https://issuepedia.org/mw/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=24.136.238.245&feedformat=atomIssuepedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T16:01:53ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.0https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Issuepedia:Filing_Room/to_file&diff=6026Issuepedia:Filing Room/to file2007-04-19T15:56:46Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* 2007-04 */ mission from god</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sidebar|__TOC__}}This page is for miscellaneous bits of information which might be useful in the future.<br />
==To File==<br />
See also: [[news too fast to digest]]<br />
===2007-04===<br />
* found 2007-04-19: [http://www.thehumorarchives.com/joke/Ive_passed_the_bar_and_Im_on_a_mission_from_God I've passed the bar, and I'm on a mission from God]: whether or not you agree with the narrator's actions, this anecdote demonstrates the power that lawyers have in American society. Unless it's not true, in which case consult a lawyer to see if it ''could'' have happened.<br />
* found 2007-04-15: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ for eventual article on [[PETA]], to be linked from [[animal care]], to be linked from [[corruption in academia]]<br />
* found 2007-04-06: <br />
** [http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml Independent Media Center]<br />
** [http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/03/are_we_press_part_deux.php Are we Press? Part Deux]: "citizen journalism"<br />
** [http://pandagon.net/2007/04/03/well-paid-assholes-with-opinions-versus-poorly-paid-assholes-with-opinions/ Well-paid assholes with opinions versus poorly-paid assholes with opinions]: "citizen journalism"? bah!<br />
** [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE] by Steven Pinker: debunking "the noble savage"<br />
* found 2007-04-04, dated 2004-07-15: [http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2004/071504A.htm New Book Debunks Commonly Accepted Picture of a Polarized Electorate], press release for the book ''Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America'': 'Abortion, homosexuality, gender, religion — each of these controversial subjects is examined, and the authors’ analysis leads to the surprising contrarian conclusion, that "on the whole, the views of the American citizenry look moderate, centrist, nuanced, ambivalent — choose your term — rather than extreme, polarized, unconditional [and] dogmatic."'<br />
<br />
===2007-03===<br />
* found 2007-03-30: [http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/money-money-money.htm Money! Money? money...]: an explanation of the evolution of money, in understandable English<br />
** [http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm Technocracy FAQ]<br />
* '''2007-03-27''': [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQwMGVjNTU5YTQ5ZWU3MDE1NjBjNjkwZTQ0MmJhNWE=&w=MA== Banning Legos] by John J. Miller: Am I being paranoid, or are they trying to make it sound like an example of liberal lunacy? The author never actually *says* so, but he gives a carefully disparaging spin to phrases like "social theorists" and "social justice"...<br />
** [http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml Why We Banned Legos]: the original article. Ok, maybe it is looniness. Not so much liberal as classical-left, i.e. socialist. Seems to me they took a great opportunity to work out a better system and teach the kids the kind of critical thinking necessary to build and maintain a democratic society, and blew it by swinging the pendulum to the complete opposite extreme. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 14:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
** [http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/168521/rethinking_reeducation_the_story_of.html Re-thinking Re-education : The Story of the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle]: another righty rant taking more explicit advantage of the opportunity to paint more moderate liberals in a bad light<br />
* found 2007-03-25:<br />
** In response to [http://www.philosophynow.org/issue59/59news.htm Mix’n’Match]: "Opponents have expressed strong views; Josephine Quintavelle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics said: "This is abhorrent ... there is a basic human feeling that animals and humans do not mix in these areas." Calum Mackellar of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said "In this kind of procedure you are mixing at a very intimate level animal eggs and human chromosomes and you may begin to undermine the whole distinction between animals and humans."<br />
*** ''It may be abhorrent to you, but to most of us it seems like a perfectly natural and reasonable thing to do in the course of the investigations described, and an essential step in working out some badly-needed medical techniques. Get over your [[authoritarian leader|high-and-mighty posturing]] and get back to the middle ages where you belong. "Undermine the whole distinction between animals and humans" &ndash; [[WTF]]? And just why is that a problem? --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 19:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)''<br />
** [http://www.afaf.org.uk/ Academics For Academic Freedom]: "We, the undersigned, believe the following two principles to be the foundation of academic freedom: <br />
**# that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and<br />
**# that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal."<br />
*** Does this address issues posted in [[corruption in academia]]?<br />
* [http://dotherightthing.com/ dotherightthing.com]: if there isn't already a page about this sort of site (e.g. BuyBlue), then there needs to be. In my present braindead state of mind, though, I can't think what page it should be on.<br />
* '''2007-03-04''' [http://jmhm.livejournal.com/1698324.html America's mayor - you sure you want him?]: some opinion on Rudy Guiliani, in case he becomes... important, later on.<br />
* found 2007-03-02, dated 2002-11-18: [http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution] by Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman, all of Microsoft Corporation: discusses the economics of [[DRM]]<br />
<br />
===2007-02===<br />
* found 2007-02-28: [http://the-stewardship.org/ The Stewardship]: writings and other things devoted to "the assumption of responsibility for the welfare of the world. That welfare requires much effort, that responsibility is realized in many ways. Most stewardship is limited, if not compromised, and most sites on the internet with an orientation towards stewardship are likewise limited. This site is meant to provide a voice to the central principles of stewardship, to the unified progressive cause of preserving and improving the world."<br />
* '''2007-02-16''' [http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/114553/289 Texas Republicans are anti-Copernicus]: the Flat Earth Society lives!<br />
** '''2007-02-09''' [http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/ChisumPageTwo.html Tax-supported "evolution science" now unlawful under the Constitution], from Warren Chisum<br />
** '''2007-02-15''' [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-chisum_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.2063416.html Chisum contrite over memo]: apparently the web site misrepresents Chisum's views<br />
* [[googlevideo:4237353244338529080|Myths about the developing world]], a TEDtalk by Hans Rosling: includes demonstration of very interesting dynamic graphing system, and description of efforts to make global economic information more easily available<br />
<br />
===2007-01===<br />
* found 2007-01-13: [http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html Text and Collaboration: A personal manifesto for the Text Outline Project] by [[Larry Sanger]] (on back burner "until 2007 or 2008"): some interesting and possibly useful observations on collaborative knowledge-building and decisionmaking<br />
