confidentiality about her HIV+ status above the right of the foster carers to know is wrong. It's playing Russian roulette with people's lives."[7]

---

Upon first glance, the "in the news" page seems to be a mix of opinion pieces (news + reaction to it) and real news ("just the facts, m'am"). To improve the "In the News" section to make it more true to its name, you might consider splitting the right column into two pieces, one (the upper half) labeled "In the News," and containing only news stories, and one (the lower half) labeled "Conservative Thought," and containing opinion pieces from American Thinker, etc.-LuciusF 18:34, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I am getting sick of reverting the edits of User:LysMarie. Can someone get rid of her/him/it!? AlanE 00:31, 24 February 2009 (EST) Thanks Terry AlanE 00:37, 24 February 2009 (EST)

• It was, as usual, a return visit, from the same IP as another vandal blocked a couple of days ago. Iowa State University. ;-) --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Saw this on Fox News today, and it sickened me. Northern Trust, a Chicago bank that had received bailout funds to the tune of about 1.6 million bucks, sponsored a golf tourney last week. The catch: three massive parties totaling one million. TMZ caught it on video: here's the link. JY23 12:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Pretty pathetic. --DinsdaleP 13:00, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Agreed. Very out-of-touch. --Hsmom 13:14, 27 February 2009 (EST)

[8] --Brendanw 14:16, 24 February 2009 (EST)

When you read the thread it's pretty clear that Dawkins does not think Comfort is sincere in his offer, which is why he raised the stakes to discourage him. Without supporting or attacking Dawkins' action, he has a valid reason for not taking Comfort seriously. That's because Comfort approached the show "20/20" with an offer to debate an atheist group in front of a live audience, relying only on "hard evidence" and not the Bible to prove that God exists. The "debate" turned out to be a rehash of Comfort's standard sermon, and much of his "non-Biblical" evidence were references to scripture and the Ten Commandments. In short, Comfort got himself a lot of free publicity and national airtime for preaching by promising a debate instead of preaching, and then going back on his word. As for asking for a fee, even ASchlafly insisted on a good-faith sum of money to be pledged upfront before he would engage in a public debate with a liberal law student. Since I doubt folks here would accuse ASchlafly of insisting on this condition as a way of evading an open debate, it seems like Dawkins deserves the benefit of the doubt given Comfort's bait-and-switch history. --DinsdaleP 16:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Does this:

Message to Richard Dawkins: When are you going to take Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's offer to a debate rematch? [1][2] Conservapedians would love to see Rabbi Boteachyou pummel you a second time in debate! [3][4]

really qualify as news? It would be news if Dawkins had stated today that he would or wouldn't be engaging in a debate, but to ask him whether he will is certainly not news. RobertWDP 17:56, 24 February 2009 (EST)

[9] The presidents inspiring talk of regulations and liberal policies doesn't seem to fool this GOP gov. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 08:29, 25 February 2009 (EST)

What's interesting is that given the opportunity to spotlight himself as a new leader for the Republican party by delivering the response to President Obama's speech, Governor Jindal appears to have left many unimpressed, including prominent conservatives:

"Conservative commentators were among the harshest critics, calling Mr. Jindal’s delivery animatronic, his prose “cheesy” and his message — that federal spending is not the answer to the nation’s economic problems — uninspired."

Republican political strategist David Johnson had noted that “Republicans are looking for a voice to lead them out of the wilderness”, but that Governor Jindal's performance when given the chance to be that voice was "a flop". Perhaps the Governor should focus more on having a message that resonates better than President Obama's before he criticizes him. --DinsdaleP 11:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Of course, I know that this is an issue that appears periodically on the site, but why was there never any question about McCain's birth certificate? Or even Former President Bush's? Regardless of whether or not he was born in Hawaii is a moot point considering the fact that his Mother was a citizen of the US, and his father had residence in the country (therefore making him a citizen by birth).

the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States [10]

(Note: I think the language has been changed slightly since then, but the basic idea behind it remains the same) --PatrickMJMF 14:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)

There was some mild debate about McCain's status as a natural born citizen, since he was born in Panama, albeit at a US Naval Hospital, which I think qualifies as US soil. There was even less credibility to that debate than there was to the debate about Obama's citizenship (and I view that as having very little credibility.) ArthurA 14:36, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The eligibility of Senator McCain was the subject of a lawsuit brought by Markham Robinson of the California Independent Party, which was tossed by a federal judge last September, on the merits and lack of standing. [11] --TonySidaway 17:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The Canal Zone was considered United States territory until transferred by treaty to Panama; furthermore the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, any United States military base overseas is considered U.S. territory, and anyone born within them are considered natural-born citizens. Karajou 19:58, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The story about Citigroup currently reads as follows:

Banking Bailout Madness Failed Citigroup will be getting more taxpayer dollars courtesy of the Obama Administration. The result will be to save 11,000 jobs... in the U.K.

Citigroup employs far more than 11,000 employees--in November the corporation reported that it had some 300,000 employees worldwide.

On bailouts, Citigroup received $25 billion in October, and has received a further $20 billion to try to bolster the falling share value.

The story cited [12], from the British tabloid, the Daily Mail, is about a report in the Wall Street journal suggesting that the government might be planning to convert a substantial part of that $45 billion--which is already in the bank's hands and had already been committed to the bank when the President took office--into common stock in the bank, giving the government a say in the running of the bank. [13]. Readers will recall that in September the government took an 80% stake in AIG, an insurance company.

While the British tabloid slanted the story to play up the British angle (non-Americans work for the foreign branches of American banks), the report on Conservapedia incorrectly states that further cash is to be pumped into the bank in order to save 11,000 British jobs, and misses the fact that the story is about nationalization.

There is a story here which may be of interest to "small government" conservatives unhappy with the growth of government influence on industry and commerce in the wake of the credit crunch. That story is being lost because of the garbled version of the story now on the main page. --TonySidaway 17:29, 25 February 2009 (EST)

A tabloid story that sensationalizes something is not wrong. Look at our own tabloid when it came to John Edwards. While the govt increases its stake in Citigroup (with money already allocated AND additional new funds) via the taxpayer, the consequence is we bailout out 11,000 British jobs. Though you correctly assert other nations citigroup jobs are saved as well. This non-inclusion does not make the story inaccurate. --jpatt 12:18, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The tabloid story isn't doing any sensationalizing, it's just picking out the British angle to the story. However Conservapedia misinterprets that story and makes two inaccurate statements: that there is to be an injection of new cash, and that the result is solely to save 11,000 jobs in Britain. Conservapedia obviously should't make false statements on the front page. --TonySidaway 11:56, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Email me how you want it to read and I will ponder any changes. The wires all state that no additional taxpayer dollars are being used to take a 36% stake in citigroup. However, this is their third attempt at saving citigroup, the first two attempts were taxpayer-cash infusions. Citi has $300 BILLION in bad loans on the books. You are crazy to think that no future tax dollars will be required. America is just throwing away money on this problem. Let's be honest with the readers, Obama's title now includes creating or saving thousands of international jobs.--jpatt 12:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'd like to suggest a news story on the musical Rent. The quote from the theater teacher is what had me fuming the most. Here is what I added to the Rent article yesterday:

A student version of the musical has been released for high school drama clubs to perform. Though some sexual content and drug use had been partially removed (most notably the removal of a sexually explicit song), it was insufficient to meet community standards of decency. "Administrators or parents raised objections about the show's morality, its portrayals of homosexuality and theft, and its frank discussions of drug use and HIV" and performances of the musical have been cancelled at high schools in California, Texas and West Virginia. Reference: Stage Set for Controversy When Schools Put on 'Rent' San Diego Union-Tribune, February 20, 2009.

