text:
USS Kearsarge (1861)

USS Kearsarge, a Mohican-class sloop-of-war, is best known for her defeat of the Confederate commerce raider CSS Alabama off Cherbourg, France during the American Civil War. Kearsarge was the only ship of the United States Navy named for Mount Kearsarge in New Hampshire. Subsequent ships were later named Kearsarge in honor of the ship.

Hunting Confederate raiders
Kearsarge was built at Portsmouth Navy Yard in Kittery, Maine, under the 1861 American Civil War emergency shipbuilding program. The new 1550 LT steam sloop-of-war was launched on 11 September 1861; she was sponsored by Mrs. McFarland, the wife of the editor of the Concord Statement, and was commissioned on 24 January 1862, with Captain Charles W. Pickering in command. Soon after, she was hunting for Confederate raiders in European waters.

Kearsarge departed Portsmouth, New Hampshire on 5 February 1862 for the coast of Spain. She then sailed to Gibraltar to join the blockade of Confederate raider CSS Sumter, forcing the ship's abandonment there in December 1862. However, Sumter's captain, Raphael Semmes, having returned to England for reassignment, was soon recommissioning off the Azores, in international waters, the newly-built British sloop Enrica as CSS Alabama. From there, Alabama went on to become one of the most successful commerce raiders in naval history.

From Cádiz in November of 1862 until March 1863 Kearsarge prepared for her engagement with Alabama. She searched for the raider, ranging along the coast of Northern Europe all the way to the Canaries, Madeira, and the Outer Hebrides. In early May 1864, she ran aground near Oostende. She was then repaired in the dry dock of Vlissingen, Netherlands until 10 May. On 14 June 1864, Kearsarge arrived at Cherbourg and found Alabama in port. The raider had returned there for much needed repairs after a very long, multiple ocean cruise at the expense of 65 Union merchant ships. Kearsarge took up station at the harbor's entrance to await Semmes' next move.

Battle of Cherbourg
On 19 June, Alabama stood out of Cherbourg Harbor for her last action. Mindful of French neutrality, Kearsarge's new commanding officer, Capt. John A. Winslow, took the sloop-of-war clear of territorial waters, then turned to meet the Confederate cruiser.

Alabama was the first to open fire, while Kearsarge held her reply until she had closed to less than 1000 yd. Steaming on opposite courses, the ships moved in seven spiraling circles on a southwesterly course, as each commander tried to cross his opponent's bow to deliver deadly raking fire. The battle quickly turned against Alabama, due to her poor gunnery and to the quality of her long-stored (and deteriorated) powder, fuses, and shells. Unknown at the time to Captain Semmes aboard the Confederate raider, Kearsarge had been given added protection for her vital machinery, by chain cable, mounted in three separate vertical tiers, along the port and starboard of her midsection.

This hull armor had been installed more than a year before (in just three days), while Kearsarge was in port at the Azores. It was made using 720 ft of 1.7 in single-link iron chain, and covered hull spaces 49 ft long by 6 ft deep. This was stopped up and down in three layers to eye-bolts with marlines, and secured by iron dogs, then concealed behind 1 in deal-boards, painted black to match the upper hull's color. This chain cladding was placed along Kearsarge's port and starboard midsection down to her waterline, for protection of her engines and boilers, when the upper portions of the cruiser's coal bunkers were empty. This armor belt was hit twice during the fight: first, in the starboard gangway by one of Alabama's 32-pounder shells, which cut the chain armor, denting the hull planking underneath, and by a second shell of the same warhead-rating exploded, breaking a link of the chain, and tearing away a portion of the deal-board covering. Even if the shells had been delivered by Alabama's more powerful 100-pounder Blakely pivot rifle, the impacts were more than 5 ft above the waterline and would therefore have missed her vital machinery.

One hour after she fired her first salvo, Alabama had been reduced to a sinking wreck by Kearsarge's more accurate gunnery, and by its powerful 11 inch Dahlgren smoothbore pivot guns. Alabama went down by the stern shortly after Semmes struck his colors, threw his sword into the sea to avoid its capture, and sent one of his two remaining longboats to Kearsarge with a message of surrender, and a rescue appeal for his surviving crew. Kearsarge finally sent ship's boats for the majority of Alabama's survivors, but Semmes and 41 others were instead rescued by the nearby British yacht Deerhound, and escaped to the United Kingdom.

The battle between Kearsarge and Alabama is commemorated by the United States Navy with a battle star on the Civil War campaign streamer. In addition, 17 of Kearsarge's crew received the Medal of Honor for valor during this action: The medals were awarded on 31 December 1864.
 * Michael Aheam
 * John F. Bickford
 * William S. Bond
 * James Haley
 * Mark G. Ham
 * George H. Harrison
 * John Hayes
 * James H. Lee
 * Charles Moore
 * Joachim Pease
 * Thomas Perry
 * William B. Poole
 * Charles A. Read
 * George E. Read
 * James Saunders
 * William Smith
 * Robert Strahan

Home for repairs
Kearsarge then sailed along the French coast in an unsuccessful search for the commerce raider CSS Florida, then proceeded to the Caribbean before turning northward for Boston, Massachusetts, where she was decommissioned for repairs on 26 November. She was recommissioned four months later on 1 April 1865 and sailed for the coast of Spain on 14 April in an attempt to intercept CSS Stonewall. The Confederate ram eluded Federal warships and surrendered to Spanish authorities at Havana, Cuba on 19 May. After cruising the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel south to Monrovia, Liberia, Kearsarge was decommissioned on 14 August 1866 in the Boston Navy Yard.

Post-war service
Kearsarge was recommissioned on 16 January 1868 and sailed on 12 February to serve in the South Pacific, operating out of Valparaíso, Chile. On 22 August, she landed provisions for destitute earthquake victims in Peru. She continued to watch over American commercial interests along the coast of South America until 17 April 1869. Then she sailed to watch over American interests among the Marquesas, Society Islands, Navigators Islands, and Fiji Islands. She also called at ports in New South Wales and New Zealand before returning to Callao, Peru on 31 October. She resumed duties on the South Pacific Station until 21 July 1870, then cruised to the Hawaiian Islands before being decommissioned in the Mare Island Navy Yard on 11 October 1870.

Kearsarge was recommissioned on 8 December 1873 and departed on 4 March 1874 for Yokohama, Japan, arriving there on 11 May. She cruised on Asiatic Station for three years, protecting American citizens and commerce in China, Japan, and the Philippines. From 4 September to 13 December, she carried Professor Asaph Hall's scientific party from Nagasaki, Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, to observe the transit of Venus. She departed Nagasaki on 3 September 1877, and via the Suez Canal, she visited Mediterranean ports before returning to Boston on 30 December. She was decommissioned at Portsmouth, New Hampshire on 15 January 1878.

Kearsarge was recommissioned on 15 May 1879 for four years of duty in the North Atlantic ranging from Newfoundland to the Caribbean Sea and the coast of Panama. The warship took part in dedication ceremonies for the Brooklyn Bridge on 24 May 1883. She departed New York on 21 August 1883 to cruise for three years in the Mediterranean, then Northern European waters, and finally along the west coast of Africa. She returned to Portsmouth on 12 November and was decommissioned in the Portsmouth Navy Yard on 1 December 1886.

Wreck

Kearsarge was recommissioned on 2 November 1888 and largely spent her remaining years protecting American interests in the West Indies, off Venezuela, and along the Central Americas. In October 1889 she carried famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass to Haiti, where Douglass was to be minister and consul general. On President Harrison's orders, she sailed to Navassa Island in 1891 to investigate labor conditions there. She departed Haiti on 20 January 1894 for Bluefields, Nicaragua, but she wrecked on a reef off Roncador Cay on 2 February. Her officers and crew made it safely ashore.

Congress appropriated $45,000 to tow Kearsarge home, but a salvage team of the Boston Towboat Company found that she could not be refloated. Some artifacts were saved from the ship, including the ship's Bible. The salvaged items, along with a damaged section of her stern post with an unexploded shell from CSS Alabama still embedded in it, are now stored or on display at the Washington Navy Yard. According to the US Naval Academy Museum, after the battle with Alabama the shell was removed and the stern post was replaced. Kearsarge was struck from the Naval Vessel Register in 1894.

Popular culture
Liverpool writer Jimmy McGovern's 2007 play, King Cotton, culminates with the battle between Kearsarge and Alabama. It premiered at The Lowry.

Clive Cussler, an American adventure novelist and marine archaeologist, wrote the 2001 novel Valhalla Rising, in which Kearsarge is attacked by a submerged vessel and run aground, causing her wreck.

Harry Turtledove, American alternate history novelist, wrote the 1992 novel The Guns of the South in which time-traveling South African white nationalists successfully re-arm the Confederate States Army with AK-47 assault rifles in early 1864, thus enabling the Confederacy to rout Union forces in every land campaign of the year. When Washington is captured by the Army of Northern Virginia, Abraham Lincoln reluctantly concedes the Confederacy's independence. The war is implied to end in mid-June, as USS Kearsarge is mentioned as having been waiting for CSS Alabama to emerge from the French port city of Cherbourg when word of the war's end reached Europe. In this alternate scenario, the USS Kearsarge never met the CSS Alabama in battle. Instead, each warship sailed for its home country.

title: USS Kearsarge (1861)


text:
USS Kearsarge

Five ships of the United States Navy have been named USS Kearsarge. The first was named for Mount Kearsarge, and the later ones were named in honor of the first.