* '''2007-01-11''' [http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/01/must-know-terms-for-21st-century_11.html Must-know terms for the 21st Century intellectual: Redux]: accelerating change, anthropic principle, artificial general intelligence, augmented reality, Bayesian Rationality, Cosmological Eschatology (aka physical eschatology), Engineered Negligible Senescence, existential risks, extended identity, Fermi Paradox, friendly AI, human enhancement (guided evolution), human exceptionalism (a.k.a. human speciesism, human raceism, human superiority, etc.), information theoretic death, mass automation, memetic engineering, mind transfer, molecular assembler, neurodiversity, neural interface device, noosphere, open source, participatory panopticon, political globalization, post-scarcity economy, quantum computation, radical luddism, remedial ecology, simulation argument, soft paternalism, technological singularity<br />
* found 2007-01-11: [http://cryptome.org/ Cryptome]: what exactly does this site ''do'', and is it useful?<br />
===2006-12===<br />
* found 2006-12-15:<br />
** [http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/ Dark Christianity]: "Exploring and Exposing Dominionist Christianity"<br />
** [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/ Counselling by the Bible, Creation, Charismatic errors, Essays by Malcolm Bowden]<br />
** [http://thinkprogress.org/ ThinkProgress]<br />
** [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/economics/ 2005 Economics diary/blog] by John Baez: includes discussions of ecology and related fields; links to 2004 and 2003 diaries<br />
* found 2006-12-12: [http://robinhanson.typepad.com/overcomingbias/2006/11/introduction.html Overcoming Bias] blog<br />
* found 2006-12-08: [http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/202 Conspiracy Theories]: may be trying to discredit any kind of conspiracy theory, or may be simply trying to bring some rationality to the discussion; worth examining for points of attack on any conspiracy theory including [[9/11]]-related<br />
<br />
===2006-11===<br />
* '''2006-11-15''' [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/29/message_to_west_point.php Message To West Point]: an excerpt from the Sol Feinstone Lecture on The Meaning of Freedom by [[Bill Moyers]]: makes salient points on a number of significant issues<br />
* [http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/1580/colorsdontrunxn9.jpg these colors]... not so much "run" as "fade" (image, for possible article on how patriotism gets all caught up in symbolism, especially about the flag, and forgets about realities)<br />
* relevant bits for eventual articles on [[Israel]], [[Palestine]], [[Middle East]]: [[wikipedia:Munich massacre|Munich massacre]], [[wikipedia:Operation Wrath of God|Operation Wrath of God]], [[wikipedia:Yasser Arafat|Yasser Arafat]], [[wikipedia:Fatah|Fatah]] (secular), [[wikipedia:Hamas|Hamas]] ([[Islam]]ic)<br />
* found 2006-11-21; [http://truthlaidbear.com/mideastcrisis.php Crisis in the Middle East: Bloggers Report]: links to blogs based in the Middle East<br />
<br />
===2006-10===<br />
* '''2006-10-17''' [http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/the_antiparanoi.html The Anti-Paranoid Style in American Politics]: article about how it seems to be fashionable to dismiss conspiracy theories by simply labeling them as "conspiracy theories", rather than actually discussing the alleged facts. Comments mention [[wikipedia:Project MKULTRA|Project MKULTRA]], an actual CIA project which sounds like raving paranoia when taken out of context. Possibly for [[conspiracy theories]] article? Article about how useless the press is these days?<br />
* found 2006-10-06: [http://www.traunerforcongress.com/ Gary Trauner], Wyoming Democrat for Congress<br />
<br />
===2006-09===<br />
* found 2006-09-22: [[wikipedia:Ricardo Semler|Ricardo Semler]] &ndash; some interesting business ideas applied successfully in the real world<br />
* found 2006-09-19, 2 similar essays by Sheldon S. Wolin: [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030519/wolin Inverted Totalitarianism] (2003-05-01) and [http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0718-07.htm A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy] (2003-07-18)<br />
* '''2006-09-07''': [http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/islam_haters__an_enemy_within_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within] by Ralph Peters: against extremism in any form<br />
* found 2006-09-11 (dated 1999-12) book reviews: ''[http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1299/9912122.html Forcing God’s Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture—And the Destruction of Planet Earth]'' and ''One Nation Under Israel''<br />
<br />
===2006-08===<br />
* '''2006-08-28''': discussion section in "[http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/08/ironies-compounded-by-ironies.html Ironies Compounded by Ironies...]" has some considerable discussion along the lines of [[modernism vs. romanticism]] or perhaps [[enlightenment vs. feudalism]]<br />
* '''2006-08-17''': [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/15297240.htm Federal judge rules warrantless wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional] (Associated Press)<br />
* found 2006-08-15: [http://www.homelandstupidity.us/ The Department of Homeland Stupidity]<br />
<br />
===2006-07===<br />
* '''2006-07-17''': [http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/38901/ America’s Broken Bootstraps] by Leanne Shear, WireTap<br />
** references 2004-12-29 [http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560 Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend]<br />
* '''2006-07-07''':<br />
** [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070601760.html Russia's Signal to Stations Is Clear: Cut U.S. Radio] Censorship on the rise again in the former Soviet Union?<br />
** [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5142908.stm Al-Qaeda 'bid to infiltrate MI5'] (related: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1811828,00.html]) story includes a number of interesting details:<br />
*** Al Qaeda is perhaps not as fragmented (post-Afghanistan) as some have claimed<br />
*** "the flow of new [terrorism-related] cases shows no sign of abating - if anything it is accelerating."<br />
*** polls indicate that around 400,000 people in the UK are sympathetic to violent jihad around the world<br />
*** "The editor of al-Hayat newspaper in London, Maher Othman, believes that humiliation is now a major factor in radicalising someone to the point of violence."<br />
<br />
===2006-06===<br />
* found 2006-06-18: [http://naturalhistorymag.com/0703/0703_feature.html The Birth of War] by R. Brian Ferguson: preliminary results of a survey of war in early civilization indicates that it wasn't as common as previously thought<br />
* '''2006-06-12''': [http://www.alternet.org/workplace/36896/ The Mommy Wage Gap]: [[gender issues]], [[family values]]...<br />
* found 2006-06-09: [[wikipedia:Milgram experiment|Milgram experiment]] &ndash; for eventual article on Psychology? Also [http://changingminds.org/ ChangingMinds]<br />
* '''2006-06-08''': [http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/37269/ Anonymity in the Age of Full Disclosure] by Elizabeth Daley, WireTap<br />
* found 2006-06-08: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily]: described elsewhere as "extreme right-wing"; is it? It certainly seems conservative/Christian in general nature...<br />
===2006-05===<br />
* found 2006-05-31: [http://www.schoolandstate.org/ Alliance for the Separation of School and State] ([http://www.honestedu.org/ alt])<br />
* '''2006-05-19''':<br />
** [http://www.alternet.org/story/36328/ http://www.alternet.org/story/36328/ How the Right Stole the '60s] by Astra Taylor, AlterNet: makes some interesting allegations which deserve further research<br />
** found: [http://www.moderatevoters.org/ Moderate Voters .org] and [http://www.judicialwatch.org/ Judicial Watch]<br />
* '''2006-05-16''': [http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/36174/ How the Drug Companies Want Us to Be Sick] by Stan Cox, AlterNet (for eventual alternative medicine article?)<br />
* '''2006-05-15''': [http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling]: check out the "comments" section, and note that there is no evidence (either in the article or in comments) that ABC was in any way involved with obtaining classified information ([http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1922209 slashdot])<br />
