That explains why Akin, Mourdock, and West sailed to victories, while Romney and Ryan lost.

"But I searched the media records in utter vain for, say, a National Geographic (which has run multiple specials extolling Castroite conservation) that extolled Apartheid South Africa’s conservation consciousness."

Strangely, I only had to type "Marlin Perkins Kruger National Park" into Google, to come up with Youtube videos extolling the wildlife there. Shot back when apartheid was reality. And first broadcast, I suspect, on NBC. That was one search, in five minutes, by someone far from expert at digging up old articles and archival footage. I have no doubt that a professional journalist easily would find quite a bit more coverage of South Africa's parks featured in major America media through the decades that apartheid was active.

Castro has done great harm, and lived far too long. I will dance when he dies. But I can only laugh when I see silly right-wing characterizations of American media. I remember the 70s, and there were plenty of articles and broadcasts in the major media extolling various aspects of South Africa, as well as ones critical of apartheid.

Newsflash! Hollywood is a business. It might puzzle some that conservatives have to be reminded of that. And of the implications of that. But here's the other newsflash: many conservatives are pro-capitalist only for some fantasized notion of how capitalism works. One might say, a Hollywood view of capitalism.

In current American culture, the divide between "conservative" and "liberal" is a divide between cities and the rest of the country. Take almost any of the recent electoral maps, and the blue spots largely identify cities. Which is why such maps can make it seem that the nation is mostly red -- measuring acreage, it is.

What so often makes the things Beck says outrageous is that they are false to history. And purposely so, for the purpose of pushing his ideology. Someone like that is the last who can stand up and try to be reasonable for a day, under the premise of "restoring honor." He first needs to develop a little honor of his own.

If your intent is to convince your fellow believers to more favor science, we on the science side can only say: go for it! You have a long, hard row to hoe.

If your intent is to convince those of us on the science side to be more religious, I trust you understand that you wrote nothing -- not one word -- that would do that. No matter how "friendly" Christianity is to science, that is no evidence at all for the truth of Christianity. Absolute, flat-line, zero.

As a test of whether Wikipedia is Islamist or Ari Lieberman perhaps is biased with respect to Israel, I decided to take Israel out of the equation, and see what Wikipedia says about Saudi Arabia. Here is its article on human rights there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saud...