“

Ron Martin, the theater teacher and director at Corona del Mar High School in Orange County, found out how controversial Rent can be. It was canceled after he chose the student version for the spring musical, hoping it would counter what he saw as creeping homophobia on campus... "This is the first time I've chosen a show for the high school because I had an agenda," Martin said. "In this instance, having an agenda as a teacher didn't give me pause." (ibid)

”

-Foxtrot 03:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)

It's been greenlighted by the principal. [14] --TonySidaway 07:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

So the teacher has succeeded in pushing his liberal agenda. That's even worse! From the way this article and the earlier article read, I would guess that this principal had legitimate reservations about the play, but has been pressured by the PC/homosexual lobby (through the school board) to deny that she ever opposed the play. It's sad that standards of decency are silenced by those who can shout loudest. Did the supporters stop to consider there may be some people who don't want their impressionable children exposed to such lifestyles? They are the ones who are being discrimated against, since the school they are attending is supporting the lifestyle by staging this production. These students and their families have no choice but to be associated with the support, even though they are opposed. -Foxtrot 10:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm going to cast my ballot in support of this play being performed. I would be pleasantly surprised though if there were no protests. I'm sure the supporters did consider the oppositions view and, like reasoning individuals they are, reached these conclusions:

1. High school plays are performed on a voluntary basis. The involvement of cast, crew, and even audience is all left up to the individuals choice to be there. Nobody is forcing anybody to see, do, or be a part of anything they don't want to be. In fact, the story points out that the director is disappointed because some people she was hoping would act would not.
2. This version is a censored production, and even still, "Rent" doesn't "support" the homosexual lifestyle, or drug use. In case you never actually saw the play, it harps on the fact that reckless sexuality and drug use have very real consequences.
3. Any person who can use logic would know that just because a school allows a play to be performed doesn't mean that it supports the conduct of characters in the play. That argument makes about as much sense as saying that a school supports suicide by allowing the production of Romeo and Juliet.

Nobody is being discriminated against by allowing production of this play to occur. The families and students are free to show their opposition by simply not aiding in its production or attending the finished play. If there is enough lack of support, the play may not even make it to opening night. The message would be sent that such a play simply has no support there, and would dissuade any similarly controversial plays from being performed. That course would be infinitely preferable to simply banning a work of art outright because you disagree with its content, a form of conservative censorship that is embarassing every time it rears its head. --ShawnJ 12:23, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia doesn't have to take a position on this. Rent is a multi-award winning play with a massive cross-cultural significance. To make a big deal about this is like objecting to a performance of West Side Story because it features rape and murder. --TonySidaway 19:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

In the story about the ACLU and terrorism, the word "talking" in the following excerpt appears to be a grammatical error: "If Kuwaiti professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi succeeded in talking a terrorist to take advantage". I'm not sure what the intended sentence was meant to be, though. --DinsdaleP 09:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hard to tell. Perhaps the intended sense is "succeeded in convincing a terrorist to take advantage..." --TonySidaway 10:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I would think that warning my fellow Americans about a potential threat made possible by borders deliberately weakened by the ACLU is a lot more important than worrying about a minor grammatical error. Karajou 12:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Nobody suggested removing the article or dismissing its content. This was just a suggestion to resolve a grammar issue, and the fix can only come from someone with edit-rights for that part of the main page. --DinsdaleP 12:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, an atheist and worse, but I leave that at the door when I enter Conservapedia. Here all that matters to me is whether what Conservapedia says is factually correct and well stated. I apologise to Karajou for the offence--I just wanted to suggest wording that would be easier to understand. --TonySidaway 19:45, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Tony, virtually all that you've been doing here is talk, talk, talk, of a nit-picky nature. Then you seem to claim that you found "errors" in Conservapedia. I haven't seen a single insight from you yet.

We apply our 90/10 rule to nit-picky atheists too. You're in egregious violation of it. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'll take that as a suggestion that my comments are more welcome if made off-wiki. If I have content contributions, I'll make them on Wikipedia, not here, because I have more faith in their licensing policies. --TonySidaway 18:56, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Which leads to another question: If Kuwaiti professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi succeeded in talking a terrorist to take advantage of our unprotected borders along Mexico and killed 300,000 Americans with the four pounds of anthrax he was carrying, what would the ACLU do? As DinsdaleP and TonySidaway noted, there is something not-quite-right about this sentence as it was written. I think the original author (and I didn't look up who that was) might have left out a word, or made a change before posting without realizing that it affected another word, or something like that. We all do that from time to time, so it's a good thing that here on a wiki we can all help to catch each other's minor slip-ups!! I'd hate to have readers skip over this important item because they couldn't make sense of it due to a minor slip-up in typing. As Karajou mentioned above, warning Americans about a potential threat made possible by weak borders is important - we want to be sure the casual reader understands the item. Did the original author mean to write If Kuwaiti professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi succeeded in talking a terrorist into taking advantage? Or perhaps If Kuwaiti professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi succeeded in convincing a terrorist to take advantage (as TonySidaway suggested)? I'm not quite sure what the original author intended, but either one would probably do. Could someone with front-page edit powers please take a look and change the sentence appropriately? Thanks. --Hsmom 15:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Mr. Schlafly, for looking into this. The front page is our "first impression", and we should be careful to keep it in good shape. --Hsmom 19:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

maybe this isn't the right thing to go on teh news reel because its frankly not American, but none-the-less it is interesting http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090228/ap_on_re_af/af_zimbabwe;_ylt=AvRJgvB_3bOYnrxV4qjZmtlvaA8F

--IScott 22:27, 28 February 2009 (EST)

We have a "Weekly Featured Article," "Conservapedia's Highlighted Article," "Guest World Treasure," "Article of the Year," "Masterpiece of the Week," "The Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin" and a bunch of other things on the front page. Frankly, it's ugly. Any chance we could clean some stuff up? And could we start adding dates to our news articles?--DReynolds 00:51, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, how liberals love to censor and control!--Andy Schlafly 09:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I personally like the masterpiece of the week idea. ETrundel 09:24, 1 March 2009 (EST)

There's nothing wrong with having these features, but some rotation would be good, and some transparency in the selection process would be as well. The "Article of the Week" and "Masterpiece of the Week" features change on time, but when it was time to cycle the new "Article of the Month", it was renamed to the indefinite "Conservapedia's Highlighted Article" instead. There's nothing wrong with this, since the CP leadership has the final say regarding the Main Page content and layout. Instead of answering DReynolds with a derogatory accusation of censorship, could the answer have been simply along the lines of this:

"The Article of the Year and Featured Article are selected by the CP leadership to promote Conservative messages considered important here. If you have a recommendation for the Article of the Week it can be submitted here. Recommendations for the Masterpiece of the Week can be submitted here."

That would have answered the question in a professional, informative manner without any insults. --DinsdaleP 10:40, 2 March 2009 (EST)

It is sorta annoying to have so much stuff on it... ~Beth^Talk2ME 11:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Suggestion - reduce these sections down to links to the articles, instead of including excerpts and images from them on the Main page. The exception would be the Masterpiece of the Week, of course. --DinsdaleP 12:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

The headline about the assassination of the president of guinea-bissau is incorrect. The rogue military squad that killed the president was loyal to the army chief of staff who was killed hours earlier by men working for the president. In other words: President Vieira reportedly ordered the death of army chief of staff Tagme Na Waie. hours later, soldiers loyal to Tagme Na Waie attacked President Vieira's home, killing him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveWilliams (talk)

Please suggest how you want it to read.--jpatt 13:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I don't know how it should read, but i do know it shouldn't include factually incorrect information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveWilliams (talk)

New Mexico demands popular homeschool curriculum to be removed from public school classroom: "Less than three months remain in the school year, and an elementary school teacher might lose her curriculum because of its religious implications. Kathy Harper uses a curriculum purchased from ABeka Academy to teach the 21 students enrolled at Family Home School in Bloomfield. ABeka is a well-known Christian curriculum used in many home schools and private institutions."[15]

As a homeschooling mom, I've used ABeka in the past. For what it's worth, I think ABeka math gives a good grounding in basic calculation skills, but is poor in introducing the skills needed for higher level math work, and has very few problems that require multi-step problem solving. It may be good for students who will be using only basic calculations in the future and who have disabilities that limit their ability to understand more complex work; it does not foster the critical-thinking skills needed for true math literacy. Because of this, it's also unlikely that it meets the state standards. When I've taught homeschool students using ABeka, I've felt it necessary to supplement quite a bit with materials from other, more challenging sources. As to religious content, it consists mainly of word problems involving church scenarios. If I remember right, it may also include some Bible quotes placed here and there on the workbook pages. One could argue that although it is a Christian text, the Christian content can be easily overlooked by those who wish to ignore it and still use the text. ABeka language, specifically the grammar, is also problematic from an academic point of view. In this case, making an effort to include (KJV?) Bible quotes as example sentences to be analyzed, while laudable at first glance, actually makes it much more difficult for the kids, and not in a good way. When faced with such complex sentences, they can end up confused and discouraged, rather than challenged and inspired. I have found other grammar programs to be much more effective in showing the students good examples and giving them clear tools (rules of thumb, etc.) to analyze sentences. The ABeka grammar books I've used had considerable Biblical content woven throughout, and could not be considered secular books. Changing texts midstream will be difficult for this teacher and her students. --Hsmom 09:10, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Those are some insightful comments, Hsmom, and obviously come from a great deal of experience. What it got me wondering is if it would be a worthwhile project to start a series of articles on CP with recommended programs and materials for homeschooling. These should probably be organized under a distinct namespace for easy searching, and the core would be pages dedicated to subjects like math, grammar, American history, biology, etc., with subsections under each for the various grade levels. The content could be as simple as reviews of different programs and offerings with links to purchase or download them. There's nothing like this on CP and it would probably be a good addition for 2009. What are your thoughts? --DinsdaleP 10:14, 3 March 2009 (EST)

