text:
Template:Infobox Interviews

An infobox for Interviews. ''Are newer articles not showing? Refresh''

Customize this infobox .

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Infobox Interviews


text:
User talk:Siebrand

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Template:Lead article with large image
When updating the image name, please also update the credit= section down the bottom. This makes the image credit link still work. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK. Guess I didn't know about that feature yet :). Thanks. Siebrand 08:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributing in other ways
Ever thought of contributing in other ways? I'd love to help out to show you the ropes on article-writing at some point if you are interested. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Odessa
Please, cancel your changes Category:Odessa to Category:Odesa! Because original name is Odessa (see article in en-wiki). And why did you make it without any discussing only by request from one man? --Assedo (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Siebrand


title: File:30October2007.pdf


title: File:30October2007.sxw


text:
User:69.141.72.21

hi im a noob

title: User:69.141.72.21


text:
User talk:69.141.72.21

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:69.141.72.21


text:
Minnesota Governor opposes state funds to Iran-tied company

October 31, 2007 Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said today that Essar Global has committed to fully comply with all U.S. and international law, including those prohibiting certain investments in Iran, and that he will support continued state assistance for Essar’s proposed steel project on the Iron Range.

A few days after Indian company Essar Steel Holdings Limited acquired Minnesota Steel LLC, the governor of Minnesota announced that he "will strongly oppose any effort to provide state financial assistance to companies or entities that engage in prohibited business practices with Iran."

Governor Pawlenty recently returned from a trip to India. He learned that Indian company Essar Global Limited is pursuing a project to build a refinery in southern Iran.

There is no official word yet from Essar Group, but Iran's Petroenergy Information Network says Essar Group is expected to take a 60% stake in the project and that Essar's Ravi Ruia was negotiating for the project in Iran last week.

The northern Minnesota project will be the first facility which includes all steps in steel production from iron mining to a US$1.65 billion steel mill. The Iranian refinery will have a capacity of 300,000 barrels per day and cost $8-10 billion.


text:
Bush announces 2007 Medal of Freedom winners

October 30, 2007

United States President George W. Bush announced on October 29, 2007 the list of winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor which may be granted by the United States.

President Harry Truman initiated the award in 1945 to honor civilian service during World War II and President John Kennedy re-established it in 1963.

The Medal of Freedom may be awarded by the president to any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or to world peace, cultural or other significant endeavors.

The medals will be awarded on November 5, 2007.

The winners are:
 * Gary Becker, 1992 Nobel economics prize winner
 * Oscar Elias Biscet, an anti-abortion and pro-democracy activist and political prisoner in Cuba
 * Francis Collins, Human Genome Project leader
 * Benjamin Hooks, US civil rights leader
 * Retired Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee
 * Harper Lee, author of the book To Kill a Mockingbird
 * Brian Lamb, founder of the C-SPAN cable public affairs network
 * Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, president of Liberia and the first woman elected to head an African country


text:
User talk:124.13.111.120

Hello,

Your recent contributions are considered to be spam and have been reverted or deleted. Should you believe that your contributions are not spam, please argue your case on your talk page, or in WN:ALERT.

Further spamming may result in a 24 hour block. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:124.13.111.120


text:
MediaWiki talk:Pagecategories

When did this get voted in? In my opinion "Category" is much more appropriate than "More on" --SVTCobra 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't. Someone was bold."More on" seems to be more descriptive to new users. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Pagecategories


text:
Talk:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines/Comments

Web Comics are not being targetted simply because they are web comics. Wikipedia's articles need constant maintanance due to vandalism and misinformation. If all not-notable articles were allowed, Wikipedia would quickly be inundated with large amounts of data which current editors would have difficulties maintaining. For this reason, Most web comic's articles continue to be deleted.

210.48.82.172 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) New Zealand

As "notability" appears to mean every single railway station in the UK and a large number of the road junctions, but not web comics read by thousands of people each day, I'd have to say that yes, web comics are being targeted because they're web comics. Your argument that the editors cannot keep up is equally specious - everyone who reads wikipedia is an editor and given that there are over thirty times as many entries as the Encyclopedia Britannica and they are not overwhelmed yet. ..

213.83.99.5 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Britain

 * A railway station is a physical place, often a significant building, which probably has a great deal of history and is of great importance to a locality. Webcomincs being popular doesn't in itself satisfy the notability guidelines, like anything else, reliable sources are required. With a railway station, going with your example, there are likely to be these sources. Webcomics are being "targetted" because someone has identified a likely area where a number of articles do not meet the guidelines. Adambro 12:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem, of course, is that the pro-deletion crowd tends to look for any reason possible to delete something, when they ought to look for a reason to keep the article so it can be improved. It's a case of a destructive vs. constructive mindset. Other fandoms - such as anime and SF shows - have a positive, inclusionist mindset, hence why you don't have a lot of griping from anime fans. Why are there people who argue strenuously and go out of there way to make sure articles are deleted with webcomics when several other projects of equal relevance to pop culture don't have anywhere near the same level of conflict and purging? That's one of the reasons why complaints on Wikipedia's handling of webcomic articles are legitimate. 136.142.101.135 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem is also that webcomics are harder to defend because, by definition they are web based and often deletionists use this to attack articles, ive not seen it done on a web comic but i have seen it elsewhere82.45.210.78 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

couldnt agree more with these guys, wikipedia has become too narrow minded, i rember in a single session, around march i came across 3 seperate topics which were decided not notable enough. on top of this ive seen new articles go up for deletion before even having the time for improvment. the vast array of knowledge is what made wikipedia better than other enclyclopideas, but now its trying to be more like the rest, WHY? there are hunderds of encylopedias out there, many free! the same what firefox is not a better IE, linux is not a better windows, wikipedida should try to be a better encylopedia. FF is a better internet browser, linux is a better OS, wikipedia should try and be a better source of knowledge.82.45.210.78 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) If being a physical real world object or person was an overriding criteria, you'd have to delete Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia. 2) When I said EVERY railway station in the UK, I meant EVERY railway station - including those of no building significance, no discernable historical significance and only of minor importance to their local communities. 3) A popular webcomic, or any other website, is one that a lot of people look at every day. How is being of interest to a large number of people different from being notable? The only thing lacking is that many do not have much impact off the web and few get talked about in professional magazines. I guess some Wikipedia editors believe that stuff that's online is of no importance, which brings me back to point 1. 213.83.99.5 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Believe it or not, but there are a lot of books on the railways of the UK, which thus provide verifiable information on them. Similarly, look through the newspaper archives over the past couple of years and you'll see roughly a gajillion articles on Wikipedia. Notability, as given by the Wikipedia guidelines, is an interpretation of the verifiability policy - a statement like "a lot of people look at it every day", without a source to back it up, isn't a verifiable fact. Now I certainly agree that the notability guidelines, or at least their interpretation in AfD discussions, are strongly biased against webcomics, and I'd like to see that changed. But I read the massive thread of opinions on Howard's article, and like the other Wikinewsies I noticed that while there were many general statements about the faults of Wikipedia, no-one was able to provide an example of an article that met Wikipedia standards and got deleted anyway. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The nub of the problem
As I see it, the main problem is this: different people have different view on how Wikipedia works, or how it's supposed to work, and when a "newbie" and an "oldbie" come into conflict on their differing opinions, the one who's been there longer and thus has a better grip on the "system" tends to win.

So who's actually in the right? I'm not sure, and I suspect that actually both sides are in the wrong, for different reasons. On one side of the fence, the people who know about webcomics but not so much about Wikipedia need to realise just how much crap Wikipedia already has to deal with. Take a look at w:Special:Newpages. I'm looking at a listing of 50 new pages created in just under half an hour. Of them, about 15 are obvious crap just from looking at the summary ("X is a nice kid. His name is X, and he is nice." - actual quote with name removed). A further 15 are clear crap once I look at the article. Certainly, most of the remaining 20 or so appear to be reasonable starts, but many don't include any sources and so I have no way of verifying any of their claims. Assuming that none of them are deleted, how many are going to be in a better state this time next month? Next year? How many of them are just something someone made up, or even an elaborate hoax?

That said, we now have to look at the other side of things - established Wikipedia editors, who may or may not be familiar with webcomics. They (and by they I mean we, since I am a Wikipedian) need to recognise that Wikipedia has become an increasingly bureaucratic system, "Ignore All Rules" notwithstanding, and in particular someone writing their first article is likely to meet with what appears to them to be hostility when their article is deleted, and the processes for getting it back can be decidedly complicated.