<br />
===2006-04===<br />
* http://www.samizdata.net/ seems to be primarily British, but I haven't read it thoroughly<br />
* '''2006-04-05''': [http://www.okgazette.com/news/templates/cover.asp?articleid=423&zoneid=7 a bill Microsoft Corp. helped write ... will open your personal information to warrantless searches]: as I understand it, this might even apply to any titchy little utility you download off the net; if the {{yp|EULA}} gives the software author permission to mess with your hard drive, then they can do so and you couldn't take any action against them. Picture virus authors putting together quicky "helpful" utilities and slapping on a permissive EULA just to get legal access to more computers.<br />
<br />
===2006-03===<br />
* '''2006-03-26''' [http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-717240.html Military's 'good Muslim' to speak at Duke]: James Yee was held on charges "which later evaporated"<br />
* '''2006-03-11''' [http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/former_top_bush_aide_arrested.html Former top Bush aide arrested for theft]: need to accumulate a list of wrongdoings in Bush's administration versus those in previous administrations; Brin often states that Clinton's administration had not one single conviction (how many accusations, and from whom?)<br />
<br />
===2006-02===<br />
* found 2006-02-16:<br />
** [http://www.rebelscience.org/Seven/bible.html Artificial Intelligence From the Bible]: file under [[Unusual interpretations of the Bible]], maybe? Main site seems to be crusading against scientific fundamentalism, so should probably be filed somewhere too.<br />
** [http://xshirox.livejournal.com/273518.html xshirox journal entry]: maybe for page listing Interesting Discussions on topics that don't necessarily fit squarely into an Issuepedia page but nonetheless touch on a lot of relevant topics<br />
* '''2006-02-09''' [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8702 Your taste in music is shaped by the crowd] agrees with the more general study in [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uocp-ael013006.php consumer bias favors market leader]<br />
<br />
===2006-01===<br />
* '''2006-01-30''' [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact What pit bulls can teach us about profiling]: a lesson in the importance of analysis in policymaking<br />
* found 2006-01-30: [http://kleercut.net/en/ Kleercut]: Kimberly-Clark's destructive tree harvesting practices ([[corporations]] article?)<br />
* '''2006-01-25'''<br />
** [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8635 Monkey cops keep clans together]: material for possible article on human social organization (here or in Soc/Psych section of HTYP?)<br />
** [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/bu-hkw012506.php Hurricane Katrina: Who was hit? Who will return?]<br />
** [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/genrush.htm EVEN WITH MORE FREE TIME, WOMEN FEEL NO LESS RUSHED, STUDY FINDS]<br />
* '''2006-01-24''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/ps-umd012406.php Unhappy marriages detrimental to self-esteem and health]<br />
* found 2006-01-19 [http://www.republicansforhumility.com/ Republicans for Humility] "Country before Party"; [http://www.checksbalances.org/ Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances]<br />
* found 2006-01-18 [http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/ A Force More Powerful]: seems related to [http://antiwar.org Anti-War]<br />
* '''2006-01-11''' [http://www.agrnews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1976&Itemid=50 New Orleans residents bulldoze city workers]: the real estate industry is apparently using "cleanup" as an excuse to claim property in NOLA; see also [http://indyweek.com/durham/2006-01-11/cover.html The Second Battle of New Orleans]<br />
* '''2006-01-10''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/aaoa-alr011006.php Anthroposophic lifestyle reduces risk of allergic disease in children]: for alternative medicine article either here or in HTYP (homeopathy)<br />
* found 2006-01-10: [http://idrewthis.org/2004/babyeating.html] [http://idrewthis.org/2005/theprocess.html] - possible fodder for more [[Rhetorical Deception]]s<br />
* '''2006-01-09''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/osu-rmi010606.php Role models influence ethical behavior]<br />
* '''2006-01-08''' [http://www.agrnews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1951&Itemid=46 GMOs: Unborn babies could be harmed]: data that GMOs are harmful, and also GWB wants to force Europe to use them<br />
* found 2006-01-07<br />
** [http://www.hypergene.net/blog/comments.php?id=327_0_1_0_C The Future Is Here, But Do News Media Companies See It?]: possible inspiration for a discussion of how newspapers should maintain an online Issuepedia-like catalog of leads, photos, data, etc. as part of the process of reinventing themselves<br />
** [http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/2006/01/02/is-religion-a-virus/ Is religion a virus?]<br />
** [http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2005/12/rhetorical-goons.html Rhetorical Goons]: about debating with Christians<br />
** [http://www.buridansass.com/archives/2006/01/what_to_do_about_rational_discontents.html What to do about rational discontents?], i.e. those who malign the idea of rational discourse<br />
** '''2006-01-05'' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/cums-aih010506.php Abstinence is healthy goal for teenagers but research critiques abstinence-only educational policies]: for eventual [[Sex Education]] article<br />
* '''2006-01-04'''<br />
** [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600 13 things that do not make sense]: includes interesting results on the placebo effect, homeopathy, and cold fusion<br />
** [http://www.agrnews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1978&Itemid=50 Abramoff pleads guilty in lobbying scandal]: background on [[Jack Abramoff]] and other [[NeoCons]]<br />
* '''2006-01-03'''<br />
** [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/apsa-etl010306.php Exploring the limits of presidential power after 9/11]<br />
** [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uocp-nsl010306.php New study links reputation to media bias]<br />
<br />
===2005-12===<br />
* '''2005-12-21''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/bpl-fod122105.php Fear of death may factor into who we vote for]: specifically, subtle reminders of mortality caused people to switch votes from Kerry to Bush<br />
* '''2005-12-15''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/bpl-eoi121505.php Emphasis on individuality in college admissions disadvantages minority students]: culture does matter<br />
* '''2005-12'''<br />
** [http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051128roco02 American Rapture]: more evangelical connections to the White House<br />
** [http://raptureready.com/ Rapture Ready]: more evangelism<br />
* '''2005-12-08''' [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051207105911.htm NASA's AURA Satellite Peers Into Earth's Ozone Hole] and it was smaller this year, but maybe only because of global warming<br />
* found 2005-12-05: http://www.funnystrange.com/quiz/ -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Usama bin Laden seem to agree about an awful lot (including, though not mentioned here, Falwell's attempt to shift the blame for 9/11: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way &ndash; all of them who have tried to secularize America &ndash; I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'")<br />
* '''2005-12-02''' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10297701/ The War on Christmas]<br />
===2005-11===<br />
* '''2005-11-24''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101812.html Memo May Have Swayed Plan B Ruling]: conservative doctor's "minority report" may have nixed contraceptive drug<br />
* '''2005-11-11''' [http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003728.html The Greening of China]<br />
* '''2005-11-09''' [http://thismodernworld.com/2467 U.S. usage of white phosphorus in Fallujah]<br />
* '''2005-11-08'''<br />
