Why We Love Conservapedia: How Can There Be Non-Conservatives?

Our favourite on-line encyclopedia, still reeling in disbelief at the election of Barack Obama ("an apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office"), has started a special section, "Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?" Answers include the contribution of Conservapedia founder and son of the legendary feminist-basher Phyllis Schlafly, Andrew Schlafly, "Self-destructive or contrarian behavior; some choose to do what is irrational."

So far there are 18 reasons, but I'm certain Enduring America readers can make valuable additions to the list. (Indeed, I took the liberty of slipping in my own contribution, which sparked an inadvertently comic discussion amongst the Conservapedia moderators.)



Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

1. They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.


2. They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.


3. They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.


4. They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.


5. Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.


6. They knew a conservative whom they dislike for some random reason.


7. They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."


8. They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.


9. Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.


10. Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.


11. Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.


12. Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.


13. A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.


14. A disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.


15. An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.


16. Self-destructive or contrarian behavior; some choose to do what is irrational.


17. Mind-altering drugs.


18. Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

Around the World on A Saturday: From Iraq to Zimbabwe to North Korea

IRAQ: BLINK AND YOU'LL MISS IT

You might think that, two days after the deadliest bombing in Iraq in six months, the media might want to consider the impact. However, a day after noting the death of 57 Iraqis and the wounding of many more in Kirkuk, everyone has blissfully walked away.



They have done so even though the choice of the restaurant, where Kurdish and Arab leaders were meeting over ethnic tensions in the city, might indicate that someone is quite intent on derailing the political process. Juan Cole even speculates that Iraqi President Jalal Talebani may have been the Number One target.

ZIMBABWE: THE NEW YORK TIMES WAKES UP

Continuing our coverage of Better Late than Never, the editorial staff of the Times have finally noticed the situation, although they don't advocate US involvement: "[The African states] must renounce their recognition of Mr. Mugabe as president and press him and his cronies to cede power."

More substantially, The Washington Post notices an even deadlier situation across the continent, courtesy of a UN report, "Rwanda and Congo have been backing rival rebel and militia groups locked in a violent conflict in eastern Congo that has displaced more than 250,000 civilians since August."

NORTH KOREA: THE FINAL BUSH FAILURE?

Almost eight years after throwing out the negotiating process to halt North Korean development of nuclear weaponry and more than three years after realising that the big stick wasn't going to deter Pyongyang, the Bush Administration suffered a last humiliation when North Korea effectively walked out of talks.

PAKISTAN PLAYS FOR TIME

Richard Oppel and Salman Masood in The New York Times have figured out Pakistan's strategy in dealing with the aftermath of Mumbai. Their article depicts the  "house arrest" of the leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Muhammed Saeed.

With such measures, Islamabad hopes to stave off calls for extradition of Saeed and other LeT leaders, a step which would likely bring the downfall of the Zardari Government.

Christmas Display of the Year: "Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell"

From United Press International:

A Kansas church known for its militant opposition to homosexuality wants to post a warning against Santa Claus in the Washington State Capitol.

A sign from the Westboro Baptist Church saying "Santa Claus will take you to hell" would join other religious statements on the third floor of the building, The Olympian reported. The posted displays include a nativity scene, a menorah and several atheist messages as well as a sign celebrating the winter solstice.

Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka is best known for picketing military funerals with signs that blame deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan on U.S. acceptance of homosexuality. The church is led by Fred Phelps Sr. and most of its members are his children and grandchildren.

The proposed sign would include a mocking version of the song "Santa Claus is coming to town" with messages deriding Santa as an idol.

"So get this fact straight:
you're feeling God's hate,
Santa's to blame for the economy's fate,
Santa Claus will take you to hell."

Update: The Torture Blame Game

Yesterday we noted the Senate Armed Services Committee's report concluding that top Bush Administration officials authorised the abuse and, dare you use the word, torture of detainees. Dan Froomkin, the outstanding blogger for The Washington Post, has an excellent round-up of the report and coverage.

It is his personal question, however, that is most striking:

There's...the obvious question that comes to mind after considering the sequence of events: How are these not war crimes?

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm: US Troops in Iraq for a Decade?

The most significant story you won't find in your paper today:

Adam Ashton, writing for McClatchy News Service, reports, "[Iraq's] government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh said...in Washington that the U.S. might be needed in Iraq for another 10 years." Dabbagh told journalists:

We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years.

Juan Cole is taking a charitable view of the statement. From the Iraqi Government's viewpoint, as it still does not have a navy or Air Force, some American presence may be necessary to rebuild an indigenous military both for internal security and to maintain Iraqi sovereignty in the region.

How convenient, however, for the United States, which needs a pretext for its own policy of remaining the leading power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Under the guise of "training", it can maintain its large bases in Iraq.

Sceptical of my scepticism? Have a look at the near-disgraceful puff piece for the Pentagon in The New York Times this morning. Eric Schmitt gets a free trip to Mali to trumpet, "U.S. Helps African States Fend Off Militants". Somehow Schmitt forgets to mention that the "counterterrorism training and assistance" is part of a much-wider strategy of the new US Africa Command to establish a prevailing US military presence across part of the continent.

In the 1960s, trying both to "win" Vietnam and to maintain US global power and to cut the costs of doing so, it was called "Vietnamization". Welcome to the 21st-century update.