So what's the solution? I don't know, although a good start might be the old "Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes". To the webcomic fans, go and register an account on Wikipedia. Spend an hour boning up on the major policies and guidelines, then another hour patrolling Newpages, tagging all articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, normal deletion, or cleanup as necessary. Then pull up a day of AFD discussions, and for each one that's still open, try to provide a reasonable argument for keeping or deleting the article, keeping in mind which arguments are valid and which aren't. Then, for every article you tagged for cleanup or argued to keep, actually do the cleanup. Wikify the article, add an infobox, find sources for notability, and copyedit the article. Now, having done that, come back here and tell us just how burnt out you are. And realise that there are people who have done exactly the same thing for months on end.

For the Wikipedians, go to the requested articles list. Even better, go to the list of requested webcomic articles. There are definitely a few listed there that have at least a possibility of getting a decent article made. Pick an item in the list - not necessarily one you know anything about beforehand - and write an article on it. Even if you don't think it's notable, do your research. Find out as much as you can about it, and gather as much evidence as possible that you can include in the article to save it from being deleted. See how long it takes before someone tags it for deletion, and see if you can save it. Now, having done that, come back here and tell us how frustrating it was to have all that hard work destroyed. And realise that this happens to people who don't even know how Wikipedia process works, and see if you can work out how to fix that.

There's too much complaining from both sides about how the other side is a bunch of morons who don't understand the first thing about webcomics/Wikipedia, so maybe it's time we all tried to understand. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuck the Wikipedofiles! Obviously lacking in their off-line lives they feel the need to stroke their virtual harbl by stomping on genuine entries.

 * And this is exactly what I mean. Instead of, I don't know, trying to understand the other side and working together with them to find a solution, make ad hominem attacks (three in two sentences - I'm impressed) with no constructive comments at all. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it
Wikipedia needs high standards for various reasons. You can always create another wiki for more specific stuff. Nyarlathotep 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines/Comments

Web Comics are not being targetted simply because they are web comics. Wikipedia's articles need constant maintanance due to vandalism and misinformation. If all not-notable articles were allowed, Wikipedia would quickly be inundated with large amounts of data which current editors would have difficulties maintaining. For this reason, Most web comic's articles continue to be deleted.

210.48.82.172 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) New Zealand

This article was very interesting and made me think about the utility of establishing notability rules. After reflection I think they are useless, Wikpedia is a repository of knowledge, the inspiration of the paper encyclopedia is today breached by the way that media evolved, the fact that they are a nearly limitless capacity of knowledge make consideration like "is this subject notable enough to figure in the encyclopedia" dubious. An encyclopedia basis is to inform people about a subject, not to inform people of a notable subject, "I want an information, I go to my favorite encyclopedia and seek it" Wikipedia spread knowledge. Why should we bother by creating a bureaucratie who just enforce useless policies.

And as for the previous comment, the number of editor on wikipedia is potentially infinite. I have yet to see a reason why Wikipedia wouldn't be able to handle such a flow. The current editor would be helped by the new editor that will be created by the flow of new reader that will come from the people who will read those new article. —Esurnir 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


text:
ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush

October 30, 2007

There are few organizations in the United States that elicit a stronger emotional response than the American Civil Liberties Union, whose stated goal is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". Those people include gays, Nazis, women seeking abortion, gun owners, SPAM mailers and drug users. People who are often not popular with various segments of the public. The ACLU's philosophy is not that it agrees or disagrees with any of these people and the choices that they make, but that they have personal liberties that must not be trampled upon.

In Wikinews reporter David Shankbone's interview with the President of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, he wanted to cover some basic ground on the ACLU's beliefs. Perhaps the area where they are most misunderstood or have their beliefs most misrepresented is their feelings about religion in the public sphere. The ACLU categorically does not want to see religion disappear from schools or in the public forum; but they do not want to see government advocacy of any particular religion. Thus, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of a ten ton monument to the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse is strenuously opposed; but "Lone Ranger of the Manger" Rita Warren's placement of nativity scenes in public parks is vigorously defended. In the interview, Strossen talks about how certain politicians and televangelists purposefully misstate the law and the ACLU's work in order to raise funds for their campaigns.

David Shankbone's discussion with Strossen touches upon many of the ACLU's hot button issues: religion, Second Amendment rights, drug liberalization, "partial-birth abortion" and whether or not George W. Bush should be impeached. It may surprise the reader that many ideas people have about the most visible of America's civil libertarian organizations are not factually correct and that the ACLU often works closely with many of the organizations people think despise its existence.

Strossen's background
David Shankbone: Why did you want to be an attorney?
 * Nadine Strossen: To be a civil libertarian to affect individual rights in a positive way.

'''DS: Why?
 * NS: As far back as I can remember I have always had an innate belief in what I now would call individual rights, equal justice, due process, and it came out in my family experiences and in my experiences in school as a young child.

'''DS: What family experiences?
 * NS: I shouldn’t say so much direct experiences—well, to some extent—but the stories I was brought up on as a kid.  My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war.  His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him.

'''DS: What were you taught about him?
 * NS: I knew him as a kid and he told me these stories, and my mother told me, and it was very upsetting to me, but very inspiring to think about trying to rectify injustices.  When I say my own family, my own personal experiences are so trivial compared to those, but having teachers not allow different viewpoints come out in class and seeing kids tormenting other kids that were different.  When I got a little bit older there was an experience with a teacher who was exposing students to different viewpoints about the Vietnam War, and there was a call for him to be fired and he was editorialized against; I led a campaign to defend his free speech rights, and our free speech rights.  Once I had the idea that I could go to law school to get professional skills to advocate for values that I had always believed in, it just seemed the right thing to do.  There are many other paths, I realize, but it certainly has been a good path to try to work with the values I care deeply about that I have had throughout my whole life.

'''DS: When you went to Harvard, were you an activist on campus?
 * NS: Not so much.  I should say, I was an activist, but it wasn’t like I was a leader of something.  Probably because I was involved in so many organizations and I was glad that I was exploring so many different forms of activism.  In college I was involved in the anti-war movement, and I was very involved in the women’s movement.  Reproductive freedom was a really big deal then; it was before Roe vs. Wade.  I remember there was a very high profile prosecution of a doctor for performing an abortion in Massachusetts, where I was in college.  Then in law school I was very active in a lot of organizations.  I wasn’t sure of which direction I actually wanted to go, including prison legal assistance project, the voluntary defenders, the legal aid bureau…and I was also earning my way through law school so I had to do a lot of work.

'''DS: What would you say the atmosphere was like on campus back then, with all the issues that were being contended with, how would you describe it?
 * NS: I don’t think it was that different than the atmosphere on law school campuses now, David, which is to say that even at the height—and statistics I have read have verified this—even at the height of the student activist movement, it was still a fairly small percentage of students who were really engaged, especially in law school.  In college there were more involved in the anti-war movement, but in law school most people were just trying to get good grades and good jobs.  I don’t say that at all disparagingly.  There was a core of people who gravitated toward these extracurricular activities and back in those days you got no course credit at all.  Now most law schools give course credit, so you would have to do all of that on ‘’top’’ of your full time course load.  And if you can believe it, the Harvard Law Review, which I was also on, you got no course credit for that.  What I’m saying is that I wasn’t really linked to the law school, per se; my experience was—and I cut a lot of classes, quite frankly—my experience was going to the legal aid bureau, going to the voluntary defenders office, meeting with my clients, doing that kind of work.  Law school classes and exams was just something I had to get through to get my degree.  But I didn’t feel myself so connected to Harvard Law School as an entity.

Religion in schools
'''DS: You had mentioned that one of the things that affected you with your family was seeing points of view not being allowed to be expressed. Many religious conservatives would say that the ACLU opposes having their points of view in the schools. How would you respond?
 * NS: That is absolutely untrue, but I know that myth and distortion of what we have advocated and what the Supreme Court has held, there are so many myths and misrepresentations about that, and the truth is that every individual, whether student or teacher, should be completely free in a nondiscriminatory process, to express whatever ideas or beliefs he or she has as long as it is consistent with the overall educational mission.  So just as it would be inappropriate for a student to stand up in the middle of math class and say, “Join the ACLU!” it would be inappropriate for a student to stand up in the middle of math class and say, “Join the Hare Krishna or the Christian Coalition!”  But in forums where it is appropriate for individuals to discuss ideas openly, such as extracurricular periods, lunch periods, maybe there are times before or after the school day, then every viewpoint should be welcome equally, whether it be pro-religion, anti-religion, any religion, any politics, you name it.

'''DS: So there isn’t any opposition to having religious groups meeting inside of public schools?
 * NS: No.