The attack on the Sri Lankan Test team happened in Lahore, at least 600 miles north of Karachi. Can the Main Page entry be changed, please. AlanE 14:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Fixed. --DeanS^talk 14:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

New Study says Breastfeeding Helps Prevent SIDS: A new German study says women who breastfeed lower their baby's chances of dying of SIDS; moms should be encouraged to breastfeed for at least 6 months.[16] Unfortunately, while breastfeeding rates are on the rise, still less than half of US babies are still breastfed at 6 months.[17]
--Hsmom 15:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)

March 1 On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities interrogated Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and an Indian slave, Tituba, to determine if they indeed practiced witchcraft. [13]
Articles of Confederation are ratified On this day in 1781, the Articles of Confederation are finally ratified. The Articles were signed by Congress and sent to the individual states for ratification on November 15, 1777, after 16 months of debate. [14]

I enjoy "This Day in History" items, although I think they really need their own little box, so we don't get them confused with current news items. However, I think the March 1 item should be removed, as it is 1) now out of date, and 2) not clearly labeled as historical.

Having read the linked article there seems to be some disconnect somewhere. According to the World Health Organisation's report, albeit last produced to cove the period up to 2000, the British healthcare system is ranked as 18th best in the world while the American healthcare system is ranked as 38th. They're old figures I know but I don't think things have changed that much since the report was produced. We all here in Britain know the NHS isn't perfect and could be improved but come on I doubt there are more than a tiny minority in the UK who would want to change it for a healthcare system whereby the treatment you get depends on your capacity to pay, as I understand is the case in America. If I'm wrong about the American system I apologise and look forward to being corrected. MickMc 07:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

You are wrong about the American system, which requires by law that emergency rooms treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. The WHO's liberal view is irrelevant and not credible. Many outside the U.S. flock to the U.S. to get care that is rationed in Canada, England, and elsewhere, and more than a "tiny minority" in England are despondent about its system. Just look at the facts quoted about it.--Andy Schlafly 08:09, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Just to be clear - I believe that, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), ER's are required to diagnose and stabilize a patient, and not send them home unless they are able to provide basic care for themselves, but my impression is that they would not, for example, be required to provide ongoing chemotherapy treatments for a cancer patient in the early stages of the disease. I'd be curious to know how many US citizens with cancer are under-treated due to lack of health insurance, and how that compares to the UK number. --Hsmom 08:37, 5 March 2009 (EST)

A couple of things. Where is this evidence of UK residents flocking to other countries to get medical care (except for elective cosmetic surgery, which are usually included in figures quoted). The UK runs a private system along side the NHS. If the NHS is so dreadful, then it would fade away because 'everyone' would go private not the 15% that I have seen quoted. Why hasn't this happened and do British Politicians see eradication of the NHS as political suicide? Also why does comparision alway go back to the UK & Canada, why not mention virtually every other industrialised country, which also has some form of 'Nationalised' health care? How are their services compared to the the US? --Nik77uk 16:49, 5 March 2009 (GMT)

First let me say that I do not support public health care in the states. That being said, the news item's subject is horribly incorrect as far as factual data is concerned. I have come to despise the media on all sides for actions represented in the linked article that twist facts into hideous parodies of what they once were in order to promote the journalist's views. There are very few honest journalists left in my opinion. I did not complete my research into the various claims of the article as the misinformation I found from even a cursory investigation caused me to lose my stomach for the process. In short, the article itself is an aberration of truth the extreme. (1.) It claims a "recent" study which is from the year 2000 and uses articles as citation which include statistics from 1978-1989. (2.) The news headline credits the "Head of the World Health Organization" as the source of the proceeding statistics. This is false. The statics given come from the editorial "Cancer Survival in Britain" written by Karol Sikora in 199 who was the Vice President of the clinical research (oncology) at the time and has never been the organization's head. It's the same as claiming one of the admins here, who posted four years ago, was the "Head of Conservapedia".

(3.) The news headline claims that "...The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care." Once again, this a the Conservapedia news headline, being taken from a Walter Williams article,"Sweden's government health care" which took it from "Delay, Denial and Dilution," by the IEA which took it from "Cancer survival in Britain" by WHO. It's like that middle school game where someone says a phrase at one end of the classroom and it is whispered down the line, person to person, until the end result is completely different from the original phrase. So why not just read the original article? Sikora takes the numbers from data collected during 1978-91989 and publishes the 25,000 figure in 1999. A news headline saying an organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year is like me saying that an organization found that Conservapedia has an average of only four hundred outside views a day...from a statistic taken a week after Conservapedia was made. (4.) "because of under provision of care" If you read the article cited then you will find the the reason behind the low number is not assured, but it is speculated. And the speculation is one of poor communication and practices, however that same article states that diagnosis is usually quick and accurate and that delays of more than 2 months between diagnosis and care are exceedingly rare, emphasizing that the medical system offers reasonable response time. He further states expectations of the average wait time dropping to 2 weeks within the year. The cited source for that portion gives evidence directly refuting the assesment of long wait times mentioned in the headline being a factor at all. But once again, that was nearly a decade ago, so it is currently an obsolete assesment. I did not bother checking up on the kidney dialysis point, as I said I lost the stomach. As for the rest, a truthful headline would be "Former Vice president of WHO's Oncology dept. estimated that from 1979-1989 UK's cancer survival rate was closer to Poland's rate than Germany's rate and was below standard. He further said that if the UK could establish the best treatment in Europe that 25,000 lives could be saved. He pointed the finger directly at cancer care quality and intergration" It's not as biting as what is currently posted but it has the befit of being 100% true. I am opposed to public health care in the US and I would love to see some real articles arguing the benefits of the privatized systems and the failings of the socialized system. The article posted, however, is pure hack. Apologies for spelling and grammatical errors, I was in a hurry.--Nicholas 15:47, 5 March 2009 (EST)

UK has low cancer survival rates.[18] Enough said.--Andy Schlafly 18:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't call 42-28% low when ours aren't much better [19], but I agree. We shouldn't be modeling our heath care system after the UK, we should model it after Sweden's.ShawnJ 21:52, 5 March 2009 (EST)

There are discussions in Britain from time to time about changing the system of payment for the health service, but they're always around the idea of changing to a system which is mostly funded by taxpayers with top-ups from private insurers, as in Sweden, Italy or New Zealand, or a system of compulsory insurance, as in France or Holland. It's not entirely clear why those five countries I mentioned have better healthcare than the UK, but it's notable that they all spend considerably more per capita on training doctors and nurses than we do. In any case, I can assure you it would be total political suicide for any party in Britain to suggest moving to the USA's type of health-care system. One in which the rich got the best possible healthcare while the poorest got very nearly nothing would be complete anathema here. FredFerguson 15:03, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Obama, who once promised transparency, begins his planned $1 trillion government takeover of the health system with a secret invitation list for a health care summit today.[20] "With the White House remaining tight-lipped on its invite list for today’s health care summit, business groups continued to scratch their heads Wednesday, wondering whether their invitations perhaps got lost in the mail."[21]
I thought readers might be interested in watching the streaming video of this summit, here. --Hsmom 15:01, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Did Obama ever release a list of who attended, and what their affiliations are?--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 5 March 2009 (EST)

here's a list of those expected to attend [22] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkornfeld (talk) -- 21:02, 5 March 2009

