Revision as of 17:10, 10 December 2006

Reference Desk

December 5

East Indians and Caucasians

Hello: I read in the Misplaced Pages article entitled "Caucasian race", that East Indians are technically classified as Caucasian by anthropologists. Is this true? As a general question, who is classified as being Caucasian, and who isn't? Vikramkr 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do contemporary anthropologists still use this as a mode of classification? I thought it was a residue of nineteenth century taxonomy? It seems to be such an elastic concept that it would be possible to include virtually anything and anyone, including 'East Indians', if by this you mean people from the Indonesian archipelago. By and large the term is no longer in use in Europe; and I think in the US it is simply a generic term for 'white people.' Clio the Muse 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the last paragraph of that article, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with that classification based on the common sense observation of differences. Fortunately the concept of race is not today what it once was, at least among scientists. -THB 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But, some definition of race is still needed, if we are to have Affirmative Action programs which discriminate in favor of certain races, and against other races. I personally oppose such programs, however. StuRat 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with skull structure. Did people from the Indian subcontinent immigrate to Europe at a point in time? Vikramkr 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the people who originated in the Caucasus region emigrated both into Europe and India. StuRat 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No! Caucasian people result from a mixing of all the surrounding 'racial types' all the 'autochthones of mankind'.(opinion)87.102.32.250 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I give up, what's an autochthone ? StuRat 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you get google where you live? try Autochthones (redirect.)87.102.32.250 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, and I only found German pages. BTW, why doesn't the singular form have an article or redirect ? StuRat 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm the one who is confused what german? I got Indigenous peoplesInterestingly autochthones means people who sprang from the earth (a bit like 'salt of the earth' I suppose).87.102.32.250 12:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Google apparently gives quite different results for different people, even when all the settings are identical. I'd asked about this before, but nobody seemed to know why. Here are my Google results: . StuRat 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I searched for autochthon and autochthonic - still got a few german results. Autochthone seem to have the same meaning as autochthonic. But the plural of autochthon is autochthons or autochthones. Confusing. And turning to english language search results in google options still returns germanic results..I should have said indiginous but I was quoting from the wikipedia article.83.100.138.168 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

People from the Indian Subcontinent have been migrating to Europe for generations. But I repeat my point: this is fast becoming a highly antiquated form of classification. Properly speaking, Caucasians are only from the region of the Caucasus Mountains. Clio the Muse 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article did you read that? It doesn't say anything like that.? If you read the article again the first two sentences will give you a definition. Other people were (are) classified by some sets of skull measurements as caucasoid This classification basically could include everyone except chinese, aboriginal and welshmen! If you want a really simple explanation of this (in my view ridiculous) classification - look at persons nose bridge - is it high - caucusoid, is it low.flattened - mongoloid.87.102.32.250 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Why not take a look at these pictures of people who are supposed to be caucusoid. http://racialreality.sitesled.com/subraces.html What do they have in common - only two arms and two legs as far as I can see.87.102.32.250 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you exlude Welshmen? Seriously now, I agree with all you have said, 87 102, though I think I would have made the point with a little less passion! I had the misfortune to see a collection of skulls-not ancient specimens-assembled by Nazi 'scientists' for comparative racial studies. Anyway, I anticipate the day when concepts like 'caucasian'-used outwith a strictly geographical description-will be seen in the same light as phrenology and all the other by-waters science has travelled down over the last two hundred years. By the way, I had a look at that paper you linked, with the pictures of the various 'sub-types'. It's a while since I have seen anything quite so scary! I would be interested to know the source? It looks, reads and feels like 'scholarship' with an all too familiar slant. Clio the Muse 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The home page is http://racialreality.sitesled.com/ the pictures I believe are from Carleton S. Coon The Races of Europe. Dont know why so scary they all look like normal blokes to me.. (ok a bit scary)87.102.32.250 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Normal blokes? Look at the guy from Southampton: he looks like a psychopath! And he is by no means the most extreme. I know Southampton well; lots of good-looking guys, including a dear friend of mine. Thankfully, I never came across the specimen in that rouges gallery! Clio the Muse 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A small supplement to the above. I recently read Cursed Days, Ivan Bunin's diaries set during the early part of the Russian Civil War. He records the day he first saw photographs of the Bolshevik leadership in the press-What a shower of cut throats! Unbeknown to him the photos in question were all prison mug shots! Clio the Muse 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Sturat saying you still need the concept of race for Affirmative action. There can be such on system based on different criterias (often on money). Basing your positive action on a perception of race is completely detrimental to the - only very superficially - existing group in the perception by the rest of the population AND themselves as an actual "race group". Particular qualities you could associated with a few thousand years of evolution of skin pigmentation is beyond my comprehension (beyond some very rare medical differences). Assigning cultural and social caracteristics to a group of humans, geographicaly limited and sharing a culture is one thing picking out one of them and attributing to him these qualities is another completely. I fail to see how the notion of race is a useful and discriminating (except in its usual artificial way). Keria 13:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't disagree at all, except perhaps in our definitions of the term Affirmative Action. Our article says "Some groups who are targeted for affirmative action are characterized by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or handicap". Race is a major factor currently used in granting special preferences, under Affirmative Action, at least in the US. As I've said, I'm opposed to such programs. I would, however, support efforts which don't discriminate based on race, such as having the taxpayers pay for college costs for students, of any race, who can meet the academic requirements of their educational institutions. I don't call this "Affirmative Action", however, as that has a different meaning, at least in the US. Perhaps where you are it has a broader meaning than "giving preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or handicap". StuRat 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Racial determinations can be made on the spot, when there is no local precedent. According to a TV documentary about Japanese-Americans during World War II, when the Japanese-American troops arrived in the Deep South for training, a delegation from the town leadership visited them and said that it had been decided that for the duration of the war, they would be considered "White" and would be allowed to use the White restrooms, theater areas, and drinking fountains, and to eat in restuarants with White people. On the other hand, "Colored" soldiers guarding German prisoners of war in the South had to eat outside behind the restuarant while the German POWs got to eat inside with the other White folks.

Really? That is truly shocking! I would be grateful for a source for this. Clio the Muse 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any specific incidents, but apparently German prisoners were treated fairly well and many chose to stay in the U.S. after the war. Certainly a large percentage of the U.S. and Southern U.S. especially population has German ancestry. It is a fact that blacks were not allowed to eat in white restaurants but they could get takeout. Being in uniform would have been irrelevant. -THB 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This was in a cable TV documentary about Black soldiers in the U.S. military within the last year or 2. Sorry I did not write down full reference info for later retrieval (grin). Edison 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What more authoritative source could you possibly have than Hogan's Heroes ? (Note who's "in he back of the bus".) :-) StuRat 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

old photographs

why doesnt anyone smile in very old photgraphs?thanks, k.rain

Because they were not told to do so by the photographer?--Light current 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That may have more than grain of truth in it. The abominable practice of a group of people posing for a camera, saying "cheese" and playing "happy families" is relatively new. I can't think of a single classical painting of a front-facing person or group of people where they're all smiling. Or, if they are, it's for a good reason, not because the painter told them to. JackofOz 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about La Joconde? -THB 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the cameras they used in the early days of photography had limited light-gathering capabilities, so exposure times were very long - up to a minute, I believe. It's nearly impossible to hold a smile that long without moving or looking stupid, so people tended to wear a relaxed expression. Also, photographs of dead people were popular in Victorian times - they didn't move and mess up the picture. --Shuttlebug 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also could be that they didnt have much to smile about in those days? 8-)--Light current 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was because they knew the picture wasn't colored. Moonwalkerwiz 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

?????--Light current 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this has something to do with it. -- Churchh 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As instinctive as it now seems to "smile for the camera", this came about relatively recently, I believe right after WW2, when returning soldiers couldn't help but smile from ear to ear. Then, anyone not smiling looked to be suicidal by comparison, so fake smiles became the norm. Note, however, that professional photographers despise such photos, much preferring a natural expression. StuRat 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

People had dignity back then...? Theavatar3 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, for photographs they did. Having one's photograph taken was quite a formal (and expensive) procedure, so people wanted to look their best, which in those days meant dignified.--Shantavira 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another surprising thing is how many people have dirty, unwashed hair in old photos. I realize that people rarely bathed back then, but you'd think they would have made an exception for "picture day". StuRat 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Few subjects smiled in painted portraits (Mona Lisa being a noted exception) and photographs were seen as a similar formal exercise, fairly expensive as noted by Shantavira. Someone who grinned big in a portrait gave the impression that they went around with a big fake grin plastered on their face all the time, which was a characteristic of idiots. Smiling in photos didn't become common until the early 20th century. As noted by Shuttlebug, it was hard to hold a smile for the 30 second exposure of say the 1860's, and it would possibly have slipped into an even more manic grimace as the exposure proceeded. Stu's comment about dirty hair is puzzling. People in the 19th century in the U.S. generally bathed every Saturday (whether they need it or not!). Women were likely to have waist-length or longer hair which took a very long time to wash and dry, so it was not washed daily. It was done up in a bun or other "do." Pomade or macassar was applied to mens' hair to slick it down. How is that "dirtier" than the mousse applied to hair today? Do you have "smellovision" photos where you can detect it is dirt and not pomade stiffening the hair? In earlier times, bathing was far less common, and perfumes were used. In Mona Lisa's era, bathing was uncommon. Does her hair look dirty? Or that of elegant ladies and gentlemen in renaissance portraits? For washing, they had soap and water, and not the array of fancy shampoos and conditioners of today. Edison 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They washed their hair with bars of soap? Or did you mean soapy water? In any case, they didn't have much in the way of sanitation. Both London and Paris had severe pollution in their rivers (most notably "The Great Stink" in the Thames), because people "washed" there. | AndonicO 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My g-g-grandmother had hair to her waist and she never washed it. She powdered it and then brushed it with hundreds of strokes daily. Apparently this was not uncommon. -THB 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There were doubtless special sope preparations, but bars of laundry soap made from animal fat and lye, or a softer version of the same product, were what was available before detergents were introduced. Women would use a barrel to catch rainwater from the roof runoff to reduce the undesirable residue from soap and hard water. In the PBS television series "Colonial House," "The 1900 House," "The Edwardian Country House" and "The Frontier House" on public television and the lack of modern hair care products were a major problem for the women. I do not recall if the problem was fixed by "The 1940 House." Edison 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What does Catholicism say about certain types of sexual deviance/behaviour?

I have a friend who's married, Catholic, and works as a phone sex operator. Would that be considered adultery? What about prostitution? She occasionally encourages her callers to act out fantasies that include homosexual acts and sex outside marriage. What would this be v/v her faith? Anchoress 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, as a Christian, I believe that's perverse. I'll come back with scripture. bibliomaniac15 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Anchoress 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See venial sin and mortal sin. Lust is a mortal sin. Does she enjoy her work in a lustful way? Is it adultery or prostitution? Of a sort. It would be best to ask a priest these questions, just like legal and medical questions should be answered by a professional. I doubt that the the church is going to look favorably on someone encouraging others to commit horrible sins like homosexual acts and adultery. Is she having trouble reconciling her work with her faith? -THB 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if she always enjoys it carnally, but she sometimes does. And no, she's having no difficulty reconciling her actions to her faith, but she's being very judgemental about other people's actions v/v their faith, that's the problem. Anchoress 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your friend. Moonwalkerwiz 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that choosing to prostitute oneself has little if anything to do with sexual "lust". Tragically, in the vast majority of cases, it's got all to do with scoring some cash for a fix. Believe me, hookers haven't chosen their vocation simply because they're "horny". Loomis 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since she enjoys it sometimes, lustfully, that's a mortal sin. Can't she just confess and have the slate wiped clean? As far as her being judgemental, it certainly sounds like she has no more right to be judgemental than any one else does. I would think that is hypocritical. Personally, people can do whatever they want as long as they aren't harming others and I have no problem with it, but hypocrisy disgusts me. Encouraging others to commit adultery is harmful to the adulterers' spouses and families. I'm sure she does the best she can with her life, as do we all, and that some mental accomodation is necessary to be a telephone sex worker, maybe more so than in other service jobs. Some of that accomodation may be denial. -THB 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to ask a question, does it really work like that, confess and the slate will be automatically wiped off clean? Like, if your sin score is 150 it'll go back to zero? Moonwalkerwiz 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