'''DS: Would you defend someone’s right to have a religious meeting in a public school?
 * NS: Yes. But I have to add a qualification and stress that the ACLU’s position here has been reflected not only under Supreme Court decisions under the First Amendment religious freedom, freedom of speech and nonestablishment of religion, but also through a federal statute that was passed in the 1980’s called the Equal Access Act.  It basically sets out the general principle I have stated, but the important qualification is that you always have to look at all the facts of the circumstances.  If, for example, in a particular school there is theoretically an open forum and all student groups are free to meet, but in fact the only student groups that are meeting are religious or of a particular religion, you know enough law to know that the conclusion could be that a reasonable observer could look at as school endorsement of religion and not a school endorsement of an open forum.  You always have to look to see that the teachers, government and public school officials aren’t channeling the students.  But if it is truly open and not an endorsement, then let a thousand flowers bloom.  Religious, non-religious and anti-religious.

Religious symbols
'''DS: The ACLU has been involved in removing religious symbology from the public forum. Can you state your views on that?
 * NS: I completely support all the cases we’ve taken in this area, a lot of which have to do with allowing religious symbology in public places.  The law is a little complicated so that it is very easy for politicians and demagogues to distort it.  The key principle that unites the whole First Amendment including non-establishment and free exercise of religion and free speech, is that the government has to remain neutral.  The government can not squelch certain ideas because it disagrees with the ideas, and with respect to religion government can neither favor religion nor disfavor religion.  It may not promote or encourage religion on the one hand, it may not stifle or discriminate against religion on the other hand.  So, when you are talking about a public place, it all depends on what kind of public place it is.  If it is a public school that is having a public forum where the individual students and voluntary students groups can meet, then the school is simply providing a neutral forum.  It is not endorsing religion if it allows religious groups to meet.  Likewise, if you are talking about a public park.  Religious groups have the right to meet in public parks to pray, to give sermons in public parks; in fact, if you look at every case that the Supreme Court has decided on these issues, the ACLU has always been in support of the rights of religious groups and a lot of the early free speech cases happened to be on behalf of religious groups who were seeking to use the streets, the sidewalks, the parks, other public forums to convey their messages.

'''DS: Can you give an example of a religious symbology case where the ACLU supported religious freedom?
 * NS: We’ve had a number of cases around the country where city governments had government-run cemeteries.  They would not allow families to put their religious symbols on top of their graves, and the ACLU has consistently come to the support of the religious freedom right to do that.  In fact, one of my favorite cases in this general vein is just because of what the lady calls herself.  In Virginia we have a client who calls herself “The Lone Ranger of the Manger”.  She goes around at Christmastime to every park where people are allowed to put up whatever symbols they want, and she wants to have her own nativity scene to put up.  A number of city governments have told her she can’t do that because they say it violates the separation of church and state; they misunderstand.

How the ACLU is misrepresented by politicians and televangelists
'''DS: Do people misconstrue or misunderstand your work and what you have argued for or against?
 * NS: Not only our work, but they misconstrue what the Supreme Court has said.  It’s hard for people to tell, because those who want to say the ACLU is hostile to religion distort what we have done, distort what the Supreme Court has done, and then they are surprised that government officials believe them and say, “Oh no, no religious display is allowed at all, or no student is allowed to make a religious statement,” which is not the case.  It’s so ironic.  I’ve debated Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell before he died, and they would constantly say, “Little children are not allowed to pray in school; you’re not allowed to talk about religious subjects in school.”  Teachers are listening to them, and so somebody says, “I want to have a student prayer group” and teachers say, “Oh no, you can’t, the Supreme Court has said you can’t—“

'''DS: —and the ACLU said—
 * NS: That’s right!  Right!  But it’s actually Jerry Falwell who told them that the ACLU is doing that, and it couldn’t be further from the truth!  In fairness, I have to say, if what you are talking about is a government-sponsored or promoted display, those were the cases where we do oppose it and with the support of the Supreme Court.  To take a well-known recent example, the state judiciary building of Alabama, and the Chief Justice brings in this ten ton 10 Commandments—

'''DS: —Roy Moore?
 * NS: —Yes, Roy Moore, and says that it’s because God is the ultimate law-giver.  He’s not saying it’s because this is the foundation of American law. He’s endorsing a religious message, and that’s a different thing.  In his own chambers, we would totally defend his right to do it.  If there’s a public park where people are allowed to put their own displays, we would totally defend his right to do it.   I don’t think it’s that complicated, you just have to look at the context:  who, where, why, what message are they promoting?  It really comes down to crystallizing the whole topic into a key question that Sandra Day O’Connor—hardly a flaming radical—formulated that has been adopted by the majority to ask whether the government is honoring its obligation to be neutral toward religion neither favoring nor disfavoring.  You look at the contested action and you ask, “Would a reasonable observer see this as government support for religion?”

'''DS: When does a symbol become historical and when is it intrinsically religious? For instance, a community that was once a mission and they have had a large cross on a mountaintop that to them is more historical marker.
 * NS: That’s the question.  With a lot of legal questions—and since you are a lawyer, or almost a lawyer, right?

'''DS: Well, two years.
 * NS: Two-thirds of a lawyer [Laughs]

'''DS: Almost a slave.
 * NS: Oh boy, that was 3/5ths, right? [Laughs]

'''DS: Yes, 3/5ths! [Laughs]
 * NS: It is what a lawyer calls a mixed question of fact and law, but there is an ultimate legal criterion that is really a factual question.  That’s what her question is, and what the Court now asks: “Would a reasonable observer who is familiar with the overall context, history and circumstances, see that as promoting a religious message or not?”  And I don’t know the answer to that; it all depends on the particular facts and circumstances.  The way you describe it, it sounds as if a reasonable observer would not see it as a promotion of religion.

'''DS: That’s always the problem in law:  who is that reasonable observer? Someone from the community, someone who has just moved into the community?
 * NS: Exactly!  You get that in a lot of areas of law, David.  I think another one that my students in my free speech class were talking about yesterday is obscenity.  That’s defined according to contemporary community standards.  Is it patently offensive?  Does it appeal to the prurient interest in sex?  Does it have serious value?  Reasonable people can disagree about that, and that’s what our jury system and our legal system are for, and there are some cases where reasonable people will disagree, no doubt about it.  But I think the principle is right, if it were up to me I can’t think of a better way to try to maintain fidelity to all of the values—necessarily there’s a tension when the government is trying to walk this neutral line.  It goes on this side and it is supporting religion, which is improper; it goes to that side and it is oppressing religion, which is improper.

'''DS: Going back to when you have debated religious conservatives and they make the charge that what the ACLU is working toward is no religion in schools, and you can’t have a prayer group, do you think there is a conscious motivation to misrepresent what you have done and want, or is it a misunderstanding?
 * NS: It depends upon about whom you are speaking.  For some people it is a definite distortion, because I know that they know better.  But in some cases it is literally a good faith misunderstanding in part because of the deliberate distortions that they are hearing, including from top government officials.  Ronald Reagan said in speeches that the Supreme Court has told little children that they may not pray.  Many people more recently, including [former] Congressman Istook, who regularly introduced an amendment to the Constitution to, as he says,  “Restore prayer and religious freedom.”  Every couple of years he gives a speech—I read the most recent version—in which he says the Supreme Court has “removed religion from the public square!”  Surely you’ve heard that.  It’s ironic when you compare our country to Western European countries; they think religion—and it is literally true—that religion is thriving in the public square here in a way that is off the charts compared to other developed industrialized nations.  I think that’s wonderful!  I think religion has been a very positive force in America.  As with everything, there is a good and a bad; but certainly on the issues I care about, religion has been a driving force behind civil rights, the abolition of slavery, the death penalty.  No matter what the religious group is, including the so-called religious right—which in some contexts will attack the ACLU, and in others work very closely with the ACLU.  Post 9/11 we worked very closely with Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and the American Family Association, and others, who are very traditional conservatives and very suspicious of federal government power concentrated in the executive branch.  Very protective of individual privacy.  They are completely with the ACLU in opposing Real ID and opposing a lot of the post-9/11 dragnet measures.  And let’s not forget that the free exercise of religion, they know the ACLU is in their corner and on the professional level we work together, lobbying.  Years ago, when the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, I testified in Congress in support of something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that every single religious denomination under the sun was on our side.  The ACLU was the spearhead of that legislation.  So there’s a difference between what group’s professional staff members are doing when it comes to Supreme Court arguments and Congressional testimony versus what their fund raising letters say, or what their radio programs say.
 * I remember years ago when Michael Kinsley was the co-host of Crossfire and I was debating Jerry Falwell, and he interrupted and said, “Come on, guys, you know you need each other; your direct mail campaigns need each other.” [Laughs]

The abortion debate
'''DS: Don’t you think the way both sides go about engaging each other harms America? Take the partial-birth abortion Supreme Court case. Did you read Justice Stevens' New York Times interview with Jeff Rosen?
 * NS: Yes, I read that.

