User:Romanfall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

L:AZ

===User:Romanfall/sandbox===


Help:Contents[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style[edit]

Help:Merging #4 List of merger templates[edit]

blah[edit]

portal list[edit]

Category list[edit]

new article howto[edit]

11 easy steps to producing at least a B article
Starting from scratch and want to know how to take it from "0 to 60"? Follow these helpful tips! Some parts are also useful for already-existing articles.

Type a title:
and click "Create page"


Romanfall
Scientific classification
  1. Create a new page.
  2. Create an outline for the article you started:
  3. Add the appropriate infobox.
  4. Add the {{Bibleportal}} to the article and the {{BibleWikiProject}} template to the Talk page.
  5. Populate your article with images such as obtained from Wikimedia Commons, image list, or by posting a request for an image from other Wikipedians.
  6. Add the appropriate categories.
    • Since categories at the bottom of the articles interwiki linked in your article may be appropriate to place in your article, go through each interwiki link in your article and review the categories at the bottom of the linked article for inclusion in your article.
  7. Confirm that the interwiki links, footnotes, and external (non-wiki) links in your article go where you want them to go.
  8. Post an article request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for each broken (red) interwiki link in your article OR remove the double brackets around the broken interwiki link OR write that article as well (these are your only three choices).
  9. Publicize your article by ...
  10. Request peer review of your article ONLY after you believe that you completed all the above steps.
  11. Relax! and take a break if you reached this point. You deserve it!

example[edit]

Bible-open.jpg

{{Portal|Bible}} {{Portal|Ancient Near East}}

{{WikiProject Archaeology|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Syria|class=Stub|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=|importance=}} [[Category:Ancient churches in the Holy Land]] [[Category:Archaeological sites in Israel]]

wiki edit[edit]

links[edit]

[[link name]]

[[name of article linked|text on page]]

subsection link[edit]

[[Article#Section|name of link]]

Manipulation and Persuasion of Large Groups[edit]

nazi propaganda[edit]

Martin Luther's anti-Semitic writings from search http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1168911.ece From The Times October 9, 2002 German media giant grew fat on Nazi propaganda

book, entitled

Dr Martin Luther’s Little Catechism For The Man in Brown gives guidance to Nazi Brownshirts...[edit]

Ten Nazi Anti-Semitic Arguments from the German Propaganda archive at Calvin College  http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/responses.htm
Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys by Kurt Hilmar Eitzen 
Martin Luther saw four hundred years ago that this “decency,” proven by charitable deeds done in as public a manner as possible, is nothing but a hidden cost of business, to repaid a thousand times by uneducated Germans. “Know, dear Christian, and have no doubts about it, that next to the Devil you have no more bitter, poisonous and determined enemy than a genuine Jew. . . If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!”

Descartes[edit]

Dubium sapientiae initium. Translation: Doubt is the origin of wisdom. Meditationes de prima philosophiae (Meditations on First Philosophy) (1641) Cogito, ergo sum. Translation: I think, therefore I am. Variant: I think therefore I exist. Principia philosophiae (Principles of Philosophy) (1644)

Cogito ergo sum

Bio does not mention quote. It does now. Someone thinks and is, as well.

Dualism page starts with Descartes. Does it explore how he developed his philosophy?

His entire philosophy started with doubt; what is known? Reality is meaningless; truth nonexistent.

He was getting depressed. Did he exist? Why was he even thinking? He could trust nothing and knew nothing. He knew that he had no knowledge of anything. But that in itself is knowledge, right? Descartes was into geometry, logic, proof; his initial hypothesis was invalid. He must be real.


If we think, we must exist. To think is an action, a verb. Thought describes a subject in act of thinking. We think so our minds are real.

Descartes does not say I am rational, lucid and I think clearly, therefore I must have a mind.

“I think, therefore I am.”

The prerequisite he places on existence is not based on sanity, logic or veracity.