~To THB after EditCon~ I agree with you. But about the confession, Jesus said 'Go and sin no more'. The concept of repentance cleaning the slate is not a 'get out of jail free' card that allows for repeated infractions. Jesus expected us to do our very best not to sin, and (like StuRat), he hated hypocrisy (and avarice) above all. I am not a Christian, I don't believe most of what she does, but I know the Bible well enough to know that suborning others to sin for money, repeatedly, is sinful, and confession alone isn't enough, without a sincere and wholehearted intent to 'go and sin no more'. And BTW I'm not arguing with anyone or dumping, just feeling a little self-righteous here. Anchoress 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it worked that way anymore. It wouldn't be very sincere. -THB 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the position of the Catholic Church is that the sole purpose of sex is reproduction, and that such sex should only occur within marriage. As such, phone sex would not be in accordance with their beliefs. What amazes me is how many people totally reject both these arguments, yet still remain with the Church. I can only conclude that the Church serves a social purpose for them, not a moral guidance purpose. StuRat 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has been getting more and more lenient on such matters over time. Just recently I read something about the Vatican easing up their position on condom use. I do doubt though, that we'd ever hear them condoing phone sex fantasies -- it is too particular to us white devils. Theavatar3 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would take the Bill Clinton Defense on that one--phone sex isn't sex. Or is it? Is masturbation sinful in wasting seed, etc.? -THB 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Anchoress. Since some people are clearly inclined to pontificate about Catholicism and sexuality without having a clue about the subject, I thought it might help you and your friend if I quoted a passage on the point under consideration from the Catechism of the Catholic Church-Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of the participants (actors, vendors, public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offence. I make no judgement at all about your friend; but if she is sincere in her beliefs she really should discuss the matter with her priest. I'm sorry, I know this is not very comforting; but in such matters one must be absolutely frank. Clio the Muse 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a postmodern advert for "sex for reproduction only, all pleasures and love heavenly". Keria 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What a wonderful summation! Theavatar3 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clio, what does that definition of pornography have to do with this subject of phone sex? Anchoress never mentioned third parties eavesdropping on the phone sex. I agree with you, and I stated in my first comment, that her friend should seek professional advice from a priest on this matter. -THB 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That definition seems to be applicable here (especially if she is getting calls from people who are not her partner) - ie she is being involved in pornography in terms of the official classification given by the church. The third party would be the caller. You didn't get that a third party is the caller - the first and second parties are husband and wife87.102.32.250 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed the part about the callers listening to her having sex with her husband. I assumed she was having "phone sex" with the callers without her husband participating. -THB 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You were right the first time I think - she's having phone sex with callers (I expect - why would her husband do it?) - so thats at least a simulated sex act - either prostitution or pornography or adultery - depending on how you want to classify them - I'd say all three.87.102.32.250 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(in response to the "wipe the slate clean" question) Actually, your sins are only forgiven (in the Catholic Church at least) if you are sorry, and try not to commit them again; this would mean you must stay out of temptations (including phone sex). Furthermore, if you omit one of your sins during confession, you have an extra sin, of sacrilage. If you are sorry, try not to commit them again, and do not omit any sins (unless if you forgot them), then your slate is wiped clean. I think your friend is neither being faithful to her religion, nor to her husband (unless he tells her to do that, but it would still be against the Church). This would mean that she is not in a state of "Sanctifing Grace" (according to the CCC), and she is in grave sin. | AndonicO 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say sex outside marriage do you mean adultery or swinging (or maybe even pre-marital sex)? Personally, being an agnostic ex-Catholic, I have no problem with the later two. While obviously the Catholic faith in general frowns on all thre, I would assume the first is worse then the second and third. Nil Einne 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex with someone who is not your spouse. I'm not a priest, but I think that you put the three in order of greatest to least bad. | AndonicO 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weddings rings are basically as strong as the One Ring. What else is there to say? Theavatar3 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AndonicO, Clio, StuRat, THB and others for the awesome replies. Anchoress 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :-) | AndonicO 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes basically that would go against scripture, and in the Catholic faith it would be considered a Venial sin, but I am not 100% sure. — Seadog 04:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Seadog, it's a Mortal sin in the Catholic Church. By the way, good to see you here. :-) | AndonicO 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Musical Modes

There are many different musical modes of the diatonic scale existed. But how come nowadays only major and minor key are prevalent?

--Cpcheung 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some useful information in Musical modes and Tonality. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the chords suggested or needed by these modes can be simulated by using the appropriate chords defined by the noraml major minor augmented and diminished scales. Therefore they are more flexible than modes. But Im not an experts so take with salt.

So: for the diatonic major scale of C, the modes are

• MODE Starts on Harmony

• Ionian C Cmaj

• Dorian D Dm7

• Phrygian E Esus b9

• Lydian F Fmaj#4

• Mixolydian G G7

• Aeolian A Am7 b6

• Locrian B Bdim

Some jazz artists experimented with modes, notably Miles Davis. John Coltranes 'Impressions' is one of the more tuneful offerings using the Ionian and Dorian modes. 8-)--Light current 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Start a 1 octave scale on each succeeding white key of the piano, playing only white keys. You have just played 8 classical modes. Edison 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ER Seven actually 8-)--Light current 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Our article Diatonic scale states the following:

"What we now call major and minor were, during the medieval and Renaissance periods, only two of many different modes formed by taking the diatonic scale to begin on different degrees. By the start of the Baroque period, the notion of musical key was established, and major and minor scales came to dominate until at least the start of the 20th century."

By way of explanation this is a bit unsatisfactory; there is no obvious relationship between keys and scales. I think that fashion played a major role. Why exactly something gets to become the fashion, and not something else, is largely unfathomable.  --Lambiam 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose just because no composers like to write for them now. They're just out of fashion.martianlostinspace 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion into the list of developed countries

Why does Vanuatu not want to be included in the list of developed countries? See paragraph 4 on page 4 of 5 at http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/vanuatu-e.pdf --Patchouli 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because the GDP (and the PPP) figure show that they aren't developed (and therefore will recieve development aid?): 2005 estimate - Total: $726 million (175th) - Per capita: $3,346 (121st). Developed countries aren't that poor (at least none that i know off) and don't recieve foreign aid. The Happy Planet Index mentioned in the text is...disputed to say the least (in my own honest personal POV it is largely worthless) Flamarande 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To qualify for certain kinds of Development aid (see also the other articles referred to on that page). From the article on Burma: To qualify for least developed country status by the UN in order to receive debt relief, Burma lowered its official literacy rate from 78.6% to 18.7% in 1987. -- Seejyb 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now Burma is back to 85.3%.--Patchouli 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't read the PDF, but as has been stated, given their GDP per capita and HDI, I don't know how anyone would think Vanuatu could be a developed country. Malaysia is significantly higher on both counts but I don't think many Malaysians or people outside Malaysia would call it a developed country. (I'm a Malaysian BTW) Nil Einne 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Musical modes and The Beatles

The question 2 above reminds me of a brilliant British-made TV programme (possibly shown on Channel 4 in the UK) I saw some months ago. It was part of a series, looking at the music of different composers and one programme was devoted to The Beatles. It looked in a serious way at musical structures etc. Can anyone tell me what this programme was? One of the Beatles songs Penny Lane perhaps?) was highlighted as using a system of modes or perhaps scales (I'm no musician!) that was medieval and very different from our modern system. The presenter then played the song as it would sound using the modern system. Fascinating. Any further information gratefully received. --Dweller 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably Howard Goodall 20th Century Greats there is also How Music Works meltBanana 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic... and quite right. Some digging around found this, Eleanor Rigby works so well as "an urban version of a tragic ballad in the Dorian mode". (). So it was Eleanor Rigby, not Penny Lane. Thanks. --Dweller 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup its only got 2 chords Em and C. Its written in Eminor. and the chord of Em would fit the D dorian mode.--Light current 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, which in my opinion accounts for its beauty. E Dorian would have a C#, and Eleanor Rigby does, in the melodic line, so that makes it Dorian: but the C chord, which cannot exist in E Dorian, takes you back to an Aeolian mode.

As another modal example, Norwegian Wood is mostly in the Mixolydian mode. Antandrus (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, modes were the subject of one of Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, and Norwegian Wood was, in fact, the very first piece he mentioned. B00P 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Registers of the saxophone

There's a discussion at Talk:Evan Parker that I would appreciate RD views on. An anonymous editor has several times removed a (sourced) quotation from a jazz critic which describes Parker as "playing in all three registers of the instrument at the same time". The anon's objection to this quotation is that it is factually incorrect since the number of registers a saxophone has is impossible to define. Any comments? How many registers does a saxophone have? --Richardrj 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Doesn't it depend on the size of the sax? In any case, disagreement with a sourced quotation is not grounds for removing it. However, I see the discussion of this point on the talk page is longer than the article itself, so perhaps there is something to be said for dropping it and moving on. (Come back in a few months time and slip it in when no one's looking.)--Shantavira 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the same kind of senseless hagiography that one can find in reference to Mariah Carey's voice supposedly having, say, a six- or seven-octave spread. You can certainly cite plenty of articles on the Internet stating such a thing but it is a fallacy. A saxophone is a single-reed instrument, and like other reed instruments such as the clarinet, is capable of producing tones in several registers. An upper register fingering on the clarinet might use the same keys for Bb as the low register does for Eb, as the first register jump on a clarinet is a twelfth rather than an eighth or octave. As far as I know it is impossible for a single reed to vibrate in two or more registers at once. However, it is possible for double-reed instruments, such as a bassoon, english horn, or oboe, to vibrate the two reeds in different registers simultaneously, producing what are called polytonal notes. A similar effect can be noted with the human voice as there are two independent vocal folds. Register "leaps" are also a phenomenon of wind instruments such as flutes, as one can change the pitch by force of breath alone (overblowing), in the order of overtones (octave, fifth, fourth, major third, minor third, flat minor third, etc.). dreddnott 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moderation

Is moderation the key to a happy life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.224.55 (talk • contribs)

See moderation and deadly sins for a start. -THB 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Balance, wisdom, humanity, compassion are the hallmarks of a good (happy) life. In hard times, bravery is critical as well.

Moderation presumes that you know something about the world. Balance doesn't say anything about anything, except that you are not careening out of control. Theavatar3 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle argued that moderation - the golden mean - was what lead to eudaimonia, that is happiness. If this (as I suspect) is a homework question, I suggest starting with the linked articles. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For a happy life, all things must be excerized in moderation, even moderation itself. Beat you to it this time, Jack!

He he. Go to the top of the class. But go moderately. JackofOz 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Invoking this expression is exactly the same as boiling water until there is no water at all. :) Theavatar3 23:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course another perspective worth considering is that conveyed in the following quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Loomis 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Extremism always, without exception, does more harm than good.

In practice, yes! In theory -- who cares about theory? :) Theavatar3 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This sort of "means justifies the end" argument has been used by fanatics throughout history to defend every excess from the Spanish inquisition and the crusades to the present day proponents of global terrorism and those who advocate extreme measures to combat such terrorism. Gandalf61 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Sinatra who said that he pitied people who don't drink, he said "they wake up on a morning and know that's the best they're going to feel all day". Perhaps, alas, the key to a happy life is to drink in the company of good friends. Personally I believe the key lies in perspective. AA Gill noted the thing that scared him most in poverty stricken parts of Africa was children flirting and having fun. I firmly believe that life is what you make of it and that sadder people have much 'better' lives than me and yet people with infinitely worse circumstances have had much better. ny156uk 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uptight - Relaxed: manifestly distinct

Theavatar3 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I see here is the error of false causality. It is not that we practice moderation that's why we become happy. It is because we are happy, living a good life that we tend to moderate. Moderation is the end, and happiness, the means, not the other way around. Similarly, it is because we are in unfortunate circumstances that we tend toward the extremes. Extremism is the end, and unhappiness, the means. First comes the situation of things, then the action concerning it. First comes the economic poverty and the Islamic culture of Iraq, then comes suicide bombings and civil war. It is not because there are suicide bombings and civil war that something like Iraq takes shape. First comes American economic prosperity, and then comes democracy and the temptation to "export" it. Moonwalkerwiz 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would have to be a moderately happy life. Clarityfiend 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is moderation the key to a happy life? - Yes, but moderation should not be taken to extremes. StuRat 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The collection of fragments by epicure is a great read about moderation and the happy life. Keria 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the anon Extremism always, without exception, does more harm than good. I agree. The thing is, an action that is classified as "extremism" by some people in one circumstance might be called "a fantastic effort" by other people, or by the same people in other circumstances. Eg. the people who perpetrated 9/11 would not have called their actions "extremism", but the victims certainly do. JackofOz 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Progression of Ideals

I think it is safe to say that through the ages, different epochs have held different ideals.

What would you say the highest ideal, and gravest sin, of each of the past few epochs has been?

I can only speak to the last few: the eighties, early nineties, mid nineties, late nineties to 9/11, and post 9/11.

In order for the question to be earnest, I shall not go first. :) Theavatar3 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:(an epoch is something like the age of the dinosaurs or the middle ages - generally - you are talking about decades) - I think it's too early to have sufficient hindsight on the ideals of these recent decades - however convention tells me to say that during the eighties the ideal was to get rich (ie yuppies) personally I don't believe that - this only applies to a small group of people. Could you explain what you mean by gravest sin - sin of the entire society or the worst personal act one could perform...? Please continue.87.102.32.250 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The gravest sin has been the relentless shortening of historical periods as we approach the present day. Compare the Zhou Dynasty with Post 9/11 period and wonder what use referring to the last five years as an epoch is.132.205.103.200 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is the gravest sin, then surely there is no sin at all. Theavatar3 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As the anwers above show, the question is not clear. Does the original question end at the question mark?