'''DS: He said it was a silly decision that wasn’t particularly important—
 * NS: I don’t remember that—he said that?!

'''DS: Yes. He said it was, in the end, not a particularly important case.
 * NS: Oh, I totally disagree with that, unfortunately, it’s a very important decision.  I’m wondering whether he had a strategic reason for making that point; maybe he is trying to get people to implement it in a not-serious way?

'''DS: He was talking about in terms of the effect, that it didn’t have much of an effect because there were other legal alternatives to that particular method of abortion.
 * NS: That’s not what the medical profession says, so even if you are talking about a tiny percentage of women, it’s still that there are some women—and every single medical organization said this—the American Medical Association, the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, that for some cases this is the necessary method in order to either preserve the woman’s life or preserve her future fertility.  So the only option they have under this decision is for the doctor to leave the operating room and run to court to get an injunction because the Supreme Court said—the Court acknowledged that in the opinion and said but those women can bring in an “As Applied” challenge, that they aren’t going to strike down the entire statute on its face.  But realistically, is that going to happen?  And what doctor is going to take the risk of criminal prosecution?  I beg, with the greatest respect for him, I really beg to differ.

'''DS: The question I have is that on its face it was deciding one particular issue in the abortion debate, but a lot of pro-choice organizations paint this as, “We are now getting ready to ban abortion; this is the first step on what might be a short road—“
 * NS: A slippery slope argument.

'''DS: Yes, a slippery slope. Isn’t it almost the same thing when the evangelicals say, “They are coming for your prayer, your kids aren’t going to be able to pray or allow God in schools.”
 * NS: I understand what you are saying, David, but I think—

'''DS: Is it healthy for us to be ringing these alarm bells every time one nuance in the argument gets addressed?
 * NS: There’s a difference between predicting something is going to happen that might be an inaccurate prediction and making factual misstatements about what has already happened and what the law is.  There’s a real difference.  So I think the analogy would only be apt if somebody said, “The Supreme Court already has overturned Roe vs. Wade and brought back back-alley abortions.”  That would be the counterpart to saying, “The Supreme Court has removed religion from the public schools and the public sphere.”  I have not heard any pro-choice—

'DS: But let’s say the Christians give you that, and they say, “This is just the first step and what they ultimately want is not to have the word God said anywhere'' in the public square.”
 * NS: But that’s also counter-factual because if they looked at the ACLU’s policy statements and they looked at our briefs, and they looked at our legislative testimony, they would see that we are constantly defending the rights of people to say God in the public square.  Every day we have cases where we are defending street preachers and people trying to baptize in the rivers…

'DS: Whereas in the abortion argument it is a stated goal to bring about the end of Roe v. Wade''.
 * NS: Yes.  Yes.  But it’s interesting—I think as a responsible advocate you do have to read between the lines, not only what the Supreme Court says it is doing, but what it actually does, and here you not only have to rely upon those who agree with the result, but those who disagree with the result.  In the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Case, no less an anti-abortion proponent than Justice Scalia joined by Justice Thomas, in his separate opinion, chided the majority for not coming out and explicitly saying that they had overturned not Roe vs. Wade, but the prior partial-birth abortion ban case.  Remember there had been one six years before from Nebraska, and that’s why every lower court to consider this said that based upon that precedent this law is indistinguishable, and that’s why we are striking down this federal law.  The result here got a majority, but there were two separate opinions, one that was written by Kennedy and joined by the new justices; and Scalia and Thomas supported the result.  But they had a separate opinion that said, “You are not being honest, you have effectively overturned that earlier case, why don’t you come out and say so?”  And the campaign finance reform case, same thing.  They said they were not overturning their earlier decision that upheld McCain-Feingold, and Scalia had a very quotable line where he was making the point he made with many earlier decisions, that he supported the result, but he was saying that they are not being honest about how far-reaching the result is.  This one was quoted a lot in the press; he said, “It is faux judicial restraint, which is really judicial obfuscation.”  So as a responsible analyst and advocate, you have to look behind the lines.  Many are what we now know as landmark decisions, but they didn’t tell us they were landmark decisions, right?  The old Commerce Clause cases.  But when the Supreme Court overturned the narrow view of the Commerce Clause in 1937, it didn’t say it was making new law.  It paid lip service to the same old tests.  But lo-and-behold, it came out differently.

Judicial activism
'''DS: When you hear the phrase “judicial activism” what comes to your mind?
 * NS: I think of a judge who is actively enforcing the Constitution and living up to his or her responsibility and oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, even in unpopular cases.

'''DS: So you believe in the living Constitution?
 * NS: I don’t know I can say what is a living Constitution.  The Constitution itself contains provisions that on their face call for interpretation that has to take into account evolving developments in society.  Why did they talk about cruel and unusual punishments when they could have simply said—

'''DS: “These are cruel and unusual punishments”
 * NS: --Exactly.  So that there was a conscious choice on the part of the framers to leave it to future generations to pour specific content into the open-ended values they were endorsing.  So to me that’s being faithful to the text and intent of the framers not to have hide-bound Eighteenth Century interpretation.

'''DS: Do you think there is a right to privacy in the Constitution?
 * NS: I think that the Constitution is a document that bestows limited powers upon any government that was intended to have limited powers.  Unless the government is given power to invade certain individual rights, then that power does not exist.  So to me the question is not does the Constitution grant people a right to privacy, it’s does the Constitution grant the government the power to invade an individual’s inherent and pre-existing right to privacy.  Let us not forget that the founding document of the country, the Declaration of Independence, as we all know, says we are all born with certain inalienable rights that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.  So the purpose of government was not to grant us rights, which we already had by virtue of being human, the purpose of government was to protect those rights.  If you look at the preamble of the Constitution, which is implementing those ideals that are set out in the Declaration, it talks about one of the prime purposes being to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  It doesn’t say grant liberty.

Capital punishment and criminal justice
'DS: What argument for capital punishment do you think is most'' compelling for it?
 * NS: If I had to be a devil’s advocate…  Boy.  I-I-you’re really tongue-tying me, which is novel.  I would say just on a Constitutional level there is a pretty strong argument, textually, which is that the Due Process Clause of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, says that no state or the federal government shall deny any person of life, liberty or property, without Due Process of law, which suggests that the government may deprive somebody of life, as long as it lies with Due Process of law.  So I think that is a pretty strong textual argument that it was contemplated by the framers.  But, if you are going to make a moral argument or policy argument, I would really come up short on that because every study that has been done shows that it is fraught with all kinds of discrimination, racial discrimination as we know; discrimination based upon wealthy or poverty; geographical discrimination, depending upon what the polices are of the prosecutors in a certain jurisdiction.  There’s no evidence that it deters anybody who commits homicide.  So I can’t see any policy justification.  I don’t believe that it makes us safer, I don’t think it deters crime.  I think it is inherently inconsistent with human dignity or possible rehabilitation, which is I guess the word that they use.

'''DS: The criminal justice system is a rehabilitative system?
 * NS: That’s not what I think it is now.

'''DS: Is that what it should be?
 * NS: I think the purpose of the criminal justice system should be—yeah, that would be great, if it could be done.  But its primary purpose is to promote safety, to reduce crime.

'''DS: How does it do that?
 * NS: Believe me, I’m not an apologist for the criminal justice system.  I think it’s in a terrible state, in part because quite a few years ago the official policy, at least at the federal level, and the states certainly seem to be in the avant-garde on this, was to not be focused on rehabilitation but to be focused on retribution.  The federal sentencing guidelines, I believe, explicitly endorse a retributive purpose for the criminal justice system.  I disagree with that.

Decriminalization of drugs and suicide
'''DS: Are you an active member of NORML?
 * NS: I don’t know.  I certainly support their goals and I have spoken at their conventions.

'''DS: Do you believe in the decriminalization of marijuana?
 * NS: Absolutely, and everything. For adults.