Thanks, liberal troll, but a piece about some who were expected to attend, isn't even close to the White House saying who was there, and who was invited. This is at least the third user name you have created with deceit to try to promote your transparent tactics to argue and obfuscate. Bye. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 00:27, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I found a pretty long list on the White House's web site (here) of people who were expected to attend, presumably because they were invited, along with their affiliations. It does not mention whether or not each of them actually attended, or if other people showed up. I hope this is helpful. --Hsmom 09:15, 6 March 2009 (EST)

That's a sanitized list at best. It's neither a complete list of those who were invited, nor a complete list of those who attended. It's awfully easy to post those complete lists, but Obama won't do it. His tactic is not fooling anyone here.--Andy Schlafly 09:47, 6 March 2009 (EST)

How do you know that this is not the complete list of those invited? According the page at the link provided by Hsmom "Below is a list of participants in each breakout group as well as all attendees." I would hate to think that the Office of the Press Secretary would publish such an easily provable falsehood (or indeed any falsehood, but for this I hold out less hope). AndyJM 09:50, 6 March 2009 (EST)

AndyJM, read first, then comment. The heading itself on the link indicates that it is merely people "Expected to Attend."--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Ok, I guess I'm not seeing the distinction between those "invited" and those "expected to attend". AndyJM 13:45, 6 March 2009 (EST)

In politics and business, "expected to attend" is usually a showcase, hitting the big or important names. "Invited to attend" is another misnomer at times as well. "Guest list" or "list of attendees" are usually just that. Remember nothing is sponsored by the White House without a complete, full and complete list of the names and Social Security numbers of all attendees (Secret Service requires such), so they have such a list, and anything published without all the names is deliberate. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 17:03, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Mr. Schlafly that the list I posted above may be neither a complete list of those who were invited, nor a complete list of those who attended. (1) As I read it, the list would not include anyone who was invited but turned down the invitation. (Though I think this group would be quite small, as being invited would be an important opportunity for most who work in this field.) (2) The list also may include include anyone who was expected to attend but did not, though again I would expect this group to be small. The list was published the day of the meeting, so it could only be "expected to attend" rather than "attended"; it wouldn't be certain who would actually attend until either everyone who was expected showed up, or the meeting ended. (3) Of course, if anyone unexpected showed up and was admitted, they would not have been on the list either. (4) It wouldn't, of course, include anyone who was there in a logistical capacity - CSPAN cameramen and such. --Hsmom 17:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

The Missouri House passed a law on 4-March to make it a felony to coerce anyone to have an abortion against their conscience/will by means of domestic violence or harassment. I read it in my paper that day, I don't remember the article title, though. JY23 19:04, 5 March 2009 (EST)

See my article on Fiscal Recapture for a discussion of why economists generally believe such a scenario to be based on faulty conceptions of the nature of the federal government's economic activity. --Economist 10:03, 7 March 2009 (EST)

You describe an interesting concept, but it is far from a complete safeguard against bankruptcy. Much federal debt is held by foreigners, who are not subject to "recapture". Moreover, there are political and constitutional obstacles to "recapture" from even U.S. citizens subject to taxation.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I don't deny that there can be serious costs associated with the incurring of debt, especially with debt held by foreigners (interest payments, loss of GDP, etc.), but this is separate from the question of whether bankruptcy (as the concept is generally understood for any other entity) is possible for the federal government. In other words, when a household or business becomes unable to cover its costs or manage its liabilities, it must effectively sell itself to cover the shortfall and subsequently cease to exist. Would the federal government ever compel itself to dissolve in order to effect a rapid repayment of its debts? Would any other nongovernmental entity be able to force such a dissolution? Probably not. --Economist 20:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

High school produces sadistic killer. [23] --Ṣ₮ёVeN 11:05, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Good catch. Notice how he was dressed in black. I've posted the news item, and next watch how liberals try to deny here the significance of his anti-Christian garb.--Andy Schlafly 11:32, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure about the wisdom of beating the drum of black clothing, given that many clergy (especially those from the Catholic and Orthodox churches), wear the same color, as do Benedictine monks if my memory serves me right.--Ieuan 12:40, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for serving the role of the liberal denier, Ieuan! The black clothing worn by youths is obviously serving a different purpose from that worn by clergy. Yes, intent does matter.--Andy Schlafly 12:42, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually my point had nothing to do with whether the shooter had an anti-christian motive or not. I was just warning that 'bad guys wear black hats' statements could leave Conservapedia and yourself open to a great deal of ridicule and derision. Hopefully it won't, but given that the possibility exists I felt it necessary to extend the piece of advice above. As owner of this site it is entirely up to whether you take that advice or not. Either way the consequences are yours to deal with, I have done my duty by pointing out the possiblity exists.--Ieuan 13:52, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Ieuan, the truth is sometimes ridiculed. That seems to impress you greatly, but we'll stick with the truth here. Thanks for your misplaced concern.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I find it fascinating that the one aspect of this event you choose to focus on is what the shooter was wearing, which you automatically equate to being anti-Christian. This information might not even be correct. According to the CBC, the shooter was dressed in ‘combat gear.’ So maybe you should wait for all the facts before you jump to conclusions. Oh wait, that is what conservapedia does. Maybe you could have focused on the fact that his father owned 16 guns, which is where he got guns used in the shooting. Oh wait, that would go against the ridiculous conservative insight of more guns leading to less crime. That’s another fascinating thing about the news feature, how you use tragic events like this to propagate your own ideologies. Enough is enough. – conservativedude.

Sarcasm and insults won`t convince anyone. ETrundel 14:28, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Fox News is reporting he wore black, CNN says "military gear", MSNBC says black (with "black combat fatigues" in a sidebar). ArthurA 14:32, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

"Conservativedude", your rant with your misleading name persuades no one. Most young mass murderers have been anti-Christians, just as this one was.--Andy Schlafly 16:30, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Though the rant was generally misinformed, I have to side with Ieuan on this topic. Black is a somber color, and has been in use by clergy, nuns, and other people of high standing and religious integrity long before this kid wore it to a shooting spree. 'Military' gear, as in the stuff purchased from a surplus store or outfitting store, usually comes in matte black as a rule. I would think he chose the outfit for function instead of belief. -- CodyH 16:55, 11 March 2009 [CST]

You may want to post this on the main page. A North Carolina judge has ordered home schooled students to attend public schools[24]--Saxplayer 11:17, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Tragic. this is partly the fault of, the mother, Venessa Mills, in her marrying the wrong husband. The judge probably would not have gotten away with taking homeschoolers rights if the father of this family stood in agreement with the mother. The results of their divorce will be felt in court cases, and affect homeschooling, for years to come. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:45, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Steven, you are correct about the tragic aspects of this case. It demonstrates why it is important that one make sure their spouse to be is a committed Christian. The ones being hurt here are the children, who will no doubt suffer irreversible damage after being exposed the substandard public school system dominated by liberals.--Saxplayer 12:54, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Is the anger about this about the kind of project that the money's being used for, or about the fact that it's named after Ted Kennedy? $5.8 million dollars seems like a pretty reasonable sum to contribute to building a museum - a project that will create many construction jobs in the short term, several long term jobs at the new facility, and a museum for the Senate (which, according to the article, will be geared towards Kennedy, but that's not that surprising in Massachusetts). I'm not an expert on the economy, but that seems like a project that will provide a decent boost for a relatively small sum. Do you guys disagree with using the money for a museum in general, or a museum that's named after and focuses on Ted Kennedy? Mikek 11:23, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

MikeK, your liberal bias is showing. I can tell, with 95% accuracy, that you are a liberal. Would these same Democrats shell out money for a museum in honor Ronald Reagan??? Or Barry Goldwater??? You need to open your mind and embrace conservative principals!!!--Saxplayer 11:31, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

You're right that I'm liberal, and I seem to be right that you object to the money going to the "Edward M. Kennedy Institute." I'd have no problem if the same money was going to the "George H. W. Bush Institute" in Texas, because it's still money going toward improving the economy in a way that provides lasting benefits. Mikek 11:35, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

MikeK, I doubt if you would want money to a "George H.W. Bush Institute." Liberals hate George H.W. Bush. You are engaging in deceit which is a well know liberal trait. --Saxplayer 12:27, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

SaxPlayer, he isn't saying that his views are what is important...What he is saying is that the construction of the building, whether it's Teddy's museum or a parking garage complex, will boost construction jobs in the country. Which, after hearing about the layoffs in Caterpillar Corporation, is some refreshing news, regardless of who the museum is for. -- CodyH 12:02 12 March 2009 (CST)