To think is to exist even if the thoughts are fantasy. [hallucinations, dreams, memories, ...require a psychotic, a sleeper, a memory.

So from a nihilistic desperation sprang Cogito ergo sum and with time, we have Gentlemen, start your engines and Are you ready for some football. [Are you ready to rumble?!?]

Socrates or Pliny, the younger, beat everyone to the punch. They knew knowledge is not possible. The illusion of intellect .... Einstein knew with absolute certainty, we can be certain of nothing. Reality is. We know that. The problem lies with what reality is and is not. We will never know that. QM was QT until it demonstrated that we are clueless and incapable of ever concreting a reality or defining a truth.

simple english version to do?[edit]

Lymphoma
A C-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Embryonic Stem Cells Created Without Harming Embryo[edit]

, for Real This Time http://www.wired.com/medtech/stemcells/news/2008/01/blastocyst_biopsy Med-Tech  : Stem Cells By Brandon Keim 01.10.08

In a study published Thursday in Cell Stem Cell, Wake Forest University Institute for Regenerative Medicine researchers plucked single cells from two-day-old human embryos without harming them, then transformed them into embryonic stem cells, also known as ESCs. ESCs are nature's own alchemical miracle, capable of becoming almost any type of cell in the human body. Scientists and doctors think they could be used to replace diseased or failing tissue, curing everything from cancer to heart disease to Alzheimer's. "These cells could be sent to federal researchers tomorrow if the President approves them," said study co-author Robert Lanza, who in addition to his Wake Forest duties is vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technologies, a stem cell therapy company. Ethical dilemmas have stunted the pursuit of stem cells' heady promise because the cells are derived from week-old embryos. Using traditional methods, the embryos are destroyed. Some critics say the process is tantamount to murder, and call the research immoral. In August of 2001, President Bush banned federal funding for research on ESCs that hadn't already been created. Scientists now say the approved ESC populations, known as lines, are defective and medically limited. Supporters of the research say restrictions on potentially lifesaving research may be yet another form of murder. In November, researchers in the United States and Japan made progress towards a truce by successfully turning skin cells into the near-equivalents of embryonic stem cells. But the reprogrammed cells sometimes turn cancerous, they might not be medically ready for years and they might never be as powerful as ESCs. Until those cells are ready, scientists say research on embryonic stem cells is still required, throwing them right back into the controversy. But if President Bush approves for federal funding the technique just described in Cell Stem Cell, researchers could finally have an ethically unclouded source of ESCs. 
"Ultimately, we hope that reprogramming will supplant the need for ESCs, but it may be some time before we get there," said David Scadden, a Harvard University stem cell researcher and co-chair of the Massachusetts Institute for Regenerative medicine who was not involved in the study. "In the meantime, the best-defined way to get pluripotent cells is to use ESCs."
The new technique, known as blastomere biopsy, involves taking a single cell from a two-day-old embryo, then coaxing it to become an embryonic stem cell. Lanza and his colleagues described the basic steps last year in Nature, but hadn't yet figured out how to reliably make the cells become embryonic. In the latest study, they accomplished this by bathing the cells in nutrients naturally found in embryos, which caused the cells to reliably become ESCs. The ESCs later developed into heart tissue, neurons, cartilage, blood cells and insulin-producing cells, suggesting they are versatile enough to become powerful therapeutics. In last years' experiment, critics cried foul because Lanza and his colleagues called their procedure ethical, but did not allow the original "donor" embryos to develop, which could potentially have proven that they were not damaged during the experiment. This time, the scientists allowed the original embryos grow. Eighty percent became healthy blastocysts, and were then frozen. The percentage compares to the survival rates of embryos used in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which involves a similar procedure of removing one cell from an embryo to test it for genetic defects prior to the embryo's implantation in a woman. More than 1,000 babies have been born after pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and while rigorous studies on their long-term health have yet to be conducted, the procedure appears to be safe. However, Stanford University William Hurlbut says the 80 percent success rate may be too low to satisfy the Dickey Amendment, a piece of legislation attached to every appropriations bill since 1995 that forbids federal spending on an technique that would endanger an embryo. And legal technicalities aside, "The pro-life actors in this drama just won't accept it," he said.
Another problem critics had with the previous technique was that the bath used to soak the cells was derived by destroying embryos. This time the scientists created the bath from scratch without using embryos.  Blastomere biopsy will soon be reviewed by the NIH, which in September 2007 called it a potential source of ethically acceptable embryonic stem cells, said Anthony Atala, a colleague of Lanza's at the Wake Forest University Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Once they've reviewed it, the technique will be submitted to President Bush for final approval. 
If approved, resulting cell lines will be eligible for federal research funding -- and researchers aren't wasting any time getting ready. Atala says his lab will soon begin producing ESCs through blastomere biopsy. Pending President Bush's go-ahead, Atala's group would make lines immediately available to researchers. "We're already set up and ready to go here," said Atala. "Hopefully we'll start soon."