'''DS: Can you give me your case for that?
 * NS: Sure, it’s official ACLU policy, which I wholeheartedly endorse.  I think it was well summarized by one of our board members years ago when the crack cocaine epidemic was starting, and somebody said we should re-examine our policy which opposed the criminalization of substances for adults.  Maybe we should re-examine it in light of this new dangerous drug.  And we did re-examine and unanimously re-affirmed.  In the course of that debate, one Board member said, “We believe that every consenting adult should have the right to imbibe, ingest, inhale or insert whatever he or she wants into his or her own body. It’s a matter of individual freedom of choice.”  Does that mean they should do it?  Not necessarily, not any more than somebody should smoke or drink or eat McDonald’s hamburgers.

'''DS: Should suicide be legal?
 * NS: Absolutely.  The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you, which could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die raised the analogy.  But you said before you turned on the tape that you typically ask people how they would want to die, which is very interesting.  I mean, of the zillions of questions I have been asked, nobody has ever asked me that!  It’s very rare I am asked a question that I have never been asked before.

'''DS: So how would you like to die?
 * NS: Well, the first thing that occurred to me was: I want to have the choice.  That was the very first thing that occurred to me, because I know how through personal experiences, through vicarious experiences, through reading the complaints in our law suits where we have challenged the absolute restrictions on compassion and dying, people are essentially tortured.  And I don’t want that to happen.  And I don’t want my loved ones tortured by watching that happen.

'''DS: You wouldn’t want a Terri Schiavo situation?
 * NS: That was an ACLU case; we represented her husband there.  It has to be consenting, but there are measures we can take, and precautions we can take, so there it should be regulated.  I say the same thing about drugs.  You wouldn’t want to have regulation the way we do for food and alcohol, but absolute prohibition is completely inhumane and counter to the most fundamental autonomy of who you are.

'''DS: So you have the choice, what is your choice?
 * NS: My choice would be to take a sleeping pill, I guess, or maybe morphine would have the same effect, to peacefully pass from this Earth when I have made a decision that I can no longer live in this state of comfort and dignity that makes life meaningful to me.

War and threats to humanity
'''DS: What do you think is the greatest threat to humanity right now?
 * NS: By that do you mean human existence, or something more subtle?

'''DS: However you interpret the question.
 * NS: The greatest threat to humanity…  Boy.  The reason why I am pausing is I live so much of my life looking at one set of threats, so I’m not usually asked the comparative question.  See, you’re again getting me out of my box.  I’m usually asked what is the greatest danger to civil liberties, and I don’t have so much hubris to necessarily say, “The greatest threat to humanity is threats to our freedom.”  I guess I would have to take it as the most literal threat.  For many years  I managed to perhaps delude myself that there wasn’t a serious threat of nuclear holocaust, and I don’t think that anymore.  I’m very afraid with reports of Iran having nuclear capabilities, or even individual terrorist groups or terrorist cells having access  to weapons of mass destruction.  That really scares me.

'''DS: How has the Iraq War affected your world view?
 * NS: It’s made me very concerned about—even more concerned than I always have been—about the future of the world and the future of this country, because I think it’s not only the war itself, but obviously the ripple effects, the insurgency, the recruitment for Al-Qaida and terrorist groups.  The disenchantment with what I thought and think our country should stand for, but in the world it no longer does stand for: human rights, democracy and justice.

'''DS: Have you seen a precipitous drop?
 * NS: It’s catastrophic.  The damage.  I’m not speaking as a civil libertarian, I’m speaking as a member on the Council on Foreign Relations, looking at what my colleagues in the international human rights movement are telling me, and they meet with the most brutal dictators who say, “I’m just doing what George Bush is doing.”

'''DS: Ahmadinejad came to Columbia and brought that argument up.
 * NS: Yeah, right.  So we have squandered our moral legitimacy, we have squandered the legitimacy of the whole international human rights regime post World War II, of democracy, and as I always tell my students, once you lose your credibility or people’s respect for your integrity, it may not be irreparable, but it takes such a long time to restore that, and ultimately our national security depends on that.  So I’m really fearful.  I’m ultimately optimistic in the long run, but it’s a longer run than it would have been pre-9/11, and not because of the terrorist attacks, but because of our reaction to the terrorist attacks.  And the use of that to get us into Iraq, and the erosion of trust—this is something Hagel was talking about—the erosion of trust toward government on the part of the American people, and particularly younger generations.  It was really corrosive.

'''DS: It’s surprising that Hagel gave that criticism since it is his party that has instituted the fear of government into our culture. Such as Reagan’s famous line that the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
 * NS: These parties are so heterogeneous, believe me, I would not want to be associated with a single one.  Even the ACLU does things I personally disagree with, so I would not want guilt by association.  If the party platform reflected [Hagel’s] views, it would be a different party than it is now.

'''DS: When I interviewed Gay Talese, I asked him how the Iraq War affected him and he said it had not. He said, “I wish it did!” He said he doesn’t feel anything and that he doesn’t think anyone else does, either. He feels you can’t have a war affect people unless you have conscription.
 * NS: I totally agree with that, I completely agree with that.  Charlie Rangel, as you probably know, I completely agree with that.  The ACLU has always opposed the draft, going back to our founding, as in our view being inconsistent with the Thirteenth Amendment of involuntary servitude, but our fall-back position has always been, having lost on that argument, that if you are going to have a draft then it may not be discriminatory; it should apply to women as well as men.  We took that case to the Supreme Court.  You can’t have exemptions for students and others who are privileged, and partly because that’s consistent with Equal Protection guarantees, but that means that the way to enforce fairness:  everybody has to be treated equally.  To have members of Congress and the Executive Branch send other people’s kids off to war, or other people’s spouses, they are not making a responsible decision if they do not have to feel the cost.  I could not agree with that more strongly.  The result might be then we would then have no war.  It’s the same thing with all the deprivations of liberty in the war on terror, if I may say so.  All those surveys that say, “Are you willing to give up freedom to enhance national security?”  The reason people say yes is they are willing to give up somebody ELSE’S freedom.  Okay, so take it away from the Muslims…

'''DS: But they see it as voluntary service. It’s a voluntary army.
 * NS: I wish that it really were.  I think nobody who volunteered for it was volunteering for the tours of duty—even forget the danger they are facing—but the extended time, it’s off the charts.  Chuck Hagel today gave us the exact details, so don’t quote me on this because he’s an expert and I’m not, but the order of magnitude used to be 7 months, but now it’s 15 months, or 18 months, or 21 months, and then it’s being doubled and you are not able to have leave in between.  So, they volunteered for one type of duty in terms of the amount of time, but they are getting something entirely different from that.  Number two is query how realistic the choice is for the people who are going into it if they don’t have many other options—or any other options—to get an education, to get a job, to get the skills and the training—

'''DS: --That’s what Talese said. Senator Brownback told me he is against conscription, and it’s interesting that the people who are most for the war are the people who are most for a voluntary army.
 * NS: Maybe they believe that those would be the people who are most highly-motivated.  I mean in theory, you would see that advantage.

'''DS: Rangel’s bent is that if people were actually fighting in the wars, or forced to fight, that it would bring public opinion against the war.
 * NS: I think in terms of Constitutional Law terms, but remember that famous old case by John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, where the state of Maryland was not allowed to tax the Bank of the United States, and he set out a principle that is a pervasive equal protection principle, that those who are going to bear the burden should have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making.  This is the flip side of it; you may not impose the burden unless you are sharing in the responsibility.  There’s an accountability, a reciprocity that State A may not impose a tax on State B is the same thing as saying, people who are not fighting the war may not send off those who are.

Should George Bush be impeached?
'''DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached?
 * NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea.  The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor.  Well, Bush, has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution.  He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law, that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly passed by Congress.  In one breath he is signing them, and in another breath he is saying he doesn’t have to follow them.  So, I think if what Clinton did can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor then what Bush did could be.

 * Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him.  Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress.  Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate.  Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program.  Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters.  They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook.  By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think.  It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats.  It makes it too much of a partisan issue.  There is bipartisan responsibility here.  For that reason I strongly oppose it.  I’m not speaking for the ACLU, I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it.

'''DS: You just don’t think it would be productive.
 * NS: I don’t think it would advance civil liberties.

Gun rights
'''DS: Where do you stand on the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners? Are the rights accorded to well-armed militias, or is it accorded to unfettered rights of individuals to own guns?
 * NS: I actually don’t think in reality that the difference is that profound, because when you look at the big debate, and you stated it well, does the government protect the individual right to bear arms, does it only protect a collective right through the state militias?  Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution.  No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance.  Ironically, the very first federal appellate court in recent history to hold that there was an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit, then went on to nevertheless uphold the particular restriction that was being challenged!  Mainly, that the guy was under a restraining order for domestic abuse and he wasn’t allowed to possess a gun.  The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right.  So I don’t think it makes a big difference.  And conversely, to say it’s not an individual right doesn’t mean that gun owners are without all rights, and the ACLU has often collaborated with gun owners rights organizations to defend their rights to privacy, to defend their rights to due process; in other words, they don’t forfeit all of their Constitutional rights just because they are gun owners, even if the Second Amendment doesn’t protect.   So I think it’s more a philosophical debate than it has any practical difference.