** [http://thismodernworld.com/2461 It's Chalabi Day!]<br />
** [http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001436211 McClellan Deflects Questions on Torture]<br />
** [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051108081926.htm Rainforest Conservation Worth The Cost, University Of Alberta Shows] for eventual article on biodiversity<br />
* '''2005-11-07''' [http://www.tomdispatch.com/ TomDispatch]: as of 11/7, lots of interesting bits about various Bush administration shenanigans<br />
* '''2005-11-06''' [http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003713.html The Week in Sustainable Vehicles]: some links relevant to global warming , dependence on oil<br />
* '''2005-11-06''' [http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003710.html Renewable Energy's Investment Hockey Stick]: renewable energy investment appears to be on the verge of taking off<br />
* '''2005-11-04''' [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_torture Cheney Pushes Senate for CIA Exemption]: interesting glimpse of Dick Cheney's position on torture<br />
* [http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html China, Tibet and Chinese nation]: China's official (?) position on Tibet<br />
===2005 ??===<br />
* [http://www.archive.org/details/network_2005 Network 2005] (free video, with reviews): 'A professor and 60 Minutes producer speaks candidly about the impetus for suppression of reality in media coverage of the so-called "war on terror".'<br />
* found 2005-11-22 [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ Religious Tolerance]: much discussion and research<br />
* found 2005-06-09 [http://www.perkel.com/marc.htm Marc Perkel]: some interesting links, though the text is a bit dated<br />
* found 2005-06-03 [http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ The Downing Street Memo]<br />
<br />
===Earlier===<br />
* '''2004-11-29''' The Infamous Brad - Christians in the Hand of an Angry God: [http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html part 1] [http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118805.html part 2] [http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/119283.html part 3] by J. Brad Hicks<br />
* '''2003-07-07''' http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110003713 for eventual page on [[Ann Coulter]]<br />
<br />
==Done==<br />
* (done 2006-01-10) '''2005-12-22''' [http://www.participate.net/node/810 Banter over Bias Shields the Real Problem of the Media]: possibly for [[Moving the Fulcrum]] article ([[Moving the Center]]?) See also I Drew This: [http://idrewthis.org/2005/compromise.html] [http://idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.html]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/interfaith_treaty&diff=5380User:Woozle/interfaith treaty2007-02-16T12:52:33Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Notes */ dissent = terrorism?</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
It seems to me that some sort of treaty between individuals of different faiths, including non-believers (aka [[atheist]]s), could help members of all religions unite against greater threats.<br />
<br />
This initiative would mainly be intended for individuals rather than religious leaders, as the leaders generally have their own unspoken agendas and are far too intertwined with the survival of their core dogma to be able to think as independent individuals &ndash; though if any religious leaders signed on, of course, that would be a terrific bonus.<br />
==Proposed Terms==<br />
We the undersigned are in agreement on the following:<br />
* That [[religious extremism]] is a problem;<br />
** That it represents a threat to civilization and to individual safety and happiness;<br />
** And that such threat is greater than the threat represented by [[wikipedia:apostasy|apostasy]], [[atheism]], or the beliefs of other religions and sects, so long as those beliefs are not themselves extreme.<br />
* We define religious extremism to include:<br />
** The advocacy of violence against others who do not believe the same as you do<br />
** The promise of eternal happiness in exchange for committing harm to others<br />
** Any claim that religious law is supreme over secular law, or that believers are entitled to violate secular law if their religion claims this is acceptable<br />
** Any claim that believers of a particular religion are morally superior to believers in another religion solely because of their religious affiliation<br />
** Any claim that believers of a particular religion are entitled to disrespect other individuals solely because they do not believe the same religion<br />
** Any claim that any religious law should be obeyed without regard to the reasonableness of that law, or without consideration for the harm that obeying it might cause<br />
<br />
Therefore, we unite, and we urge our governmental and spiritual leaders to do so as well, in '''condemning all religiously-based violence and threats''', whatever the cause, including:<br />
* The use of deadly force against civilians where no formal state of war exists between the two parties (terrorism)<br />
* Attacks on abortion clinics, or upon those who work there, or upon on women who seek abortions, regardless of the morality of abortion<br />
* Attacks on individuals because of their sexuality, regardless of morality<br />
* Attacks on individuals or groups because of their race<br />
* Attacks on individuals or groups because of their religion or beliefs<br />
...where we define "attack" to mean any kind of physical violence or harm, or threat of same.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
I originally wanted to include something about [[scriptural inerrancy]] doctrines, but (aside from the fact that this would make the Pope a religious extremist) I can't easily argue that such doctrine is unarguably harmful &ndash; ''as long as'' scripture is not allowed to override reality and reason ("...without regard to the reasonableness of that law..."). Perhaps this can go in a separate, more hard-line resolution about dangerous (but not terrorist-level) religious practices.<br />
<br />
Other possibilities for that resolution: condemnation of [[compartmentalization of beliefs]], [[double standards]], hypocrisy, [[religious indoctrination of children]] (i.e. telling them that one religion is "right" and the others are "wrong" rather than saying "here's what we believe, and here's why; when you grow up, you can decide whether you agree")<br />
<br />
I also wanted to include something about destruction of art, but (a) the line gets awfully fuzzy* and (b) even destroying 900-year-old statues is still somehow not quite the same level of badness as setting off a bomb in a crowded subway station.<br />
<br />
*More on that fuzzy line: I would condemn burning books and Beatle records, but not necessarily blowing up disco records in Comiskey park (although I'm not crazy about the latter either). I would condemn destroying 900-year-old statues of Buddha, but not necessarily toppling statues of Lenin. I could justify each of these distinctions, but it starts to get rather complicated and arbitrary and okay, let's just drop that.<br />
<br />
'''Query''': Can we somehow wedge in something about condemning claims that dissention is equivalent to terrorism? This isn't strictly religiously-based, it's just ''used'' a lot by religious-authoritarian types...</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/interfaith_treaty&diff=5379User:Woozle/interfaith treaty2007-02-16T12:50:22Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Notes */ destruction of art</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
It seems to me that some sort of treaty between individuals of different faiths, including non-believers (aka [[atheist]]s), could help members of all religions unite against greater threats.<br />
<br />
This initiative would mainly be intended for individuals rather than religious leaders, as the leaders generally have their own unspoken agendas and are far too intertwined with the survival of their core dogma to be able to think as independent individuals &ndash; though if any religious leaders signed on, of course, that would be a terrific bonus.<br />
==Proposed Terms==<br />
We the undersigned are in agreement on the following:<br />
* That [[religious extremism]] is a problem;<br />