Indeed! Theavatar3 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, then the definition of epochs is critical to any sensible answer. Culture and place would be most pertinent. -- Seejyb 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want epochs - I'd say the last epoch has been one of science replacing religon (or one of religious science) - so the highest ideal would be I guess a usefull scientific discovery and the attempt to explain the universe etc and to come to an understanding of it. And the greatest sin (excluding the misuse of science eg wars) would be the loss of tolerance to non scientific ideas and the suggestion that existence can by explained purely in terms of scientific reasoning. So no great difference from other eras except science replaces the church(eg reformation)87.102.32.250 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's exactly the sort of answer I was hoping/looking for. :) Theavatar3 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read a newspaper lately but only a small subset of very educated people really believe that science has replaced religion. The rest of the world keeps on being religious like they have been.

In any case if you are looking for a good intellectual framework for thinking about changing "ideals", check out The Order of Things. --140.247.251.173 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

These sorts of people don't even talk about science or religion. It is a non-starter. Theavatar3 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

informations

when is the new form available for part time law programme in jibowu campus.

Presumably you're referring to Lagos State University? Information on requiremetns for admissions for their law programme is here, there is a 'Contact us' link that you'd be much better off asking at. --Mnemeson 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of no meat Catholic days

My father recently told me that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church began requiring its members to not eat meat on certain days of the calendar (i.e. every friday and holy days) in an attempt to help the failing fishing industry. I've been looking for confirmation of this factoid, but can't find it anywhere. Does anyone know if this statement is true?

Thanks!

152.130.15.14 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I was given was fasting - as far as I know the fishing industry only started failing recently? (Have you any reason to believe you have been misled?) In my experience not being allowed meat was a good enough reason to eat fish instead.87.102.32.250 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly helped the capybara industry. -THB 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I eat the capybara that is not fasting.. or does the bible say "eat not the meat of the animals on the holy days, but the meat of the capybara thou shalt feast on continually etc"????87.102.32.250 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TBH is refering to the Catholic church declaring the capybara a fish, so that people could eat them on Fridays. Or at least, I think he is. Skittle 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Friday is because of Good Friday, and no meat probably because of the Jewish traditions (ex. The Last Supper had no meat). Jesus was Jewish you know, and many Jewish traditions are incorporated into his "reform of the Jewish faith". | AndonicO 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Jews are vegetarians? The last supper was a Passover Seder, and as such, a central aspect of it would have been the eating of the Passover sacrifice (usually a lamb, I believe). Of course the practice was abandoned some time after Jesus' death, after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Now we just eat brisket. :-) Loomis 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying that Jews are vegetarians, but I didn't know that they had lamb on Passover; I thought it was herbs. Also the Jews wouldn't eat pork (a long time ago). But, of course, brisket or bacon would be just fine for a 21st century Jew. :-) | AndonicO 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An entire meal consisting of nothing but herbs? Not the most filling of "feasts", I would say! I'm a 21st century Jew, and not nearly as observant as I should be, yet still I never eat pork, in accordance with Deuteronomy 14:8.

But guys, please take it easy on AndonicO. I have good reason to believe that he's a true good guy, and I bear no ill will towards him. So he blundered. Who here hasn't? I was just kidding around.

Yet I'm still confused about the whole Christianity thing. From what I understand, with the coming of Jesus, the slate was cleaned. The harsh rules of the antiquated Old Testament no longer applied. The Kingdom of Christ spelled a new beginning for mankind. A virtual Tabula rasa. Pork is now ok. Circumcision no longer necessary. (Ouch!) The harshness of "an eye for an eye" was replaced by the kindness of "turning the other cheek". Fair enough. But why then, do some Christians still look to the Old Testament for authoritative guidance on certain (I would say, arbitrarily selected) issues? For example, many interpret the Old Testament as defining such practices as, for example, homosexuality and masturbation, as mortal sins. But it's the Old Testament! I thought the "old rules" no longer applied! The Kingdom of God was no longer restricted to "the chosen people", the Jews, but now open to all. "Sinners", such as the prostitute Mary Magdalene should no longer be shunned for her "sins", but embraced as a disciple of Jesus. Why is it now perfectly ok to eat pork (a clear violation of the law of the Old Testament), yet the supposed Old Testament sanction forbidding one to "lay with another man as with a woman" still applicable? Shouldn't homosexuals who embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour be in like fashion embraced by ALL Christians, no matter their supposedly "sinful" behaviour? I suppose I just don't understand Christianity as well as I should. Loomis 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the old rules still apply I guess. Which ones? Easy answer: only those that we wish for. These "Christians" (self-righteous hypocrites) are in fact justifying their hatred and bigotry with passages of the Old Testament because they simply want to do so. Justify your prejudice with religion and BEHOLD (a true miracle indeed): It is righteous ! (it works with other excuses too; like the early "scientific proofs" that showed some races were inferior to others. As churches (with a few exceptions) teach that Homosexuality is a serious sin (one that several priest seem to enjoy) so are Homosexuals shuned. Flamarande 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Mary Magdalene is not the prostitute; that one seems to be Mary of Bethany. Flamarande 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly - or perhaps not - for someone I'd take for being nominally Christian, it is obvious that AndonicO has not actually read the New Testament. The gospels clearly indicate that the Last Supper included lamb. He is also quite deluded if he thinks that 21st century Jews would have bacon for their Passover meal. B00P 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue; I remember vaguelly reading about the Church selling exceptions to the wealthy who really wanted to eat meat on such days. I also read somewhere that debates existed about animals like the Otter, as some ruleslawyers argued that it was fish (as it lived mostly in the water). I will not vouch for either issue though. Flamarande 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep - the first led to the reformation and martin luther etc (that is just corruption though really not policy..).. As for the second it's true what you say.. but the topic is still being actively debated and no I'm not kidding.87.102.32.7 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought brisket was beef, not pork. -THB 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. (Someone doesn't know what he's talking about.) B00P 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was beef; I just thought that that Jewish tradition isn't observed very strictly anymore. Excuse me if I was wrong. Also, I have read the New Testament (the Gospels many times over), my memory failed in this occasion though. | AndonicO 00:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also returning to the original question. First of all, the abstinence from meat on Fridays had absolutely nothing to do with the condition of the fishing industry, which was flourishing throughout the Middle Ages. In Catholic tradition, the injunction is to abstain from red meat, not specifically to substitute it with fish, though in practice this is what it often entailed. It was intended as a small act of atonement, and Friday was chosen because of the Crucifixion. The interdict was lifted not specifically for the rich, but for proven reasons of health. Even in monasteries sick monks were allowed meat on Fridays, if this was considered necessary for their well-being. There was for a lengthy period, moreover, quite a 'catholic' interpretation of what was and what was not 'meat'. This included many animals that lived chiefly by water, what would now be considered as red meat, if people still ate beaver and otter tails!. The tradition of meatless Fridays, incidentally, is no longer strictly observed. Clio the Muse 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And to just elaborate on the theology involved: it goes back to commerating Good Friday, and the idea that Christ is God incarnate, a word that comes from the Latin for "flesh, meat". Abstinence from meat reminds Catholics of the event of Christ's death, and what, to their eyes, a sacrificial act it was (based on the Passover sacrifical lamb in particular). Abstinence/fasting in general is seen in Catholic theology not as promoting specific alternatives to something, but reinvigorating one's personal spirituality, contemplating what is seen as Christ's ultimate sacrifice, and personally experiencing redemptive suffering. Not anything at all about propping up the fishing industry; everything about being "fishers of men". -Fsotrain 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to Clio the Muse, from what I could find: The injunction against red meat as such - as a symbol of atonement - was not initially a rule made by the church authority, but seems to have started as a "grass roots" custom that spread, and was late assimilated into formal rules. Vatican II does not give clues as to where the rule came from, and I cannot find a reference for the first such church law. -- Seejyb 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for those useful amplifications. You wont find one, Seejyb. As you quite rightly say, it emerged from tradition rather than canon law. Clio the Muse 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing that always intrigued me was that if a Catholic went to Mass on a Friday and took communion, they would have been violating the no-meat rule, since under the doctine of transsubstantiation the communion wafer had become the body of Jesus Christ. Bodies are made of flesh = meat. No? JackofOz 05:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a spiritual union, not a cannibal feast, Jack, as I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize. If the question was lobed in to act as a grenade it failed to go off-sorry. Clio the Muse 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Clio, no lecturing please. I was raised as a Catholic, but I left the Church as a young man due to irreconcilable doctrinal objections. As a child, it was impressed on me many times that, when the host is consecrated by the priest, despite still looking and tasting like bread, it is actually, really, physically the body of Christ. His actual flesh. And the wine, despite still looking and tasting like wine, is his actual physical blood. I was taught that this doctrine is one of the major stumbling blocks to reunification with other Christian denominations, who believe that no physical change occurs and the communion is merely a symbolic remembrance of the Last Supper. JackofOz 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No lecture; honestly! If you were a Catholic then I am certain that you know the dogma, and the reasons for it, whatever objections you may now have. I hope you will forgive me for saying so, but what you wrote above was spurious and misleading, for the simple reason that it was not born of ignorance, by which I mean lack of knowledge. Don't misunderstand me: I do recognize that it was intended for humorous effect; I just feel it was misplaced. God go with you, Jack. Clio the Muse 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack's comment seemed like a reasonable one to me, undeserving of such condescension and ridicule. "According to Catholic dogma, bread and wine are transubstantiated into the real flesh and blood of Jesus, which are then distributed by the priest to the faithful.". Of course the most telling aspect of that quote is that I took it straight out of the article on Cannibalism. Loomis 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clio, my question was certainly not intended for humorous effect, as I have more than enough respect for people's religious beliefs not to mock them. If you found it funny, good luck to you. Nor was it intended to be spurious or misleading. I don't believe I've misled anyone, but if you can substantiate that claim, I'd be happy to apologise. I remember asking my primary school teacher something along these lines, and got the same result as I'm getting here. Zero. Oh, the burden of being a literalist! But when it comes to transubstantiation, I really can't see how else to approach the question. The Church demands an absolutely literal interpretation of this dogma, so I'm posing a commensurate question. Maybe human flesh doesn't count as meat. Does the Church say that cannibalism - were it not a sin - does not of itself break the "no meat on Fridays" rule? Anyone here have a clue what I'm on about? JackofOz 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for wrongly assuming any degree of humour behind your words, which I now accept were meant to be taken literally. I take it that you have read the article on transsubstantiation that you flagged up? Beyond that there is nothing more I wish to add. Clio the Muse 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Duck Test

Does use of the Duck Test have any legal standing in Court?

Barrylyn 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean "If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck; then it must be a duck". StuRat 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See circumstantial evidence. -THB 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any argument at all has legal standing. If it can be said, it can be said in court.

Just because the opposing side might shout you down -- Objection your honor!! -- before you can even utter the first syllable of a 'duck test' invocation, that does not mean that the Duck Test is not as valid and defensible as any other argument or position taken.

Quoth the Healy, "- there is no wrong - there is no right - the circle only has one side." Theavatar3

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". But then, there's the Chewbacca defense. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An ancient Jewish sect.

I can't remember the name of a Judaic sect in biblical times, who believed in assassinating those who collaborated with the Roman, and Roman officials themselves. They were named for the word for knife, or dagger, but I think it was the Latin word, not he Hebraic.

Leonard Rubin -email address removed-

Could this be the Zealots and their offshot the Sicarii? Clio the Muse 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sicarii. 71.220.122.230 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the Essenes? Anchoress 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with above posters, the answer is Sicarii. --Dweller 10:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, although at first I was thinking the Maccabees, but that's Hebrew for "hammer". StuRat 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

December 6

CS Lewis- ethics and philosophy

Is there a link between CS Lewis's influences and philosophers tackling ethics/morality, such as Kierkgaard, Aristotle or Kant?81.132.198.16 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you will really have to read through his apologetics to discover the specfic links you have in mind, particularly Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain and Miracles. I assume you have already glanced over the page on C. S. Lewis for a general introduction? Clio the Muse 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also look at Sehnsucht if you really want to begin to understand his philosophy. 69.40.249.27 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also fairly impossible for Lewis not to have been influenced by Kantian and Aristotelian ethics. As for Kierkegaard, he would have to deal with the radical individualism and anticlericism of Kierkegaard's Christianity, one way or another, but not necessarily directly. (Kierkegaard's popularity waxed late in Lewis's life.) Geogre 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And you can always ask Aslan, he knows everything. StuRat 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Interview as Stalin

A couple of months ago, I was in a group doing a report on Soviet Russia and the republics. My part was to "be" Stalin and do an interview. I was asked about Leon Trotsky and about his death and how I interacted with him. Trying to stay in character, I said he died of a Heart attack while vacationing in Mexico, becasue I knew that the Soviets hid a lot from everybody. What I was wondering was if this was correct of me while trying to stay in character. If Stalin were to be in an interview, would he have responded with the truth, that he was asassinated on the orders of himself, or would he say something more along lines like I did?schyler 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember I once spoke to an ancient Maoist on this very subject, and he said that Trotsky had been murdered by the husband of his mistress! I think you were quite right to evade any direct answer on the subject, and I do not believe that Stalin would have 'dirtied his hands', so to speak, in this fashion. In fact, it was many years after the event that Ramon Mercader, Trotsky's assassin, was formally acknowledged as an agent of the NKVD. Well done, Vozhd! Clio the Muse 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah! If any interviewer had dared to ask such a question, that person would mysteriously have become an unperson. Clarityfiend 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are overlooking the possibility, Clarityfiend, that the interviewer may have belonged to a nation outwith the Great Leader's control. He gave interviews to foreign journalists, including, I believe, Americans, though I doubt any would have posed this question in quite such a direct fashion! Clio the Muse 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A nation like England maybe? Clarityfiend 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Covert operations were always a feature of the Soviet secret services. However there would be little point in granting an interview then killing the interviewer. As far as the example you have in mind, do you not think, like most of the western media, you are leaping into a conclusion? Clio the Muse 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Georgi Markov or Pope John Paul II. Besides, who but a government would have access to polonium-210? Can you think of anyone else with the motive and wherewithal to do it? I didn't leap - I was pushed! Clarityfiend 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Like feigning ignorance is a Stalin thing, or even a dictator thing? It's a politician thing, still happens today, in every country. How many politicians have ulterior monetary interests that they neglect to mention?..Vespine 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your response was fine and in character. Stalin would have at worst said that certain hardships had had to occur but he'd never have taken credit for an assassination directly. --140.247.251.173 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. To show that you know the truth, but still stay in character, you could say something like "You must be one of those capitalist propaganda liars who claims I had him killed. This is a total fabrication, he died of entirely natural causes." StuRat 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

story of a giraffe with shrunken neck

I have heard of a book called "story of a giraffe with shrunken neck" by Ben Wilson.