It looks like both sides have made their points. Now, how about contributing some content to this encyclopedia?--CPalmer 13:11, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

• Indeed, CPalmer! However, I would be dishonest if I didn't observe that I am 95% certain SaxPlayer will be blocked by day's end. Is that parody on my part? I wouldn't bet money on it. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:19, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Methinks MikeK is not the one engaging in deceit here. ETrundel 15:43, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

In my refreshed and renewed state (in spite of a mind-numbing two hour teleconference), ETrundel, you disappoint me! I am thinking both are the same, just arguing different sides. However, as CPalmer reminded them, the proof will be in their performance. Conservatives value those who actually accomplish something, as opposed to liberals who mostly value "feelings", attention and talk! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 16:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I gather from your post that your nap went well! ;) ETrundel 17:02, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Whether the United Nations wastes and mismanages money strikes me as a different thing than whether it's appropriate to criticize the United States for being over a billion dollars late on its promised dues payments. You appear to be criticizing the United Nations for its chutzpah in taking the US to task for not paying its bill. I can relate. As a staunch conservative, I am of course uncomfortable with the idea of a world government of any sort, but nonetheless I can't get past what appears to me to be the fact that moral consensus on some projects the United Nations undertakes is better than unilateral action, especially when any individual nation may lack the political or moral will to undertake such projects on its own. My point in bringing this up is that the news entry seems overly defensive, which detracts from the salient point I can tell you want to make. So what if the UN can be accused of being wasteful? The United States still promised to pay its bill. The interesting point is that the Obama administration bears all the responsibility for us being in the position of having to deal with a foreign debt collector calling us deadbeats. It's shameful. The outrage expressed by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen ought to be reported as part of the story, but is just confusing when it carries over into your characterization of the issue. MHaggerstrom 16:20, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

• Your post, MHaggerstrom, smacks of moral relativism. You ignore the fact that the United States has, for all of its existence, been the UN's major donor, contributing three times what all the other member nations have, combined! You or anyone else, pointing the finger at the United States is tantamount to a rapist passing moral judgment on someone for getting a divorce! Your "concern" for what the other members (dictatorships, debauched Euro-Socialistic states, and others suckling off the hand-outs of an overly-generous America) would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 16:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

What's the take away from your response? That I'm a moral relativist? Or a rapist? (This is too incendiary for polite discourse) I don't understand or appreciate the criticism, which I assume it is. I simply think the UN serves a valuable function, which you didn't address. So what if the US pays the lion's share of UN dues, if that's documented? That seems to be an entirely different proposition than whether it's OK for the United States to commit to paying dues, not do it, and then complain when someone takes us to task for the failure. We don't get to make the rules simply because some people think we occupy the moral high ground, including me. That idea, which you implicitly defend, seems more like moral relativism than my ambivalence about our participation in the UN. As does the rapist analogy. As Christians, we all sin. We all strive for a stronger connection with Christ. Are we somehow not entitled to teach our children how to live moral lives according to our values, notwithstanding our own personal failures? I'm glad there's no rule against me teaching my children the lessons I think they'll need to avoid some of the travails my own bad moral judgment caused when I was a much younger man.MHaggerstrom 16:53, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

• The "take-away", MHaggerstrom (or should I be calling you MikeH or SPQR?) is that you are another liberal, masquerading through deceit as a conservative. Your prior post here accurately reflects your views of this project. Bye. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 17:16, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

A North Carolina judge Ned Mangum of Wake County forces three homeschooled children to attend public schools this fall. Seriously, liberal public schooling does not provide a (quote) "more well-rounded education." [2]
While I am not pleased with the judge's decision (based on the facts I've seen so far - WND often leaves out important facts, so I'd be interested in learning more about the case), I do think our front-page item should make it clear that this is a divorce/custody case, and the father wants the children to go to public school, while the mother wants to continue homeschooling. This is NOT a case of a judge overruling parents who want to homeschool, rather it is a judge deciding between two parents who disagree. By framing the issue accurately, we can target the actual problem, rather than being distracted by unrelated issues. (Personally, I'm guessing that there is a financial component here; if the children go to public school the father does not need to pay homeschooling expenses, plus the mother can be expected to get a paying job, thus reducing the father's support obligations. Otherwise, a good compromise would have been a private Christian school.) I'm suggesting our item be changed to read something like the following; I've added another reference:
North Carolina divorce judge sides with adulterous father; forcing three homeschooled children to attend public schools this fall, despite their excellent test scores and their mother's desire to continue homeschooling. Will public school really provide them with a "more well-rounded education", and is that a good thing?! [25][26] --Hsmom 12:38, 12 March 2009

-Fantastic, revision complete.--jpatt 17:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

The introduction of the divorce is but another liberal deceit on the part of the media and blogs making that the issue. Liberals are good at Red herrings like this. While the divorce dispute is a fact, the main, salient point is that yet another liberal judge is legislating from the bench, deciding his judgment is superior to that of the custodial parent. What say you, Andy Schlafly? --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:11, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

As a father who has gone thru this almost exact situation, I can attest that it is not "legislating" from the bench, but the courts finding the best interest of everyone involved. The custodial parent's wants do not trump the "best interests" of those involved. Mom getting a job and providing the second income to provide the most stable environment seems to be be the most common finding. The Child going to public school is just used to facilitate that stability. Innkeeper 12:09, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

I am not clear on how custody of these children has been set up. This site says "The children were burdened with a visitation schedule of equally divided time, while the mother temporarily continued to homeschool them, creating a completely unworkable and disruptive environment." According to this page, the judge apparently said "Each party is a fit and proper parent to have temporary legal and physical custody of the minor children." That sounds like it may be a joint custody arrangement, in which case the judge is deciding which of the custodial parents he will side with, rather than overruling a sole custodial parent. This news item is all I could find that said anything from the father's point of view: "During the course of the case, which began in October when Venessa Mills filed for divorce, accusations have been hurled about her involvement in the Sound Doctrine church. Thomas Mills accused his wife of being in a cult, which she adamantly denied." The story from the mother's point of view is here: "The children's mother's conservative Christian beliefs were deliberately attacked and slandered by the opposing attorney, and she was accused of being brainwashed for simply upholding the truths of the Bible." In general, I'm withholding judgment until I see more information. But based on what I've seen so far, and putting the children's welfare first, I think that if the children can't be homeschooled, rather than public school they might be better off going to a small private Christian school that would be more like what they've been used to, if there is one available in their area. The father earns $122,200 per year, so it is probably within reach financially - I wonder if the judge considered that option? I'd also like to see the mom get enough financial support that she can be there after school to parent her kids until they are of college age - they'll need it, especially if they end up in public school.

This is not a unique case; my impression is that this kind of thing happens all the time. Note the conservative Christian group HSLDA's reaction: Despite the outcry, Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based group that backs home-school parents, say these kinds of custody cases are more common than people realize. "It's a tragedy of divorce, but we don't see any broad implications," Slatter said. --Hsmom 14:00, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Trying to send the kids to a specific school, or a specific type of school, is just one more thing for the parents to squabble about. Regardless of his ability to pay, since she would be required to front X amount for it based on divorce decrees and settlements, a private school would probably be out of the question. Public school is the default common denominator. What is being haggled over here is what those two are haggling about in court. Also, she says her beliefs were attacked. Anything that either party says in court is going to be construed as "an attack" when discussing it with anyone else. This is nothing but a typical divorce case.Innkeeper 22:41, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Or not Innkeeper 14:38, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Innkeeper, do you really think this gossip makes your case for you? BHarlan 20:24, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Which gossip? The actual court order? I would think that Conclusions of Law #4, where her own friends, relatives and family are found to be most indicative and credible about the homeschooling situation, and are the most damning to her case, and #7 where the Judge states "...this Court can not and will not infringe upon either party's right to practice their own religion and expose their children to the same." show that how the story was initially reported is not adequate. Gossip? Hardly.

Do we need a "curator" in CP? It will be the first one in the web for an online encyclopedia as far as I know. --Joaquín Martínez 09:56, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Curator:

• 'One who has the care and superintendence of something  ; especially : one in charge of a museum, zoo, or other place of exhibit.'

