A one-time school project gone terribly, terribly wrong.

06 March 2007


Etymology: Just as a quadruped is four-footed, a centipede is 100-footed, and a sauropod is a big-footed primitive lizard, so are the conservapeds plodding and slow.

Conservapeds once thundered in mighty herds across the political landscape. Sadly, their small brains did not enable them to prosper as a species when confronted with the real world.

Conservapeds are particularly noted for having the smallest brain and largest mouth of any of the humans. In extreme cases, members would be shunned by the tribe for the ability of their mouths to inadvertently collect their own feet (see picanthropus Coulterii and "faggot" for reference).

There is genuine concern that the species is endangered; dwindling numbers have left a population that can only breed with similar members, or indeed relatives, all dwelling in small colonies situated to a greater or lesser extent around Washington, DC, USA. There is debate as to whether a planned cull would be of any benefit.

Recently, an attempt was made to create useful work for the leftovers of the species to do. By inventing the unintentionally humourous "Conservapedia", it was hoped that the species would maintain its numbers while it created a little fantasy world for the species to live in

Unfortunately it was a foolish and vain attempt. The effects of laughter on the conservative ego, previously well documented, resulted in male members wasting their beer money on guns and monster trucks to compensate, lowering vital feedstocks. Worse, when Viagra was tried as a last resort, many of the troop disappeared and turned up in the Dominican Republic.

This truthy edition of "The Natural World" was inspired by Conservapedia, the encyclopedia whose motto remains "Our minds are made up, don't confuse us with the facts!"

Particularly by the entry that includes the statement:
"On the contrary! One can't be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half nonfactual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues or else we will abandon factuality.
--BenjaminS 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

That is, there's an absolute truth if you see things with a bias. Um ... Naw. I'm sure that was meant ironically. But this conservaped is correct in saying that Conservapedia can't be fair and factual. And also in his apparent claim that by giving equal time to "liberals" the accuracy of Conservapedia will go up by fifty percent.

and also

David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.
--Aschlafly 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Beyond" their bias "they welcome the facts". One has to feel a little sorry for them. Particularly since reality appears to have such a strong "liberal" bias. As a conservative myself, I welcome reality.


At 1:51 a.m., Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Monsieur Metro

An interesting post

Things look so different (or is it similar) on this side of the Pond

In the USA you have a very self-confident, assertive "Conservatism" (whatever that means) - it has been in power for so long that it is shewing all the arrogance of power, enjoyed well-past its sell-by date & increasingly fraying at the edges

In the UK, we have a "left-wing" Government, which is shewing similar symptoms, just as John Major's Conservatives shewed the very same symptoms after 18 years of power in 1997

I wonder if the real issue is not left or right wingery .... or "conservatism" or "progressivism"

but rather the Human Condition, by which all political understandings have their strengths which also turn out to be their weaknesses

Yr obedt servt etc


At 9:03 a.m., Blogger Metro said...

Actually, I think things like Consevapedia belie both conservatism and the confidence you feel you see.

Conservapedia is a symptom of cultural insecurity so massive that it must be denied, not in the interpretation, but at the roots of fact. If I believe that something is white and it is shown to me to be black, I need not alter my views to fit the facts. Rather, I shall continue to protest that it is so white, all evidence to the contrary.

I agree with you about the corruption of power. One of the few things the Americans can truly rejoice in is that Bush can only ruin the nation for two more years.

Thatcher, Blair, Chretien/Martin, all were corrupted by staying in power over a decade.

And yet, as someone who believes that short terms disincentivize vision at the expense of society, I am loth to place excessively short limits on a party.

But Conservatism as defined by the Hannity/Coulter/Limbaugh crowd is an uncompromising theory of moral and intellectual supremacy, and the denial of any other point of view.

Unfortunately, the "mainstream" conservatives are getting cleverer in North America. They sneak along behind the howlers and gibberers and use them for cover, then when someone, for example, uses an epithet like "macaca" they distance themselves and claim that they don't share the same philosophy.

They do, they just use nicer language--in public.

The separation between Michael Savage, a certifiable hate-radio host who called for the deaths of a million Arabs, and George W. Bush, who engineered the deaths of up to 600,000 Iraqis, is almost non-existent. And it's time for those who truly believe in the values of conservatism to stop playing nice with the glue-eating psychos.

Until we can reclaim conservatism for what is decent and just, then it will continue to rot from the margins inward.


Post a Comment

<< Home