But, I am having a bit of trouble finding it. Oddly enough, when seached for on Amazon, it redirects me to some neuroscience book!

Does this book even exist?

Thanks.

THIS SUCKS!!!!!!! FREAKIN English Project!! Grmassknfsknflakfnskafjakslhrenfklasfiurekfnafskldruu

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hi Mom and dad!!

--69.138.61.168 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it this? Not the same author but the title is similar. --Richardrj 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer: This book is fictional. It appears in episode # 10 and for a brief appearence in episode # 11 of the anime series R.O.D the TV. It is stated on an anime website, that despite the fact most books that appear on the show are real, the giraffe book is fictional.

Marx and the individual

What was Karl Marx's view on individualism? Did he support it at any time during his life? Did he believe that society was useful to humans, or only a "community" was useful, and not a complete society? 69.40.249.27 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider what Marx once wrote to Engels, "And it is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it – and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals." Marx was against individualism in capitalism because in this state, the only relationship between human beings is that which is provided by the market. But as you can see, he did admit that communism must be an egoistic cause before it can be furthered. As individuals, people must see the significance of it and work towards the achievement of this goal (although at the same time, it is not a goal, because it is inevitable). So for me, Marx was never in favor of individualism, for this is an inherent characteristic of capitalism, but of a kind of communist egoism - an egoism that draws from the will to be "human beings," to be social beings, rather than simply being "individuals." - Moonwalkerwiz 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So would you say that he supported the act of "being your own person" characteristically, emotionally, etc. while still working to improve society? Specifically when he was younger and more of a humanist. 69.40.249.27 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, would you consider Sartre a good authority on the mix of Marxism and individualism? 69.40.249.27 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If by "being your own person" you mean working within the confines of capitalism - believing in private property, protecting private property, maintaining class differences - then Marx is against that. However, I do not remember Marx saying that we need to be homogenized or become the copy of each other's personality in order for us to work for society. Communism is basically the movement that abolishes private property. I do not think that when private property is abolished, people will lose their sense of self. But here's the clincher, can we really advance the social without hurting the individual? Aren't you lying to yourself when you're protesting on the streets for workers' rights, and then you would go inside a McDonald's to buy a hamburger from workers restricted by the division of labor? It's a debate really, about public and private affairs that Richard Rorty tackles. But as for Marx, human beings are not complete beings, not yet unified with their essence, that is, they are not yet species-being, until they have become social beings and freed from their individualism. -- Moonwalkerwiz 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, guys, Marx was against 'individualism' for everyone but himself. And as I take this question to be about more than his theoretical work, let me see if I can push the horizon out a little further, beyond the perspective taken by Moonwalkerwiz. He was once asked rhetorically who would clean the toilets under socialism; You should!, came the rapid reply. One thing was certain: it would not have been dear old Moor, who regularly sponged off his friend Engels, who, of course, made his profits from the forms of capitalist exploitation Marx spent so much time denouncing! He was so individual that, in the style of a true Victorian pater familias, he even seduced and impregnated the maid! And as for free market speculation, here is an extract from a letter he wrote to Lion Phiips in 1864;

I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks...in this way I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again.

His life goes on like this, sponging, speculation and horrendous forms of bourgeois respectability. Please, please ignore the message and focus on the man. Marx, as he said himself, was not a Marxist. And as for Sartre? Well, that is a road that will really take me beyond the age of reason. Clio the Muse 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What Clio says is true, if one-sided: Marx wasn't a particularly nice man, although he does seem to have inspired considerable devotion in his friends. But there's a further question to be asked here: what does 'individualism' mean? If it means the libertarian vision of 'everyone for herself, and devil take the hindmost', then no, Marx was not an individualist. He thought that humans flourished and were most fully themselves in a richly communal life (in this, he was basically an Aristotelian). However, one of the things Marx loathed about capitalism was precisely its tendency to turn individual human beings into machines, mindlessly repeating simple tasks and alienated from their own creative activity. In that sense, he was certainly an individualist, and wanted to defend the rich particularity of individual human beings against homogenisation. As a final point: Sartre is not a good source on Marx, no. Whatever the (dubious) value of his own work, he read Marx in a pretty... individual way. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to contend that one shouldn't "ignore the message and focus on the man." What Marx presented wasn't his autobiography, he wrote his ideas. Obviously, he's got reasons why he didn't write the former. Moonwalkerwiz 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Marking students for artistic ability in other subjects?

In subjects other than art, what's the justification for marking students' assignments according to aesthetics? I know this doesn't matter for most people, since they're good at art. However, I'm horrible at anything involving artistic creativity. In French class, I get 20% lower on assignments involving drawing, then on tests (70% vs. 90%). That's a huge difference, so I really care about this. --Bowlhover 04:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well first, aesthetics and art are two different things; if your French teacher is having you do actual art projects in French class and including the results of those projects in final marks, that's probably unfair (without further info). However, presentation is a valid aspect of schoolwork, and I think it's completely fair for teachers to include that criteria in marking strategy. Maybe you should say more about what's actually happening? Anchoress 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about creating a poster, and then having it marked according to its content and how good it looks. Of course it isn't purely an art project, but there is an art aspect to it. --Bowlhover 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem in my mandatory high school gym classes. I was maintaining a perfect 4.0 average, but the gym teacher went and gave me a "C", not because I didn't do everything asked of me, but just because I had an "average" athletic ability. I didn't much appreciate the reduction in my GPA and therefore scholarship and admissions chances, based on the opinion of a gym teacher.

I had better luck in my Humanities class, where we were to do sculptures made of alabaster. Every time I dared to touch it, it shattered into many pieces. So, I submitted my final sculpture entitled "small white shard atop large white lump" and got an "A" for my nonrepresentational artistic impression.:-) StuRat 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hated this in elementary and high school as well. Since when is "draw a picture of a scene in your chosen book" an English assignment? University solves all. Find a good college/university and all silliness of high school just melts away. I believe the justification is a bit of egalitarianism. While you and I may do badly at drawing, other students have drawing skills better than their language skills. In order for them to not be constantly discouraged in their humanities classes, the teacher mixes up the assignments and the grading a little. moink 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the name in the Beslan school hostage event in Russia?

I'd like to know the name and story of the girl in Beslan schoole hostage event in Russian,who was awarded as European hero in 2004. Thank you

Have you checked the Beslan school hostage crisis article? Anchoress 06:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Vika Kallagova. TIME Europe has an article on her story.

us/soviet casualties during post wwii occupation

Im just trying to find some kind of clear estimate of the strength of resistance from nazi guerrilas to us and soviet forces respectivelypnewbegin

Try Werwolf. Clarityfiend 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer is weak, even weaker in the east against the Soviets than in the west against the Allies. Clio the Muse 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the appropriate article. It may lack specifics, but that appears to be because the extent of the guerilla operation is unknown, as Allied deaths from regular German troops and accidents were included in Nazi propaganda claims. StuRat 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think by "weak" he/she was referring to the strength of the resistence, not the article posted. The positioning of the reply makes it unclear though.

I see, I took it from the indentation that this was a criticism of the previous answer, but perhaps I was mistaken. StuRat 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my first impression too, but I think Clio meant The answer to the question is: Weak, even weaker .... JackofOz 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

She did indeed. Clio the Muse 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunni vs. Shi'a

What is the basic difference between Sunni and Shi'a and why are they at odds with each other if they are both Islam?

Jonylie

Hi Jonylie. Read through Sunni and Shia. They have widely different views on the devolution of authority after the death of the Prophet. There are also important differences in forms of worship and ritual. The division between the two might be compared to that between the Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Clio the Muse 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations.

Shipping Corporation of India

I was wondering if someone could help me find this information: Does the Shipping Corporation of India provides services for exporting Indian goods to Canada? If so, how much does it cost to ship 1 ton of goods to Canada? And which port in Canada, do they provide the services to? Would some contact below to help me find my information please?

Thanks in advance if you help me. --Poorman1 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the personal info (e-mail, tel. no., etc.) for the nine employees for protection of their privacy. Even if the information is publicly available, this is the not the place for it. The easiest way to get answer your questions is simply to call them and ask. Misplaced Pages doesn't have that info and if we did, it would be subject to change. Thanks. -THB 09:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• In complete agreement with the above. This kind of commercial question does not really belong here. Might I suggest, Poorman, that you approach the relevant trading body or chamber of commerce? You are bound to get a more accurate response by doing this rather than free floating. Clio the Muse 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks I will email them and see if they reply. If they don't reply, I will try to pose the same question again. :) --Poorman1 10:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's possible that you may be contacting the wrong people - the website http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/default.asp shows that they ship bulk liquids and containers - the minimum container is approx 20ft long I think. 1 tonne may be just too small a cargo. I may be wrong. If I am not wrong you should contact a firm that operates containers or maybe a parcel / international delivery firm. ie a middle man.83.100.138.168 10:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Most shipping corporations will ship to anywhere in the world provided their vessels are suitable and there is a reason to do so, I'm sure the India Shipping Corporation is no exception. I think the choice of port depends on it's capacity and handling capabilities. Whether or not they do so depends on having enough volume to ship. I doubt you could get a price for one tonne - more likely a price per tonne, which could vary depending on the type of cargo.83.100.138.168 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• "The Bulk Carrier and Tanker Division of SCI is the largest Operating Division of SCI. It operates a diversified fleet of vessels designed to carry bulk liquids and dry bulk cargoes . I am confused now. But thank you for your help 83.100.138.168, really appreciated it. Thnx.--Poorman1 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is more specific info on containers here http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?ContentID=107&CategoryID=3 giving container volumes and types etc.
• Note if you are an Indian citizen you can request information, see: http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=130
• The request form is here:http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=132

(Also this page http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=132 shows that they do indeed ship to Canada and have representatives in Baei Comeau, Halifax, Hamilton, Montreal, Port Cartier, Quebec city, Thunder bay, Toronto and Windsor.83.100.138.168 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The webpage that shows they ship to canada is the same as the request information one? I am not an Indian citizen by the way (Canadian Citizen). I was wondering if they ship to Vancouver Port?--Poorman1 11:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake the agency page should have been http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/AgencyNetwork_Cities.asp

Shipping just one ton? That's very little! What you are looking for is a freight forwarder, a broker that handles container space. Another keyword is LCL, "less than a container load", a container load being 39 m³, the volume of a standard twenty-foot container. 72.153.70.114 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that moving freight by truck is comparatively expensive and that when importing things you will have to deal with customs. The freight forwarder of your choice will be able to help you out. Those that I had had to deal with in several moves were invariably courteous and competent. 72.153.70.114 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider this, I have a very small start up capital funds. Less than $50,000 CAD. I was able to save this much money from 5 years of hard work. I am planning to ship materials from India so I can make a profit. I will not be able to use a freight forwarder because they are mostly Air Cargo, which is expensive right? I can't even afford to pay insurance on my car because then it will deplete the funds I have; I use public transit; --Poorman1 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is common for them to deal in sea freight as well. (They also do Customs broking at your end.) Ocean freight tends to be cheap; customs charges can be expensive, though. Your local Chamber of Commerce might be able to advise with those questions. 72.153.70.114 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

fernando emmanuel pelez de cordova posters of saltimbanque

i have searched the net but found no posters or prints of this. any idea where i could find one? thanks --68.35.11.212 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See our article Fernand Pelez.  --Lambiam 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i know the article and thanks for the info, but where could i get a poster or print???? --72.177.237.125 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

28 Billon Dollars Net Worth

Ingvar Kamprad the founder of IKEA has a net worth of 28 billion dollars. From the article on Misplaced Pages it states "Kamprad was born in the south of Sweden in 1926 and raised on a farm called Elmtaryd, near the small village of Agunnaryd. When Kamprad was 17, his father gave him a reward for succeeding in his studies. He used this gift to establish what has grown into IKEA. At first, Kamprad sold his goods out of his home and by mail order, but eventually a store was opened in the nearby town of Älmhult. It was also the location for the first IKEA "warehouse" store which came to serve as a model for IKEA establishments elsewhere and on March 23, 1963, the first store outside Sweden was opened in Asker, a Norwegian municipality outside Oslo."