The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama[edit]

p. 81 "… grimmer history to the filibuster ,…the South’s weapon… to protect Jim Crow … men like Senator Richard B. Russull, of Georgia...used the filibuster to choke off civil rights legislation…”
p.82 "It behooves a president – and benefits our democracy - to find moderate nominees who can garner… bipartisan support.”



The Center for Arizona Policy[edit]

Our Mission[edit]

The Center for Arizona Policy is a nonprofit research and education organization committed to protecting and defending the family by influencing policy, communicating truth, and equipping citizens to promote timeless family values.

The Center for Arizona Policy(CAP) works to:

  1. Inform policymakers by providing research and factual information on vital issues affecting the family.
  2. Communicate truth on family issues through the media.
  3. Equip concerned citizens and churches to be persuasive advocates for the family.

The Center for Arizona Policy was established in 1995 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening Arizona families through policy and education. We accomplish this by actively educating Arizonans on issues like:

  • Sanctity of Marriage
  • Sanctity of Human Life
  • Religious Freedom
  • Parental Rights
  • Education
  • Harms of Gambling


The Center for Arizona Policy is one of the leading organizations in Arizona actively standing at the legislature and in the media for conservative, traditional views on these issues.

The Center for Arizona Policy is part of a state-based family policy council network. The councils are independent entities with no corporate relationship to each other but their purpose is uniform: to serve as a voice for the family and to assist advocates for family values in recapturing the moral and intellectual high ground in the public arena.[1]

The Center for Arizona Policy
(602) 424-2525 | Fax (602) 424-2530
Tucson Office: (520) 988-2005
(800) FAMILY-1 | Info@azpolicy.org | www.azpolicy.org

Privacy Policy The Center for Arizona Policy is a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization. All contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.[2]

Impact on Arizona[edit]

CAP Supported Bills That Became Arizona Law[edit]