** That it represents a threat to civilization and to individual safety and happiness;<br />
** And that such threat is greater than the threat represented by [[wikipedia:apostasy|apostasy]], [[atheism]], or the beliefs of other religions and sects, so long as those beliefs are not themselves extreme.<br />
* We define religious extremism to include:<br />
** The advocacy of violence against others who do not believe the same as you do<br />
** The promise of eternal happiness in exchange for committing harm to others<br />
** Any claim that religious law is supreme over secular law, or that believers are entitled to violate secular law if their religion claims this is acceptable<br />
** Any claim that believers of a particular religion are morally superior to believers in another religion solely because of their religious affiliation<br />
** Any claim that believers of a particular religion are entitled to disrespect other individuals solely because they do not believe the same religion<br />
** Any claim that any religious law should be obeyed without regard to the reasonableness of that law, or without consideration for the harm that obeying it might cause<br />
<br />
Therefore, we unite, and we urge our governmental and spiritual leaders to do so as well, in '''condemning all religiously-based violence and threats''', whatever the cause, including:<br />
* The use of deadly force against civilians where no formal state of war exists between the two parties (terrorism)<br />
* Attacks on abortion clinics, or upon those who work there, or upon on women who seek abortions, regardless of the morality of abortion<br />
* Attacks on individuals because of their sexuality, regardless of morality<br />
* Attacks on individuals or groups because of their race<br />
* Attacks on individuals or groups because of their religion or beliefs<br />
...where we define "attack" to mean any kind of physical violence or harm, or threat of same.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
I originally wanted to include something about [[scriptural inerrancy]] doctrines, but (aside from the fact that this would make the Pope a religious extremist) I can't easily argue that such doctrine is unarguably harmful &ndash; ''as long as'' scripture is not allowed to override reality and reason ("...without regard to the reasonableness of that law..."). Perhaps this can go in a separate, more hard-line resolution about dangerous (but not terrorist-level) religious practices.<br />
<br />
Other possibilities for that resolution: condemnation of [[compartmentalization of beliefs]], [[double standards]], hypocrisy, [[religious indoctrination of children]] (i.e. telling them that one religion is "right" and the others are "wrong" rather than saying "here's what we believe, and here's why; when you grow up, you can decide whether you agree")<br />
<br />
I also wanted to include something about destruction of art, but (a) the line gets awfully fuzzy* and (b) even destroying 900-year-old statues is still somehow not quite the same level of badness as setting off a bomb in a crowded subway station.<br />
<br />
*More on that fuzzy line: I would condemn burning books and Beatle records, but not necessarily blowing up disco records in Comiskey park (although I'm not crazy about the latter either). I would condemn destroying 900-year-old statues of Buddha, but not necessarily toppling statues of Lenin. I could justify each of these distinctions, but it starts to get rather complicated and arbitrary and okay, let's just drop that.</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=9/11&diff=29289/112006-06-08T17:33:24Z<p>24.136.238.245: redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[2001-09-11 Attacks]]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=318Global warming2005-11-07T23:18:05Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* News Articles */ 10/13 washpost article</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: Issues]]<br />
[[Global Warming]] refers to the idea that the Earth's average temperature could significantly increase to the point where it will have noticeable effects on how people live.<br />
<br />
There continues to be debate on the following points:<br />
* whether or not the Earth is currently on a general warmining trend<br />
* whether or not this trend, if it is real, will continue<br />
* whether or not this will have significant effects on anyone<br />
* what those effects might be<br />
* whether or not these effects, if real, are being caused by humanity<br />
** Could be caused by random climatic drift<br />
** Could be caused by changes in any of countless variables, e.g. the sun's energy output<br />
* whether it is in humanity's best interest to attempt countermeasures (as opposed to "letting nature take its course")<br />
* what sorts of countermeasures should be taken (e.g. should we try to counteract the warming trend itself, or just be prepared to deal with the changing climate and rising sea levels as they happen?)<br />
<br />
Evidence pointing to a warming trend seems to be increasing, but many still consider the issue far from resolved.<br />
<br />
==Difficulty of Resolution==<br />
Part of the problem is that the issue has become heavily politicized, largely because direct countermeasures (attempts to counteract the warming trend) tend to be unpopular amongst those who would need to implement them, and those who would need to implement them are generally large businesses with significant amounts of political clout and ability to drive the discussion in directions favorable to them.<br />
<br />
Another part of the problem is that determining whether or not the phenomenon is of genuine concern requires the integration of large amounts of data &ndash; over long timespans and a large number of different geographical locations &ndash; in order to notice subtle real effects without raising false alarms due to temporary or local effects.<br />
==Contrary Opinions==<br />
Although the majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and is caused by humanity, a few disagree; each of these few generally express one of the following positions:<br />
<br />
* The Earth is not warming: surface records seem to show a warming trend, but satellite and weather balloon records do not.<br />
* The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown<br />
* The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes<br />
* Global warming is occuring but not as much as feared<br />
<br />
(Reference: [[wikipedia:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus]])<br />
<br />
Another counterargument which seems to come up frequently is the idea that the Earth is self-correcting (generally referred to as [[wikipedia:Gaia theory (science)|Gaia theory]]) and any warming trend will surely be followed by an eventual cooling trend. Although this may be true in general, there is also strong evidence that Earth has been significantly warmer or colder than at present for quite long stretches of time &mdash; apparently even freezing over completely on at least one occasion ([[wikipedia:Snowball Earth|Snowball Earth]]), remaining that way for many millions of years and only unfreezing when the accumulation of geothermally-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere became sufficient to create a counteracting [[wikipedia:Greenhouse effect|greenhouse effect]].<br />
<br />
At least one group has argued that the Earth is actually ''cooling'':<br />
*[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html New Research Indicates the Earth May Be Cooling] by Amy Ridenour of the conservative [[wikipedia:National Center for Public Policy Research|National Center for Public Policy Research]]<br />
**[http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003381 response to Ridenour]<br />
<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Global warming|Wikipedia]]<br />
==News Articles==<br />
* '''2005-11-03''' [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051103082538.htm Study Shows Escalating Climate Change Impacts...]<br />
* '''2005-11-02''' [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051101222522.htm Modeling Of Long-term Fossil Fuel Consumption Shows 14.5 Degree Hike In Temperature]<br />
* '''2005-10-13''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005] By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer<br />