Seems to me that (the first part of the definition) describes all Administrators here at CP, "one who has the care and superintendence of something". --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:07, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Its the "zoo" bit that worries me. :-). And wouldn't the word "conservator" be more appropriate? AlanE 00:50, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Curator deals with "a cultural heritage", with art or painting.

the person in charge of a museum or art gallery or the custodian of a collection (as a museum or library) ref: TheFreeDictionary [27]

We have already an important collection of images of paintings, sculptures, music articles and much more of art subjects.

Consequently we could have a curator for painting, for music, etc. It is not the same function as Administrator as: Most curators specialize in a particular field, such as botany, art, paleontology, or history. Those working in large institutions may be highly specialized. [28] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections.

--Joaquín Martínez 01:16, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I can see where this might be something to seriously consider, now that you have fleshed out what you are driving at...updating links to all that we have, working on finding and adding more to our collection, Joaquín. I have emailed the others about this! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 20:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Tentatively and if Andy agrees, Music could be for AlanE, History and Biography for RJJensen, Politics and Government for TK, Religion for DeanS, Military for Karajou, Sports for Iduan, Literature for JessicaT, and Sculpture and Painting for me; for Economy, and Architecture: ?? ; Andy the Head curator; How about that? --Joaquín Martínez 15:04, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I will put up my hand for the literature and language sections if this comes to fruition. --KotomiT^nandeyanen? 15:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT) Agree, done for your field. --Joaquín Martínez 15:33, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

You're brilliant, Joaquin! I think this is a great idea. We are a source of knowledge and it makes sense to have curators as you describe. All remain free to contribute or comment outside their special topics, but it would be useful to have some specialization. Thank you for your insight. It won't be long before Wikipedia copies your idea, if they wise up!--Andy Schlafly 15:17, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Intriguing that Made-off is a Democrat and good question about the DP returning his donations to his victims. Does anyone know if the Republican party returned the donations made to it by the crooks who ran Enron? What's the precedent here? FredFerguson 14:37, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Right, Enron is news.

Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input—and listened. The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made," Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White wrote an Enron official.

Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas. Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary included Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip to Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that "much opportunity" existed there for natural gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico's energy plans. To persuade an Enron senior vice president to join a mission to Pakistan, White wrote, "I have strong personal relationships with the existing government."

Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream." And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever—$100,000—to the President's party.--jpatt 15:32, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Fine. Made-off also made some donations to the Republicans, just like Enron made some to the Democrats. But Enron was closely associated with the RP, just as Bernie was with the DP. Since you're asking if the Democrats will refund Bernie's donations to his victims, it's perfectly reasonable to ask if the Republicans will take an equally moral stand - Conservative values have a lot to do with morality, don't they - and refund Enron's donations. FredFerguson 16:01, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

In this, I agree with Fred. Dishonesty in government by anyone should and must be condemned, no matter who does it. Karajou 04:31, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_11906618

I think this source might be better, since the current link contains a lot of information that appears to run counter to what is contained in CP's Obama article. The one I have found seems much more conciliatory to CP's POV. Jirby 00:52, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 02:22, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

On March 14, 1896, San Francisco celebrated the official opening of the Sutro Baths, an extravagant public bathhouse envisioned and developed by the one-time mayor of San Francisco, Adolph Sutro. An early immigrant to the city, the Prussian-born Sutro was a mining engineer and real estate investor who, it was said, once owned an estimated one-twelfth of the acreage of San Francisco. Sutro made his initial fortune by creating what was known as the Sutro Tunnel, a structure built to facilitate the silver mining of the Comstock Lode in Nevada. [29]
I've read this one several times but I still can't figure out what a vintage San Francisco bathhouse has to do with either 1) the news, 2) conservatism, or 3) Christianity. I do get that it is a "113 years ago today" type item, although it isn't labeled as such, it's two days out-of-date, and it's in the "In the News" section. Today, the link goes to an article about the United States Military Academy at West Point, so that was no help to me. I don't see anything wrong with the item per se, but it does seem kind of off-topic for the main page, and not really our style. Can someone explain it to this clueless mom? Thanks. --Hsmom 14:36, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

• As I understand it, that is part of a continuing series of what happened on a particular day, in History. Are we getting too picky here? Entrepreneurship is most certainly a Conservative Value, and if the government hadn't been so busy stifling it for dozens of years, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we are in today. FYI, "bathhouses" back in the day, before the 1960's and the homosexual agenda being pushed by liberals were safe, family-friendly places. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 16:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Hsmom, your comment is telling about how you probably constantly have a barrier up to limit your acceptance of the truth on this site. It's like the baseball player who sees every pitch as a curve ball and then can no longer hit an easy fastball right over the plate.

I suspect that you view this site as a way to reassure yourself that you aren't missing something for yourself and your children by rejecting conservative insights. Something plain comes across the front page and you're worried that perhaps your antennae aren't working like they used to.

But you are missing a great deal as opportunity costs. You're missing out on the conservative insights you could be having if you weren't so defensive. You're missing out on the teaching you could provide to your children that would insulate them against the problems liberal teenagers have, and your children could then insulate their friends.. Sure, you and your children can survive on your current path. But the lost potential can be enormous.--Andy Schlafly 17:40, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Well said! One has to open their eyes and look into the true meaning of things, especially with the majority of the press/publications in the western world being so liberally biast. It's easy just to sit back and accept what you hear, but a true and active mind seeks the deeper meaning and discovers any flaws within, and this site has a larger concentration of those minds than any other! GFasten 17:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't see how the rates are the result of a "radical liberal government" or "worrying more about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens than stopping an epidemic", as the figures are from 2008 data. I'm not trying to say that this govt will be any better, just that you can't judge this govt on the last one's data J00ni 18:19, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

• Are you not aware that the administration of the District of Columbia is not the same thing as the Obama Administration? They have their own local government, just the same as any other city or town in the U.S. But perhaps since you move so often within, and live in the Hetton/Preston, U.K. area precludes you from knowing that... --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Why do you do that? Is it to intimidate people? LiamG 19:45, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Liam, the sweeping ignorance of your suggestion/theory is mind boggling. You are asserting that a person can be intimidated by virtue of where they live? How utterly specious! What it meant is that perhaps being a foreigner, they could well be ignorant (as their post was) of how government is organized in the United States, so they assumed Obama had something to do with the D.C. local government. But like Andy's reply to Hsmom above, your statement is clearly more indicative of how you think, your own liberal idea of ad hominem, which is quite clearly founded in liberal deceit If someone feels "insecure" with others knowing what country they come from, they have a mental illness, not merely an insecurity, and are most likely worried because they have been perpetrating a fraud. BTW, Conservatives value plain speaking over obfuscating political correctness. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 20:25, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Liam, to be fair to TK it was a fair cop guv' - my knowledge of the intimacies of US political organisation is minimal (as I'm sure TK's is of UK local govt). Maybe the wording was a little aggressive, but if I was intimidated by that I would be too afraid to leave the house!

What I hope I highlighted by my post above is that the News item does read as a criticism of the Obama administration (be it implicit or explicit), which I was looking for clarification on the point, as one of my main reasons for using Conservapedia is to get an insight into a Conservative US POV.

For the record, despite being a conservative Christian (Consevative, PAH! I hear you shout knowing I'm a Brit!!), I have issues with the conservative standpoint on contraception etc - and I certainly don't think you can compare the failures in the western world to those in Africa (IMHO, broadly speaking, many of Africa's HIV problems are due to too conservative a message, and the West's problems are from too liberal a message, but that's just my 2p).

Ho hum, no offence taken, and I'll take my smackdown with humility J00ni 14:31, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

• Once again, you come back with more deceit? There is no possible way a person could mistake that news item as involving President Obama, or his administration, unless they are deliberately trying to disrupt. As for your comment about AIDS, try educating yourself; George W. Bush is responsible for saving millions of lives, due to his (not Congress) initiative in sending Billions to African countries to fight HIV/AIDS.

