trentmkelly/rationalwiki huggingface dataset:
Consciousness of guilt

{{law}}
'''Consciousness of guilt''' is a legal concept and a type of circumstantial [[evidence]] of guilt. It is based on a criminal suspect who demonstrates a guilty [[Consciousness|conscience]] by their actions or speech.<ref name=rodriguez>[https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Legal-Dictionary/C/Consciousness-of-Guilt.aspx Consciousness of Guilt] Stephen G. Rodriguez & Partners</ref> Some examples of consciousness of guilt are:<ref name=rodriguez/>
*Fleeing from the [[crime]] scene or jurisdiction
*[[Perjury#Variations on a theme|False statements]] and [[lie]]s
*False alibi
*Changing one's name or personal appearance
*Concealing or destroying evidence
*Witness intimidation or bribery
*Generally, any attempts to [[Coverup|cover up]] a crime

Simply put, consciousness of guilt is an action or statement that a person accused of a crime makes that an innocent person would not make.

Consciousness of guilt can be misinterpreted, either by way of innocent explanation (e.g., "I was running to get away from the riot, not because I partook in it.") or from the problems of [[hearsay]] evidence.<ref>[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1997/3.pdf Guilt and the Consciousness of Guilt: The Use of Lies, Flight, and other 'Guilty Behaviour' in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime] by Andrew Palmer (1997) ''Melbourne University Law Review'' 21:95-149.</ref>

In the [[United States]], some behaviors of a defendant are automatically not considered consciousness of guilt, including denial of committing a crime and silence,<ref name=rodriguez/> the latter of which is protected by the [[Fifth Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution]] and the [[Supreme Court]] decision that resulted in the [[Miranda warning]]. While these things are not considered consciousness of guilt in a court of law, they can be considered consciousness of guilt in the court of public opinion.

==See also==
*[[Coverup]]

==References==
{{reflist|1|80%}}

{{stub|crime}}
[[Category:Psychology]]

Categories: Psychology
Consegrity

{{altmed}}
'''Consegrity&reg;''' was a 
registered trademark
 method of "[[energy]] healing" (de facto [[faith healing]]), promoted by the now defunct Consegrity Inc. It was founded by Dr. Mary A. Lynch, a retired orthopedic surgeon, and Debra Harrison, a [[massage]] therapist, in the early 2000s. After Harrison's death and the shutdown of Consegrity Inc., Lynch continues to peddle the same [[bullshit]] under the name '''Consilience Energy Mirrors''', as the use of the "Consegrity" trademark was restricted by Harrison's estate.

According to its creators, the word "Consegrity" stands for ''"CONsciousness awareness; tenSEGRITY of the body — the ability to withstand tension and pressure;<ref>Surprisingly, "tensegrity" is a real word, an engineering term — short for "tensile integrity" ("tensegrity" was coined by [[Buckminster Fuller]]), though it has been also appropriated by [[Carlos Castaneda]]. {{see-wp|Tensegrity}}</ref>and CONsilience — "the ALL KNOWING aspect of us.''

==Tragedy==
Both Debra Harrison and her mother died in 2005 due to their belief in Consegrity&reg; &mdash; despite their serious medical problems, they did not seek help from conventional medicine. When Harrison's mother became so ill that relatives were able to convince her to go to a doctor, she was diagnosed with an advanced stage of [[cancer]], with tumors in her liver and her kidney. According to the relatives, when informed of the diagnosis, Harrison blamed ''them'', saying that their "negative energy" and the visit to the doctor were to blame and that the cancer "manifested itself with the diagnosis". Her mother died in June 2005. Harrison herself died in August the same year from diabetic ketoacidosis, a result from untreated {{wpl|diabetes||.}}

==External links==
*[http://www.skepdic.com/consegrity.html Consegrity&reg;], entry in [[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]
*[http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.consegrity.com/ consegrity.com], as archived by the Internet Archive. (Don't bother to look at the versions after 2007 — the domain has expired and the page was replaced with a generic advertisement page.)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060205161012/http://energymirrors.com/ Energy Mirrors]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Alternative medicine]]
[[Category:New Age]]

Categories: Alternative medicine, New Age
Conservation of government

{{politics}}
'''Conservation of government''' refers to the principle that the amount of "whatever it is that [[government]] needs to do" is roughly constant for a given configuration of geography, demographics, and resources.