* '''2005-09-23''' [http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html CNN: New era of hurricanes] "But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn."<br />
* '''2005-09-16''' [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece Global warming 'past the point of no return']<br />
* '''2005-05-10''' [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html The (UK) Guardian]: "David Bellamy's inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage are a boon to climate change deniers"</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=181Conservatism2005-09-27T12:56:11Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Well-Known Conservative Proponents */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
==Viewpoint==<br />
''[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] notes: I have found it difficult to locate good sources on the Conservative philosophy, in part because it has become heavily politicized and in part because the usage of the term seems to be changing. I'll add bits as I find them, but others should feel free to contribute.''<br />
<br />
At its base, conservatism is the of preventing change in society; it often includes a certain reactionary element that wishes to revert society to an earlier (supposedly happer) time, but this is not the main thrust of conservatism.<br />
<br />
Conservatism encompasses a wide variety of possible viewpoints, with different aspects being emphasized in different countries.<br />
==Conservatism in America==<br />
''see also: [[Wikipedia:Conservatism in North America]]''<br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank, states a belief "in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values. We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. ... we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving." This would seem to be a reasonable definition of the best attributes of American conservatism.<br />
<br />
A cornerstone of American Conservative philosophy is '''personal responsibility''' &ndash; the idea that each individual is solely responsible for his/her own well-being; government exists solely to ensure that the rules are enforced, which includes protection from hostile external forces.<br />
<br />
==Politics==<br />
Conservatives in the United States are generally aligned with the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] and sometimes with the [[United States Libertarian Party|Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
==Related Articles==<br />
*[[United States Republican Party]]<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Conservatism]]<br />
<br />
==Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups==<br />
*'''Conservative'''<br />
**[http://www.heritage.org/ The Heritage Foundation] (US)<br />
**[http://www.johnlocke.org/ John Locke Foundation] (US - North Carolina)<br />
*'''Fundamentalist'''<br />
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice Christian Voice] (UK)<br />
<br />
==Well-Known Conservative Proponents==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Ann Coulter|Ann Coulter]]<br />
*[[wikipedia:William F. Buckley, Jr.|William F. Buckley, Jr.]] "the godfather of modern American conservatism"<br />
*[[wikipedia:Rush Limbaugh|Rush Limbaugh]]<br />
==Comments==<br />
* '''2005-09-27''' J.E.R. Staddon writes: "...there are acres written on conservatism, but one of the best definitions I've seen is that it is a disbelief in utopia, i.e., a disbelief in the "progressive" idea that human beings, and human society, are infinitely perfectible. The problem with belief in utopia is that if you believe it is possible, then you are obliged to take active steps tio bring it about, which usually leads to the death and misery of large numbers of human beings (see Stalin, Mao, the Islamists, etc.)."</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=175Conservatism2005-09-27T12:25:23Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Politics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
==Viewpoint==<br />
''[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] notes: I have found it difficult to locate good sources on the Conservative philosophy, in part because it has become heavily politicized and in part because the usage of the term seems to be changing. I'll add bits as I find them, but others should feel free to contribute.''<br />
<br />
At its base, conservatism is the of preventing change in society; it often includes a certain reactionary element that wishes to revert society to an earlier (supposedly happer) time, but this is not the main thrust of conservatism.<br />
<br />
Conservatism encompasses a wide variety of possible viewpoints, with different aspects being emphasized in different countries.<br />
==Conservatism in America==<br />
''see also: [[Wikipedia:Conservatism in North America]]''<br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank, states a belief "in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values. We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. ... we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving." This would seem to be a reasonable definition of the best attributes of American conservatism.<br />
<br />
A cornerstone of American Conservative philosophy is '''personal responsibility''' &ndash; the idea that each individual is solely responsible for his/her own well-being; government exists solely to ensure that the rules are enforced, which includes protection from hostile external forces.<br />
<br />
==Politics==<br />
Conservatives in the United States are generally aligned with the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] and sometimes with the [[United States Libertarian Party|Libertarian Party]].<br />
<br />
==Related Articles==<br />
*[[United States Republican Party]]<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Conservatism]]<br />
<br />
==Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups==<br />
*'''Conservative'''<br />
**[http://www.heritage.org/ The Heritage Foundation] (US)<br />
**[http://www.johnlocke.org/ John Locke Foundation] (US - North Carolina)<br />
*'''Fundamentalist'''<br />
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice Christian Voice] (UK)<br />
<br />
==Well-Known Conservative Proponents==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Ann Coulter|Ann Coulter]]<br />
*[[wikipedia:William F. Buckley, Jr.|William F. Buckley, Jr.]] "the godfather of modern American conservatism"<br />
*[[wikipedia:Rush Limbaugh|Rush Limbaugh]]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=174Conservatism2005-09-27T12:21:21Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups */ indentation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
==Viewpoint==<br />
''[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] notes: I have found it difficult to locate good sources on the Conservative philosophy, in part because it has become heavily politicized and in part because the usage of the term seems to be changing. I'll add bits as I find them, but others should feel free to contribute.''<br />
<br />
At its base, conservatism is the of preventing change in society; it often includes a certain reactionary element that wishes to revert society to an earlier (supposedly happer) time, but this is not the main thrust of conservatism.<br />
<br />
Conservatism encompasses a wide variety of possible viewpoints, with different aspects being emphasized in different countries.<br />
==Conservatism in America==<br />
''see also: [[Wikipedia:Conservatism in North America]]''<br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank, states a belief "in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values. We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. ... we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving." This would seem to be a reasonable definition of the best attributes of American conservatism.<br />
<br />
A cornerstone of American Conservative philosophy is '''personal responsibility''' &ndash; the idea that each individual is solely responsible for his/her own well-being; government exists solely to ensure that the rules are enforced, which includes protection from hostile external forces.<br />
<br />
==Politics==<br />
Conservatives in the United States are generally aligned with the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] and sometimes with the [[United States Libertarian Party]].<br />