Strossen's philosophy
'''DS: Last question:  what trait do you deplore in people?
 * NS: I—I’m so tolerant, I really can’t think of one!  That’s horrible!

'''DS: That’s about the best answer I can think of coming from the President of the ACLU! [Laughs]
 * NS: You know, and people will say…maybe that’s what made me President of the ACLU, I am so tolerant of everything.  It’s very hard to get me angry.  I always see a silver lining to a cloud, and people will often ask me, “Wasn’t it hard for you when the ACLU defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie?”  No!  For me, it’s never about the Nazis, it’s about freedom of speech.  It’s about the principle.  So I tend to see things in a rather abstract level.  For every bad piece of mail I receive, I get marriage proposals, love letters, letters of praise!  So the question was what trait do I find obnoxious?

'''DS: That you deplore in people.
 * NS: I guess I would, in the abstract, I would deplore a lack of tolerance, but even that is hard to say because I sort of admire people who are firm in their convictions.  I think it is hard for me to give a categorical answer, because I would just judge each person as an individual.  This morning I had a conversation with someone who said to me, and it was a very well-educated and thoughtful person, a doctor, who said, “Do you know any Iranians?”  And I said, “Yes.”  And he said, “What do you think of them as a group?  Do you like them?”  I was—I mean, my jaw just dropped!  So, I guess I refuse to generalize.  I look at everybody as an individual, I look at every trait individual, and I can’t think of one that I would deplore categorically.

'''DS: Do you deplore any in yourself?
 * NS: No, I must say I like myself.  I deplore specific things I have done in the past, but that is consistent with what I have said in general, that you shouldn’t judge somebody by the worst thing they have ever done.


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/October 29, 2007

ElBaradei says no 'concrete evidence' of Iranian nuclear weapons program
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Sunday that he had seen no "concrete evidence" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency

ElBaradei discussed Iran's nuclear program in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sunday.

Tensions between the United States and Iran have been on the rise recently, with U.S. President George W. Bush warning of the potential for "World War III" should Iran develop a nuclear weapon. On Thursday, the United States imposed new sanctions on Iran in an effort to pressure it to stop enriching uranium.

ElBaradei recommended entering negotiations with Iran as soon as possible to resolve the conflict.

US turns security for Karbala over to Iraqi forces
United States forces in Iraq have today turned over control of Karbala Governorate over to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). It is the eighth of eighteen provinces to be returned to local control since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki reached out to those who have left the Iraqi insurgency and turned against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, welcoming them back to rebuild Iraq.

In a joint press release, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker stated Iraqi Security Forces have been successfully operating independently for the past three months.

$1m offer for NBC to include U.S. presidential candidate Gravel in TV debate
Currency hedge fund operator Gregory Chase was alerted by internet sources that Former Senator Mike Gravel, a Democratic presidential candidate in the race for presidency, will be excluded from the latest upcoming debate (that will be held this Tuesday at Drexel University and broadcast on MSNBC), Chase immediately took action by contacting NBC executives, who are charge of the debate.

The letter was sent and it includes an explanation as to why NBC should not censor Gravel, and also holds an offer of US$1,000,000 to include Gravel, NBC had stipulated as the fundraising amount needed for candidates participating in the debate.

As of October 26, 2007, Chase has not received a response from NBC regarding the offer.

Prime Minister Ghedi of Somalia resigns
The Prime Minister of Somalia, Ali Mohammed Ghedi, has submitted his resignation to President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed and Speaker of the Transitional Federal Parliament, Adan Mohamed Nuur Madobe.

A feud between Ghedi and the President has long been blamed for the lack of progress and inability of the government to deal effectively with the armed conflict with the Islamic Courts Union. The rift has often has been cited as frustrating for Western diplomats who support the government.

This has been an Audio Wikinews Brief and is freely available for copy under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license at http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/. Catch the latest breaking news at Wikinews at en.wikinews.org.

title: Wikinews:Briefs/October 29, 2007


text:
User talk:196.207.40.212

RE: Bryan Habana
Are there any more sources for the blog link you posted on him being tackled? I would be interested. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rugby player Bryan Habana tackled by fan. And even used your blog as a source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:196.207.40.212


text:
Rugby player Bryan Habana tackled by fan

October 30, 2007 Bryan Habana, a rugby player for the South Africa national rugby union team and the Blue Bulls, was tackled by a fan who tried to grab the Webb Ellis Cup from Habana while he was accepting the award at Newlands Stadium in Cape Town.

"[The fan] came like a bullet, flying through a crowd of people that were behind Bryan. Bryan luckily saw him and kept the trophy tight," said Rayaan Adriaanse, a spokesman for South African Rugby who said that the man was the only "individual intent on spoiling the enjoyment of a lot of people."

The fan can be seen coming out of the left of the screen and jumping up in an attempt to grab the trophy, which Habana was raising above his head. The trophy did fall, but was not damaged despite its lip hitting the ground.

The unnamed man was immediately apprehended by stadium officials and was given a warning. He was not arrested. He was reported as an "overexcited fan."


text:
Talk:Rugby player Bryan Habana tackled by fan

OR
I watched the video to describe the events. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20071030

30 October

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20071030


text:
Talk:Wikimedia Conference Netherlands 2007 held on wikis and education/Comments

Enjoyable
The presentations I was able to attend and understand were very enjoyable and interesting. I am also delighted with the way the article has worked out - although disappointed nobody has yet done a Dutch version for nl.wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


text: File:ICE LOGO.jpg

title: File:ICE LOGO.jpg


text:
User:Ais523

See w:en:User:ais523. Ais523 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User:Ais523


text:
User talk:Ais523

Messages are more likely to reach me at w:en:User talk:ais523. Ais523 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ais523


text:
User talk:210.7.27.247

zomg, me..sorry..-- Cometstyles 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:210.7.27.247


text:
Nine French nationals face kidnapping charges in Chad

October 30, 2007 Nine French nationals, that were arrested after they were caught trying to airlift over a hundred children from the country, will face charges of kidnapping, officials in Chad say. Seven Spanish nationals, who were the crew of the plane, will face charges of being complicit. Two Chadians were also charged.

The French, six of whom are members of a charity by the name of "Zoe's Ark," say that they were trying to rescue the children from the humanitarian crisis that is resulting from the Darfur conflict. The other three are journalists, there to cover the "rescue."

The prosecutor in Abéché, Ahmat Daoud, said: "For the nine French people it is a matter of kidnapping of minors...as well as extortion." They face 20 years in prison if convicted.

"Zoe's Ark" describes the children as orphans and says that they would have a better life in Europe. "The team is made up of firemen, doctors and journalists," said spokesperson, Christophe Letien, at a news conference. "It's unimaginable that doubts are being cast on these people of good faith, who volunteered to save children from Darfur." However, French news agency CAPA published an interview in which a "Zoe's Ark" member said they could not be completely sure the children were orphans in need of help.

According to Annette Rehrl, spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, few of the children appear to actually be orphans. "They keep saying that they want to return to their parents. Most of them are between three and six years old. It’s very difficult to ask three-year-olds their names and where they come from. Also, some children have already changed their names and stories," Rehrl said.

French officials say that they warned the group against this operation for months. "Zoe's Ark" offices in France were searched to see if the group broke French adoption law by promising families that they could adopt and not just host the children.

The President of Chad, Idriss Déby, says that it is a case of "kidnap, pure and simple." He further suggested that "Zoe's Ark" may have sought to supply the children to pedophile rings or use them as donors for organ transplant.

The European Union is about to deploy a peacekeeping force, which includes French soldiers, along the border between Chad and Sudan. Déby has assured his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, he will not attempt to block the EU troops.


text:
Germany to host 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup

October 30, 2007

Germany beat out Canada to be selected as host the 2011 edition of the FIFA Women's World Cup.

Germany's bid was based on 11 reasons why they should host the FIFA Women's World Cup along with a video Birgit Prinz and Fatmire Bajramaj. Canada's bid was based on its successful staging of the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup.

Germany has won the last two FIFA Women's World Cup and never gave up a goal in the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup.


text:
Shoplifting mother leaves son at scene of crime

October 30, 2007 A woman who attempted to shoplift merchandise at a T.J. Maxx department store with another adult accomplice in Greenburgh, New York forgot one important item in her heist: her 8-month-old son.