How did he expand to so many stores? I know about Franchising but this is different. You don't see McDonalds founders with billion dollars because they used Franchising. And even if someone tried Franchising it would be very hard to convince a small person in the begin to put up money for the store just due to the brand name, when they can make their own store with different brand name. --Poorman1 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

After the first store is up and running and returning money the founder could employ other people ie managers to open new stores under the IKEA name using his guidelines (Possibly taking out a bank loan to pay for start up costs). If each store is successful then the company expands (and the bank loans can be paid off). Provided that his employees are well paid for their work he does not need to provide share options in the company. Therefore company control stays in his hands. As the value of the company increases so does his personal wealth.83.100.138.168 11:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that if each store is successfull growth is exponential uptil the saturation point- say it takes 10years to produce sufficient 'cash' to open a second store, but then with two stores it only takes 5 years to open a third, 3.3 years to the fourth, 2.5 years to the fifth, 2 years to the sixth etc - eventually IKEA's are opening every few weeks..83.100.138.168 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the US documentary series Frontline has a full hour or two documentary on IKEA and its growth. I am having to rely on my memory of that, but he never franchised. Instead, the company remained privately held, and most of the growth occurred as mail order. The walk-in stores were (and are) second choice from the company's own perspective, and his innovation was the flat pack. All the things you ordered from IKEA were sent in a flat package, which made it easier and less expensive to ship (and more efficient to store in the warehouses). Once sufficient demand and capital came from mail order, he opened the store. Unlike franchises, IKEA is very tightly controlled so that each store is identical to the others. Additionally, like Wal*Mart, profits moved toward the central company. Imagine Amazon.com opening a store. It could be very picky about how many stores and which locations it chose. That was and remains IKEA's advantage. I think the documentary To Moscow with Ikea also has some decent history on the company's unique business model. Geogre 11:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 83.100.138.168 & George; My question is solved.--Poorman1 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's founder was a half-billionaire by his death in 1984 (so about a billion in constant dollars). His third wife still is a billionaire (worth $1.2 billion in 2003) despite giving away 100s of millions. Looks like franchising does work! Rmhermen 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also as an aside I remember watching a show with one of the McDonalds Director's on and he said he didn't think of McDonalds as being in the "food industry" rather they are in the property industry - the food being merely an incentive to ensure the franchisee's paid rent. Can't remember if i've got that exactly right, but thought you might find it of use. ny156uk 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ny156uk I requested to become a franchisee of McDonalds, and they said you have to put $300,000 up front. I mean comon, who has that kind of money to invest in a franchise, in which half the profits go back to McDonalds & McDonalds own the lands? On the side note if McDonalds used the same exponential strategy for the real estate portion of McDonalds, it certainly couldn't have grown this big, so fast; How? --Poorman1 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square, London

I am trying to date an old postcard of Trafalgar Square. The postcard shows Nelsons Column. There is a statue of a horseman in front on the column, with roadway between the two. In front of the horseman is a light pole with four lights on it on separate arms. The roads are not made. There are also horse drawn buses. Could someone possibly tell me when the square looked like this? Or is there a history of when the roads were sealed? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.249.172 (talk)

It would really help if you could scan the picture and post it to a free image hosting website (of which there are several) so that we can have a look at it. Thanks. --Richardrj 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

According to our article, horse drawn buses put it between 1829 and 1911, which may not be terribly helpful, but hey. Scan would help, yes. Morwen - Talk 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article Trafalgar Square has some historical images as well as history about its development. -THB 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, check Buses in London again: 1911 is only correct if they are L.G.O.C. horse-buses. Other companies continued to operate them as late as 1914. See also A History of London Transport by T.C. Barker and Michael Robbins, volume 2 (published 1974, ISBN 0-04-385063-4), page 170. The L.G.O.C. was the largest company and would certainly have served Trafalgar Square, but I don't know if other companies also did. Also, if the photo includes several horse-drawn buses but no motor buses, then this suggests a date at least several years earlier than that. Motor buses first got going in a big way starting in 1905, but in 1907 they made up 32% of all buses in London, and in 1910, 52%. (ibid.)

Let's also not forget the fact that it's a picture postcard. According to Patrick Robertson in The Book of Firsts (1974, ISBN 0-517-51577-6), the mailing of picture postcards in Britain was first authorized in 1894. And then the messag had to be written on the picture side with the other side reserved for the address, so the picture occupied only part of one side. It was 1902 when the message was first allowed to be written on the address side, allowing the picture to fill a whole side as usual now -- so if yours is in the modern style, and shows several horse-drawn buses and no motor buses, then we've got the probable period pinned down to just a few years, say 1902-07.

Other traffic on the road, any signs, and the publisher of the postcard, might all be of further assistance, but I don't know anything about those things, or about the road surface. Have you considered contacting someone at the Museum of London? Their web site must have a contact address on it.

--Anonymous, 08:05 UTC, revised 08:10, December 7, 2006.

One thing that could possibly nail it down within five years is women's clothing styles. Churchh 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam

What are the major differences between the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islasm. I am trying to better understand the civil strife between these two branches of the relgion vis-a-vie Iraq. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Mouser (talk • contribs)

Sunnis are radical muslims who dont like Shiites and kill thereof. Shiites are radical muslims who dont like Sunnis and kill them thereof. No thanks at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.54.1 (talk • contribs)

Sunni believe that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are all successors to Muhammad. Shia believe that only Ali is a successor. This is a big issue because Sunni accept the teachings of three caliphs that are not accepted by the Shia. An example from Christianity is the non-Pauline Christian movement. Most Christians accept the teachings of Paul as equal (or more important) than the teachings of Jesus. The non-Pauline Christians reject the teachings of Paul. As a result, mainstream Christianity has labeled all forms of non-Pauline Christianity as cults and worked heavily at spreading many lies about them. If you dropped them in the middle of the desert with very little food and a lot of cheap guns, I'm sure they will start shooting each other on a daily basis. --Kainaw 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that religious differences per se are not the main reason for strife between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. It is more about historical prejudice and access to income and power. For centuries, at least since the Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, Sunnis dominated political and economic life in Iraq even though they comprised a minority of the population. They dominated Iraq during the Ottoman period because the Ottoman (Turkish) ruling class were Sunnis and favored Sunnis throughout their empire. Sunni Arabs dominated Iraq after it was created by the victorious European allies after World War I because the British saw Sunni Arabs, who live in central Iraq, as the core of a state that included Sunni Kurds in the north and Shiite Arabs in the south. Sunnis entrenched their control in independent Iraq by monopolizing most high-level positions in the military and government. The American invasion upset the entrenched privilege of the Sunni minority. Now Shiites are determined to wield the power and reap the rewards that they have been denied for centuries and to which they feel entitled as the majority of Iraqi people. There is strife because, by and large, Sunnis have come to feel superior to Shiites and to feel that they are therefore entitled to the privilege that they have enjoyed for centuries. Many Sunnis are not prepared to give up that privilege without an earnest fight. Marco polo 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A useful summary. I just wish our politicians had a better grasp of history. Clio the Muse 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore update

When do you believe Mount Rushmore will be updated? Not necessarily till Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.Mr.K. 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing so will require a lot of tax money. Look back at the controversy about using tax money for restoring the Statue of Liberty. Considering Mt. Rushmore was never finished in the first place, adding to it is highly unlikely. Also, no President has been nearly as popular as the ones on Mt. Rushmore. Perhaps, long after we're all dead, Kennedy will be remembered as a great President and, possibly, someone will ask for him to be added. Right now, he is credited for just about every good thing Johnson did. If we continue to attribute all his mistakes to other people and give him credit for good things other people did (as we did with Washington and Lincoln), it just may work. --Kainaw 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The only possible addition would be FDR, not JFK. The latter didn't have time to show whether he was great or not. Clarityfiend 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But, he looks too much like The Penguin. Next, they'd be adding Batman. --Kainaw 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...is it possible the Penguin was a caricature of FDR? Clarityfiend 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it will be updated until there is a serious change in government and the current sculptures are blasted from the face of the mountain like all of the statues of Stalin were wasted after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. It's doubtful a figure would be added to it in the meantime, no one has the patience these days to do a carving like that or the one on Stone Mountain. -THB 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true - for all it's problems, this would seem to indicate that someone still has the patience for this kind of project... Carom 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I remember reading about that many many years ago, but had forgotten about it. -THB 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly unrelated to the original question...

Is not Mount Rushmore the crowning achievement of America(ns)? Insomuch as the living rock of a mountainside has been turned into a tourist-attracting business venture. Having not seen it myself, this is not a criticism.Theavatar3 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most Americans think about it unless North by Northwest is on television (which it rarely is) and certainly not in that manner. I'll bet 99% of Americans can't name all four figures on the mountain and that 98% don't know how many figures there are. -THB 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure of these figures? Just imagine how many American have watched Superman II and seen it being reshaped.Mr.K. 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm 73% sure that he made that statistic up... Carom 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

North by Northwest comes on TV in Australia regularly. I've seen it about 20 times. I doubt FDR would make it as there's already a Roosevelt on Rushmore, and people would assume nepotism. But I agree he's a serious candidate. Any attempt to blow up the existing faces would be met with the same outrage as occurred with the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. JackofOz 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson anyone? --The Dark Side 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan, for preference. Clio the Muse 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it was created to honor the first 150 years of U.S. history, I doubt that any president from the last few decades will be added to it.  :-P Dismas| 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be most appropriate to carve Bill Clinton. The sculpture, being only a bust, of course, would not be wearing any pants. I can think of no better way to a dress memorializing his administration than with a pantsless Clinton/big bust. StuRat 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

North by Northwest

That last post reminded me of a question I've always had, why that title for the Alfred Hitchcock classic ? I believe that the first phase of travel is from New York City to Chicago, which is essentially due west, and the continuation on to Mount Rushmore is, perhaps, WNW (West by Northwest). Had they actually gone NWN from NYC that distance, they would have been in Canada. So, did they mess up the title ? Was it meant to be West by Northwest ? StuRat 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, it's a reflection of the complicated and confused plot of the movie, stating that there's no delineated 'north by northwest' on a compass, and suggesting that it's reflective of the main character's searches within the movie. Or, it suggests, it could be that he flew north on Northwest Airlines. Classic Hitchcock messing-with-the-mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had considered the possibility of it meaning flying north on Northwest Airlines, but I don't believe they ever flew north, so that confused me, too. StuRat 08:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's discussed on the Talk page. Clarityfiend 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has indicated that they would prefer serious answers and may require references. Please refrain from adding jokes and opinions.

I've added the above template primarily to show it to users, who are then free to add it themselves, if they wish, as:

{{strict}}

StuRat 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda In The Cold War

I am making a thesis about Propaganda in the cold war and in particular the development of methods of propaganda, and as a result I have been busy researching several elements but It seems I can not find specific information about:

1. Propaganda In Africa and Southern America--
2. Specific Propaganda in the Netherlands--
3. The Usage of Subliminal Messaging in propaganda--
4. The antipropaganda in the opposite forces (Soviet propaganda in America and American Propaganda in the USSR)--
5. The inter(propaganda)relations between the Publics republic of China and the Soviet Union (which I know wasn't good but that is about all I can find) --
6. The influence of the radio<->television war on propaganda (early 50's it was cold, end 60's begin 70's it became rather enheated)--

Thanks In Advance,

ps. please state what exact question you are answering if you will, It would make things easier for me. sources are not mandatory but it would be enjoyable.

Wikified the numbering style. DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Graendal 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 5 — there was a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda created by the PRC after the Sino-Soviet split. The WP page on that has an example of some of that. Also I am not sure where one draws the line between "propaganda" and "normal public political discourse" in countries like the PRC and USSR. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to get a copy of this book . I have one, but I haven't really read it. It sounds so much like pure propaganda by an American to make Communism look bad. But I'm sure there is something there about how Communists invite Americans to their ideology. Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

6: It's indirect propaganda, but still, the US military helps movie makers that make the US army look good by lending them the real stuff, which can make a huge difference in cost. Also, the US government sponsors movies it considers 'good' in some way, such as those in which smoking is made to look bad. Most probably somehting similar was done for movies that made the commies look bad, but that's just an educated guess.