Since 2001, President Bush has been committed to supporting various causes in Africa. U.S. aid to Africa quadrupled from $1.3 billion to more than $5 billion in 2005 and to almost $9 billion for 2010, representing the largest increase since the Truman administration. The President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief has touched millions of Africans — making PEPFAR perhaps one of his greatest humanitarian successes.[30]

In 2007 Bush proposed to double America’s initial commitment and provide an additional $30 billion. He also called on Congress to pass reauthorizing legislation to maintain PEPFAR’s founding principles. Says Dr. Alex Coutinho, a top AIDS expert in Uganda, “When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what PEPFAR stands for. Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not something the country should not be proud of.” At the 2008 Bishop John T. Walker Memorial Dinner, Africare, the oldest and largest black-run African aid organization, awarded the group’s Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award to Bush for the work done for Africa by his administration and family, and described that work as “a labor of love.” [31]

Godspeed to you. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 17:21, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Suggestion for the news: it has been revealed that a tight-lipped group of high profile liberals have been participating in a secret group where they set liberal policy and coordinate their efforts in public perception through the media. Politico has characterized it as nothing short of an "echo chamber". There is no oversight to these machinations and strings are certainly being pulled to make things happen. The only clear example to date is the coordinated effort to damage ABC's credibility for their "performance" moderating a Democratic Presidential debate. Those liberals probably weren't happy to see their candidates get asked some real questions for once. Read more here: Politico exposé --Foxtrot 16:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

• In the interest of accuracy, I would like to note that I have ADD, which I would think would count as a mental problem. -CSGuy 19:17, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

CSGuy, your substantive contributions have averaged less than one-a-day over the past four months. In fact, I just had a hard time finding a single significant contribution by you.

That's not to criticize you, but to illustrate that you haven't yet risen to the level of a real contributor here. I hope you do. You won't regret it. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

But, surely that would tarnish the 0 mental problems in all the contributors statistic? Would you change it to 1 mental problem out of all the contributors? Or by mental problem do you mean mental problems such as atheism (denying what religion despite it being an innate quality!) and homosexuality? Or maybe you wouldn't define ADD as a mental problem, more a mental condition? GFasten 19:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Lots of questions by you, "GFasten". Contribute more, and more substantively, and you won't be so bewildered in the future.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't WesleyS, who would definatly be counted as a contributor and iirc has block rights, have Aspergers Syndrome? RPratt 19:31, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

No, I do not. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? WesleyS^Hello! 19:40, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh sorry, how embarrasing for me, I must confess I'm a long time reader and must have got you confused with someone else. Again, I apologise. RPratt 19:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

That would probably be either me, User:RKLuffy88, Ululator (or something along those lines, I can't recall, unfortunately), or a former contributer named AmeliaJ. Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. And Terry, I'm not sure whether it is or not, several theories have been proposed as to its origin, and I personally do not subscribe to any one particular theory. JY23 19:49, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

• Isn't Aspergers organic in nature? --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 19:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Story here.

Look: I'm no happier than anyone else about the federal government playing Santa Claus with taxpayer dollars. I'm not thrilled about the conduct of the companies which have become the corporate equivalent of the professional welfare recipient.

But the fact that the government now feels free to slap a 90% tax rate on anyone is just plain frightening. The fact that they're doing it as a punitive measure for conduct that appears to be otherwise legal is doubly frightening.

Is it just me, or does this amount to a [bill of attainder?] Last I checked, such unilateral punitive actions were forbidden by the Constitution!

Am I way off base here?

--Benp 17:35, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

the Republicans in the House split 50-50 on the bill, so conservatives are of divided mind. The power of Congress is clear enough: the Constitution --16th amdt--says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived." (A bill of attainder involves criminal charges.) Congress responds to public opinion, which is pretty clear on this issue. As for punitive taxes, well yes that's part of American traditions. RJJensen 18:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Given their spending habits over the last decade, I think it's clear that not all Republicans qualify as conservatives. You're correct, of course, in that a bill of attainder involves actually accusing someone of a crime before punishing them.

This just strikes me as a visceral reaction and a bad precedent. Sure, it's easy to support 90% taxes against AiG officials...but what if the next 90% tax is leveled against, say, a pro-life organization? A conservative political activity committee? How many times in history have politicians used a political weapon just once, and then put it away and refrained from using it again?

--Benp 18:08, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

(edit conflict)

A division among Republicans does not demonstrate a significant division among conservatives. Moreover, this tax is clearly a stunt designed for demagoguery. Many of the people who voted for it are probably doing so only in self-defense against an irrational media. Indeed, the last-minute changes in voting positions suggest that.--Andy Schlafly 18:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy, you're the legal expert here: am I off-base in thinking this approaches the level of a bill of attainder? It may not meet the technical definition, but it certainly seems designed to achieve the same end. --Benp 18:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Your point is well-taken, and the overtaxed workers could certainly argue it as you suggestion. But it's an uphill battle for them: I don't think the U.S. Supreme has invalidated a law based on the prohibition against a bill of attainder in over 40 years. Taxation may not be considered punitive enough to qualify for the constitutional protection. (Traditionally the bill of attainder was applied to protect against criminal punishment, though it has been applied to protect employment opportunities.) Thanks for your insight.--Andy Schlafly 18:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I compiled an article on Ron Silver in honor of his recent death. Could a sysop link his name in the two news stories that mention him? Thanks in advance. -Foxtrot 20:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Foxtrot. The links are done. --DeanS^talk 20:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Please don't say that scientists have "rejected global warming", because that plays into a liberal gotcha. We must make the distinction that liberals don't want to make, i.e., that there has been some atmospheric warming but that there is a political controversy over what has caused it.

The rise in temperature should be called simply "global warming", but political people use that word interchangeably with the science about what causes it. The two main theories are (1) anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which is the idea that most of the modern warming is caused by human activity; and (2) natural global warming, which says that factors beyond human control caused (and will cause) most of the ups and downs in the earth's air temperature.

(This is like the confusion over how many people "believe in evolution". Young Earth Creationists reject evolution entirely, while Old Earth Creationists accept the aspect of gradual appearance [see also Progressive Creationism]. Evolution has both a general and a specific meaning: In general, it means any gradual longterm change (most people believe in this being true) but also means the theory that these long term changes were entirely caused by natural processes [which most people reject!].)

In fact, ALL scientists agree that average global air temperature is up one degree Fahrenheit (or 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius). That is meaning #1 of "global warming". No controversy here.

But MOST scientists are skeptical about the CAUSE of this warming being manmade. That is meaning #2 of "global warming", which liberals sneak in with phrases like "global warming is real". The only answer is that the warming really happened, but the "we did it" theory of AGW is highly doubtful.

Do not play into their hands by using ambiguous terms the way Liberals do. Expose the deception. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:59, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't think that Telegraph article you're posting on the Main Page is appropriate. First, the Telegraph is anything but liberal and has always been considered the most conservative of all UK daily broadsheets, with an almost exclusively an older, suburban Tory Party readership. This MORI poll shows that 64% of its readership is Conservative (with the uppercase 'C'), making it clearly the most conservative UK newspaper. (Incidentally, it's also the largest selling broadsheet). Secondly, the article itself is clearly mocking Conservapedia. It's well known that the British sense of humour often doesn't translate across the Atlantic (and vice-versa is often also true, btw), and this is obviously one of those cases. KBinbota 13:31, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Your two complaints contradict each other, and cancel each other out. The headline here is correct. Britain has become a very liberal place, as your own perspective illustrates.--Andy Schlafly 13:48, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

No, they don't cancel each other out. The fact that the Telegraph is both the most conservative UK paper and a Conservative (Tory) paper is undeniable. And that fact does not preclude them taking a swipe at American conservative websites, which would, indeed, be much further to the right than they are. Note that the article is really about the site PopModal, which the author is clearly ironically laughing at - the headline alone, "PopModal: For all your Ann Coulter and Lynyrd Skynyrd needs" lays out the satire for all to see. Did you spot the "it has all kinds of music - country and western"? Mocking satire isn't often this obvious. KBinbota 14:08, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Fine, but the headline is still accurate. Saying something is the most conservative newspaper in the UK is like saying someone is ... the smartest student in a remedial class. It's still a remedial class. Oh no, I didn't offend you, did I? Please accept my deepest apology.--Andy Schlafly 14:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Not at all - it takes a lot to offend me, and I have no particular axe to grind here. You have a totally reasonable point that of course what is considered conservative in one country might not be in another. To you, the Telegraph might well be liberal, and that's fair enough. I was simply trying to point out how it's perceived in the UK. Since I note that you're very interested in 'new media', you might be interested to know that the British National Party's website is actually the most visited website of all British political parties (by Alexa rankings), and they do indeed respresent a more traditionally conservative viewpoint - you might find their platform more closely matches your own views. They also publish a weekly newspaper that probably more closely reflects true US conservative positions. KBinbota 17:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting. Thanks, and I'll check it out. Note, however, that being a conservative is about far more than nationalism.--Andy Schlafly 18:30, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Indeed so - but of course the name of most political parties rarely reflects much about their platform. One imagines that the US Republican Party is concerned with many positions beyond simply the support of republicanism, and the Democrats aren't solely concerned with pushing democracy? Rest assured the BNP has many other positions ranging from labour policy to social policy and immigration. KBinbota 18:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The BNP might get my vote for its position alone on education: "We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination." Of course, I expect knee-jerk liberals to claim there is something racist about that or about the BNP in general, but overuse of the racist label as a political tactic has gotten pretty tiresome for everyone on this side of the pond.