While trying to shoplift, Suzette Gruber, aged 39, ran out of the store when she thought she would be caught, panicked, and left her son sitting in his stroller inside the store. Her accomplice also ran, and has yet to be identified.

"The mother panicked ... and just took off. It's sad," said Greenburgh police officer, Lt. Desmond Martin who also said that she left her cellular phone and purse behind.

Police say they will keep the child in protective custody while they investigate the incident. A man has claimed to be the father, presenting a birth certificate to police in an attempt to regain custody of the baby. He claims Gruber called him and told him to pick the boy up. Police are still working to confirm the man's claims. Reports say that he does not know where Gruber is.

Hidden inside the stroller's compartments were vases, teapots and utensils that were worth about US$185.

Gruber has been charged with theft before. In March of 2007, Gruber stole clothing from a mall and was charged with larceny and endangering the welfare of a child. According to reports, her then 2-week old son and 14-year old daughter were with her when she was arrested in March.

Gruber turned herself in to Greenburgh Police on Tuesday morning. She will be charged with abandonment of a child, a felony, and misdemeanor charges of petty larceny and endangering the welfare of a child, according to Police Chief John Kapica.


text: Category:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup

title: Category:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup


text:
Talk:ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush

Original reporting notes
In-person interview conducted October 11, 2007. --David Shankbone 16:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

suggestions
"he doesn’t have to followed them" -> "he doesn’t have to follow them" Wikisoup 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) "Last question: what trait do you deplore in people" -> could this be in a new section (it's still under Gun Rights)? Wikisoup 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed first; thanks. If you feel comfortable, you are welcome to fix obvious mistakes yourself.  I'm not that protective of editing these and really, their words are cleaned up and aren't posted verbatim (and trust me, they are appreciative) - see here for further explanation about that, if you are interested.  Regarding sections headings; they are more for navigation. I will move those up to background, but you might notice that not all the questions falling under a heading fit under that heading.  They are more for general themes, and so people can skip through very long interviews to topics they are interested in.  But good call.  --David Shankbone 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, great thanks. I didn't know it wasn't verbatim. Will still post here for anything more than a small grammar or spelling fix. Wikisoup 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as long as you don't change the meaning of what is said, spelling and grammar are perfectly fine (and I thank you - and so do the interviewees! I've heard more than once, "You made me sound smart!").  --David Shankbone 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"So the only option they have under this decision is for the doctor to leave the operating room and run to court to get an injunction because the Supreme Court said—the Court acknowledged that in the opinion and said but those women can bring in an “As Applied” challenge, that they aren’t going to strike down the entire statute on its face." ... the part after the dash is awkward, but I don't know how or if it should be changed. Wikisoup 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this: "So the only option they have under this decision is for the doctor to leave the operating room and run to court to get an injunction.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that in the opinion and said those women can bring an “As Applied” challenge, that they aren’t going to strike down the entire statute on its face."  --David Shankbone 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, better, but the "in the opinion" bit is still awkward I think. It could be removed and still make sense, though I don't know if it would still have the same meaning it was intended to have. Wikisoup 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misspelt
Paragraph 3, last sentence, 'despise' should be despite. -  Amgine | t 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah, no it shouldn't. -  Amgine | t 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC
FAC

 * Nom, nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Promoted. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


text:
User:Yvh11a

My primary user page can be found at Wikipedia

title: User:Yvh11a


text:
Wikipedia making bread in China? Not so, but close

October 30, 2007

People living behind the "Great Firewall of China", do not have direct access to Wikipedia, a popular internet encyclopedia. But they can eat Wikipedia.

Or Wekipedia, actually.

Blogs have now started reporting that supermarkets now sell "Wekipedia" bread, created by a "Beijing Wekipedia Foods Co., Ltd." Just one letter different than the famed website, it appears to be a new company and product.

Even its Chinese name 维百客 (pinyin: wei bǎi kē) is similar to the encyclopedia's 维基百科 (wei ji bǎi kē); the characters 维 and 百 are in both names. The words "bǎi kē" means "encyclopedia", a term with no obvious connection to baked foodstuffs like bread.

A bearded man is featured on the packaging; Blognation jokes that it is supposed to be Jimmy Wales, the site's co-founder.

The Wikimedia Foundation's communications manager Sandra Ordonez was amused at the branding choice, commenting "I think this is very funny. If they [internet users in mainland China] can't access Wikipedia virtually, at least they can eat it for breakfast".

While the Wikimedia Foundation is not in the bread industry, it is currently looking for "dough" of another sort. The American-based charitable organization is holding a fundraiser, to help pay for expenses like running their servers.


text:
Talk:Wikipedia making bread in China? Not so, but close

Veracity
This seems harder to believe than Britney Spears on Sesame Street. Are you sure it's not just someone playing with Photoshop? --SVTCobra 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't, but there's two things in its favour.

 * For starters, there's tons of products in China that are one letter away from major name brands. Usually they're similar products, not websites and bread, but nevertheless...

 * Second, Blognation is a fairly notable blog, so I assume their Chinese writers are just as respectable.

 * But even if it were fake, we are presenting it by saying "blogs are reporting" this, not like the Britney Spears stuff, where none of the people republishing the story questioned it and rarely even referenced the original newspaper as the source. --  Zanimum 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Raw text
I think this is very funny. if they can't access Wikipedia virtually, at least they can eat it for breakfast :)

This is Sandra Ordonez's quote, I've edited the rest out, as it basically was saying I should contact other people for the main question I had posed. -- Zanimum 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Name Problem
I've reverted to Bawolff's latest ver. because of naming problem is still uncertain and some sources just point out a little, for questions, please have a talk on this issue. Brock contact... 10:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning Wikimedia's fundraiser
Mentioning Wikimedia's fundraising in this unrelated articles does not seem to be a neutral point of view --Anonymous101 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

photo
Plese add Wekipedia photo: Image:Wekipedia Bakery.JPG

--Shizhao 10:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would have been a great photo to have in the article. However, it is now far too late to add new pictures. Sorry. --SVTCobra 01:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
Vitamin D deficiency more common, serious, than thought

November 2, 2007 Two scientists working at McGill University in Canada, reporting on their research and the research of other scientists, state in Scientific American that Vitamin D may have many uses in the human body besides building strong bones.

According to the scientists, Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza and John H. White, Vitamin D intake may also be beneficial in the prevention of cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and fighting tuberculosis, influenza and inflammatory bowel disease. The researchers say that there is an emerging "widespread consensus" among experts that a large part of the population has levels of Vitamin D in their bodies that is well below optimal concentrations for health, particularly in temperate regions, due to decreased sunlight and or less time outdoors, and during or just after the winter months. One study indicated that as many as 92% of adolescent girls in Northern Europe may have deficient levels of Vitamin D and 37% have severely deficient levels.

The problem is far worse among African-Americans than Americans with lighter skin. Almost half of African-American women may be seriously Vitamin D deficient, with presumably still another fraction deficient. Furthermore, the authors say researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere believe the FDA minimum recommended daily allowance of Vitamin D is far too low. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) ranges from 200 to 600 International Units (IU). In fact, the authors themselves take Vitamin D supplements. The first author takes 1000 IU during wintertime and the second author takes 5,000 IU in wintertime. They do caution, however, that there is a level at which Vitamin D becomes toxic.