==Related Articles==<br />
*[[United States Republican Party]]<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Conservatism]]<br />
<br />
==Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups==<br />
*'''Conservative'''<br />
**[http://www.heritage.org/ The Heritage Foundation] (US)<br />
**[http://www.johnlocke.org/ John Locke Foundation] (US - North Carolina)<br />
*'''Fundamentalist'''<br />
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice Christian Voice] (UK)<br />
<br />
==Well-Known Conservative Proponents==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Ann Coulter|Ann Coulter]]<br />
*[[wikipedia:William F. Buckley, Jr.|William F. Buckley, Jr.]] "the godfather of modern American conservatism"<br />
*[[wikipedia:Rush Limbaugh|Rush Limbaugh]]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173Conservatism2005-09-27T12:21:03Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups */ reorg; John Locke</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
==Viewpoint==<br />
''[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] notes: I have found it difficult to locate good sources on the Conservative philosophy, in part because it has become heavily politicized and in part because the usage of the term seems to be changing. I'll add bits as I find them, but others should feel free to contribute.''<br />
<br />
At its base, conservatism is the of preventing change in society; it often includes a certain reactionary element that wishes to revert society to an earlier (supposedly happer) time, but this is not the main thrust of conservatism.<br />
<br />
Conservatism encompasses a wide variety of possible viewpoints, with different aspects being emphasized in different countries.<br />
==Conservatism in America==<br />
''see also: [[Wikipedia:Conservatism in North America]]''<br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank, states a belief "in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values. We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. ... we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving." This would seem to be a reasonable definition of the best attributes of American conservatism.<br />
<br />
A cornerstone of American Conservative philosophy is '''personal responsibility''' &ndash; the idea that each individual is solely responsible for his/her own well-being; government exists solely to ensure that the rules are enforced, which includes protection from hostile external forces.<br />
<br />
==Politics==<br />
Conservatives in the United States are generally aligned with the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] and sometimes with the [[United States Libertarian Party]].<br />
==Related Articles==<br />
*[[United States Republican Party]]<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Conservatism]]<br />
<br />
==Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups==<br />
*'''Conservative'''<br />
*[http://www.heritage.org/ The Heritage Foundation] (US)<br />
*[http://www.johnlocke.org/ John Locke Foundation] (US - North Carolina)<br />
*'''Fundamentalist'''<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice Christian Voice] (UK)<br />
<br />
==Well-Known Conservative Proponents==<br />
*[[wikipedia:Ann Coulter|Ann Coulter]]<br />
*[[wikipedia:William F. Buckley, Jr.|William F. Buckley, Jr.]] "the godfather of modern American conservatism"<br />
*[[wikipedia:Rush Limbaugh|Rush Limbaugh]]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina/response&diff=160Hurricane Katrina/response2005-09-18T17:34:31Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Links */ Reuters "firms with ties" link</p>
<hr />
<div>==Opinionated Summary==<br />
[[George W. Bush]]'s [[2000-2007 US Presidential Administration|administration]] has been shameful in its lackadaisical response to the devastation of [[wikipedia:Hurricane Katrina|Hurricane Katrina]], and has compounded this shame by focusing their belated responses primarily on their own political power-reinforcement, self-congratulations, and (when they reach the point of admitting that the response has been inadequate) claiming that nobody had foreseen the possibility of such a disaster.<br />
<br />
The government's response has been widely described as a national disgrace, by critics inside the US and abroad. Such accusations tend to fly thick and fast in any major disaster such as this &mdash; but in this case they do seem warranted in that there seems to have been '''no contingency plan''', despite the countless discussions of the inevitability of [[wikipedia:Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans|exactly this disaster]] (and worse) over the past few years, with plenty of warning that action was needed if it was to be prevented.<br />
<br />
Worse, the administration seems to be actively denying that anyone had any idea that this could happen (Bush: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204754.stm]; Chertoff: "That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight." [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html]). This can only be monumental stupidity, willful ignorance, or perhaps a deliberate application of the [[wikipedia:Big Lie|Big Lie]] technique.<br />
<br />
It should be noted, also, that this administration has "[http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fitems%2F200509020001 repeatedly denied full funding for hurricane prevention and flood control]" (siphoning much of the money off to pay for the war in Iraq), thus allowing a known problem to remain unaddressed until it was too late.<br />
<br />
==Transportation Effects==<br />
A further effect of the hurricane has been a sudden leap in gasoline prices, because of damage to the supply lines (many of which went through southern Louisiana) and drilling rigs (many located just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico). This has added to already high gasoline prices which appear to be ultimately due to gradually decreasing output as the Earth's supply of crude oil dwindles (see [[Dependence on Oil]]), which highlights the current administration's continual inattention to strengthening public transportation (using less fuel per passenger-mile) and development of alternative fuels.<br />
==Media Manipulation==<br />
* '''2005-09-10''' about 2 days ago, the Bush administration began trying to shift blame to local officials &ndash; including a blatantly false statement about the Louisiana governor's actions, which was widely repeated as fact &ndash; and to paint criticisms of the administration's handling of the crisis as "Democrats ... seeking political gain at a moment of national crisis". [http://mediamatters.org/items/200509080023] [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05bush.html?ex=1283572800&en=6fea4620b7c96ac5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss]<br />
<br />
==Reference==<br />
*[http://www.nola-intel.org/ New Orleans, LA Post-Katrina Intelligence Dissemination] wiki<br />
* [[wikipedia:Hurricane Katrina|Wikipedia]]<br />
** [[wikipedia:Hurricane Katrina disaster relief|disaster relief]]<br />
* [http://www.truthout.org/mayday.shtml Truthout.org]<br />
==Links==<br />
* '''2005-09-13''' [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.response/index.html more details come to light] regarding why there was no planned evacuation<br />
* '''2005-09-10''' [http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09727978.htm Firms with Bush-Cheney ties clinching Katrina deals] (Reuters)<br />
* '''2005-09-03''' [http://landrieu.senate.gov/releases/05/2005903E12.html statement from Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu]<br />
*[http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/09/impeach_george_.html Impeach George]: some rather damning details<br />
*[http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/currentevents/a/katrinaquotes.htm Katrina-related quotes] from government officials and others<br />
*[http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/02/levee.criticism.reut/index.html CNN: Models predicted New Orleans disaster] but Bush says "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."<br />
