Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Conservapedia to liberal bias to why the USA will get national health care soon

with 6 comments

snowbee.jpg
SnowBee

Today I am going to comment on Conservapedia. Fair warning, this is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade launcher. What can I say, I’m feeling lazy this morning and tired of trying to explain the complicated nuances of history, war, and foreign policy. Hell, I’m still trying to understand the complicated nuances of history, war, and foreign policy; there’s times when not being a biblical literalist is a real drag. History, war and foreign policy is easy for them apparently, certainly nothing complicated or nuanced. And fortunately, now biblical literalists can avoid all of the complicated nuances inherent in reality. Conservapedia has arrived, the “Christian” answer to Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia apparently is a godless liberal bastion, filled with the sort of dangerous misinformation that many conservatives home school their children to avoid exposing them too.

Now as a codicil, when talking about conservatives and Conservapedia, I am talking about a very small group of people (Dear God, I hope it’s a small group of people) who take the Bible literally and pretty much reject everything that came after Newton. In fact I’m still not entirely convinced that Conservapedia isn’t some sort of elaborate hoax or satire. Like the frequently tasteless Landover Baptist Church for example. Also note that Conservapedia apparently has bandwidth problems, often their site can’t be accessed. If one can get onto it, it’s curious. Their entries are nothing if not concise, this is not Wikipedia yet. For example, the entire entry on feminism reads “Feminism is the philosophy that women deserve to have the same rights as men.”

Their page on “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” pretty much covers it. They object to the occasional use of B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D., easily the most pointless controversy in history. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Good, there’s times where ignorance is the better strategy. They claim that Wikipedia doesn’t give enough credit to Christianity. Credit for what isn’t specified, so, um, maybe. Their third objection is about a purported liberal attack against some conservative group I have never heard of. So I stand corrected, there is a controversy more meaningless than the B.C. thing. They then claim there is a strong anti-American and Anti-capitalism bias in Wikipedia. Heck if I know, most Wikipedia entries look somewhat neutral to me, which is why I link to it frequently.

Then, we get to objection number five. Wikipedia, get this, Wikipedia sometimes uses foreign spelling. And by this I mean, they use English spelling in some places. And even more shocking, Wikipedia frequently uses the foreign spelling of foreign words! This is of course a sign of anti-American bias, and fear not, Conservapedia uses American spelling throughout! I mean, give me an effing break, because I use Canadian spelling on my blog, now I’m anti-American? In any event, check them out if interested, I’m not going any further.

For those who do want a more nuanced view of war, history, and foreign affairs, there’s a great interview in Alternet today that I highly recommend: Chomsky on Why Bush Does Diplomacy Mafia Style. The title of course is annoying, and highlights something that always bugs me, people often phrase things in such a way that is discourages the readers who most need to read it. And by most need to read it, I mean people with diametrically opposing views. Because if we can’t dialogue with the people on the other side of the fence, everyone loses in the long run. I know I’m guilty of it too sometimes, but at least I’m trying to write in such a way that anyone of any political/religious stripe can read my work and not be offended. Or not so offended that they can’t grit their teeth and carry on. I read the Drudge Report, so dammit, Drudge Report readers should be able to read Doug’s Darkworld.

Moving right along, the article covers in detail numerous subjects and lines of thought that I have either blogged about, or will blog about. Korea, Iran, the purpose of American foreign policy, why our leaders aren’t actually interested in democracy either in America or foreign lands. When reading it, keep in mind they are talking primarily about every American administration since WW2, if not the entire 20th century. This is not an attack on Republicans in general, snarky remarks about Bush aside.

It’s especially curious near the end when it makes the case that we will get universal health care in the USA soon. Why? Because the American health care system has grown so costly and inefficient that it is now acting as a serious drag on other industries. Because health care costs are ultimately paid by employers whether directly or not, that’s where people get their money to buy health insurance from. The cost to build a car is about $1000 less in Canada because of this difference. It’s an interesting take on the problem, one I definitely plan to blog about. Again though, read the whole article, if you dare.

(The above is an image of the author’s cat SnowBee: the world’s fastest orange cat. It was taken by an amateur photographer with the world’s cheapest digital camera, it is public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. Please note his fine stripes, he is particularly proud of them. In fact, SnowBee is eagerly awaiting some mail order stripe enhancer, this will make him run even faster.)