County authority to license sex businesses (1996) **
Stronger child porn laws (1996)
Ban on same-sex marriage (1996)
Parental consent for abortion (1996) *
Elimination of marriage tax penalty (1997)
Ban on partial-birth abortion (1997) *
Funding for obscenity prosecutions (1997)
Protecting children from news rack pornography (1997)
Covenant marriage (1998)
Closing sex businesses during overnight hours (1998) ***
Abortion clinic regulation (1999) ***
Charitable choice act (1999)
Covenant marriage revisions (1999)
Protecting children in public schools and libraries from internet pornography (1999)
Home school participation in interscholastic activities (1999)
Home school eligibility for Regent Scholarships (1999)
Minimum age for gambling increased to 21 (2000)
Parental consent for abortion revised (2000) **
Daily recitation from the Declaration of Independence, 4th - 6th grades (2000)
Abortion clinic regulations revised (2000)***
Restrictions on Indian gambling compacts (2000)
Lottery reform (2000)
Marriage education classes (2000)
Middle school equal access (2001)
Special needs home school students access to school services (2001)
Restriction on physician assistants performing surgical abortions (2002)
Amendments to Freedom of Information statutes (2002)
State employees prohibited from accessing pornography on the Internet at work (2003)
Clergy exemption from behavioral health licensing (2003)
Unsolicited spam e-mail regulations (2003)
Equality in rental of school facilities (2003)
Parental rights amendments-Child Protective Services statutes (2003)
Home school eligibility for university assured admission (2004)
“Live birth” definition in vital statistics statutes (2004)
Marital misconduct amendment in divorce statutes (2004)
U.S. Marriage Protection Amendment memorial (2005)
Ban on taxpayer funding of human cloning (2005)
Unborn children protection – fetal homicide statutes (2005)
Marriage tax penalty elimination (2005)
Abstinence until marriage education funding (2005)
Marriage education funding (2005)
Pornography amendment-film industry tax incentives (2005)
Corporate tax credit for tuition scholarships (2006) ****
Corporate tax credit increase for tuition scholarships (2006) ****
Adult oriented business distance regulation (2006)
Umbilical cord blood donation promotion (2006)
Education and training vouchers for higher education (2006)
Postsecondary vouchers (2006)
Displaced pupils choice grants (2006)
Disabled pupils choice grants (2006)
Grants for alternatives to abortion (2006)
Increased abstinence until marriage education funding (2006)
Marriage education funding (2006)
Online Identity Registration/Sex Offenders (2007)
HPV Vaccine Mandate Prohibition (2007)
Adult Stem Cell Research/Tissue Bank Funding (2007)
Abstinence Until Marriage Education Funding (2007)
Abortion Alternatives Funding (2007)
Marriage Education Funding (2007)
Internet Age Misrepresentation (2008)
Jesse's Law (2008)

* This bill passed the Arizona Legislature but was later overturned in court.
** This bill passed the Arizona Legislature and was later upheld in court.
*** This bill passed the Arizona Legislature, was upheld in Federal court and was partially upheld in State court.
**** This bill became law without Governor Napolitano’s signature.

CAP SUPPORTED BILLS[edit]

PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

Minimum age for gambling increased to 21 (1999-Hull)
Abstinence funding (2003-Napolitano)
Religious exemption; mandatory contraception law (2003-Napolitano)
Abortion; informed consent (2004-Napolitano)
Rights of Conscience; health care workers (2005-Napolitano)
Parental rights information; public schools (2005-Napolitano)
Marital misconduct amendments; divorce statutes (2005-Napolitano)
School Choice; vouchers (2005-Napolitano)
Corporate tax credit for tuition scholarships (2005-Napolitano)
Corporate tax credit for tuition scholarships (2006-Napolitano)
Payroll deduction for school tax credits (2006-Napolitano)
Corporate tax credit for tuitions scholarships amendments (2006-Napolitano)
Fetal pain information for abortion past 20 weeks (2006-Napolitano)
Notarized parental consent requirement for minor’s abortion (2006-Napolitano)
Guidelines for court orders for minor’s abortion (2006-Napolitano)
No insurance taxpayer subsidies for government employees’ abortions (2006-Napolitano)
Ban on the sale of human eggs for human cloning/research (2006-Napolitano)
Informed consent for human egg donations (2006-Napolitano)
First Amendment rights for university student organizations (2006-Napolitano)
Partial-birth Abortion Ban (2008-Napolitano)
Guidelines for court orders for minor's abortion (2008-Napolitano)

[3]


The Alliance Defence Fund[edit]

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f3da9beb433a6a58a921

http://www.alliancealert.org/tag/center-for-arizona-policy/

Arizona Agency Must Move Forward on Choose Life License Plates, Court Says www.lifenews.com | 11/20/2008

New AZ Supreme Court ruling fails families battling sex shops | 10/09/2008

ADF will defend Ariz. marriage amendment against any legal attacks | 06/30/2008

Arizonans to vote on the Marriage Amendment in November | 06/28/2008

Arizona legislature passes partial birth abortion bill azpolicy.org | 06/18/2008

Arizona State Senate Approves Revised Ban on Partial-Birth Abortions www.lifenews.com | 06/17/2008