*[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html Chertoff: Katrina scenario did not exist]: "Homeland Security Secretary [[wikipedia:Michael Chertoff|Michael Chertoff]] argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur." WTF??<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
*There have been rumors that Canada offered help, but that the help was not allowed to enter the country &mdash; details, anyone?<br />
*Despite the shamefulness of this weak response, the Department of Homeland Security has apparently gone ahead with declaring September to be [http://www.ready.gov/npm/ National Preparedness Month].</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Oil_addiction&diff=151Oil addiction2005-09-17T11:56:01Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Links */ more wikipedia article links</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Issues]]<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The United States in particular, and the global economy in general, depends heavily on non-renewable fossil oil as a fuel for transportation. More specifically, it depends upon oil remaining relatively inexpensive.<br />
<br />
==Theory==<br />
In practical terms, a "fuel" is any substance which can hold enough energy to power a reasonably-sized vehicle for a distance of at least several hundred miles while fitting into a container small enough to be carried by that same vehicle. The key fact here is not that the fuel ''provides'' the energy, but that it ''contains'' it. An extension cord plugged into a household power socket can provide a lot of energy, but you can't take it very far. Conversely, most batteries (anything from a miniscule Lithium watch battery to an automotive wet-cell battery) are quite portable, but cannot hold enough power to move a vehicle any useful distance.<br />
<br />
The most important thing about oil, which is even more true once it is refined into chemicals such as gasoline (petrolium) and diesel, is that it has a high energy-to-volume ratio &ndash; in other words, you can pack a lot of energy into a relatively small space. There are very few substances which approach this density, and most of them create other problems -- hydrogen, for example, is far more combustible than gasoline, and is extremely hazardous to transport in quantities large enough to be useful as a fuel.<br />
<br />
==Finite Supply==<br />
To the best of our knowledge, naturally-occurring oil is formed by the actions of heated chemicals under extreme pressure over "geological time scales" (millions of years), and therefore is not something of which we can quickly make more. Once the naturally-occurring supplies have been exhausted ([http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1DE9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm]), we will need to have found either an alternate method of production or a better means of storing energy.<br />
<br />
==Environmental Effects==<br />
(to be written)<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[wikipedia:UK fuel protests]]: signs of a flagging supply<br />
** [[wikipedia:Category:Peak_oil]]: articles related to anticipated decline in oil supply<br />
** [[wikipedia:Hubbert peak theory]]: much discussion of the situation<br />
** [[wikipedia:Americanus:2005 Energy Crisis]]</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Oil_addiction&diff=137Oil addiction2005-09-17T11:48:26Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Environmental Effects */ Links section; link to UK Fuel Protests article</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Issues]]<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The United States in particular, and the global economy in general, depends heavily on non-renewable fossil oil as a fuel for transportation. More specifically, it depends upon oil remaining relatively inexpensive.<br />
<br />
==Theory==<br />
In practical terms, a "fuel" is any substance which can hold enough energy to power a reasonably-sized vehicle for a distance of at least several hundred miles while fitting into a container small enough to be carried by that same vehicle. The key fact here is not that the fuel ''provides'' the energy, but that it ''contains'' it. An extension cord plugged into a household power socket can provide a lot of energy, but you can't take it very far. Conversely, most batteries (anything from a miniscule Lithium watch battery to an automotive wet-cell battery) are quite portable, but cannot hold enough power to move a vehicle any useful distance.<br />
<br />
The most important thing about oil, which is even more true once it is refined into chemicals such as gasoline (petrolium) and diesel, is that it has a high energy-to-volume ratio &ndash; in other words, you can pack a lot of energy into a relatively small space. There are very few substances which approach this density, and most of them create other problems -- hydrogen, for example, is far more combustible than gasoline, and is extremely hazardous to transport in quantities large enough to be useful as a fuel.<br />
<br />
==Finite Supply==<br />
To the best of our knowledge, naturally-occurring oil is formed by the actions of heated chemicals under extreme pressure over "geological time scales" (millions of years), and therefore is not something of which we can quickly make more. Once the naturally-occurring supplies have been exhausted ([http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1DE9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm]), we will need to have found either an alternate method of production or a better means of storing energy.<br />
<br />
==Environmental Effects==<br />
(to be written)<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[wikipedia:UK fuel protests]]: signs of a flagging supply</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Oil_addiction&diff=136Oil addiction2005-09-05T14:38:28Z<p>24.136.238.245: /* Finite Supply */ link to "may have peaked" article</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Issues]]<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
<br />
The United States in particular, and the global economy in general, depends heavily on non-renewable fossil oil as a fuel for transportation. More specifically, it depends upon oil remaining relatively inexpensive.<br />
<br />
==Theory==<br />
In practical terms, a "fuel" is any substance which can hold enough energy to power a reasonably-sized vehicle for a distance of at least several hundred miles while fitting into a container small enough to be carried by that same vehicle. The key fact here is not that the fuel ''provides'' the energy, but that it ''contains'' it. An extension cord plugged into a household power socket can provide a lot of energy, but you can't take it very far. Conversely, most batteries (anything from a miniscule Lithium watch battery to an automotive wet-cell battery) are quite portable, but cannot hold enough power to move a vehicle any useful distance.<br />
<br />
The most important thing about oil, which is even more true once it is refined into chemicals such as gasoline (petrolium) and diesel, is that it has a high energy-to-volume ratio &ndash; in other words, you can pack a lot of energy into a relatively small space. There are very few substances which approach this density, and most of them create other problems -- hydrogen, for example, is far more combustible than gasoline, and is extremely hazardous to transport in quantities large enough to be useful as a fuel.<br />
<br />
==Finite Supply==<br />
To the best of our knowledge, naturally-occurring oil is formed by the actions of heated chemicals under extreme pressure over "geological time scales" (millions of years), and therefore is not something of which we can quickly make more. Once the naturally-occurring supplies have been exhausted ([http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1DE9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm]), we will need to have found either an alternate method of production or a better means of storing energy.<br />
<br />
==Environmental Effects==<br />
(to be written)</div>24.136.238.245https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=167Conservatism2005-07-07T20:35:31Z<p>24.136.238.245: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
==Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups==<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice Christian Voice] (UK)</div>24.136.238.245