Oh, and of course the space race was one big propaganda thing, saying "look we're superior". During the first decade this boasting evolved from a simple 'bleep' from Sputnik I to moving pictures. The earliest I can think of were the images sent from the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Or were there any earlier ones? Moving pictures only make sense if there is something moving (on a human scale, so excluding time lapse photography), and that would be living things, like humans. Or animals. Was Laika televised? DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2: The magazine of the Communist Party of the Netherlands, de Waarheid (the Truth), was probably pretty pro-USSR. All of the rest of the magazines and newspapers were pretty much anti-USSR, but I don't suppose that qualifies as specific propaganda. Of course the strong participation of communists in the resistance (we have no article on communist resistance?!) ,in the Netherlands and elsewhere, had a propagandist effect, but I don't know in how far that was the intention - it was probably more because the nazis were the diagonal opposites of the communists. DirkvdM 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry: sorry for reposting this, but unfortunately not all questions were answered, even though I liked the answers I have received and am very grateful for them.that is why I reposted the entire piece with all given answers. sorry again! Graendal 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly Organisations Locating Themselves In London

Why should such organisations as the European Medicines Agency decide to set up in London? Since everything is much more expensive there, would it not have made sense to locate it elsewhere? What with the advent of cheap, high-speed communication technologies, what need is there for physical proximity to anything else in London? --Username132 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There was an article in the NY Times not too long ago discussing that question. They argued that with today's communication technology support services can be moved elsewhere, thus cutting costs on office space and allowing the higher echelons to live in a nice place with culture. 72.153.70.114 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point you have there, but pointless as asking "why does the queen have a crown - wouldn't a paper hat do?" I think they locate themselves in capitals as a statement of their importance.87.102.6.143 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

London is also one of the most populous cities in the world with one of the world's biggest (and busiest) airports, it is a 'transport hub' between Europe and America, it is the capital of one of the world's wealthiest nations. All these factors help make it an appealing place to do business both in terms of 'image' and in terms of 'quality'.

On a personal level i would note that as much as advanced communications help, many prefer the option of face-to-face contact and a city like London has a big transportation network to the whole globe. I would also guess that there is an abudance of highly qualified, high worth individuals in the city/area which makes it a good place to base if you are looking to employ high quality staff. I imagine it has as much (if not more) office space as any major city in the world and thus as a firm you will have an option over a variety of places. I do agree, however, that the reasons for paying 'over the odds' for places are quickly evaporating with the advent of distance-working, instant communication, mass-data transit, global networking...heaven knows what it has done to the sales of briefcases - nobody carries paperwork anymore just pen-drives! ny156uk 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not recruiting qualified local stuff but convincing qualified non-local staff to move somewhere. That's why Google has set up shop in places like Dublin and Zürich and not in Bangalore or Beijing - it's easier for them to convince an Indian or Chinese to Europe than the other way round. 72.153.70.114 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense: It is not economical to convince non-local staff to move to you from another nation because you rely on the immigration policies/emmigration policies/ability for non-local staff to see the vacancies/overseas interviewing/difficulties of families move nation for a job to name but a few of the hurdles. It is, however, sensible that educated foreign-nationals will move from poorer nations to richer nations in pursuit of high-paid/higher-quality work - this is a world apart from the firm setting up in Dublin/Zurich in order to entice non-locals to move to that nation and work for them. ny156uk 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tradeoff. If the the talent pool is small and difference in productivity between individuals large then you can recover what is spent in the hiring process and higher wages and benefits quickly. 72.153.70.114 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Ministry of Silly Walks in London ? :-) StuRat 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Riverboat gambling

In the U.S. numerous states decided some years ago to use gambling revenue to supplement taxes. It was a common practice for a state to create a small number of riverboat gambling licenses rather than building casinos on dry land. In many cases, the "riverboat" never leaves the dock. In extreme cases, a hole in the ground was dug to hold a "riverboat" which lacked engines or rudder. See and scroll down to "Illinois." (Note: that site worked from Google, found with illinois riverboat gambling rosemont, but the link as copied does not open. It said that when the Illinois governor signed legislation that no longer required riverboat casinos to cruise, they all immediately stayed at the dock, and the boats were expected to be replaced by larger "boats in a moat" incapable of river cruising.)See also a state report from Illinois which says everything about riverboat gambling except "Why?" This smacks of Old Testament ritual bathing, as if "sin" is washed away by the water under the "boat". Is there a point to the water requirement other than such a ritualistic one? Why would a state legislature have the operators waste money by building a pretend "boat?" Edison 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have the time to really research this right now, but I'd be willing to bet (hah!) that these states want to ensure that they differentiate between brick-and-mortar casinos and riverboat casinos so they can regulate them more strictly. I found one discussion of the history of riverboat gambling in Missouri that has some interesting points, namely that the potential public safety issues of having a riverboat full of gamblers suddenly sink on the Mississippi with no Coast Guard around to help out was one reason for the dockside gaming. It also discusses the construction of a "boat in a basin" casino. Hope this helps! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this report from the California State Research Bureau, confining gambling to riverboats made gambling politically saleable to voters by creating the impression that gambling could be contained and controlled.

Presumably (this is my own conjecture), voters had qualms about connections between gambling and organized crime, the dangers of gambling addictions, or religious concerns, and confining gambling to riverboats, where gambling would not take place on state soil, somehow eased those qualms. Marco polo 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also if the political or local economic climate changes, the boat can at least be towed away even if it can't move under its own power. Boats in some towns have come and gone - East Dubuque, Illinois (or come and gone and come back again - Dubuque, Iowa). Deciding to allow it doesn't seem as permanent a decision as allowing a land based casino. Rmhermen 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In a Kentucky/Illinois dispute it was asserted that "state soil" of Kentucky extends to the Illinois shore of the Ohio River, under the provisions under which Kentucky was admitted to the U.S., with respect to where Illinois gambling boats could do their business. The Rosemont casion which was ultimately not completed, was, I believe, supposed to be a distance away from any river, and the river was far too small for any riverboat. It was a dry land "boat in a moat."Edison 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

locations

what is the nearest international airport to Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast? And the nearest one to Jakarta, Indonesia?Jk31213 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Abidjan#Port Bouet Airport (DIAP/ABJ) and Jakarta Airport. There is also an airport in Yamoussoukro but it is not nearly as large. -THB 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK Times newspaper

Hi, I'm doing a history project for school on the RMS Titanic and wondered if The Times, UK edition would have an issue of their newspaper from that date, to use in my history project. Would they have one and if so how would I go about finding it. I know finding a newspaper from 1912 is a bit of a stretch, but I need to get a primary source from the period.

You can access the Times Online Archive with your county/city library card. Look up your county library's website and poke around until you find online reference (eg this for Oxfordshire), then follow the link and put the number in. Shimgray | talk | 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also remember you will need to look at editions printed a day or two after the sinking, allowing for news of the event to be received and absorbed. Clio the Muse 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be more than a day or two on that occasion. Also, later reports of the two inquiries into the sinking (one in the US, one in Britain) might be of interest. --Anonymous, 08:19 UTC, December 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.96.28.244 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

How are political borders defined

How do map makers know the definitive answer to Where does the border between two nations lie? Is there a place that lists the geographical way points of all the worlds political borders for reference? I want to make a perl script to read such information and output a svg based off of it. HighInBC 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, where the map is made and who pays the cartographer may cetaintly have an effect. One of my Geography teachers last year said she was in Taiwan and bought some maps of the island and then went to mainland China. The maps were then promptly confiscated due to the fact that Taiwan on the map was not considered part of the PRC. schyler 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? PRC has always claimed Taiwan is part of its territory, which is why when China was admitted to the UN, a precondition was that Taiwan's membership had to be nullified. JackofOz 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless I made a huge mistake and would be thusly hugely embarassed, I believe that Taiwan does not consider itself part of the PRC. The maps she bought had on them that Taiwan was not part of the PRC, which is why they confiscated them.schyler 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah. Taiwan is part of the ROC according to the ROC, but part of the PRC according to the PRC. The Taiwan maps said it was part of the ROC and that was contradictory to what the PRC says. schyler 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean now. "Not considered" confused me because you didn't specify who was doing the non-considering, and the previous actors were those doing the confiscating (the PRC). :) JackofOz 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so no place that actually describes in detail where borders lie? HighInBC 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page on Cartography? There are some additional links that might be useful here. I'm not sure, though, if you will find the kind of detailed answer you may be looking for. Political boundaries can be determined by convention, as much as by surveying; and can often be highly volatile in nature. Clio the Muse 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Borders generally arise from treaties signed by the neighboring countries. For example, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty defines the border between Maine and New Brunswick. You get situations like Kashmir, where there is no treaty, just an armistice and de facto control by one side or the other. That's where you see dotted lines and such on maps. -- Mwalcoff 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You also quite often see little disclaimers written in small print at the bottom of maps these days, put there by the map-makers because they are scared of being held to account by some party or other. The disclaimer states, effectively, that "the position of a border on this map does not imply any belief on our part as to the legality or otherwise of that border." --Richardrj 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Boundaries of things like states and provinces, or colonies of one country, may be defined by an act of the relevant higher-level legislature, and may turn into international borders at a later date if places become independent. The Quebec-Labrador border was defined by an act of the British government in 1825, but became an international border between Canada and Newfoundland. (And in this particular case, still later it stopped being an international border.)

The defining treaty or act may just be the beginning. Surprisingly often they contain specifications that prove insufficiently clear or are even impossible (as with the boundary of US territory defined by the Treaty of Paris (1783), due to the negotiators using an incorrect map). Then there may be a further treaty to settle the issue, or the disputants may agree to refer to the issue to a suitable court (the Canada-Newfoundland boundary was litigated in 1927 in Britain's equivalent of a supreme court), or it may be left unsettled. In the last case either a de facto boundary will develop, or if the area is unpopulated and lacking in resources, maybe nobody will care. (As in Labrador in the 19th century.) If there is a court ruling, that will define the border.

Finally, once a border is defined by act or treaty, surveyors are typically sent out to mark it on the ground. In some cases the surveyed boundary is then declared to be the official one, superseding the act or treaty. Thus the part of the US-Canada border that's defined by treaty to be at latitude 49° actually isn't there any more. But for mapmaking purposes this sort of deviation is usually too small to matter.

--Anonymous, 08:59 UTC, December 7, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.96.28.244 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the info. I guess the answer is variable and scattered. So much for my plan of making a perl script to create an SVG based off of this info. HighInBC 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some borders are related to physical features (the center of or south bank of or high water mark of such and such body of water) while others are related to latitude and longitude, or others are Metes and bounds (from a stone set in the ground to another stone set in the ground.) In the Middle East, the European powers sometimes just drew a line on a map: List of national border changes since World War I. Once a point on such a line is determined and marked via GPS coordinates, it may be reestablished acurately at any future time without regard to landmarks. If a border is defined in terms of some part of a river, such as the United States–Mexico border being the deepest channel of the Rio Grande per the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, then when the river gradually changes by accretion, the border moves with it, but if it suddenly changes by Avulsion (legal term) the border stays where it was. Deciding which of these applies in a given case can lead to disputes, such as the Rio Grande border disputes. Edison 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes borders are purposely depicted as vague on maps, where the exact border is not defined. Much of the border between Yemen and Saudia Arabia is not specifically defined, for example, and is often drawn with a dotted line for that reason. --24.147.86.187 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes borders were defined quite specifically, but surveyors weren't too precise when it came to marking the borders with benchmarks. So the actual border isn't quite what it is written down to be. This doesn't happen much these days because of high-tech surveying equipment, but it did occur in centuries past. For example, in the United States, much of the border between Pennsylvania and New York was defined as being at 42° north latitude. However, due to sloppy surveying, the actual line zig-zags a little along the parallel, as can be seen on a USGS topographic map here. — Michael J 16:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Olympians

i was wondering if you could tell me who wrote this? I want to use it in a paper and i need to site it. if you could tell me that would be much appreciated. Thank you, Thomas Kerwin

See Misplaced Pages:Citing Misplaced Pages 72.153.70.114 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Omni curious

If a being were omnipotent, wouldn't it follow that they would also be omniscient since they would have the power to change their own mind to instantly just know everything? Dismas| 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the question Can a being who can do anything do x? is always yes. HighInBC 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But consider the omnipotence paradox - can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that said being cannot move the object? (Or, as Homer Simpson put it, "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot hold it?") -- AJR | Talk 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a false paradoxe. By asking, “can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that said being cannot move the object?” we are actually asking “Can that being strip himself of his own omnipotence” which a omnipotent being could of course do. The real question is does a omniscient being have freewill. The answer is no because a omniscient being would know exactly what the future has in store and so will be unable to change even his or her own actions. S.dedalus

That assumes that an omniscient being can know the future. That may not be a reasonable assumption. Knowing the past and the present is a tough enough ask. Even I have trouble keeping up sometimes. JackofOz 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't omniscience mean knowing everything? -THB 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From our article "Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character's including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe etc". Whether the future can be known, even by an omniscient being, is something that nobody has an answer to. God supposedly gave Man free will, which would have been a rather hollow gesture if He had known all along what we were going to do. Since the existence of an omniscient being is in the realm of conjecture, speculation, hypothesis and religious belief, we could easily just define such a being as knowing all things including all future things, then argue interminably whether such a being exists. Philosophers and theologians have had a hard enough time for millennia in coming to grips with a being who knows all past and present things, let alone all future things. JackofOz 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it must be a little like Borges concept of labyrinths, particularly The Garden of Forking Paths. Omniscience is not really incompatible with free will. Outcomes may always be known, though different routes may be followed, evil chosen over good, or good over evil. Clio the Muse 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thouhgt it ment you do it with animals as wellas people.