 * USS Kearsarge (1861) was a sloop of war launched 11 September 1861, fought in the American Civil War, defeated the Confederate commerce raider CSS Alabama, and was wrecked off Central America 2 February 1894.
 * USS Kearsarge (BB-5) was a Kearsarge-class battleship launched 24 March 1898, sailed with the Great White Fleet, participated in World War I, was converted to a heavy-crane ship in 1920 and renamed Crane Ship No. 1 (AB-1), then sold for scrapping 9 August 1955.
 * USS Kearsarge (CV-12) was an Essex-class aircraft carrier renamed Hornet prior to launch, was in commission 1942–1970, and is preserved as a museum ship in Alameda, California.
 * USS Kearsarge (CV-33) was a long-hulled Essex-class aircraft carrier, launched 5 May 1945, served in the Korean War and Vietnam War then scrapped in 1974.
 * USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) is a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship commissioned in 1993 and remains.

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

title: USS Kearsarge


text:
The Nine Nations of North America

The Nine Nations of North America is a 1981 book by Joel Garreau, in which the author suggests that North America can be divided into nine nations, which have distinctive economic and cultural features. He also argues that conventional national and state borders are largely artificial and irrelevant, and that his "nations" provide a more accurate way of understanding the true nature of North American society. The work has been called "a classic text on the current regionalization of North America".

The nine nations

 * New England – an expanded version including not only Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although omitting the southwestern portion of Connecticut within the New York metropolitan area), but also the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Capital: Boston.
 * The Foundry – the by-then-declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to northeast Wisconsin and down to the suburbs of Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia, and including Chicago, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Philadelphia, and Southern Ontario. Capital: Detroit.
 * Dixie – the former Confederate States of America (today the southeastern United States) centered on Atlanta, and including most of eastern Texas. While northern Virginia and Maryland are culturally not part of Dixie, he includes most of Virginia and West Virginia in "Dixie" as well as Kentucky; southern and southeastern portions of Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana; and the "Little Dixie" region of southeastern Oklahoma. Finally, the region also includes most of Florida, as far south as the cities of Fort Myers and Naples. Capital: Atlanta.
 * The Breadbasket – most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, almost all of Oklahoma, parts of Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, the eastern edge of New Mexico, central Illinois, a portion of Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
 * The Islands – The South Florida metropolitan area, the Everglades and Florida Keys, and the Caribbean.  Capital: Miami.
 * Mexamerica – the southern and Central Valley portions of California as well as southern Arizona, the portion of Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, most of New Mexico, northern Mexico, and the Baja California Peninsula. Capital: Los Angeles.
 * Ecotopia – the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range and the Coast Mountains, as well as several Alaskan Pacific Coast Ranges, stretching from Alaska down through coastal British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon, and into California just north of Santa Barbara. Capital: San Francisco.
 * The Empty Quarter – most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Colorado from Denver west, as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, all of Alberta and Northern Canada (including what is now Nunavut), northern Arizona, parts of New Mexico (mainly the area controlled by the Navajo Nation), and British Columbia east of the Coast Ranges. Its capital is Denver, close to the border with The Breadbasket.
 * Quebec – the primarily French-speaking province of Canada, which held unsuccessful referendums on secession in 1980 and 1995. Capital: Quebec City.

Garreau also discussed several areas that he termed "aberrations":
 * Washington, D.C., and its surrounding area, specifically referring to the area "inside the Beltway".
 * Manhattan south of Harlem (he placed Harlem, and by extension the Manhattan neighborhoods to its north, clearly within The Foundry), along with Connecticut's Fairfield County.
 * Hawaii, which the author considered an Asian aberration as much as a North American aberration.
 * Northern Alaska, despite its categorization on the front cover as part of the Empty Quarter, was listed in the aberrations section of the book.

Despite their presence within North America, Garreau did not assign the central and southern regions of the country of Mexico to any of his nine nations.

Reception
Paul Meartz of Mayville State University called The Nine Nations of North America "a classic text on the current regionalization of North America".

title: The Nine Nations of North America


text:
Ecotopia

Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston is a utopian novel by Ernest Callenbach, published in 1975. The society described in the book is one of the first ecological utopias and was influential on the counterculture and the green movement in the 1970s and thereafter. The author himself claimed that the society he depicted in the book is not a true utopia (in the sense of a perfect society), but, while guided by societal intentions and values, was imperfect and in-process.

Callenbach said of the story, in relation to Americans: "It is so hard to imagine anything fundamentally different from what we have now. But without these alternate visions, we get stuck on dead center.  And we’d better get ready.  We need to know where we’d like to go."

Context
Callenbach wove his story using the fiber of technologies, lifestyles, folkways, and attitudes that were common in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. The "leading edges" (his main ideas for Ecotopian values and practices) were patterns in actual social experimentation taking place in the American West. To draw an example, Callenbach's fictional Crick School was based on Pinel School, an alternative school located outside Martinez, California, and attended for a time by his son.

Callenbach placed the genesis of Ecotopia with an article he researched and wrote titled "The Scandal of Our Sewage". Besides the important social dimensions of the story, he talked publicly about being influenced, during work on the novel, by many streams of thought: scientific discoveries in ecology and conservation biology; the urban-ecology movement, concerned with a new approach to urban planning; and the soft-energy movement, championed by Amory Lovins and others. Much of the environmentally benign energy, home building and transportation technology described by the author was based on his reading of research findings published in such journals as Scientific American and Science.

Callenbach's concept does not reject high technology (or any technology) as long as it does not interfere with the Ecotopian social order and serves the overall objectives. Members of his fictional society prefer to demonstrate a conscious selectivity toward technology, so that not only human health and sanity might be preserved, but also social and ecological wellbeing. For example, Callenbach's story anticipated the development and liberal usage of videoconferencing.

During the 1970s when Ecotopia was written and published, many prominent counterculture and New Left thinkers decried the consumption and overabundance that they perceived as characteristic of post-World War II America. The citizens of Ecotopia share a common aim: a balance between themselves and nature. They were "literally sick of bad air, chemicalized food, and lunatic advertising. They turned to politics because it was finally the only route to self-preservation." In the mid-20th century as "firms grew in size and complexity citizens needed to know the market would still serve the interests of those for whom it claimed to exist". Callenbach's Ecotopia targets the fact that many people did not feel that the market or the government were serving them in the way they wanted them to. This book could be interpreted as "a protest against consumerism and materialism, among other aspects of American life."

The term "ecotopian fiction", as a subgenre of science fiction and utopian fiction, makes implicit reference to this book.

Plot summary
The book is set in 1999 (25 years in the future from 1974) and consists of diary entries and reports of journalist William Weston, who is the first American mainstream media reporter to investigate Ecotopia, a small country that broke away from the United States in 1980 following an economic collapse that lead to the dissolution of the US. Prior to Weston's reporting, most Americans had been barred from entering the new country, which is depicted as being on continual guard against revanchism. The new nation of Ecotopia consists of Northern California, Oregon, and Washington; it is hinted that Southern California is a lost cause, and was most likely destroyed. The novel takes its form as a narrative from Weston's diary in combination with dispatches that he transmits to his publication, the fictional Times-Post.

At the beginning, Weston is skeptically curious about, not yet sympathetic to the Ecotopians. He describes details of the Ecotopian transportation system and the preferred lifestyle. This includes a wide range of gender roles, sexual freedom, and acceptance of non-monogamous relationships. Liberal cannabis use is evident. Televised passive, mass-media, spectator sports have been displaced in favor of local arts coverage, local participatory sports, and general fitness. A large fraction of young male Ecotopians participate voluntarily in a decidedly male ritual of mock warfare using wooden spears but no guns or arrows. The games are not re-enactments. Physical injuries, occasionally serious, are considered part of the game. Ecotopians on the whole value the benefits to young males over the accidental injuries. Ecotopia also tolerates the voluntary separatism of many people of African descent who have, in fact, chosen to live in a mini-nation in the San Francisco East Bay-area in order to protect themselves from racism.

Ecotopian society has favored decentralized and renewable energy production and green building construction. The citizens are technologically creative, while remaining involved with and sensitive to nature. Thorough-going education reform is described, along with a highly localized system of universal medical care. (The narrator discovers that Ecotopian healing practices may include sexual stimulation.) The national defense strategy has focused on developing a highly advanced arms industry, while also allegedly maintaining hidden WMD within major US population centers to discourage conquest and annexation.

Through Weston's diary we learn of observations he does not include in his columns, such as his personally transformative love affair with an Ecotopian woman. The book's parallel narrative structures allow the reader to see how Weston's internal reflections, as recorded in his diary, are diffracted in his external pronouncements to his readers. Despite Weston's initial reservations, throughout the novel Ecotopian citizens are characterized as clever, technologically resourceful, emotionally expressive, and even occasionally violent – but also socially responsible, patriotic. They often live in extended families, and tend to live by choice in ethnically separated localities. Their economic enterprises are generally employee-owned and -controlled. The current governmental administration is that of a woman-led (but not exclusively female) party, and government structures are highly decentralized.

The novel concludes with Weston's finding himself enchanted by Ecotopian life and deciding to stay in Ecotopia as its interpreter to the wider world.

