CONSERVAPEDIA?


I'm resting this weekend. It's been a difficult week and next week I have to go to court to file some papers and am loathing having to do so.

On that note - I will repost something I found really enlighting and amusing from PROGRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE & OPINION:

You must be kidding me...

Conservapedia. It exists. At first I though I was looking at a piece of online satire in the style of Stephen Colbert. But no, Conservapedia is a place for Fox News rejects who could no longer pretend to be "fair & balanced." It is a project with the earnest intention of informing others. Yet, it is not be confused with its quasi-namesake, Wikipedia.
...

Conservapedia, however, is no Wikipedia. Reputable sources are scarce (perhaps because most social scientists, aka "experts" are liberal?) and much of its content consists of unadulterated right-wing rants. When citations are provided they lead to the publication of a couple of rouge scientists. Sure, there are those 5% of political scientists who will back a moderately conservative view and the 0.7% of political scientists who will back a right-wing view. And, sure they sound credible. But their publications are obviously representing a "fringe view" that contradicts the vast majority of publications in the field. Yet, Conservapedia makes no effort to mention that it has cherry picked its sources from a miniscule minority of publications.

To make matter worse (or I suppose more entertaining) Conservapedia cites the insanity of right-wing commentators like Anne Coutler and Bill O'Reilly. Half of the entry on San Francisco, for example, consists of Bill O'Reilly's commentary on what he calls "San Francisco values." Anyone using O'Reilly as a source on a Wikipedia entry would likely encounter strong opposition; the only times someone such as O'Reilly should be cited under Wikipedia policy is a text that explicitly discusses his viewpoints.

The line "The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Sulzberger is a radical leftist in his political opinions" says it all. Conservapedia is zest pool for right-wing rants that defies scientific consensus and common sense.
If you are in the mood for a good laugh, or just want pass the time reading pieces of right-wing paranoia, head over to Conservapedia; just don't confuse it with Wikipedia.
TO READ THIS AND OTHER POSTS FROM THIS AUTHOR CLICK HERE


PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JBLOG ME

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
ON WATERBOARDING Sultan Knish has a very good post about waterboarding. While I am personally against torture, he makes some very strong and valid points. I hope everyone goes and reads the whole thing ! Here's some excerpts : United States prisoners have been tortured or assaulted in virtually every war in the 20th century from WW2 to Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. The fact that the United States respected the rights of Nazi, Imperial Japanese, Communist and Islamist prisoners did not in any way restrain the followers of these totalitarian ideologies from abusing our captured soldiers. If anything it made it safer for them to do so knowing that there would be no retaliation. Some forms of psychological pressure are used by law enforcement on a day to day basis. There are people who experience psychological trauma after an encounter with law enforcement. But if law enforcement personnel were not intimidating, they would be useless. In preparation for the 1972 Munich Oly...
Read more
Image
Online Dating - Bad No Matter What There isn't enough money or influence in all the world to get me to do online dating. Ever. I had one stupid online relationship about 5 years ago, with someone I "thought I knew" who assured me they'd 'never hurt me' yet preyed on my good nature at a very dark & vulnerable time, when I was being severely abused. I haven't heard from this friend of over 25 years since. The stays in the hospital from non-stop vomitting were pretty powerful reminders, too. I can't stress enough that people feel powerful & anonymous behind a keyboard. They do & say things they would never dream of doing in the light of day. They smear, they engage in salacious activity and then walk out the door to work the next day as Mr. Or Mrs. Normal. (This is called the "Online Disinhibition Effect") As for online dating? I know of ONE person who met his next wife through J-Date. Yes, I said "next" wife. Tha...
Read more

Standing By Your Sex-Hobbyist -Man; Because It's Your Fault Too?

Image
Eliot, I accept your apology. I won't forget your behavior and hypocrisy but I am starting to forgive because of the stand-up way you've handled everything Because you did something very few men who get caught do. YOU OWNED YOUR BEHAVIOR. You didn't deny or act like it didn't happen. You didn't project that you were targetted and harrassed. You didn't put it all out there because of your family, that's understandable - but you admitted you did something wrong and you showed a lot of class in resigning. Now, work with your wife to heal your marriage, please. And don't cover up or smear anyone involved in this investigation. You seem to be a guy who made a HUGE mistake rather than one of the pathologicals running rampant in politics (and many other places) today. FACE those you hurt, admit what you did, ask their forgiveness, make amends, reframe the relationship, realize some people will never trust you again or ever get over it, but move forward...
Read more