I'm not impressed by the lack of social positions (like abortion, marriage, prayer in the classroom, etc.) on the BNP website you reference. This position by the BNP is not conservative at all: "We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens."--Andy Schlafly 19:23, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The strange usage of the term "conservative" may render the headline accurate. It may still be considered, putting it politely "inappropriate". Conservapedia is used by the Telegraph as the "benchmark" for new media, in the same way that an IQ of 70 is used as a benchmark for "retarded".--Toffeeman 15:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

No, Toffeeman, your "idiotic" analogy doesn't work. It does reveal your (undeserved) arrogance as a liberal, however.--Andy Schlafly 18:30, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

"Like Conservapedia, the encyclopedia that has no time for reality's liberal bias..." Aschalfly, do you agree with this characterization of the Conservapedia project? Does reality have a "liberal bias"? JosephHKL 18:41, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Obviously I don't agree entirely with its characterization of Conservapedia, and it's unnecessary to say that in a headline. I do agree with the Telegraph's central point: that we have no time for liberal bias. How much time do you waste with liberal bias?--Andy Schlafly 18:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, if reality does have a liberal bias, as the article you linked to suggests, then perhaps a little, I suppose. At least enough to recognize when my core beliefs are being held up for ridicule and not to draw further attention to that fact by plastering it all over my own website. JosephHKL 19:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

"The BNP might get my vote for its position alone on education." Really? Even though your own article describes the BNP as a neo-nazi organization? Interesting...JosephHKL 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

JosephHKL, your comments are incoherent, except you did run to try to use the racist label just as predicted. Liberals are sooooo predictable.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy, the sting of accusations of racism are, as you say, much reduced by the frequency with which they are flung. It's like the little boy who "cried wolf". But, remember, at the end of that story there really was a wolf.

The BNP really is a wolf.

If you want to have a dig at British Liberals (like me) then just mention "Maggie Thatcher", I'll explode in all the inarticulate fury you could want. We can do the Conservative/Liberal thing without you embracing a fascist organisation. --Toffeeman 16:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Toffeeman, you resort to a false implication just as JHanson resorted to an outright lie. Pathetic, isn't it, when a liberal has to resort to misrepresenting what the other side said? Suit yourself, but you're not persuading anyone by trying to make up things about my position.--Andy Schlafly 16:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I am sorry if you thought that I was implying anything about your beliefs. I do not think you a fascist or anywhere near a fascist: after all there would be no point in attempting to warn Goering away from the Nazi party, would there? Seriously, Andy, the BNP are bad news. Please do not, even in jest, get near that lot.--Toffeeman 16:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Fine, Toffeeman, apology accepted. Of course I oppose racism. I never said otherwise. I appreciate your insights to the BNP, which you probably know more about than I do. That said, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and if someone claims that the BNP is not right about anything, then that is a logically fallacious and absurd position.--Andy Schlafly 16:38, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Regardless of the issue of where the Telegraph stands on the political spectrum, the statement on the mainpage is misleading. What we have here is a single blog entry by one of the Telegraph's tech writers. The entire reference to Conservapedia is to note that "Like Conservapedia, the encyclopedia that has no time for reality's liberal bias, PopModal offers a "conservative alternative" to YouTube." How that becomes the Telegraph using Conservapedia as a benchmark to describe "other new media alternatives" isn't at all clear to me. If you mean that Shane is in a throw-away remark mentioning Conservapedia as another example of a website which ignores reality then that would be one thing. However, making claims about Conservapedia being used as a "benchmark" or making claims that this is about "other new media alternatives" in a general sense is at best inaccurate. JoshuaZ 12:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

JoshuaZ, not much is "clear to" a determined atheist. I've noticed a decline in the level of your contributions just in the two years that this site has existed. Your edit summary for your above rant was "um what?". I often see good minds spiral into decay once they fall for atheism.

Being dumb is fun for the easily amused. But it's sad to watch it occur in someone who had greater potential. Help yourself by opening your mind, before it's too late.--Andy Schlafly 14:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it should also be noted that this is in fact blog post, and not the papers view. (As far as I know) the paper does not necessarily endorse the views held by any of it's commentators. Rhodes 12:40, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Dude, you don't use the apostrophe when it's needed, and then you do use it when it is not! But you're probably right that the Telegraph would disclaim the errs by its commentator. I'm citing it for the part of it that is true.--Andy Schlafly 14:43, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy, did you really mean it when you said you would vote for the BNP? I think you should retract that. The BNP, along with its predecessor party the NF, is a neo-nazi party, with a holocaust denier as its leader. This is even documented by the article on the BNP at Conservapedia. Take it on the chin for once and admit you made a grave error in saying you would vote for them.

P.S: Actually comment on what I've said, not punctuation, "coherency", "close-mindedness" or "predictable liberalism". JHanson 15:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

JHanson, you lied about what I said, and you launched into more predictable race-baiting by a liberal. Improve the entry on BNP to substantiate your smears if you like, but don't resort to what I predicted liberals would do by falsely accusing others of racism.--Andy Schlafly 15:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

The BNP constitution restricts party membership to whites (the constitution is here; section 2 is the relevant part). I don't see how you could argue that this isn't racist. Perhaps you just weren't aware they had this rule? GS 16:23, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Your link is broken. You lie about what I said also. In response to your question, my comments above indicate that I don't pay much attention to the BNP. As I clearly stated, I saw one quote about education that I liked, and one about health care that I oppose. The liberals here do not address either of my points, but launch into a rant about racism. I suggest you complain to the BNP to express your views of it.--Andy Schlafly 16:33, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

The link is fixed now -- sorry. It's true you didn't say the BNP weren't racist; but saying that you expected 'knee-jerk liberals' to claim they were racist was a strong hint that you yourself didn't think they were. As I conjectured, and you've confirmed, this seems to have been a matter of your ignorance about them, rather than your agreement with them. So that's good. GS 16:45, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

The link goes to a download, which is too much trouble at this point. Limiting party membership to whites-only would be racist, obviously, and of course I wouldn't support that. My comments above plainly dealt with the BNP position on education.

I'm beginning to think that a liberal refuses to admit that a racist organization may sometimes be right about something unrelated to racism. Surely you don't think the BNP, even if you're right that it is racist, is wrong about everything. If so, then you've completely abandoned logic at that point, but maybe that's a sign of the widespread decline in meaningful discourse these days.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

It does say it's a download, but when I clicked on the link to the pdf it appeared with no fuss after only a few seconds. I'm not sure if this would vary with different browsers and such.

I agree with you that their being racists doesn't necessarily prevent them from being right about other things. GS 17:19, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I see your point that racist organizations are capable of being right about something unrelated to racism. But if this is the case doesn’t this undermine the Conservapedia Hitler – Evolution article? --LPowell 00:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

In what way? In that case, Hitler's beliefs concerning evolution directly led to his racism and subsequent actions.--FredCorps 00:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I’m not aware of any evidence that Hitler’s racist ideas can be shown to have directly originated from a belief in Natural Selection. Conservapedia’s article on Evolutionary Racism mentions that Hitler banned many of Darwin's books, so I don’t see how you can effectively argue that evolution was one of the foundations of Nazi philosophy. Furthermore anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for hundreds of years prior to the publication of Darwin’s theories, so there must have been other factors creating it. As such viewing early twentieth century German racism as being purely caused by the theory of evolution would not seem tenable.

Hitler undoubtedly incorporated ideas of Eugenics and Social Darwinism into Nazi ideology. While both took their inspiration from the theory of Natural Selection they do not form a part of it. As such it is incorrect to consider them the same. --LPowell 20:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)