Similar research has also been recently performed by researchers at the Queensland University of Technology who found that many elderly were likely not getting sufficient Vitamin D due in part to insufficient exposure to the sun.


text:
User talk:Richard L. Peterson

Welcome
Richard L. Peterson, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Now, as to your specific matter, I can't think of a specific better title off the top of my head, but if you bring it up at the collaboration page for the article - Talk:Vitamin D deficiency may be more common than previously thought someone else might take note and give a suggested title. JoshuaZ 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin D
Hi Richard. Your article on the Vitamin D study was excellent. Hope to see more from you. Cheers, Jcart1534 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Richard L. Peterson 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richard L. Peterson


text:
User:Richard L. Peterson

I am Richard (Rich) Locke Peterson from Sacramento, California. Greetings and best wishes to all good-faith Wikipedians and Wikinewsians!

title: User:Richard L. Peterson


text:
Talk:Vitamin D deficiency more common, serious, than thought

How about the title:Vitamin D deficiency both more common and more serious than previously thought.?Richard L. Peterson 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. JoshuaZ 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of those titles were too long. I changed it to "Vitamin D deficiency could be more common, researchers say".  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 19:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure about the title. Seems a bit odd as it is. Jcart1534 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about:"Vitamin D deficiency more common, serious, than thought"130.86.14.88 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Richard L. Peterson 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

-Forgot to say why ithink my proposed title above is better-the first paragraph is mainly about the benefits of vit D, thus implying the gravity of vit D deficiency. The paragraph then moves to how common deficiency is. The title should reflect that.Richard L. Peterson 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like that Richard. I'll make the change. Cheers, Jcart1534 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"caucasians" instead of "Americans with lighter skins"..
One problem with caucasian to me is we mean to contrast African Americans with other Americans, not with caucasians all over the world. I mean, the girls in the study in Denmark and elsewhere in N.Europe apparently had a worse deficiency rate than African Americans. Also, "lighter skinned" is helpful exposition because it reminds you that sunlight helps make vitamin D. Also, should Caucasian be capitalized?Richard L. Peterson 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since caucasian can refer to people of a variety of skin tones, I agree that the term should perhaps not be used. Perhaps, "European-American" would be better, especially as it is contrasted with what is termed "African-American". If you insist on changing one term to "lighter skinned" then the other term should be changed to "darker skinned", should it not? --SVTCobra 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * maybe, I'm not sure. The article referred to a study on African American women, not women with darker skin.130.86.14.89 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Richard L. Peterson 03:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Britain's top traffic cop faces driving ban

October 31, 2007 United Kingdom's most senior traffic police officer faces charges of speeding at 90 mph in a 60 mph speed limit zone (the equivalent of speeding at 144 km/h in a 96 km/h zone). The Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, Meredydd Hughes was allegedly caught speeding on the A5 road near Chirk in north Wales.

Hughes was caught by a camera that takes photographs of speeding cars. He is known as one of the main advocates for nationwide installation of such cameras.

Hughes is set to appear at Wrexham Magistrates Court on November 21, 2007. He faces a £1000 fine and a driving ban if convicted.

As the head of road policing within the Association of Chief Police Officers, Hughes can be considered the top traffic cop in the UK.


text:
Comments:ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush

the aclu and christians
having heard first hand from christians many of the misrepresentations strossen speaks of, i am surprised that, and am growing somewhat impatient with, the aclu for not speaking more of their work done on behalf of christians. not to get into specifics, i know some of these arguements against them are absurd (ie, that they support child porn, a result of their assisting NAMBLA, no doubt), but some are more easily refuted. for instance, one might be unsettled to learn of how many christians are unaware that the aclu has ever litigated on behalf of christians. though i have no problem spreading the word, myself, to those willing to listen, and not all are, certainly, the number of christians believing this sad statistic is great and should be remedied.

a fine interview, and one i enjoyed reading. cheers. -Imind 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how distorted reality can become. --David Shankbone 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Impeach Bush Comments
Ms. ACLU says that bush lied to congress. This is a complete and utter lie. Bush knew only what he was told by the CIA and other agencies. It was not an insane assumption either as Saddam Hussein has used Mustard Gas and other nerve gases in the Iraq-Iran War. why we did nothing about it then is a mystery to me. When we went in to Iraq, we found no chemical or biological weapons. That is not to say that we did not find that Saddam had the resources to make them. We went in there and found that Saddam could of ordered them made the next day. We found the butter, the suger, and the cake mix, he just hadn't baked he cake yet. To call bush a liar is obviously a lie in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.150.128.50 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

we did nothing about because we supplied him with those agents, and i would love to see the evidence suggesting he had the 'ingredients for the cake' and it was simply a matter of putting them together. this seems to counter everything i've read, including info released from the white house. - Imind (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns, and impeaching George Bush
This interview realy cleared some things up for me. I now know whos' rights the ACLU stands for: Junkies, Nazis, pornographers, prostitutes, sodomites, criminals, homophobes, con men, unborn fetuses -- oh wait, they DON'T stand for fetus rights, because fetuses don't HAVE any, right?

Seriously, do you believe these people?-69.11.210.252

ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns, and impeaching George Bush
I'd like to make 2 points here: 1: This interview confirms everything I've ever suspected about the ACLU: They hate American values, they want to legalize suicide and abortion-on-demand but save Mumia Abu-Jamal and the like, ect. There's a point when "it's not popular, but the ________ Ammendment issues are clear" ain't a plausible excuse. I don't think the word privacy is in the Constitution and even if it were it would not excuse what they advocate not to mention that there #1 priority is the destruction of religious values, followed by dismantling law and order. They are the most despicible special-intrest group I've ever seen. 2: Strossen says she's worked with members of the Christian right. Little does she mention that these are paranoid, conspiracy-thinking nuts who may actually deserve the term "far right".

the ACLU needs to go back and read the Declaration Independence. in 1776 this was a christian country  and they used the BIBLE for the good of the country and the people. The Moral laws that God gave. Take God out of the U.S.A. and  we will fall like all the other nations that corrupt people like the ACLU have overcome the BIBLE.

Gayle Mosley

ACLU President
Just for the record, she isn't President anymore. I think she retired.

ACLU History
It is well known and widely covered in media that the ACLU was started by supporters of Marx & Lenin, Communism, Socialism, with the intention of increasing those values and union principals in American society, for the purpose of destroying it. 50.67.128.206 (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


text:
Dollar reaches record low after US consumer confidence and home prices fall

October 30, 2007

The U.S. Dollar fell to an all time low against the after data from the U.S. heightened concerns regarding an economic recession.

The U.S. currency traded at 1.444 versus the Euro and reached a 26-year low against the. An index that measures US consumer confidence fell in October to 95,6 points while in August U.S. home prices declined 4,4%, the biggest fall of the past six years. The data bolsters speculation that the may cut  in the next meeting. The U.S. central bank is set to decide on interest rates on the 31st of October and economists expect a 25 basis point cut to 4,50%


text:
International Space Station's solar panel damaged

October 30, 2007 Astronauts and ground controllers are looking at apparent damage to the International Space Station P6 4B solar array spotted by the crew during deployment. NASA halted the deployment of the solar array wing to evaluate the damage. Deployment is about 75 percent complete with 25 of 31 bays deployed.

The crew has been asked to photograph the area on the solar array wing and downlink the images to the ground.

Shuttle Discovery is presently docked to the ISS during mission STS-120.


text:
User talk:Vittoria Pirone

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --SVTCobra 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Vittoria Pirone


text:
Comments:Wikipedia making bread in China? Not so, but close

i hate your shameless plugs

Weki bread
I personally think you guys should buy them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.185.34 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Haveyoursay

You have come here by clicking the "Post it" link on Template:Haveyoursay. This page doesn't exist, and any commentary on the template should be put on Template talk:Haveyoursay.

title: Comments:Haveyoursay


text:
Talk:Shoplifting mother leaves son at scene of crime

Original photo
I went by the T.J. Maxx in Greenburgh on my way home from work to snap this photo.--SVTCobra 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


text: Category:November 1, 2007

title: Category:November 1, 2007


text:
Wikinews:2007/November/1

 category=Published category=November 1, 2007 notcategory=Disputed notcategory=No publish suppresserrors=true

fr:Wikinews:2007/novembre/01 it:Wikinotizie:2007/novembre/1 ja:ウィキニュース:2007年/11月/1日 pt:Wikinotícias:2007/novembro/1 zh:Wikinews:2007年/11月/1日

title: Wikinews:2007/November/1


text:
Portal:Australia/2007/November/1

 category=November 1, 2007 category=Published category=Australia notcategory=Disputed suppresserrors=true

title: Portal:Australia/2007/November/1


text:
Portal:New Zealand/2007/November/1

 category=November 1, 2007 category=Published category=New Zealand notcategory=Disputed suppresserrors=true

title: Portal:New Zealand/2007/November/1


text:
Category:November 2, 2007

de:Kategorie:02.11.2007 es:Categoría:2 de noviembre de 2007 fr:Catégorie:2 novembre 2007 he:קטגוריה:2 בנובמבר 2007 it:Categoria:2 novembre 2007 ja:カテゴリ:2007年11月2日 pl:Kategoria:2 listopada 2007 pt:Categoria:2 de novembro de 2007 sr:Категорија:2. новембар 2007. th:หมวดหมู่:2 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2550 zh:Category:2007年11月2日

title: Category:November 2, 2007


text:
Wikinews:2007/November/2

 category=Published category=November 2, 2007 notcategory=Disputed notcategory=No publish suppresserrors=true

fr:Wikinews:2007/novembre/02 it:Wikinotizie:2007/novembre/2 ja:ウィキニュース:2007年/11月/2日 zh:Wikinews:2007年/11月/2日

title: Wikinews:2007/November/2