Values exemplified in the novel
The values embodied by those Ecotopians depicted in the novel reflect the values espoused by its author. Callenbach said that his Ecotopians attach fundamental importance to environmental and social stability within which variety can flourish. They value creativity. They ensure equality for women. They implement the protection and restoration of natural systems. They promote food production in their cities.

As well, they treasure personal quality-of-life values, such as health and friendliness, and both meaningful discussion and play.

Callenbach began writing the novel by depicting the recycling of valuable materials and substances by the society; he saw a much-expanded role for recycling of all sorts, and this is key to many concepts underpinning Ecotopia.

Anticipation of emerging realities
Worth mentioning is Callenbach's speculation on the roles of TV in his envisioned society. The author espoused the fly on the wall genre of direct political-process broadcasts, deeming them valuable to the citizenry. In some ways anticipating C-SPAN, which would first be broadcast in 1979, Ecotopia mentions that the daily life of the legislature and some of that of the judicial courts is televised in Ecotopia. Even highly technical debates are televised, addressing the needs and desires of Ecotopian viewers.

Another interesting detail in the story is "print on demand" (POD) publishing. Ecotopian customers could choose selected print media from a jukebox-like device that would then print and bind the book. In the 21st century, POD services that print, bind and ship books for customers who order on-line have become commonplace.

Impact
The importance of this book is not so much its literary style as in the lively imagination of an alternative and ecologically sound lifestyle on a greater scale, presented more or less realistically. It expressed on paper the dream of an alternative future held by many in the movements of the 1970s and later. Even the names of the two characters most reflective of their respective viewpoints—"Will West(on)", the representative for materialist American culture and "Vera Allwen" (= "All women + all men"), the President and spokeswoman for Ecotopia—suggest the degree to which the author intended the book to be a reflection of what he saw as American ecological and cultural deficiencies.

However, in contrast to much of the Green movement in contemporary America, with its preference for regulation, Callenbach's Ecotopia has relatively laissez-faire economic tendencies, guided by intense moral pressure toward sustainable practices both in private life and in business.

In 1981, Callenbach published Ecotopia Emerging, a multi-strand "prequel" suggesting how the sustainable nation of Ecotopia could have come into existence.

In 1990, Audio Renaissance released a partial dramatization of Ecotopia on audiocassettes in the form of recordings of a radio network broadcast (the Allied News Network replacing the Times-Post). The tape-recorded diaries of William Weston were read by the book's author, Ernest Callenbach. Weston's reports were read by veteran news reporter Edwin Newman.

In the online Earth Island Journal, Ecotopia was reviewed by Brian Smith, identifying himself as a child not of the 1960s but the 1980s. He read the novel 30 years after it was first published, and said of it: "I felt great affinity for the details of the world Callenbach predicted. Even better, I was impressed by how many of his ideas came to pass." influenced the identity of the West Coast in an interesting way and influenced the rise of bioregionalism and started the desire for West Coast unity in the form of Cascadia.

Ecotopia is now required reading in a number of colleges.

Reception
Don Milligan in the British magazine Peace News gave Ecotopia a negative review, stating "Ecotopia is a shoddy amalgam of Swedish social democracy, Swiss neutrality, and Yugoslav workers' co-ops cobbled together with the authoritarianism of A Blueprint for Survival...Ecotopia is a flawed vision of a flawed future."

In marked contrast, Ralph Nader praised the book, noting that "None of the happy conditions in Ecotopia are beyond the technical or resource reach of our society."

According to Scott Timberg, quoting University of Nevada environmental-literature professor Scott Slovic in The New York Times, "'Ecotopia' [the concept] became almost immediately absorbed into the popular culture. You hear people talking about the idea of Ecotopia, or about the Northwest as Ecotopia."

In bolo’bolo, P.M. criticizes Callenbach by saying:

Dollars keep circulating in his Ecotopia just as they did before. It is nonsense to propose a system of direct, personal and ecological exchange and to permit at the same time the vehicle of anonymous, indirect, centralized circulation (money). Money as a general means of measurement presupposes mass-production (only in this case are goods measurable and comparable), a centralized bank system, mass distribution, etc. It is exactly this basic anonymity and non-responsibility of everyone for everything that causes and permits all those mechanisms of destruction of nature and people. As Callenbach poses these mechanisms as a moral problem (respect for nature, etc.), he needs a (very sympathetic, very democratic, even feminized) central State (The Big Sister) to repair the damage done by the system, through price controls, regulations, laws and prisons (of course, these latter only "training camps"). What he allows economically he has to forbid politically: the space for morality is opened. (Thou shalt not....)

title: Ecotopia


text:
The Bad Examples

The Bad Examples is an indie alternative pop-rock group formed by songwriter, acoustic guitarist, and vocalist Ralph Covert in 1987 in Chicago, Illinois. The band has had significant changes in the line-up over the years but the core of the group (Covert, electric guitarist Tom O'Brien, bassist Tom "Pickles" Piekarski) have worked consistently together since 1990 with electric guitarist Steve Gerlach (ex-Phantom Helmsmen) joining in 1994 and still performing live and occasionally serving as co-producer. Founding drummer Terry Wathen was still making live appearances as late as 2008 but is now officially drummer emeritus with Larry Beers (ex-Way Moves, Charming Beggars) now an official member. Interim drummers included John Richardson, Ron Barnes, David Thornton and currently Bean Weng.

The Bad Examples are limited in performing and putting out new albums largely due to Ralph Covert's success as creator of the family music rock band, Ralph's World. Musically it is similar to The Bad Examples but the lyrics and themes are oriented towards young children, approximately ages 2 to 7. The sixth Ralph's World album, "Green Gorilla, Monster & Me" was nominated for a Grammy award as "Best Musical Album For Children." Ralph's World was originally signed to Mini Fresh, a division of the Minty Fresh label, and subsequently signed to Disney Sound for a hits compilation, several videos, and one all-new project along with the re-release of the previous six albums. The most recent Ralph's World album is on BarNone Records.

Lead guitarist of the Bad Examples, John Duich, who was on their most successful album, Bad Is Beautiful, and the band's most extensive US tours but left in 1994 to return to Chicago's blues scene, died of heart failure in 1998.

Aside from one 12" single and some isolated benefit tracks, The Bad Examples have released all their music on Waterdog Records, a label now exclusively owned by Ralph Covert. While the original releases are credited solely to The Bad Examples, beginning with the Two-Meter Sessions billing is to Ralph Covert & The Bad Examples both to help include his solo work (which also features players from the band) and to differentiate them internationally from a German band with the same name.

While "MEAT:" was originally released on cassette in 1987, Bad Is Beautiful was their first compact disc, in 1991. It features the song "Not Dead Yet" which received extensive commercial airplay on Chicago radio stations WXRT and WLUP and remains an active part of the former's library. Styx also covered "Not Dead Yet" on their 1990 release Edge of the Century and performed the song in concert for that album's tour. The song is also featured in an episode of season three of Six Feet Under ("The Trap") and has been arranged by Tom Wallace for marching band. The Bad Examples had three chart singles in the Netherlands in 1991 and toured there several times.

The band's newest album, Smash Record, was released on January 11, 2011.

Bassist Tom "Pickles" Piekarski died of a heart attack in August 2013. Ralph's World bass player Brian Sheridan currently plays bass for The Bad Examples.

Discography
Ralph Covert & The Bad Examples:
 * MEAT: The Bad Examples
 * Bad is Beautiful
 * Cheap Beer Night (live)
 * Kisses 50¢
 * Popscape: The Best of Ralph Covert & The Bad Examples
 * The Two-Meter Sessions: Live on Radio VARA, Jan. 9, 1992
 * Good Examples of Bad Examples - The Best of Ralph Covert & The Bad Examples, Vol. 2
 * Smash Record

Ralph Covert:
 * Eat At Godot's
 * Adam McCarthy (EP)
 * Songwriter Series Volume 1 (acoustic)
 * Songwriter Series Volume 2 (acoustic)
 * Birthday

title: The Bad Examples


text:
Christian Identity

Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity) is an interpretation of Christianity which advocates the belief that only Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic nations, or people of the Aryan race and people of kindred blood, are the descendants of the ancient Israelites and are therefore God's "chosen people". It is a racial interpretation of Christianity and is not an organized religion, nor is it affiliated with specific Christian denominations. It emerged from British Israelism in the 1920s and began to take shape during the 1940s-1970s. Today it is independently practiced by individuals, independent congregations, and some prison gangs.

No single document expresses the Christian Identity belief system, and some beliefs may vary by group. However, all Identity adherents believe that Adam and his offspring were exclusively White. They also believe in Two House theology, which makes a distinction between the Tribe of Judah and the Ten Lost Tribes, and that ultimately, European people represent the Ten Lost Tribes. This racialist view advocates racial segregation and opposes interracial marriage. Other commonly held beliefs are that usury and banking systems are controlled by Jews, leading to opposition to the Federal Reserve System and use of fiat currency, believing it to be part of "the beast" system. Christian Identity's eschatology is millennialist.

Christian Identity is characterized as racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

, estimates of the number of adherents in the United States range from two thousand to fifty thousand.

Relationship to British Israelism
The Christian Identity movement emerged in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s as an offshoot of British Israelism. While early British Israelites such as Edward Hine and John Wilson were philo-Semites, Christian Identity emerged in sharp contrast to British Israelism as a strongly antisemitic theology. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the emergence of Christian Identity from British Israelism as an 'ugly turn': "Once on American shores, British-Israelism began to evolve. Originally, believers viewed contemporary Jews as descendants of those ancient Israelites who had never been 'lost.' They might be seen critically but, given their significant role in the British-Israel genealogical scheme, they are usually not seen with animosity. By the 1930s, however, in the U.S., a strain of anti-Semitism started to permeate the movement (though some of its adherents maintained traditional beliefs – and a small number of traditionalists still exist in the U.S.)."

In his book Christian Identity: The Aryan American Bloodline Religion, Chester Quarles describes the emergence of Christian Identity from British Israelism as a "remarkable transition", because traditional British Israelites were advocates of philo-Semitism which paradoxically changed to anti-Semitism and racism under Christian Identity. In fact, British Israelism had several Jewish adherents, and it also received support from rabbis throughout the 19th century. Within British politics it supported Benjamin Disraeli, who was descended from Sephardic Jews. The typical form of the British Israelite belief held that modern-day Jews were only descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, while the British and other related Northern European peoples were descended from the other ten tribes. However, as Christian Identity took shape during the 1940s to 1970s, it began to turn antisemitic by teaching that contemporary Jews were either descendants of Eurasian Khazars or literal descendants of Satan.

Early influences
British Israelism can be traced back to Great Britain in the 1600s, but in terms of its relationship to Christian Identity, a key text was Lectures on Our Israelitish Origin by John Wilson (1840). Wilson was the first to formalize a distinction between the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. Although Wilson's views were not originally antisemitic, they came to have great significance for modern Christian Identity adherents who believe that the northern tribes were carried off by the Assyrians and remained racially pure as they migrated into modern Europe, while the southern kingdom eventually became allied with Satan.

In the 1920s, the writings of Howard Rand (1889–1991) began to have an influence. Rand is considered a transitional figure from British Israelism to Christian Identity, rather than its actual founder, known for coining the term "Christian Identity". Raised as a British Israelite, his father introduced him to J. H. Allen's work Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright (1902) at an early age by offering him five dollars if he would read it and write a report on it. Around 1924, Rand began to claim that the Jews are descended from Esau or the Canaanites rather than the tribe of Judah, although not going so far as to advocate the "serpent seed" doctrine.

During the late 1920s, Anglo-Saxon writers began to compile research from 19th century writers Dominick McCausland, Alexander Winchell, and Ethel Bristowe, using them to develop five basic beliefs that would become the core tenets of Christian Identity doctrine. These were that Adamites represented Aryans as the chosen, that nonwhites were tainted through race-mixing, that the serpent in the story of the Fall was not a reptile, but the Devil himself, that the seedline of Cain came through a union of Satan (the serpent) and Eve, and that the Jews were descended from this unholy line and thus had a natural propensity for evil.

In 1933, Rand founded the Anglo-Saxon Federation of America, an organization which began to promote the view that the Jews are not descended from Judah. Beginning in May 1937, there were key meetings of British Israelites in the United States who were attracted to this theory, and these meetings provided the catalyst for the eventual emergence of Christian Identity. By the late 1930s, the group's members considered Jews to be the offspring of Satan and demonized them, and they also demonized non-Caucasian races. Rand, however, rejected the satanic origin theories. This doctrine came to confirm the explicit separation between British-Israelism and Christian Identity.

Links between Christian Identity and the Ku Klux Klan were also forged in the late 1930s, but by then, the KKK was past the peak of its early twentieth-century revival.

Emergence as a separate movement
Christian Identity began to emerge as a separate movement in the 1940s, primarily over issues of racism and anti-semitism rather than over issues of Christian theology. Wesley Swift (1913–1970) is considered the father of the movement; so much so that every Anti-Defamation League publication which addresses Christian Identity mentions him. Swift was a minister in the Angelus Temple Foursquare Church during the 1930s and 1940s before he founded his own church in Lancaster, California and named it the Anglo-Saxon Christian Congregation, reflecting the influence of Howard Rand. In the 1950s, he was Gerald L. K. Smith's West Coast representative of the Christian Nationalist Crusade. In addition, he hosted a daily radio broadcast in California during the 1950s and 1960s, through which he was able to proclaim his ideology to a large audience. Due to Swift's efforts, the message of his church spread, leading to the founding of similar churches throughout the country.

Eventually, the name of his church was changed to the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian, today this name is used by Aryan Nations. One of Swift's associates was retired Col. William Potter Gale (1917–1988). Gale became a leading figure in the anti-tax and paramilitary movements of the 1970s and 1980s, beginning with the California Rangers and the Posse Comitatus, and he also helped found the American militia movement.

The future Aryan Nations founder Richard Girnt Butler, who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, was introduced to Wesley Swift by William Potter Gale in 1962. Swift quickly converted Butler to Christian Identity. When Swift died in 1971, Butler fought against Gale, James Warner, and Swift's widow for control of the church. Butler eventually gained control of the organization and moved it from California to Hayden Lake, Idaho in 1973.

Lesser figures participated as Christian Identity theology took shape in the 1940s and 1950s, such as San Jacinto Capt, a Baptist minister and California Klansman, who claimed that he had introduced Wesley Swift to Christian Identity; and Bertrand Comparet (1901–1983), a one-time San Diego Deputy City Attorney and associate of Gerald L. K. Smith. Later Identity figures of the 1970s and 1980s include Sheldon Emry and Peter J. Peters.

The Christian Identity movement first received widespread attention from the mainstream media in 1984, when The Order, a neo-Nazi terrorist group, embarked on a murderous crime spree before it was suppressed by the FBI. The movement returned to public attention in 1992 and 1993, in the wake of the deadly Ruby Ridge confrontation, when newspapers discovered that former Green Beret and right-wing separatist Randy Weaver had a loose association with Christian Identity believers.

These groups are estimated to have two thousand members in the United States and an unknown number of members in Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth. Due to the promotion of Christian Identity doctrines through radio and later through the Internet, an additional fifty thousand unaffiliated individuals are thought to hold Christian Identity beliefs.

Beliefs
Christian Identity is a theology that promotes a racial interpretation of Christianity. Some Christian Identity churches preach with more violent rhetoric than others, but all of them believe that Aryans are God's chosen race rather than Jews.

Christian Identity beliefs were primarily developed and promoted by two authors who considered Europeans to be the chosen people and considered Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the "serpent hybrid" (or the Serpent seed) (a belief which is known as the dual-seedline or two-seedline doctrine). Wesley Swift formulated the doctrine which states that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore they can never earn God's favor or be saved.

No single document expresses the Christian Identity belief system; there is much disagreement over the doctrines which are taught by those who ascribe to CI beliefs, since there is no central organization or headquarters for the CI sect. However, all CI adherents believe that Adam and his offspring were exclusively White and they also believe that all non-white races are pre-Adamite races because they belong to separate species, a doctrinal position which implies that they cannot be equated with or derived from the Adamites. CI adherents cite passages from the Old Testament, including, , and , which they claim contain Yahweh's injunctions against interracial marriages.

Christian Identity adherents assert that the white people of Europe in particular or Caucasians in general are God's servant people, according to the promises that were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It further asserts that the early European tribes were really the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and therefore the rightful heirs to God's promises, and God's chosen people. Colin Kidd wrote that in the United States, Christian Identity exploited "the puzzle of the Ten Lost Tribes to justify an openly anti-Semitic and virulently racist agenda." According to Michael McFarland and Glenn Gottfried, they developed their racist interpretation of Christianity because of its status as a traditional religion of the United States, which allowed them to advocate the belief that white Americans have a common identity, and because of the variety of possible interpretations of the Bible in the field of hermeneutics.

While they seek to introduce a state of racial purity in the US, Christian Identitarians do not trust the Congress or the government, allegedly controlled by Jews, to support their agenda. In their view, this means that political changes can only be made through the use of force. However, the failed experience of the terrorist group The Order has forced them to acknowledge the fact that they are currently unable to overthrow the government by staging an armed insurrection against it. Thus, the Christian Identity movement seeks an alternative to violence and government change with the creation of a "White Aryan Bastion" or a White ethnostate, such as the Northwest Territorial Imperative.

Two House theology
Like British Israelites, Christian Identity adherents believe in Two House theology, which makes a distinction between the Tribe of Judah and the Ten Lost Tribes. While British Israelites believe that modern Jews are descended from the tribe of Judah, Christian Identitarians believe that the true lineal descendants of Judah are not contemporary Jews, but are instead the modern-day Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples.

Origin beliefs
Identity teaches that "Israel" was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled with the angel at Penuel as described in Genesis 32:26–32. "Israel" then had twelve sons, which began the Twelve Tribes of Israel. In 975 BC the ten northern tribes revolted, seceded from the south, and became the Kingdom of Israel. After they were subsequently conquered by Assyria at c. 721 BC, the ten tribes disappeared from the Biblical record and became known as the Lost Tribes of Israel.

According to Identity doctrine, 2 Esdras 13:39–46 then records the history of the nation of Israel journeying over the Caucasus mountains, along the Black Sea, to the Ar Sereth tributary of the Danube in Romania ("But they formed this plan for themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the nations and go to a more distant region, where no human beings had ever lived. ... Through that region there was a long way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called Arzareth"). The tribes prospered, and eventually colonised other European countries. Israel's leading tribe, the Tribe of Dan, is attributed with settling and naming many areas which are today distinguished by place names derived from its name – written ancient Hebrew contains no vowels, and hence "Dan" would be written as DN, but would be pronounced with an intermediate vowel dependent on the local dialect, meaning that Dan, Den, Din, Don, and Dun all have the same meaning. Various modern place names are said to derive from the name of this tribe:
 * Macedonia – Macedonia – derived from Moeshe-don-ia (Moeshe being "the land of Moses")
 * Danube – Dan-ube, Dniester – Dn-iester, Dnieper – Dn-ieper, Donetz – Don-etz, Danzig – Dan-zig, Don – Don

The following peoples and their analogous tribes are believed to be as follows:

• Dan – Denmark

• Gad – Italy

• Asher – Sweden

• Issachar – Finland

• Simeon – Spain

• Zebulun – France

• Naphtali – Norway

• Benjamin – Iceland

• Reuben – Netherlands

• Judah – Germany

• Ephraim – Great Britain

• Manasseh – United States

Some followers claim that the Identity genealogy of the Davidic line can be traced to the royal rulers of Britain and Queen Elizabeth II herself. Thus, Anglo-Saxons are the true Israelites, God's chosen people who were given the divine right to rule the world until the Second Coming of Christ.

Identity adherents reject the label "antisemitic" by stating that they cannot be antisemitic because the true Semites "today are the great White Christian nations of the western world", with modern Jews being considered the descendants of the Canaanites.

Adamites and pre-Adamites
A major tenet of Christian Identity is the pre-Adamite hypothesis. Christian Identity adherents believe that Adam and Eve were only the ancestors of white people, because according to Christian Identity, Adam and Eve were preceded by lesser, non-Caucasian races which are often (although not always) identified as "beasts of the field" in. For example, the "beasts" which wore sackcloth and cried unto God in are identified as black races by Christian Identity adherents. To support their theory on the racial identity of Adam, Christian Identity proponents point out that the Hebrew etymology of the word 'Adam' translates as 'be ruddy, red, to show blood (in the face)' often quoting from James Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and from this they conclude that only Caucasians or people with light white skin can blush or turn rosy in the face (because hemoglobin is only visible under pale skin).

A seminal influence on the Christian Identity movement's views on pre-Adamism was Charles Carroll's 1900 book The Negro a Beast or In the Image of God? In his book, Carroll sought to revive the ideas which were previously presented by Buckner H. Payne, he described the Negro as a literal ape rather than a human being. He claimed the pre-Adamite races such as blacks did not have souls and that race mixing was an insult to God because it spoiled His racial plan of creation. According to Carroll, the mixing of races had also led to the errors of atheism and evolutionism.

The idea that "lower races" are mentioned in the Bible (in contrast to Aryans) was posited in the 1905 book Theozoology; or The Science of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron by Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, an Ariosophist and a volkisch writer who influenced Nazism.

Serpent seed
Dual Seedline Christian Identity proponents –those who believe that Eve bore children with Satan as well as with Adam – believe that Eve was seduced by the Serpent (Satan), shared her fallen state with Adam by having sex with him, and gave birth to twins with different fathers: Satan's son Cain and Adam's son Abel. This belief is referred to as the serpent seed doctrine. According to the "dual seedline" form of Christian Identity, Cain then became the progenitor of the Jews in his subsequent matings with members of the non-Adamic races.

The serpent seed idea, which ascribes the ancestry of legendary monsters such as Grendel to Cain, was widespread in the Middle Ages. It also appears in early Gnostic Christian texts as well as in some Jewish texts, for example, it appears in a 9th-century book titled Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer. In Cain: Son of the Serpent (1985), David Max Eichhorn traces the idea back to early Jewish Midrashic texts and he also names many rabbis who taught the belief that Cain was the son of a union between the Serpent and Eve.

Some Kabbalist rabbis also believe that Cain and Abel were of a different genetic background than Seth. This teaching is based on the theory that God created two "Adams" (adam means "man" in Hebrew). To one Adam he gave a soul and to the other Adam he did not give a soul. The Adam who is without a soul is the creature who Christians call the Serpent. The Kabbalists call the serpent the Nahash (Nahash is the Hebrew word for serpent).

This event is recorded in the Zohar:

"Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial – good wine mixed with bad."

Scientific racism
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism or racialism, the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism, is the core tenet of Christian Identity, and most CI adherents are white nationalists who advocate racial segregation and the imposition of anti-miscegenation laws. Some CI adherents also believe that Jews are genetically compelled to carry on a conspiracy against the Adamic seedline by their Satanic or Edomite ancestry and they also believe that the Jews of today have achieved almost complete control of the Earth through their claim to hold the white race's status as God's chosen people.

Identity adherents also assert that disease, addiction, cancer, and sexually transmitted infections (herpes and HIV/AIDS) are spread by human "rodents" via contact with "unclean" persons, such as "race-mixers". The apocrypha, particularly the first book of Enoch, is used to justify these social theories; the fallen angels of Heaven sexually desired Earth maidens and took them as wives, resulting in the birth of abominations, which God ordered Michael the Archangel to destroy, thus beginning a cosmic war between Light and Darkness. The mixing of separate things (e.g., people of different races) is seen as defiling all of them, and it is also considered a violation of God's law.

Views on homosexuality
Identity preachers proclaim that, according to the Bible, "the penalties for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death."

Views on racial politics and economics
The first documents which advocated Christian Identity's views on racial politics and economics were written by Howard Rand and William J. Cameron after the Great Depression. In 1943, Rand published the article "Digest of the Divine Law" which discussed the political and economic challenges which existed at that time. An excerpt from the article states: "We shall not be able to continue in accord with the old order. Certain groups are already planning an economy of regimentation for our nation; but it will only intensify the suffering and want of the past and bring to our peoples all the evils that will result from such planning by a group of men who are failing to take into consideration the fundamental principles underlying the law of the Lord."

While Rand never formally named the groups which he was specifically referring to, his hatred of Jews, racial integration, and the country's economic state at that time made the direction of his comments obvious. Identifying specific economic problems was not the only goal which Rand had in mind. He began to analyze how these changes could be made to happen through legal changes; thus, making strategic plans to integrate the Bible into American law and economics. The first goal was to denounce all man-made laws and replace them with laws from the Bible. The second goal was to create an economic state which would reflect the teachings of the Bible.

While William Cameron agreed with Rand's initial argument, he specifically focused his writings on changing American economics. One of Cameron's articles, "Divine System of Taxation", spoke of the Bible supporting individualism and social justice with regard to economics. He also believed that the government had no right to tax land or other forms of property. In accordance with this doctrine, tax refunds should be applied to family vacation trips or they should be applied to national festivals which are observed by adherents of Christian Identity. Also, for the betterment of the United States' economic future, no interest should be charged on debts which are paid with credit, and no taxes should be collected during the traveling time of goods from a manufacturer to a consumer.

The mutual point which Rand and Cameron both agreed upon, was that while they may have disagreed with how the government was operating, neither of them resisted the government's current tax policies. Gordon Kahl was the first CI believer to study the founding principles of Rand and Cameron, and apply them in order to take action against the government. Kahl believed that they were on the right track with regard to what needed to be accomplished in order to change public policies. However, he felt that if no actions were taken against violators, no real changes would be made. In 1967, he stopped paying taxes because he felt he was paying "tithes to the Synagogue of Satan". Kahl killed two federal marshals in 1983. Before he was caught for the murders, Kahl wrote a note in which he said "our nation has fallen into the hands of alien people. ... These enemies of Christ have taken their Jewish Communist Manifesto and incorporated it into the Statutory Laws of our country and thrown our Constitution and our Christian Common Law into the garbage can."

Opposition to the banking system
Identity doctrine asserts that the "root of all evil" is paper money (particularly Federal Reserve Notes), and that both usury and banking systems are controlled by Jews. Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35–37 and Deuteronomy explicitly condemn usury. Ezekiel 18:13 states "He who hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" and it is quoted as a justification for killing Jews.

Christian Identity advocates the belief that the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 shifted the control of money from Congress to private institutions and violated the Constitution and the monetary system encourages the Federal Reserve to take out loans, creating trillions of dollars in government debt, and allowing international bankers to control the United States. Credit/debit cards and computerised bills are seen as the fulfillment of the Biblical scripture which warns against "the beast" (i.e., banking) as quoted in Revelation 13:15–18.

Identity preacher Sheldon Emry stated that "Most of the owners of the largest banks in America are of Eastern European (Jewish) ancestry and connected with the (Jewish) Rothschild European banks", thus, according to Identity doctrine, the global banking conspiracy is led and controlled by Jewish interests. Emry used the radio airwaves to promote his Christian Identity message and his book Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People. Emry promoted abolishing the banks, which he suggested would solve most of society's ills, including unemployment, divorce, and women working outside the home.

Eschatology
Christian Identity eschatology is millennialist, including a physical return of Christ to earth and the final battle of Armageddon. However, in contrast with dispensationalism and some other millennialist forms of fundamentalist Christianity, Christian Identity adherents reject the notion of a rapture, believing that it is a Judaized doctrine not taught in the Bible. Their predictions vary, and some include a race war or a Jewish-backed United Nations takeover of the US, and that they should wage a physical struggle against individuals and groups which serve the forces of evil. While the Soviet Union has disappeared as a vital threat in their rhetoric, many Christian Identity adherents believe that Communists are secretly involved in international organizations like the United Nations, or the so-called "New World Order", in order to destroy the United States.

Organizations
Rather than being an organized religion, Christian Identity ("CI") is adhered to by individuals, independent congregations and some prison gangs. It is diverse and decentralized. Some groups are churches and congregations, such as the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian, Church of Israel, LaPorte Church of Christ, Elohim City, Kingdom Identity Ministries, and The Shepherd's Chapel. Others are activist groups and paramilitary organizations such as Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army, Assembly of Christian Soldiers, Christian Defense League, The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, and White Patriot Party. Other organizations that are not strictly Identity based, but have members who are or affiliations with Identity are Aryan Freedom Network and Posse Comitatus.

Association with violence
Some Christian Identity groups have been associated with violence. Tax resister and militia movement organizer Gordon Kahl had connections to the Christian Identity movement. His death in a 1983 shootout with federal authorities inspired the founders of The Order. The Order was almost entirely made up of individuals who were associated with various Christian Identity groups.

Within Christian Identity circles, the Phineas Priesthood is made up of individuals who have committed a "Phineas action"; a term which is broadly used in reference to murders of interracial couples, acts of antisemitism, and violent acts against members of other non-white ethnic groups. According to Houston-area writer John Craig, mass shooter Larry Gene Ashbrook had ties to the Phineas Priesthood. Byron De La Beckwith, the assassin of NAACP and Civil rights movement leader Medgar Evers, was linked to the Phineas Priesthood. Just before he entered prison to serve his sentence, De La Beckwith was ordained as a minister in the Temple Memorial Baptist Church, a Christian Identity congregation in Knoxville, Tennessee by Reverend Dewey "Buddy" Tucker.

Convicted murderer Chevie Kehoe spent time at Elohim City, a white separatist community in Oklahoma associated with Christian Identity. Christian Identity and Posse Commitatus leader Michael W. Ryan was convicted of the violent murder of his own follower, James Thimm.

James Mason, an advisor to the Atomwaffen Division responsible for at least 8 murders and thought leader of the neo-Nazi Accelerationist "Siege culture" adheres to and has written multiple books about Christian Identity, including the Theocrat, Revisiting Revelations, One-Verse Charlie among others.

title: Christian Identity


text:
Cascadia

Cascadia and Cascadian are terms that derive from the Cascade Range and may refer to:

Places

 * Cascadia, Oregon
 * Tehaleh, Washington, formerly known as Cascadia
 * Cascadia State Park
 * Diocese of Cascadia

Regional

 * Cascadia Channel, a deep-sea channel in the Pacific Ocean
 * Cascadia (region) or Pacific Northwest, a region of North America
 * Cascadia (bioregion), the environmental interactivity of the Pacific Northwest of North America
 * Cascadia movement, a bioregional movement based within the Cascadia bioregion of the Pacific Northwest of North America
 * Cascadia subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary that separates the Juan de Fuca and North America plates

Other uses

 * Cascadia (board game), by Randy Flynn and Shawn Stankewich
 * Cascadian (horse), a racehorse
 * Cascadia (plant), a genus of plants in the family Saxifragaceae
 * Cascadian (train), a named train of the Great Northern Railway (U.S.) on its route between Seattle and Spokane, Washington
 * Cascadia Code, a monospaced font from Microsoft
 * Freightliner Cascadia, a semi truck
 *  METAtropolis: Cascadia, a science fiction story collection audiobook
 * Cascadia, a former plant genus now included in Saxifraga
 * Cascadia, the codename of Windows Terminal
 * Cascadia, a fictional country in the video game Project Wingman
 * Cascadia, a fictional country in the video game Mirror's Edge Catalyst

title: Cascadia


text:
Talk:Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford

Article name
The name "Frank" combined with the title looks very peculiar. If he was better known as the author "Frank Pakenham" (I'm not sure), then perhaps he should be at Frank Pakenham; if he's better known as "Lord Longford", I think he should probably have a more formal-sounding name than "Frank"! It just sounds funny... to me, anyway. -- Oliver P. 01:44 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

It gave me a bit of a jolt when I first saw it. :) -- Zoe

Frank Pakenham
Frank Pakenham spent most of his life as just that, Frank Pakenham, during which he
 * wrote, notably Peace by Ordeal, the definitive account (in everyone's eyes) of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

 * served as a minister in a British Labour government.

Late in his life, he inherited the earldom of Longford from his brother, a famous theatre manager. People of our generation would know him exclusively as Lord Longford. Earlier generations would know him as Frank Pakenham, with Lord Longford potentially referring either to the author or the threatre manager, who was famous in his own right, due to his association with the world-renouned Gate Theatre in Dublin (where Orson Welles begun his acting career).

Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford combines both his names. In contrast, Francis Pakenham would be unrecognised. His family never called him that. He never called himself that. People who have read his books would never have heard him called that.

Normally on wiki, when it comes to titles, we use a [{name} {surname}, {title}]. In most cases it is perfectly Ok to use the most technically correct version of a name. But in this case we are dealing with a published author who used and was known by the name 'Frank Pakenham'. To confuse matters more, later editions (like the one I have in front of me right now) after he inherited the earldom use the format Lord longford (Frank Pakenham)

But simply calling him [Frank Pakenham] or [Lord Longford] wouldn't be adequate, because each 'name' only refers to part of his career and depending on the age of the wiki user (or of the edition of his books, as a politician or a campaigner for Myra Hindley) might know him as either, or in some cases both names. So unless we set up a set of directs, for [Frank Pakenham] and [Lord Longford (the politician not the theatre manager)], in this case calling him [Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford] is the logical solution (though maybe we should create a [Lord Longford] redirect, as many people might not know that being an earl means you are called Lord).

Who said titles are easy? JtdIrL 06:24 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

PS: I almost forgot. While his books were largely published as 'Frank Pakenham', some later books, notably when he co-wrote the authorised biography of Eamon de Valera, were written as Lord Longford.

 * I don't agree with your reasoning, JTD. His name was Francis, and he's listed as such in dictionaries of biography.  This approach seems to cut across your determined strategy of ensuring articles are labelled under the correct title.  (Of course, I did start the article, so it's predictable that I would defend its title.) Deb 17:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that if someone is known by more than one name then all the names should be accommodated in the article, and as redirects, but I don't agree that different names should be merged together in this way. This chap was called "Frank Pakenham", and "Lord Longford", and he was also the 7th Earl of Longford. But as far as I'm aware, he's never been called " Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford", all in one go. (If he has, it's certainly not the name by which people would generally know him.) It seems a bit like calling the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland "Charles Carroll", or "Lewis Dodgson". ;) There are now redirects at Frank Pakenham, Francis Pakenham, Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, and just plain Lord Longford. I think the article should be moved to one of those. (Probably not Lord Longford, though - I suppose that needs to be turned into a disambiguation page at some point.) Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford is my personal favourite, although if it's true that more people know him as Frank Pakenham (I don't, but I'm not familiar with his books, I'm afraid), then I suppose the rules say we should have him there. -- Oliver P. 18:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and that reminds me, we never settled the "Earl Mountbatten" question, did we...? :) -- Oliver P. 18:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought we did. We were probably just too lazy to do anything about it. Deb 19:10 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I have seen him called Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, but never Francis Pakenham except in they most formal registers of the sort that call Prince Harry - Prince Henry. Just as we use Prince Harry of Wales, not the strictly more accurate but unknown Prince Henry of Wales, so we should use Frank Pakenham not his official but almost totally unused name Francis. I am quite a follower of rules, but the whole point about rules is to create a uniform, logical, usable structure, that is rigid enough to create a template but capable of dealing with cases that don't fit into the rigid rules. The 'Frank Pakenham' problem is the same as that of Prince Harry. There are times where following the rules literally produces unrecognisable names; for example, if one is strictly correct, we should have a page referring to [Basil, Cardinal Hume] except that structure is rarely used and he was generally known, not strictly accurately, as Cardinal Basil Hume. And most of those formal registers that refer to Francis Pakenham also incorporate his style, referring to His Grace, something we don't do. In this case, the most commonly recognised correct name rule suggests that we should use Frank Pakenham, not Francis because in this case we are detailing not with a personal name that we are stating merely 'for the record' not because of its recognition factor but an author known to millions of history and political science students over many decades as 'Frank Pakenham', just as millions only know Prince Henry as Prince Harry. It is the same issue. JtdIrL 20:25 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'll admit to never having read any of his books, or even knowing that he wrote any under the name "Frank". This particular example doesn't bother me that much, but I don't really think it's analogous to Prince Harry.  From the moment Harry's name was announced, it was also announced that he would be "known as Prince Harry", even though his official name is Henry.  Whereas Prince William is commonly known as Wills, but we would never dream of entitling the article "Prince Wills of Wales".  (Or at least, I wouldn't!) Deb 21:14 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The point is everyone knows Henry as Prince Harry. People know William's nickname as Wills but he is always referred to as Prince William. Ditto with Frank Pakenham. When people think of his political career, they talk about Frank Pakenham. When they refer to his early writing, they call him Frank Pakenham. We are talking about a famous author here known under two names, Frank Pakenham or Lord Longford, but never, ever as Francis. That was simply his name on his birth certificate and on formal documents and in formal sourcebooks that judge him exclusively as a peer (and which call Harry 'Prince Harry of Wales'. But we are not here simply to refer to him as a peer, we have to refer to him by his name and title; his name was Frank Pakenham, and he was the 7th Earl of Longford. He was known as both in his political and writing careers, never anything else. JtdIrL 21:31 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * And what about "Princess Di"? Deb 22:04 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Di was a nickname but she never called herself 'Princess Di' and so isn't recorded as such. She called herself Princess Diana, Harry calls himself Prince Harry. Frank Pakenham called him. . . Frank Pakenham.

 * What I mean is, even if everyone called her "Princess Di" but her official title was "Diana, Princess of Wales", we would still entitle her article "Diana, Princess of Wales". Anyhow, everyone else has dropped out of the discussion and I'm happy to go along with it, so I think you can say you've won your point. Deb 22:17 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hey, I may be addicted to the Wikipedia, but I still have to eat and sleep! :) So just because I go away for a bit, it doesn't mean I've dropped out of the discussion... I notice that JtdIrL says, "When people think of his political career, they talk about Frank Pakenham. When they refer to his early writing, they call him Frank Pakenham." So, erm, Frank Pakenham? -- Oliver P. 14:52 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

But later on he was known as Lord Longford. So if you read some books, or some editions of books, he is called Frank Pakenham, in others he is called Lord Longford. If you refer to his political career it is Frank Pakenham, if it is following his campaign for Myra Hindley, it is as Lord Longford. If it is reading Peace by Ordeal it is as Frank Pakenham, if it is his biography of deV, it is as Lord Longford. So neither name works in isolation. Either way, you risk creating a name that a large proportion who know of the guy wouldn't recognise.

 * Frank Pakenham - recognised by some
 * Lord Longford - recognised by others
 * Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford - who?
 * Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (with redirect as [Lord Longford]) the most easily recognised method. JtdIrL 19:25 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * Now here's the acid test, JTD. If his name had been David Pakenham, and his early books published under the name "Dave Pakenham", would you have been happy to see him listed as "Dave Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford"???? Deb 20:55 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

If that was the name he was universally known as, yes, for the exact same reason as we have Prince Harry of Wales. Its his name. This isn't Burke's Peerage listing peers, it is an encyclopædia, listing people as they are known. If they are known simply as peers, then you would use standard peer nomenclature, then you would put 'Francis Pakenham', 'David Pakenham', 'Prince Henry'. But we are dealing in Pakenham's case with an author, who defined himself as an author/politician who happens coincidentially to be a peer also. JtdIrL 00:03 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I did a couple of these recently. Lord Normanby and Lord Robertson. Not exactly consistent, but they seem to be different kinds of titles. ( 22:20 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Homophobia cat
I've removed Category:Homophobia again for three reasons: Please comment here before reverting. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) He isn't homophobia
 * 2) Homophobia isn't central to who he is or what he did. See Category talk:Homophobia for consensus on how/wen the cat should be used. There's one paragraph about a homophobic comment he made at age 92 - hardly central to who he is.
 * 3) It isn't sourced at all.  If he really is a homophobe, that's controversial and should be well sourced.
 * I don't support the category and the article should 1. have sections added and 2. fill in the context of his anti-gay campaigning. Benjiboi 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's only one paragraph detailing his homophobia, all about one remark he made in the House of Lords. Unless he made many other statements in a similar vein, which should be documented, he doesn't compare to Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, or Eric Rudolph. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this category now. "His high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement" should be connected with his conservative ideas. The word "homophobia" has very negative overtone and this category should be added only in undisputed cases. Andrew 18  @ 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just your opinion I'm afraid. The Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines the word "homophobia" as meaning "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". When used in the case of a Wiki category, it simply relates to any article where the subject is linked to the established definition of the word. It isn't used as a condemnation, its used simply as fact. Lord Longford's very high profile political and personal beliefs about homosexuality were what he was mostly known for in later life. I do agree that this particular part of his political life needs to be expanded with some decent sources added, but there is no WP:BLP issue because he is dead. 89.168.105.226 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not connect his later life statements with homofobia. If you have on your mind this sentence: "On the other hand, if some elderly, or not so elderly, schoolmaster seduced one of my sons and taught him to be a homosexual, he would ruin him for life. That is the fundamental distinction." you have to know, that the meaning of word "homofobia" came later that he had said that words. Wikipedia is not to judge person for his beliefs. In category "homofobia" there is no space for interpretations. We cannot pick a hole in one's coat "homofobic" in this case. The prerequisites are'nt enough strong to do it. Andrew 18  @ 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, where the hell did you learn to spell? Secondly, it isn't just his comments that are at issue here, the fact is that Lord Longford had a lengthy history of voting against any kind of gay rights legislation. His comments about "some elderly schoolmaster seducing one of his sons" are really just the cherry on the cake, as it were. And you are wrong about the definition of homophobia changing since he made those comments. He said that in the late 1990s when homophobia was not a new word. It meant then what it means today. I agree that there is no space for interpretations about the homophobia category, but it appears that you are the one making your own interpretations. Homophobia refers to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Its not an interpretation, its a fact. Longford's personal and political beliefs and voting history more than meet the criteria.80.41.8.218 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to put into this category every politician who "voting against any kind of gay rights legislation" you gonna pursue politics and some kind of political revenge. We dont make politic here. In my country main parties vote against any gay rights legislation. Do you think that they should be in category "homofobia"? If you want to typecasting people in this way you propably not go too far. Sorry for my spelling, I am not a native speaker. Andrew 18  @ 10:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a HUGE difference between someone who is simply not "pro-gay rights" and somebody who is "anti-gay rights". Longford falls into the latter category. He ACTIVELY campaigned against gay rights. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that does not stop it from being discriminatory. In the US, Anita Bryant is exactly the same. She actively campaigned against gay rights and she and her actions are widely considered to be homophobic. It is YOU who does not understand what this category is for. It's nothing to do with getting political revenge (I'm not even gay), it is to do with articles (including articles about people) who have a notable, high profile opposition to gay rights. If the government in your country do indeed vote against any kind of gay rights as you claim, then yes, it would appear that they are homophobic (homophobia means "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" - this is a Dictionary definition, not just my own opinion). If you click on the Homophobia category, it actually states at the top of the page what the category is used for. I would also suggest that if you do not have a good command of the English language, then you should refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.89.168.101.36 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. En.Wikipedia is not only for natives speakers. I understand every word you have said. But I don't agree with you at all. First: the definition of being in opposition to "gay rights" is watered down. If someone votes against legislation of gay marriages became a homofobic? Secondly: if you are trying to force your point of view under the IP account - please stop it. In category "Homofobia" should stay only persons who continuously attacked homosexual persons because of their orientacion. You make a politic. You bring in this case into sth like that: "who is against gay rights is a homofobic". If you want to look for deputies who has voted against gay marriage (for example) you will a lot in many countries. In my country neither of party support gay marriage. Do you want to put all polish deputies into category "homofobia"? Because they are against gay marriage? Please, dont do that. Andrew 18  @ 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entirely wrong about this and you seem to have trouble understanding what homophobia is, let alone being able spell it correctly. If someone is homophobic, it does not just mean that they go out physically attacking gay people. Yes, that is one example of homophobia, but it is not the only example. The dictionary definition of Homophobia is "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". I cannot say this enough to you but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. It doesn't have to be all three of these things, and it doesn't just refer to physically violent hate crimes either. If a person actively campaigns against gay rights (not just voting against gay marriage, but actively campaigning or speaking out against gay rights), then they are allowing themselves to be publicly identified as being discriminatory against gay people. This is defined as homophobia. Its discrimination based solely on somebody's sexuality. It doesn't matter if the person did it because of their religious beliefs, it is still homophobia. Lord Longford's opinions about homosexuality go way beyond just simple indifference towards gay people, it is one of the things he is most famous for. He called homosexuality "nauseating" and "utterly wrongful", said that gay people were "handicapped", and even implied that gay men who worked in schools were predatory paedophiles. If he had said that about black people and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be instantly classed as racist. If he said it about women and campaigned to deny them equal rights, it would be classed as sexist or misogynistic. It is equally discriminatory to say and do it about gay people - regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Furthermore, although the English Wikipedia welcomes anybody to edit it, you require a good level of English to be able to do it, which you clearly don't have.89.168.7.160 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had knew the Wikipedian rule you would have know that forcing point of view under the IP is a abuse. You are no right at all. Why? Do we have category Category:Racist? It's retoric question, do not answer. Category "homofobia" should group only the main articles and for example "antihomofobic" protest marches. NOT PEOPLE who "could be homofobic". We are not here to judge. We write encyklopedia and do not punish for beliefs, religion, voting etc. If you think that Frank Pakenham was homofobic, it's stayed as your opinion. You just force your point of view, nothing more. Andrew 18  @ 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your english is so poor, it virtually destroys any point you are trying to make. It has already been pointed out to you (at great length) what the homophobia category is for, and how Lord Longford meets the criteria for inclusion in it. If you fail - or are refusing - to see that, that is your problem, and it you who is pushing a POV agenda here by refusing to acknowledge homophobia. I can only assume it is because you are homophobic yourself. The category stays. End of discussion. 80.41.6.96 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not a person who can judge people. You can not offend me, because you just pushing not neutral point of view under the IP and break Wikipedian rules. I also think my english is good enough, because you understand what I wrote. Nevertheless you can not stop forcing your POV. The method you represent is simple: "call everyone who don't agree with you as homofobic", there is no serious response for this so I gonna stop this discussion. Andrew 18  @ 09:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this on the Requests for Page Protection list today so I thought I'd have a look. Actually Andrew, there is indeed a Category:Racism. It pertains to any article that is significantly connected with racism in some way (whether they be people, organisations, historical events, media products, etc). The category for Homophobia is used in the same way - it pertains to any article that is related to the issue of homophobia (please note that we do not have categories called "racists" or "homophobes"). Wikipedians have already long since established what Category:Homophobia can be used for, and in the case of Lord Longford it would appear that the category is being used appropriately because of his public campaigning against gay rights and overall condemnation of gay people. As long as this is adequately sourced (which it seems to be) then there is no problem attaching the category to the article. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, and Lord Longford was entitled to believe whatever he liked. But if someone actively campaigns against homosexuality, then it would easily fall into the homophobia category as it is publicly demonstrating discrimination against gay people. It was in fact one of the most prominent things Lord Longford was famous for during his lifetime (the others being his support of Myra Hindley and his famous touring of porn clubs). This isn't Wikipedia taking sides on a particular issue because the homophobia category is not used as a judgement, it is merely a statement of fact (the same way that Lord Longford would also fit into the categories "English Roman Catholics" or "Anti-Pornography Campaigners" as he is prominently known for being linked to those two categories too, even though some people may not approve of religion or anti-pornography). After reading this message board, I do feel that you don't fully understand what homophobia truly means, even though one of the other editors above has given you an accepted dictionary definition of the term. I also agree that if anyone is pushing a POV here, its probably yourself because you are taking it upon yourself to redefine what homophobia is and trying to force that definition on everyone else. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In order for the Homophobia category to apply, the subject has to be particularly noted for homophobia, which Lord Longford certainly was. According to the conversation above, Andrew18's view is that Lord Longford's "high-profile opposition to the gay rights movement should be connected with his conservative ideas". That is totally wrong from an encyclopedic standpoint as it is basically saying that people who are right-wing should be allowed to be homophobic without actually being referred to as homophobic simply because it is part of their beliefs. Sorry but that just won't work and we cannot give homophobia a new meaning just because some people are going to be offended by it. The category applies to Lord Longford because he was publicly known for his homophobia and he opposed gay rights to the very end of his life, much in the same way that Baroness Young did. The article details this and is adequately sourced. Looking through his edit history, I have noticed that Andrew18 is also removing the category from the All-Polish Youth article, which is an organisation that is blatantly homophobic. Sorry Andrew, but it seems you are indeed the one with the POV agenda here. MassassiUK (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is your claim 80.41.8.218 that if someone, anyone, is not in favor of granting additional rights to all people (not just gays) that they have never had before (that is the right to marry someone of your own sex) then that means they are by definition discriminating against gays and therefore that discrimination makes you homophobic? This is Wikipedia's definition of discrimination: Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."[1]

It does not fit here. The definition of marriage has been the union between people of opposite sexes in western civilization for thousands of year. I personally think the government should stay out of the people's interpersonal relationships entirely and let everyone do what they please including marrying whomever and however many people they want, but that does not also mean I'm so daft I can't see that some people try to expand the breadth of the definition of homophobia in order to discredit those who hold traditional viewpoints on marriage completely unrelated to any animus towards gay people at all. You should be ashamed for being so disingenuous about your political goals 80.41.8.218 and for being deceptive about what you are really trying to do here. These things should be debated in the real world, and people like you who claim everyone you disagree with is animated by animus or hatred stifle don’t enhance communication and debate, you stifle it – just as you intend. -24.55.17.185 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.17.185 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's this got to do with marriage? The relatively recent legal debacle on marriage between same sex couples came up some years after Lord Longford had died. And yes, if someone treats a gay person any less favourably than a heterosexual person just because of that fact, then that is homophobic discrimination. Your personal views on marriage are completely irrelevant here since this article is not about you. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel it's unfair t describe him as opponent of gay rights in first paragraph when fscts later in article shows his record more mixed. He at least deserves credit for his support of Montagu and Wildeblood in the 1950s when homophilia was less fashionable than it is now. I would delete this sentence and leave people to make up their own minds from the facts.Elthamboy (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * His record on the issue pretty much speaks for itself and as long as his opposition to gay rights is sourced (which it is) then it belongs in the article. We do not censor Wikipedia just because some details about a person can be unflattering. 88.104.29.189 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg
Image:The Outcast's Outcast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Succession box
I've removed the UK life peerage from the succession box. Beside the point that it was a life peerage and therefore not succeeded to, life peerages do not appear to be enumerated in succession boxes (at least, not for Mrs. Thatcher, Lord Callaghan, Lord Williams of Mostyn, Baroness Jay, nor Denis Healey (nor Sir Alec Douglas-Home)). For fosterity:

—Dah31 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Baron Pakenham was a hereditary peerage as stated in the article and not a life peerage. He wasn't an Earl at the time, and was given a peerage so he could sit in the House of Lords himself. Life peerages weren't introduced until 1958, 13 years later. He was given a life peerage in 1999 as Baron Pakenham of Cowley. That's a separate title. Baron Pakenham was inherited by his son, along with the Earldom.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source
An image of Lord Longford (Ekabhishek (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Equalised
'The age of consent for gay men was equalised at 16 in 2000.' makes no sense: one thing can be made equal to another, but a thing (standing on its own, so to speak) cannot be equalized. 31.52.253.108 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212113539/http://www.kewsociety.org/sites/kewsociety.org/files/2006_spring.pdf to http://www.kewsociety.org/sites/kewsociety.org/files/2006_spring.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_200307/ai_n12742007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707190314/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127083101/http://www.newbridgefoundation.org.uk/about.html to http://www.newbridgefoundation.org.uk/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209091843/http://www.bernardomahoney.com/keithbennett/articles/wmmnbfsdwaehe30ys.shtml to http://www.bernardomahoney.com/keithbennett/articles/wmmnbfsdwaehe30ys.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707190314/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0177/D.0177.195911120035.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Longford Report
This probably deserves a mention in the article

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1972/nov/29/pornography-the-longford-report

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-september-1972/7/the-longford-report

I was a bit surprised it wasn't already there. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 * In fact, it is mentioned, in the lead and also in the section "Penal reform". I can't imagine any objections to you adding your links to the article. Blurryman (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Frank Pakenham," listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Frank Pakenham,. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


text:
Synthetic Socks

Synthetic Socks is a very early recording by Gene Ween, released on TeenBeat Records in 1987. It is almost entirely the product of Gene Ween making personal recordings in his bedroom (Dean Ween appears only a few times on this cassette). The cover of the album is a close up of a child (possibly Gene himself) holding a frog.

Instruments include Synsonic Drums, Korg Poly-800, piano, and reel-to-reel. Scott Lowe assisted in post production using delay and additional keyboards.

Long time friend of Gene Ween, Scott Lowe, assisted in production of the album, adding effects to some of the songs.

Credited as Synthetic Sox (not "Socks" as in the album title), three of the TeenBeat tracks; Tree, Sea of Mellichis and Investigating Tornadoes, were released on vinyl as part of Shadow Mouth: Compilation One, released on the Shadow Mouth Record label based in Asbury Park, New Jersey.

Synthetic Socks features a very embryonic version of Ween's trademark sound.

Track listing
"I Wanna Lick It/Can I Speak To Mark With Electricity?" features the 1975 Kiss hit "Rock and Roll All Nite" in its entirety. This is due to Gene Ween recording the album on old cassettes with music already on the tape. This effect is also heard on the Ween song "Birthday Boy", which near the end of the song Pink Floyd's song "Echoes" kicks in. Other examples of this effect happening in Ween's discography are on "I Play It Off Legit" and "Flies On My Dick".
 * 1) "Baked Potatoe" sic
 * 2) "Cops"
 * 3) "Hence It Came" (instrumental)
 * 4) "Let's Live Together"
 * 5) "Once I Lived"
 * 6) "Anything Quickly" (instrumental)
 * 7) "Get Out Of Here Son"
 * 8) "GI"
 * 9) "Ho Ho Ho"
 * 10) "Some Weird Shit"
 * 11) "Eurphyoosh"
 * 12) "Tree" (instrumental)
 * 13) "Love"
 * 14) "I Hate Snuggles"
 * 15) "Style of Carpet" (instrumental)
 * 16) "Collectives"
 * 17) "Cheese Fries"
 * 18) "Weenstock"
 * 19) "So Pink"
 * 20) "Sea of Mellchis"
 * 21) "Investigating Tornadoes"
 * 22) "Today It Is My Birthday"
 * 23) "Sonata in A#G Overture" (instrumental)
 * 24) "Happy Family"
 * 25) "School Days"
 * 26) "I Wanna Lick It/Can I Speak To Mark With Electricity?"

title: Synthetic Socks


text:
Wikipedia talk:How to edit an article so long that you can't edit

Not only browser is a culprit, but poor internet connection as well causes edit problem. In my case, when the article is too large, I can't complete sending the text and causes deletion of the rest of article. It's not a surprise that browsers cann't complete sending 10k or 20k pages. -- Taku 01:52 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I also have no browser problem, but my ADSL connection gets stuck above 32k, I have to switch to a dial-in connection. - Patrick 12:04 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

none of the modern browsers have this problem (so far as is known)

 * Can someone please check current Internet Explorer and Opera on MacOS (classic and X)? --Brion

Ideas
Rather than add this to the artical size section why not add a flag, like the stub flag that will alert users to the problem and how to fix it? Or is that a really complicated idea? --Shadow Dancer 994 00:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)