Wow. No, it doesn't. From my limited Latin/Greek roots knowledge, that may be a zoohomophile, are something along those lines. schyler 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, "zooanthropophile", in that case, although it's a clumsy word. 惑乱 分からん 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the poster is possibly confusing omniscient with omnnivorous. JackofOz 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

December 7

Which Songs Are These?

I was wondering who sings the songs with the lyrics along the lines of 'NAH NAH NAH NAH, NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOODBYE' and 'HI HO, LETS GO'? Thanks.100110100 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey, do you mean mean Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye? Clarityfiend 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye --Diderot 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ramones, but wrong section. Moving. 惑乱 分からん 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The second song is Blitzkrieg Bop by the Ramones. - AMP'd 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No no wait, in the first one I think this guy meant the lyrics in the running gag in WWE, when a wrestler lost his job after losing a fight. I can't remember when it first started, I'm sure there's an article about it somewhere? Druss666uk 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a very common use of the song. Baseball teams will use the music when someone strikes out or is removed from the game, for example. —Seqsea (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that Hey Jude. — Seadog 14:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Extended Quotes from Iraqis about war

I'm looking for any good source for extended quotations or essays in which "average Iraqis" talk about sectarian conflict/civil war which is ongoing. Doesn't have to be fancy, any extended essays talking about personal experiences, personal views, etc. Hafta be in English (though translated would be fine). Anyone know any good sources? --Alecmconroy 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many Iraqi bloggers who write in English about their experiences. Go to Iraq Blog Count, which has a lot of links to other blogs at the left-hand side of the page. Two of my favorite blogs are those by Konfused Kid, a college student who uses a lot of English slang, and Sunshine, a 14-year-old girl. --70.112.100.172 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other christian country that still have murder sentence except USA?

And another question,is it true that in America if you have been sentenced on criminal changes you cant vote in election ever again?

Thank you YXYX 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any country that does not consider murder illegal, therefore having a murder sentence for those found guilty of murder. Perhaps you meant to ask if there are any Christian countries with a death penalty.

As for the second question, there are many crimes that result in a person losing their right to vote. It isn't just any crime - for example, you won't lose your right to vote if you are caught speeding.

One final note: The U.S. is a not a "Christian country". There are many who like to call it Christian, but the government itself avoids association with any religious group until elections roll around. Then, you end up with a white girl from the south telling New York Jews that she's Jewish too. --Kainaw 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, Italy is not a Christian country, because there is no formal state religion. However, any reasonable person would concede Italians are predominantly (perhaps almost overwhelmingly) Christian. Governments can make all the decrees they like, but that doesn't change what their citizens believe. The USA is de facto predominantly Christian, which is what I think the questioner was referring to. JackofOz 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mexico isn't a Christian country either, and its Constitution is specifically anti-clerical. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not convicted criminals can vote is left to each state. The article on Capital punishment has a map that shows the stance of every country in the world. Even in the U.S., states regulate capital punishment except for federal offenses. Some states don't have the death penalty. Texas makes up for them. -THB 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proud of it, too :) schyler 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to be proud of something; I'm not sure this is one of them. Clio the Muse 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It's just like anything else that anyone from around the world would be like. New Yorkers are proud of their big buildings, French are proud of their wine, and Texans are proud of their blattent overuse of the death penalty. schyler 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and remember the Alamo! schyler 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,thank you,what I ment was: most people in USA are christians,most people in all europe countries are chistians,I know it is separated from that state,secular state and all.

So,if I get it right,except Mexico and USA there is no "christian"(in the sense of having most chrisitans by precent) country in the world that still have capital sentence??

Thanks once again YXYX 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, YXYX, the death penalty was abolished in Mexico. I'm not sure of the position elsewhere in Latin America, though. Clio the Muse 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've now had a chance to look into this a little more deeply. According to Amnesty International, of all of the countries in the world where death sentences were carried out in 2005, the US is the only 'Christian' country among the top ten, coming fourth after China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, followed by Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, with Mongolia and Singapore in the ninth equal position. . Of the 73 retentionist countries only 19, according to my quick calculaion, are majority Christian. I'm uncertain about the proportion of Christians in some of the African countries. Clio the Muse 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Use of capital punishment by nation for a nice table. -THB 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

... and then compare with Christianity by country. ---Sluzzelin 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

YXYX, what do you mean? Most people in all European countries are christian? In Albania's case that's definitely not correct. (And if one considers Turkey to be European as well..) By the way, in Belgium, lots of kids have to go through the rites (like baptism) but most of them don't bother to go to church once they're mature, and most people I know don't pray before they eat or anything. Catholicism is just something oldfashioned for most people here.Evilbu 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Evilbu, most of Turkey is, of course, in Asia. You are right, though, that Albania should be considered majority Muslim, at least in was until Enver Hoxha abolished all religion. I'm not quite sure about the situation in Bosnia. I think almost all people would consider Belgium as a Christian country, despite the declining rate of church attendance. It's a cultural reflex, as much as anything else. Clio the Muse 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And the election question? Seems to have been forgotten, here... 惑乱 分からん 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In some states people convicted of specifically felonies lose their ability to vote. It is pretty controversial—after all, it is an additional punishment which comes after having already served ones punishment—but is explicitly included in the 14th amendment as a possibility if I recall. --140.247.251.173 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Christians and the Old Testament

I was intrigued by a comment by Loomis in a discussion above, and I wanted to ask further about it. He writes, with the coming of Jesus, the slate was cleaned. The harsh rules of the antiquated Old Testament no longer applied. The Kingdom of Christ spelled a new beginning for mankind. A virtual Tabula rasa. Pork is now ok. Circumcision no longer necessary. (Ouch!) The harshness of "an eye for an eye" was replaced by the kindness of "turning the other cheek". Fair enough. But why then, do some Christians still look to the Old Testament for authoritative guidance on certain (I would say, arbitrarily selected) issues? For example, many interpret the Old Testament as defining such practices as, for example, homosexuality and masturbation, as mortal sins. But it's the Old Testament! I thought the "old rules" no longer applied!

Where and how do Christians draw the line between what is moral law and what is antiquated custom in the Old Testament? I'm sure that many Christians read the Bible selectively in order to make their beliefs conform to the status quo, but...how do they excuse themselves for that? What do some of the more rational Christians believe? Are there actual guidelines from theologians or churches about this? --70.112.100.172 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the injunctions against sexual practices, like sex before marriage, homosexuality, and masturbation, can also be read from the teachings of Paul, especially his letters to the Corinthians. I don't have a bible handy, but I'm sure others can weigh in on this. -sthomson 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet they do quote the Old Testament in support of these injunctions. Surely the New Testament doesn't cover everything? --70.112.100.172 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "Christian" issue. Humans use the concept of "God" to justify anything they want. Humans are very good at rationalizing, regardless of religion. They don't even need religion. Some rationalize that religion is evil and do the opposite of the teachings. However, they are technically using the religion's book to rationalize that the book is wrong and they are right. --Kainaw 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that everyone rationalizes, but I am just trying to understand the internal logic of Christianity. Thanks anyway. --70.112.100.172 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point - the rationalizing you referred to in your question is not "Christian". It is "human". An equivalent question would be something like, "Mexicans eat food all the time. It seems like every day they are eating food again - at least most days. What is it about Mexicans that makes them eat all the time?" Eating isn't a "Mexican" thing. It is a "human" thing. --Kainaw 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a Christian minister and scholar discuss an Old Testament chapter which forbids a number of things, and decide that the prohibitions he agrees with is permanent moral or holiness law, (no homosexual relations) while the others were only meant to apply to Old Testament Jews (do not make a garment of two kinds of fiber; do not plant 2 kinds of seeds in the same field). Making this distinction seems to constitute prophecy, in which God tells him which of the old laws still apply and which no longer apply, although he did not claim to be a prophet.Edison 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticing this -- while I'm waiting for my other question to be answered, I can weigh in. Generally Christians divide the law in the Pentateuch into three categories: the moral law, as in "Thou shalt not murder", "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," etc; the ceremonial law, as in "Make this sacrifice at this time and that sacrifice at that time, and use these animals for sacrifices, and come to these feasts at these times."; and the civil law, as in "Do not plant two crops in the same field, build a fence on the side of your roof, wear four tassels on your cloak." The way most Christians take these, then, is that the moral law still exists and is still binding on humanity. The ceremonial law was abolished at the death of Christ, as His sacrifice now precludes the need for any further sacrifices. Most Christians also believe that the civil law was abolished when the Jewish state was destroyed in 70 AD, as there was no further need; however, some believe that it still applies, and some believe that there are analogies of the civil law to modern life that we should take heed to obey -- ie, "Do not plant two crops in the same field" becomes "Be holy -- do not mix within you the life of a Christian and a non-Christian" and "build a fence on the side of your roof" becomes "make sure that nobody will be able to accidentally die on your property." Note that not everybody subscribes to the using of the divisions I've explained above -- for example, the Catholics replace the ceremonial law with a whole bunch of other ceremonial laws, and live by them; other people believe that the moral law is also abolished and that Christians have leave to live lawless lives. Hope this helps. 70.17.199.244 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add one of the most notorious examples of the historical use by some Christians of an ambiguous portion of the Old Testament to justify what is surely one of the most evil and one would hope and expect un-Christian of institutions, that being the enslavement of Blacks in the US prior to the Civil War. Quoting Genesis 9:25 "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." "Canaan", son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, is purported to be the father of the "Black Race". Ergo, according to many 18th and 19th century southern American Christians, the enslavement of Blacks by Whites was not only tolerable, but in fact mandated by God. Of course the Book of Genesis is the very first book of the Old Testament. Apparently, and quite conveniently, this particular passage of the Old Testament, as well as its tortured and inhumane interpretation, was still "in". I should just add, lest anything I've said may lead to any contrary assumption, that Jewish law most definitely does not share this interpretation. Loomis 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thing: I believe it to be a common misperception that the Jewish dietary laws of kashrut should be described as mere "civil law" (though it is believed to have its practical health-related components as well). Though the prohibition on eating pork is the most well known of these laws, it is but one of many. For example, observant Jews do not mix dairy with meat in keeping with Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.". To myself at least, the essential purpose of that particular prohibition is clearly a "moral" one, a matter of the respect one owes to the dignity of all forms of life, even those being slaughtered for consumption. With this in mind, as well as the contention of the original questioner's assertion that Christians chose to retain only the "moral" laws, shouldn't cheeseburgers be forbidden by Christianity? I suppose they're just too yummy! :) Loomis 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the very early church the Ebionites were the most closely related to judaism, retaining the laws of the OT, whilst the Marcionites rejected most of the the ideas of the OT going for the tabula rasa approach. 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that both the Ebionites and the Marcionites were considered heretics by the rest of the church, who generally took the middle ground I described above. 70.17.199.244 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The question examines but one example of how people justify their world-views. What is true for the Christian view of Bliblical Law may be said for all people on any subject.

The fact of the matter is that different Christian communities, even in the First Century, had widely disparate theologies. Paul reports four different views in Corinth as early as the 40s (1 Cor. 1:11-12). The reality is that the gospels (both the four that are in the canon, and the dozens that were left out) all attempt to put the authors' spin on what Jesus said. Frankly, each Evangelist recorded Jesus as saying whatever would confirm that their community was doing what was right. What he actually said, if anything, was of small concern. How else does one reconcile these two statements?

For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

— Matthew 5:18

The law and the prophets were until John.
— Luke 16:16

Matthew's community maintained that Jesus supplemented Biblical Law; Luke's community believed that Jesus replaced it.

Most Christians ignore the obvious contradiction, never having given it a moment's thought. Most Christians - the same may be said for all people about their religion or any other portion of their world-view - don't actually think about such things.

Of those who do, many attempt to weasel their way around the issue by claiming that the words don't mean what they obviously do. Having twisted the clear meaning of both statements into some sort of amalgam whereby Biblical Law both is and is not in force simultaneously, they go their way picking and choosing whatever Biblical Law they would care to follow and convincing themselves that they've got it exactly right. They also never seem to wonder why Jesus didn't express himself more clearly.

Others do notice the discrepancy. Now, having realized that the words and views can't reliably be ascribed to Jesus, as they are the Evangelists' own, they are free to ignore whatever they wish to ignore, and, once again, do whatever they wanted to in the first place, convinced that they are exactly right.

As mentioned at the beginning, this is not merely a trait of the members of one religion on one issue, but of all of us on most issues. Pulling one's head out of the sand to confront reality is a rare activity.

B00P 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm reading. Has it escaped your notice that the Gospels are in perfect agreement, and that most scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a starting point? Something tells me you haven't paid much attention at all if you believe that the Gospel writers only wrote what their readers wanted to hear: Most of the time, people were doing certain things and Jesus was saying, "don't do those things". People were not doing certain other things, and Jesus was saying, "do do those things". User-friendly? I don't think so.

And with regards to the two verses you have listed: the verse you quoted from Matthew is also in the very next verse after the one you quoted from Luke. It is part of the same stream of thought, not two separate people's accounts or interpretations of Jesus' teachings. Before you go accusing Christians of being inattentive, perhaps you should be more careful yourself! BenC7 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that BenC7 can't believe what he's reading. Of course, his ability to believe things is not what is at issue.

