The Politics of the Cactus

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273264.post-84063579761752570052007-02-25T14:26:00.000-08:002007-02-25T15:50:15.875-08:00The Politics of the CactusAndrew Sullivan, whom I laud pretty frequently on this blog, <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/conservapedia.html">linked</a> yesterday to a website that is absolutely, incredibly hilarious. It's called <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/">conservapedia.com</a>, and it is what it sounds like, a "conservative" wikipedia. According to the site, it wants to give an alternative to the liberal bias of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a liberal bias, you ask? Naturally. Here's a great <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia">entry</a> from the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page." <blockquote>For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution" title="Evolution">evolution</a>,<a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#_note-5" title="">[6]</a> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.</blockquote>Uh huh. I had a great time scrolling through conservapedia and I learned a lot. Did you know, for example, that "<a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Big_Oil">Big Oil</a> has also proven valuable in funding independant [sic] scientists who are able to dispute the propaganda behind <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming" title="Global warming" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Global warming</a> without worrying about losing their government or academic funding due to liberal reprisals." Or did you know that only Christians have "<a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Faith">faith</a>." No foolin, it actually says that. But my favorite entry is on the <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Cactus">cactus</a>. I don't know how I stumbled on to this entry, but it is truly wonderful. I'll give you the first couple paragraphs. <blockquote>The secularist view of the Cactaceae is that they are roughly two million years old, and that they have evolved exclusively in the new world. This view fails to explain, however, how it is that the Opuntia genus is native to the island of Opus, near Greece. Cacti are known for their high content of alkaloids, and have often been used in the sacramental rights of the Native Americans. Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Satan" title="Satan">Satan</a>, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman. Several species of cactus are now endangered in the west due to "poaching" by collectors and invasive species. But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline. </blockquote>Obviously, going to conservapedia is a place to learn valuable stuff.I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for a good long time now and I have a great deal of respect for him, most especially his attempts to separate conservatism from fundamentalism. (I'm currently reading his "The Conservative Soul" which makes some impassioned arguments for a conservatism founded on doubt and skepticism.) Websites like conservapedia.com show how much work he is going to have separating a true conservative movement from the fundamentalist Christian base.No wonder the New York Times is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">reporting</a> that fundamentalists like Falwell and Robertson and having a hard time finding a candidate to support. How many people can have an honest shot at the Presidency who believe that environmentalists only want to save cactuses to keep their mescaline supply stable? <div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5273264-8406357976175257005?l=www.erikemery.com'/></div>Erikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08448401616156887602noreply@blogger.com14