As a result, attempts to reduce the size of "big government" only outsource the targeted tasks to the private sector, increasing the size of private, for-profit government,<ref>Lakoff, p. 63: 'The principle here is the "conservation of government." Deregulation and privatization do not eliminate government; they only make it unaccountable and take away its moral mission.'</ref> and/or reducing the quantity and quality of government services, having a disproportionate effect on the poor and middle class.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190826022924/https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trump-budget-deeply-cuts-health-housing-other-assistance-for-low-and Sharon Parrott, Aviva Aron-Dine, et al., "Trump budget deeply cuts health, housing, other assistance for low- and moderate-income families," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
Feb. 14, 2018, accessed Aug. 26, 2019.]</ref> The public mind is not often enough drawn to the idea that a corporation is a government, reaching for power like any other. While a corporation is nominally accountable to any shareholders it may have, it is not accountable to the public interest. In their very charters, for-profit corporations are notably ''without any interest in furthering the public good.''

Describing this outsourcing to the private sector as "Privateering"<ref>[http://www.petermoss.org/economics/privatize.html Privateering, not Privatizing] by Peter D. Moss</ref> is a way to bring public attention to the offensive nature of unjust enrichment, which may otherwise be cloaked in [[Tea Party]] terms such as "opportunity" and "[[deregulation]]."

==See also==
*[[Privatization]]
*[[Small government]]

==Further reading==
*Lakoff, George: ''The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain'', 2008, Viking, New York

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{stub|Politics}}

[[Category:United States politics]]

Categories: United States politics
Conservatipedia

{{internet}}
{{cpmothball}}
{{hatnote|This article is about the crazy fundie blog. For the slightly less crazy fundie blog, see [[Conservapedia]].}}
'''Conservatipedia''' was a blog owned by Chris Francis. It was 
believed to be
 a parody, 
though nothing of that nature has ever been proven
 (see [[Poe's law]]). In a post answering the satire question, Francis said: "It must be hard for seculars to handle the fact that there are real people out there that follow God's words and live by it."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090904183452/http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008/01/answering-my-critics.html</ref>
There wasn't any indication of parody found in the HTML code of the site. Rumours have circulated{{fact}} that were members from [[Conservapedia]] who wanted to help support the site and write with a more offensive tone. The site used the slogan: "battling the liberal bias of the internet".

== 2008 U.S. election ==
Conservatipedia endorsed [[Mike Huckabee]] as the candidate of choice for the [[Republican Party]]. It called [[John McCain]] a "filthy liberal"<ref>[http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008/02/john-mccain-is-filthy-liberal.html John McCain was a filthy liberal]</ref> and [[W. Mitt Romney|Mitt Romney]] a "filthy mormon"<ref>[http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008/02/mitt-romney-finally-gives-up.html Mitt Romney Finally Quits]</ref>. Links to Mike Huckabee's website were found under the conservative links menu. Huckabee is also suspected of being a [[Mike Huckabee#Parodist or not?|parodist]].

==Claims==
The blogger declared such things as:
*"Madonna has [[AIDS]]," which he claimed is divine punishment for having anal sex. 
*"A strong belief in our Lord Jesus Christ is really the only cure for aids."
*"All [[Moslem]]s should be put into [[concentration camp]]s."
*"Atheists are out to get your children".

==Reaction==
A few people commented on the blog posts, and seemed to be roughly split between those who believed it to be a parody and those who were just horrified.

==The party's over==
The final post on the blog, dated to October 31st, 2013, explicitly stated the blog was an example of Poe's law in action, though the author stated<ref>http://www.conservatipedia.com/2013/01/did-you-get-job-yet-damn-hipsters.html</ref>{{Dead link}} he did mix in his own beliefs. So, that's it, folks.

==External links==
*[https://archive.is/5TxFj Conservatipedia] (archive snapshot)

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]
[[category:conservapedia spoofs]]

Categories: Conservapedia, conservapedia spoofs
Conservative Daily News

{{media}}

The '''''Conservative Daily News''''' is a [[conservative]] news and opinion website. According to the website, it was founded by '''Rich Mitchell''' in 2009 under the domain name <code>plainhardtruth.com</code>,<ref>{{cite web|title=About CDN|website=Conservative Daily News|url=http://www.conservativedailynews.com/about-2/|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref> which now links to a Blues band under the name "Plain Hard Truth."<ref>{{cite web|title=Plain Hard Truth|url=http://plainhardtruth.com/|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref>

On 24 October 2016, [[Snopes.com]] called the Conservative Daily News 'disreputable', after it falsely claimed that [[Russia]] would start [[World War III]] in 24 hours unless President [[Barack Obama]] stopped 'smearing' Russia:<ref>{{cite web|last=Evon|first=Dan|title=Word War III|website=Snopes.com|date=24 October 2016|url=http://www.snopes.com/putin-gives-obama-ultimatum/|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref> Obviously, the war that the Conservative Daily News attempted to predict didn’t happen.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|Media}}

[[category:Media]]

Categories: Media
Conservative bias

{{media}}
'''Conservative bias''' is the tendency in the [[conservative]] mindset to ignore criticism of and inherent problems with conservatism and to exaggerate perceived problems with rival views. Reporters and editors at conservative news sources prefer reporting news stories in which ideologically conservative politicians or members of demographics likely to support them appear as "[[Persecution complex|victims]]" of liberalism. More generally, replace "conservative" with any political, philosophical, scientific, or religious ideology, and you'll probably find that the same is true. Righteous victimhood is [[Appeal to emotion|emotionally powerful]].  