Written by unitedcats

February 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great thought!

    You said: “I know I’m guilty of it too sometimes, but at least I’m trying to write in such a way that anyone of any political/religious stripe can read my work and not be offended. Or not so offended that they can’t grit their teeth and carry on.”

    I wanted to comment on this due to an experience I had at an extreme left leaning blog/website which was basically dedicated to the destruction of the Bush presidency. I read through a few of the articles posted and attempted to comment from my own conservative view point of world events and was immediate attacked with such viciousness that I will never visit that site again nor do I want to hear anything these people have to say on any issue. Out of the 12 responses to my comments, 11 were filled of profanity and hate for what I said as a conservative. Does the liberal left really have that much hate in their heart for Bush or everyday conservatives? I do not like all that Bush has done in office, but it just seems a little senseless to post your articles on the web filled with such profanity and hate as to deter anyone one from reading it and seeing another point of view.

    I do not agree with all of your talking points, but at least I’m not driven away by profanity and hate. I rather enjoy reading through your articles to balance out everything else…Take care.

    David

    February 26, 2007 at 5:34 pm

  2. I enjoy reading what you write and have had your blog feed in my “friend surfer” since this feature was introduced.

    I tried to access Conservapedia to no avail but believe me when I say that I’m not crying the blues. Conservative Baptist fundamentalists are some of the most “troubled” people on the planet today. Why should they do anything about reducing the greenhouse gas they produce anyway? There have always been greenhouses gas problems so they say and this they attribute to dinosaur flatulence. Having been selected as the elected true believers before the foundations of time, they are convinced they will be removed from the planet in the Rapture. Well, enough said … I can feel my blood pressure spiking. :)

    P.S. Can I convince you to turn off that “snap” preview thingee? I hate it.

    timethief

    February 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

  3. David: Thanks, I try! I wouldn’t even allow that sort of hateful post in here, though it hasn’t been a problem. Have experienced the same on “true believer” posts of several ilks, now on the rare occasion when I still feel compelled to make a reasonable comment on such sites (maybe the towers fell because they were hit by airliners, maybe Plato made up the Atlantis myth, etc…) I hit “send” and don’t hang around for the firestorm. What’s the point? Thanks for reading.
    Timethief: I thought archaeologists recently discovered that Jesus drove a Hummer? Maybe I missed something though…as for Snap Previews…hmm, I guess I should take a poll. I liked it at first myself but the novelty has definitely faded and I now mostly find it annoying too. Thanks for the feedback, always appreciated! —Doug

    unitedcats

    February 26, 2007 at 8:49 pm

  4. unitedcats wrote:

    “Now as a codicil, when talking about conservatives and Conservapedia, I am talking about a very small group of people (Dear God, I hope it’s a small group of people) who take the Bible literally and pretty much reject everything that came after Newton.”

    Alas, it’s not a small group at all. It’s a very, very big group of people, and growing like wildfire worldwide. See various poll results here, regarding creationist vs. evolutionist beliefs here in the U.S.A. Note also that there are creationist-vs.-evolutionist controversies even in the U.K., where fundies aren’t nearly as big a proportion of the population as they are here in the U.S.A. (See this article about a creationist school in the U.K.) More generally, see this page containing a collection of links to numerous articles about the explosive growth of the more fanatical and fundy forms of Christianity both in the U.S.A. and worldwide.

    Diane Vera

    April 20, 2007 at 6:34 pm

  5. […] he seems unaware of some of the most significant religious trends. For example, in a post titled Conservapedia to liberal bias to why the USA will get national health care soon, he wrote: “Now as a codicil, when talking about conservatives and Conservapedia, I am […]

  6. Hi! I see you got my ping earlier today. That post is mostly an attempt to straighten out our misunderstanding on another blog about “fringe cults.” I now think I may have misunderstodd what you meant by that term.

    Anyhow, I’ve looked around here on your blog, and I like most of what I see. You and I seem to agree on a lot of things, though not everything.

    About snap previews: I find them very annoying too, and I’ve gotten rid of them on my own blog.

    Diane Vera

    April 21, 2007 at 5:34 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: