Daddy, Papa and Me

Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic. After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2].

Ah.. really?

Or about about this one on the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus... yeah, arboreal.. you know.. tree living...

Unlike most other cephalopods, tree octopuses are Amphibian, spending only their earliest life stages and mating seasons in their aquatic environment. Because of the moistness of the rainforests and their well designed skin adaptations, they are able to keep from becoming dried out for prolonged periods of time.(Citation Needed)

Citation needed? Ya think?

Oh and this one on Genetics:

The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring.[1]

Oh, that was the entire thing. You'd think if they can write pages about a non-existent amphibious tree octopus, you'd get more than a sentence about genetics. I guess the contributors have priorities.

It's an unfair criticism really, it's a new site, so they need time to develop. But the kangaroo and tree octopus entries started to make me wonder. Is this site real? I might not agree with parts of the conservative ideology, but most old-school conservatives aren't wacko (that's a scientific term), I know a few who are quite brilliant in fact. So maybe it's only the wacko ones (and we've got them on all ideological spectrums to be sure) that founded and are contributing to this.

I read their reasons for disliking Wikipedia and calling it anti-Christian and anti-American. Some seemed quite silly, like wikipedia uses British spelling citing that if you go to "Most Favored Nation," you'll end up at "Most Favoured Nation." Yet in fact, if you go "Color," you end up at "color" not "colour." Do the British spelling of Colour though and you'll end up...yep, American spelling. Could it be not a anti-American bias but rather which article was most complete is the one that is the target or redirects?

Reading more and more I was getting the feeling this was not the sad inadvertent self-parody that people were making fun of, but rather an elaborate hoax to make conservatives look bad.

Then I saw this article about Bill Clinton, that says, among other things:

Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

Ok, that HAS to be a tongue-in-cheek paragraph. A hoax.

Then again, it could be a contributor (since anyone can contribute, like wikipedia) who, in a Cobert Reportesque fit of editing, decided to make fun of conservatives.

Well, then the problem is which of these articles are 'real' (in that conservatives are writing them) and which are not (where others are writing them to make fun of conservatives).

The sad thing is (for mainstream conservatives), the "conservatives" (Christianists, as Andrew Sullivan calls them, and others) that have overwhelmed the public discourse when it comes to "conservatism," have so sullied the term that it's now actually hard to tell which is a parody and which is real.

"Conservative" is turning into the epithet that "Liberal" was in the 80's... maybe worse :).