Will California marriage redefinition impact Arizona? www.azcentral.com | 06/06/2008

ADF & Center for AZ Policy sue on behalf of Yuma church over zoning discrimination | 05/29/2008

Oppose media manipulation of headlines in the marriage definition debate | 05/20/2008

Arizona House approves marriage amendment www.azcentral.com | 05/12/2008

Broken families cost Arizona taxpayers $654M www.azpolicy.org | 04/16/2008

Arizona: New Marriage Amendment Bill Passes Committee! www.azpolicy.org | 04/10/2008

Arizona Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Revived! www.azpolicy.org | 04/09/2008

AZ legislator launches petition drive to ban sexual orientation discrimination www.eastvalleytribune.com | 04/08/2008

Arizona Marriage Amendment “dies,” not so fast | 04/04/2008

AZ domestic partner benefits implemented despite legislature | 04/02/2008

Arizona Marriage Amendment advances | 02/25/2008

Cathi Herrod: "Let people of Arizona legally define marriage" | 02/21/2008

Arizona legislators may have to take a stand on marriage | 02/19/2008

AZ lawmakers propose ballot measure for marriage amendment | 02/11/2008

9th Circuit: denial of Ariz. ‘Choose Life’ license violates First Amendment | 01/29/2008

AZ: Scottsdale Embraces Homosexuality | 12/06/2007

AZ: State’s high court may consider ‘adult’ stores’ hours | 12/06/2007 [4]


City's vote on gay marriage[edit]

Often-conservative Foothills heavily opposed Prop. 102[edit]

By Daniel Scarpinato ARIZONA DAILY STAR Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.11.2008 http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/266630.php

Education By the numbers 6,000 votes by which Proposition 102 failed in Pima County 30 states now ban gay marriage 69 percent of Arizona voters making less than $100,000 voted to ban gay marriage
57 percent of Arizona voters making more than $100,000 voted against the initiative


Unlike the rest of Arizona, Pima County voters narrowly rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage last week, thanks in part to heavy opposition in the affluent, and typically more conservative, Catalina Foothills. An Arizona Daily Star analysis of precinct-by-precinct votes shows a majority of Republican-majority Foothills voters joined those in Democratic-leaning Midtown and the Tucson Mountains to reject the amendment. Meanwhile, those on the South Side, in the Northwest suburbs of Marana and Oro Valley and on Tucson's East Side overwhelming favored the ballot measure. The precinct data, coupled with exit polling on the measure, shows that the vote was more complicated than pure party ID, with religion, college education, income and race shaping the vote. Statewide, voters in Arizona approved defining marriage between one man and one woman in the state constitution, something that was already in state law, while Pima County voters narrowly rejected the idea. Fifty-six percent of Arizona voters favored the ban. In Pima County, Proposition 102 failed by just 6,000 votes. With Arizona joining California and Florida in passing such a measure last week, 30 states now ban gay marriage. The precinct data reveal that from about 22nd Street all the way north to the base of the Catalina Foothills, a majority of precincts in Tucson's core opposed the measure. The more heavily Hispanic, and largely lower-income areas south of 22nd Street down to Sahuarita, as well as areas northwest of approximately Ina and Oracle Roads, tended to vote for the measure.


The demographics of the regions where the measure passed and failed in Pima County mirror Associated Press exit-polling data. The poll found that the more affluent and educated voters were, the more likely they were to vote against the measure. CNN found that 69 percent of Arizona voters making less than $100,000 voted to ban gay marriage. In contrast, 57 percent of people making more than $100,000 voted no. University of Arizona sociology instructor Jason Crockett cautioned against jumping to conclusions based on exit polls but said the higher incomes likely mirror education levels. "With higher education, you have people who are exposed to lots of different cultures," said Crockett, explaining why that group would be more likely to oppose the ban. Older voters tended to favor the ban, while younger voters were the most likely to oppose it. The only age block with a majority "no" vote were ages 18-29, according to the exit polls. Also, while Arizona's two Catholic bishops came out in support of the ban, Catholic voters were about evenly divided in the exit polling: 51 percent for and 49 percent against. But both a spokesman for the bishops and the leader of the organization backing the measure questioned the accuracy of the exit polling and precinct data. Ron Johnson, who lobbies for the bishops, said he saw internal polling during the campaign that showed Catholics overall supporting the ban. And when asking just churchgoing Catholics, the number approving of the ban increased. The exit polling and precinct data were "totally inconsistent with the internal polling the campaign had shown," Johnson said. Cathi Herrod, president of the socially conservative lobbying group Center for Arizona Policy, rejected the idea that better-educated voters would oppose the initiative. She said she'd be doing her own analysis. Herrod said if there were surprises in how groups voted, that just shows the appeal of the ban to diverse groups. "There's no question that 102 united people across religious, political and ethnic divides," Herrod said. ● Contact reporter Daniel Scarpinato at 307-4339 or dscarpinato@azstarnet.com [5]
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/266630.php


[6] Center for Arizona Policy Concedes

Prop 107 fails but same-sex marriage is still illegal in Arizona.[edit]

Jim Burroway November 16th, 2006 To everyone’s surprise and many people’s delight, Arizona’s Prop 107, the so-called “marriage” amendment continues to go down with an ever-widening margin. Late yesterday, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), Prop 107’s chief sponsor, conceded defeat, but not before blaming their opponents for pointing out how their amendment would have affected straight unmarried couples:

Our opponents were able to focus the debate on what Proposition 107 was not about: benefits for unmarried individuals. Our opponents were able to scare seniors into believing they would lose their social security benefits if prop 107 passed. Our coalition simply did not have the funds to respond to opponents’ attacks and distortions about the true intent of Prop 107.

As I pointed out yesterday, the 2000 census showed that there were 105,864 households with opposite-sex unmarried partners in Arizona, but only 12,332 same-sex unmarried partners. This suggests that opposite-sex unmarried couples outnumbered same-sex unmarried couples by a ratio of more than 8.5 to 1.

CAP may have intended for the debate to center around gay couples, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are far more straight couples in Arizona that stood to lose from Prop 107 than gay couples. CAP was never honest about that fact, and its not wonder. CAP and its supporters are just as hostile to straight couples “living in sin” as they are to gay couples.

In Michigan, Ohio, and other states, domestic partners — gay and straight — of state and local governments and universities are losing their health insurance. In Ohio, unmarried couples — gay and straight — stand to lose domestic violence protections with the active encouragement of their marriage amendment supporters. Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values (CCV) filed this brief with the state Supreme Court demanding that the court strike down Ohio’s domestic violence laws:

The Marriage Amendment does not proscribe the extension of benefits to persons in marriage-mimicking relationships. Rather, it proscribes the very legal recognition of the relationships in the first place, for any purpose.

The fact remains that many more straight couples are harmed by these amendments than gay couples. CAP refused to acknowledge that, and still clings to the fantasy that this amendment was all about gay marriage. It was not. Same-sex marriage was illegal before election day and it is still illegal today. The only thing that would have changed had Prop 107 passed would be that thousands of families would have woken Wednesday morning to find their health insurance and other protections under assault. And the chances are more than 8.5 to one that that family would have been headed by a heterosexual couple. These are the plain and simple facts that CAP have refused to address. But they will have to if they try to put a similar measure on the ballot in two years.


links[edit]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiative_frequency_as_a_factor_of_time_allowed_to_collect_signatures

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531162359.htm http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1026/state-ballot-measures-roundup http://www.post-gazette.com/steelers/ http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/support/cs/product-update.do?locale=en_US http://www.planforoilcrisis.com/