==Conservative bias in English language news media==
In the [[United States|USA]], most [[Conservative talk radio|talk radio]] stations take a conservative tone. Most of these stations deny that ''conservative'' talk radio is in the majority; [[Thom Hartmann]], a well-known liberal talk radio figure, almost has that field to himself.

In Britain and the U.S., many newspapers and other news outlets, specifically cable news networks, are owned by corporations, of which [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s News Corporation is portrayed as the archetype. This is cited as a factor in said news outlets being biased against [[socialism]] in their reporting and editorial stance, unlike non-corporate-owned papers such as the [[Communist Party USA|''People's Weekly World'']] in the U.S. or the [[Communist Party of Britain|''Morning Star'']] in Britain.

In [[Canada]], newspapers have a history of endorsing the [[Conservative Party of Canada]] well over the party's polling popularity.<ref>[https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/11/03/canadian-newspaper-editorial-endorsements-in-the-2015-federal-election-elite-and-out-of-sync/ Dwayne Winseck, "Lopsided coverage and support of the Conservative Party exemplifies the tilted playing field of electoral politics." ''Policy Options'', November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2015. Accessed June 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019.]</ref>

The editorial stances on cable news outlets run from [[Al Jazeera]] and [[MSNBC]] on the left to [[Fox News]] on the right. Fox News, ''a.k.a.'' "Faux News," "Fox So-Called News," ''etc.'', has a definite conservative bias (any outlet which, until recently<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/media/fox-news-fair-and-balanced.html Fox News Drops ‘Fair and Balanced’ Motto]</ref>, took to calling itself "fair and balanced" should be regarded with suspicion); to cite just one example, during the 2000 U.S. presidential election it called Florida for [[George W. Bush]] at a time when polls had Al Gore in the lead.<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/fox-n17.shtml How Bush's man at Fox News worked to shape the outcome of the US election] November 17, 2000, </ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Conservative correctness]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|media}}

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]

Categories: Media, Conservatism
Conspicuous consumption

{{economics}}
'''Conspicuous consumption''' is a phrase popularized by the American [[Sociology|sociologist]] and [[economist]] {{wpl|Thorstein Veblen||.}} It refers generally to the public display of economic purchasing power to acquire and consume luxury goods, as a means to display the consumer's membership in a superior [[social class]].  Other forms of conspicuous consumption include ''invidious consumption'', meant to provoke the envy of other people; and ''conspicuous compassion'', the ostentatious display of [[Charity|charitable donations]], often in exchange for public monuments and buildings bearing the donor's name, in an attempt to enhance the prestige of the owner.  The theory of conspicuous consumption was developed by Veblen in his well known book, ''The Theory of the Leisure Class'' (1899).<ref>Veblen, Thorstein, ''[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/833 The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions]'' (1899)</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|economics}}

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Categories: Culture, Economics, Political terms, Sociology
Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

{{Sources needed}}{{Film}}{{title-italics}}
'''''Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?''''' is a made-for-TV [[schlockumentary]] promoting [[Moon landing hoax]] [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] that aired first in February 2001 on the Fox Network (not to be confused with [[Fox News]]). It's sometimes credited with rekindling the popularity of hoax allegations.

The one thing it gets right is its main title: that is, it ''is'' a conspiracy theory.  One might as well create a "documentary" titled ''Baseless Speculation: Is The Earth [[Flat Earth|Really Round]]?'' Again, the answer is yes to both.

== Featured individuals ==
Partial list:
* Bill Kaysing
* [[Brian O'Leary]]
* [[Ralph René]]
* [[Bart Sibrel]] (that was before the famous punch)

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277642/ ''Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'' on IMDb]
* [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax], [[Phil Plait]]'s review on the old ''Bad Astronomy'' website
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20040405102804/http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory], Robert A. Braeunig's Rocket and Space Technology pages
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20011031013029/http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake?], an analysis of the photographs used in the program by Ian Goddard
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20010710225439/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm More of the same] by a University of Wisconsin geologist
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeyUJx6nM3s An excellent parody] on [[YouTube]]

{{stub|Conspiracy theories}}

[[Category:Films]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Moon]]
[[Category:Schlockumentaries]]

Categories: Films, Conspiracy theories, Moon, Schlockumentaries
Constance Cumbey

{{christianity|1}}
'''Constance Cumbey''' {{lived|1944}} is the author of the 1983 book ''The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow'', the book which largely launched the evangelical [[Christian]] scare over the [[New Age]].  Cumbey located the origins of the New Age movement in the esoteric [[occult]]ist writings of [[Benjamin Creme]] and [[Alice Bailey]] who were awaiting the coming of a new "messiah" named [[Maitreya]].  Cumbey considered the New Age a possible route to the rise of the "[[Antichrist]]" and "Maitreya" a likely candidate.

One of her claims was that the [[rainbow]] sticker, commonly used as a [[gay rights]] symbol, was actually a secret identifier used by New Agers to identify each other.<ref>When actually, they use the [[Papyrus]] font.</ref>

Constance Cumbey has accused [[Texe Marrs]]<ref>[http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2006/11/texe-marrs-disinformation-for-new-age.html "Texe Marrs Disinformation for the 'New Age'"]</ref> and [[Pat Robertson]]<ref>[http://cumbey.blogspot.com/search?q=Pat+Robertson "What Was Pat Robertson's Real Agenda?"]</ref> of wholesale plagiarism from her book.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|Christianity}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cumbey, Constance}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Living people]]

Categories: Conspiracy theorists, Living people
Constitution

{{law}}
'''Constitution''' is the stat in [[Dungeons and Dragons|D&D]] which determines how many hit points your character has... though in legal circles it can also mean the basic governing [[law]] of a [[state]], which sets out (usually, though not always, in the form of a single document) the principles by which the state's [[government]] is organized, who is subject to it, and what the laws of the state can and cannot govern. Most [[country|countries]] have one, though some states, such as the [[United Kingdom]], [[New Zealand]] and Israel, have no specific, entrenched constitutional document, relying instead on existing legislation, case law, and the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy as the basis for the [[rule of law]]. In these countries, legislation and case law relating to government powers and the rule of law are loosely referred to as constitutional law.

Though the term seems to mostly be a product of late [[medieval]] and early modern jurisprudence, the elements of constitutions go as far back as early law codes such as the Twelve Tables of Rome and the Hammurabi Code of [[Babylon]]ia. Modern examples range from the relatively brief constitutions of the [[United States]] or [[Germany]], to the extensive proposed [[European Union]] constitution, to the somewhat nebulous [[common law]]-based body of legislation that makes up the British constitution. In the countries with a brief constitution, the text is really vague, so they have a [[Supreme Court]] that makes up the rules as they go along – kind of like when your big brother taught you how to play [[Monopoly]] when you were a kid.

In the United States, when [[liberal]]s and [[moderate]]s are appointed to federal jobs, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. When [[conservative]]s are appointed to such posts, they put their hand on the Constitution and swear to [[The United States as a Christian nation|uphold the Bible]].

Magna Carta (which was not 'signed' by King John, and which was only in operation for a few weeks) and its successors were not a constitution in the modern sense, though they are considered to have formed the ''beginnings'' of the British Constitution.

==See also==
*[[Common law]]
*[[Judicial review]] — one process by which laws are evaluated for their constitutionality.
*[[Rule of law]] — not all constitutions guarantee this, but you basically can't have it without one.
*[[United States Constitution]]
 
[[Category:Constitution]]
[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Law]]

Categories: Constitution, Government, Law
Contactee

{{ufology}}
A '''contactee''' is someone who claims to have met [[extraterrestrial]]s. It is most often used to describe those who claim some sort of ongoing contact, reporting messages from the aliens and eventually generally describing their experiences in vaguely [[religion|religious]] or [[mysticism|mystical]] terms. It is basically the concept of "[[medium]]" or "[[channeler]]" recycled for the space age.

One of the first, and thus most well-known, of the contactees was [[George Adamski]], who claimed to have met a man from [[Venus]] while out in the [[California]] desert in the 1940s. Many of his descriptions of flying to the mild-climated planets Venus and [[Saturn]], and the civilised societies encountered there were later shown to be completely different from the hard data reported by space probes. This may or may not be because his claims are very similar to the [[science fiction]] novel ''Pioneers of Space'', written in 1949 by one G. Adamski.<ref>Marc Hallet, [http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=101 Why I can say that Adamski was a Liar], Skeptic Report</ref> Many claims of contact came after Adamski published his books; most of the contactees had less information to impart than did Adamski, and only [[Howard Menger]] supplied photographs - and composed music that he claimed to have heard on Venus.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__uXWTs8OnY Howard Menger - Authentic Music From Another Planet (1957) - Track 2 - Marla] on [[YouTube]]</ref> Cynthia Appleton, meanwhile, brought forth something far more substantial from her benevolent Space Brother friends - a baby.<ref>[http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2005/03/space-baby-from-fortean-times.html THE SPACE BABY]</ref>
==See also==
*[[Billy Meier]] (pants on fire)
*[[Raëlism]]
*[[Alien abduction]]
*[[The Aetherius Society]]
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{stub|Ufology}}

[[Category:Ufology]]

Categories: Ufology