Now, Luke 16:16-17 reads

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

So, I take it take BenC7 feels that Luke 16:17 refers to "the law and the prophets" rather than "the kingdom of God." (I find this dubious because in the very next verse Jesus changes the laws of marriage from the Biblical original.) But if BenC7 sees Luke as in agreement with Matthew, who am I to stop him? I'll merely ask if, as a result, BenC7 is following the Old Testament commandments regarding foods and holidays? B00P 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to what you mean by your first question. With regards to the last question, I've answered that below. BenC7 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be rare, yet some clearly try harder than others. I, for one, like to think that I try my very best at confronting reality, as ugly or as beautiful as it may be. Loomis 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the original question a bit: “Are there actual guidelines from theologians or churches about this?”

There are, of course, it’s called church doctrine, for example see Nicene Creed. In many ways, all of the splits that the Christian churches have undergone specifically occurred because of how the Bible was to be interpreted and used (I say “in many ways” because politics also played a huge role in the divisions).

More generally though, regarding the conversation about how people “justify” the inconstancies in their faith, I’d direct you to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. And also, the documentary on the BBC called The Root of All Evil?:

I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well: the process of non-thinking called faith.

That’s the thing about belief and faith, it doesn’t need to make sense or be justifiable; it just is. Trying to make sense of it is a practice in futility. --Cody.Pope 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also returning to the original question and the opening statement. It is important to understand that Christianity did not supersede the Old Testament. Indeed, after the death of Jesus, his followers continued for some time as a specifically Jewish sect, under the leadership, amongst others, of his half-brother, James the Just. The sect continued to observe Jewish rituals and customs, including circumscision. It was the advent of Paul and the broadening of the Church's ministry to embrace non-Jews, who were generally more receptive to the message, that Christianity began to adapt to new circumstances, including the relaxation of strict dietary and ritual laws. All faiths show elements of inconsistency, and it is always a mistake to take a literal reading of sacred texts, one of the chief Catholic objections to the Protestant Reformation. And in the end there is no real contradiction between supplement and replace. Christianity was based upon and supplemented all that went before. It replaced in the sense of offering a new interpretation of the old and a radical point of departure. Clio the Muse 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Actually, the relaxation of dietary and ritual laws was before Paul. Jesus said, "The food that you put into your mouth doesn't make you unclean and unfit to worship God" and "Eating without washing your hands will not make you unfit to worship God." - Mt. 15:11, 20 BenC7 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

OK, but how did they decide, say, to allow pork but keep the ban on male homosexual activity? -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-reproductive sex would be considered an evil, easily translated from one code of ethics to another. The eating of pork would not be an issue of any fundamental importance, as the specific circumstances surrounding the original interdict-cultural and tribal-no longer applied. Clio the Muse 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But Judaism doesn't say that sex is only for reproduction; it has nothing against post-menopausal sex, for instance. Anyway, who chose what Jewish laws to keep, and what standard did they use? -- Mwalcoff 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I had already given some general outline for the shift in practice and conduct within early Christian communities. But I suspect you already have your own answers lined up; in which case you need no further guidance from me. Clio the Muse 04:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might have me confused with someone else. I really am unclear about this, have no preconceived notions and am unaware of what you said before. Were you logged in when you wrote it? -- Mwalcoff 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Mwalcoff, I had the sense of being set up for the kind of debate I studiously try to avoid. I clearly misread your intentions. Anyway, as Christianity drew in ever increasing numbers of people who had no Jewish background, it was politic to drop the more irksome aspects of Mosaic Law, particularly those touching on ritual and diet. The elements retained, particularly those concerning ethics and conduct, were the more universalist, those which might be said to lie at the core of all belief. It was a relatively simple process. Clio the Muse 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, then, in order to not irk the Greeks, one of the earliest nations to adopt Christianity, there must have been something of a moratorium on the whole anti-homosexuality thing for a while, at least until this particular "evil, easily translated from one code of ethics to another", (curiously though, not translated into a code the Greeks could understand), had finally fallen into disfavour in Greek society. Somewhere around the 6th century CE. Still, for at least a couple of hundred years, newly converted Christian Greeks must have been given the fullest of liberties by the Christian establishment to engage in pederasty. As to forbid it would be quite impolitic. Loomis 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify my position lest anyone misinterpret my remarks. I'm a skeptic, yes, but a cynic, no. I'm a skeptic in that I question everything, including religion, including even my own. On the other hand I have an ultimately positive view of humanity. In particular, I generally take a very POSITIVE view of religion and spirituality. To me, spirituality is one of the most definitive aspects of humanity, the truest of human virtues. Further, to recognize the limits of one's mere humanity by the mere contemplation of the existence of a Supreme Being, even if He indeed does not exist, is to me the ultimate expression of humility, a virtue I cherish. Yes, I have apparently asked many provocative questions about Christianity. Yet this should in no way be taken as any sort of cynisism about or ridicule of Christianity. No, I'm not a Christian, and I disagree with many precepts of the Christian faith, yet nonetheless I admire Christianity and Christians to the extent that they possess the spirituality and humility I mentioned above. At the same time I have nothing but utter disdain for those who so summarily reject spirituality and religion and have the arrogance to insist that humans beings are the ultimate "supreme beings" in the universe, and who cynically ridicule those who actually do possess the virtues of spirituality and humility.

Of course there is much truth to the assertion that much evil has been done in the name of religion. Many even twist their holy books to justify violence and murder in teh name of God. Yet to make a sweeping indictment against religion as being "The Root of all Evil" is clearly an excercise in both prejudice and ignorance. One need only look at all of the death and misery committed in the name of Soviet Atheism. And they say religion is the cause of all war.

In sum, I have many questions and disagreements with my Christian brothers and sisters. We all have our religious texts, and, the imperfect humans that we are, we most often misinterpret them, and, sometimes even, consciously distort them to suit our needs. Most misinterpretations, even if irrational, are understandable. Of course any "misinterpretation" that rationalizes the purest of evils, is absolutely unnacceptable. Otherwise, after all, we're only human and we have our flaws and limitations. After all, we're not perfect. We're not God. Loomis 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try and answer the question as a Christian. In short, no - the old rules no longer apply. We don't have to follow rules about animal sacrifices, Sabbaths etc., because Jesus was the fulfilment of those things. Animal sacrifices, particularly the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, were a picture of what was to come in Jesus, for example, so once Jesus died, there was no need to continue doing it. God was making a new covenant (agreement) with people, now written on their hearts rather than on tablets of stone.

This does not mean, however, that God suddenly changed his mind about aspects of people's behaviour. Sexual immorality is still wrong. Neglecting to help others or exercise due care in making sure that 'others do not injure themselves on your property' is still wrong. Financially supporting people who dedicate themselves to do God's work (in the OT, priests and Levites; in the NT, pastors, ministers etc.) is still necessary.

So while some may continue to quote OT scriptures about homosexuality etc., (if they do it right) it is the heart of the command that they are trying to get at, not the letter of the law. In other words, while Christians are not judged by their obedience or disobedience to the Old Testament law, some preachers will use the OT scriptures to show generally what God's standards are for a person's behaviour, or what the new testament means when it says "abstain from sexual immorality". BenC7 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreigners in the American Revolutionary War

Are there any notable people who weren't Americans or British who fought in the American Revolutionary War, aside from Lafayette, Rochambeau, Pulaski, Kosciusko, Galvez, de Kalb, and von Steuben? 70.17.199.244 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If WP-notability is enough, then there are Friedrich Adolf Riedesel, Heinrich von Breymann, Carl von Donop, and Friedrich Baum (all Hessians, but not mentioned in the corresponding article). ---Sluzzelin 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Try looking through Category:French people of the American Revolution, Category:Native Americans in the American Revolution, Category:Spanish people of the American Revolution. Rmhermen 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! 70.17.202.155 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans in Congress

I'm trying to found out who was the first Native American in the U.S. Congress. There is a List of Native American politicians but it is woefully incomplete. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I found that "Ben Nighthorse Campbell...who, in 1987, became the first American Indian to serve in Congress since 1929." so we need to look for someone in 1929 at the latest. Rmhermen 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1929 probably refers to when Charles Curtis moved from the Senate to the Vice Presidency but I don't know who the first was yet. Rmhermen 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch Wars?

I am interested to know how many wars there have been in history when the dutch, Kingdom of the Netherlands, or something akin have been on one side, and the British, English or something akin have been on the other. Any help would be appreciated. J Milburn 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Anglo-Dutch Wars Rmhermen 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also be interested in William III of England who was a Dutchman (Dutch nobility) also Revolution of 1688 he landed in England to take the throne with " approximately 15,000—12,000 on foot and 3,000 cavalry. It was composed mainly of mercenaries recruited from various countries abroad" see Revolution of 1688#Conspiracy and William's Landing - this was primarily an English affair fought between rivals for the English/British crown, one of whom happened to be Dutch83.100.174.147 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. I have briefly studied William of Orange in the past, but I had never heard of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. I feel a fool for not finding the article, despite the fact it has the same title as my question! Were there any others at any point? J Milburn 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in question might be just a little misleading. For English people the term Anglo-Dutch Wars really only conjures up the three commercially-based contests of the seventeenth century, all fairly close together. The fourth war tends to sink into the background of the general wars surrounding America's struggle for independence. On a small point of information, you might also be interested to know that the expression for using alcohol to enable one to face up to difficult situations is still referred to in England as 'Dutch courage.' It was coined in the seventeenth century, in the somewhat unfair belief that the only way to force Dutchmen into battle was to oil them with liberal quantities of gin! Clio the Muse 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah, that is actually very relevent! Thanks a lot! Any other details of anglo-dutch wars would be very much appreciated. Thank you all! J Milburn 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, J Milburn. Do you have something specific in mind? If you fine-tune your questions I might be able to supply some useful additional information. But amongst other things you might care to look a little more closely at the Dutch attack on the English fleet in the Raid on the Medway during the Second War, a kind of seventeenth century version of Pearl Harbor. Also the Third War saw a major change of mood among the English people (as opposed to the king), who began to see Catholic France as the greater threat than Protestant Holland. And did you know that the Dutch American settlement of New Amsterdam was captured just before the outbreak of the First War, and renamed New York, after the king's brother and heir, James, Duke of York? Clio the Muse 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to include the Boer wars in the list, although they were between the British and Dutch colonists (among others), not with the Netherlands directly. Also note that the Anglo–Spanish War (1585) (think Spanish Armada) involved the Spanish Netherlands. StuRat 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou to all of you, you have been very helpful. I did not realise how useful the reference desk was! J Milburn 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Come back soon ! StuRat 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth

I'm hoping that it's alright to ask this question here, and it doesn't break the 'Do your own homework' rule. For a project, I need to find an event in fairly recent history, and write it a scene about it in the style of Macbeth. After searching for three hours, I can't really find anything suitable without possibly plagarizing (which I know I spelled wrong). I was hoping that I could get some help finding a topic to base my scene on, as I'm drawing a blank. I'm hoping to stay away from the topics of 9/11 and Katrina, as I don't feel right writing about them in something like this. Even if no one can help me, thanks so much for reading the question! JellyFish72 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask any kind of question you like: someone will always respond positively! In your position, and assuming you are not confined to an American event, I would be really topical and choose to base a scene in the style you are looking for around the mysterious death of Alexander Litvinenko. It has it all: intrigue, ambition, and treachery. Who knows-maybe the three witches are there somewhere? By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. Clio the Muse 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

interesting point of view clio, If you'd take that then you might as well ad the fact that litvinenko knew he was going to die, and also most likely to whom, but how... that was the question. and the forest that moves might just be that human rights reporter that "died to natural causes" in russia. just to give a few pointers... as for the style of english, try opening with revealing the end:

friar; 'T is with a heart filled with the sadness of grieving that we let our beloved friend, who never held a trace of fear for death and had embraced his fate so long ago ascend into the heavens. (use this at your own bidding). again just a small pointer... oh and over the average a teacher will prefer you writing in your own way of poetry or plays instead of that of macbeth, just try to use the major subjects of shakespeare: intrigue, ambition, and treachery as said above and don't forget a harsh fate known before the event itself took place. Graendal 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, Graendal, that Litvinenko could be could be cast in the role of King Duncan, in which case he would know nothing of his coming fate. Then the question arises, just who exactly is Macbeth? Clio the Muse 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, many of our political masters seem to spend their days and nights in a state of moral somnambulism, or asleep at the wheel of the ship of state. JackofOz 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Or Banquo. "the times have been, /That, when the brains were out, the man would die/ And there an end ... " Putin would make a marvelous Macbeth, no? Oh, and don't forget irony as a component of whatever you do: Macbeth, especially that magnificent banquet scene, is riddled with it. Fun assignment. Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so! Just imagine the scene at high table in the Kremlin;

Avaunt! and quit my sight! let the earth hide thee!

Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold;

Thou hast no speculation in those eyes

Which thou dost glare with.

Of course, we may be jumping to conclusions here. But, I agree; it's a great assignment. Clio the Muse 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, y'all! I really appreciate it, and it's given me alot of ideas for my project! Now for the fun part - getting it written by Monday! :)

Thanks again! JellyFish72 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The only place I can be free on earth

Is it true that the only place where I can be FREE on earth is the DMZ between north korea and south korea? That I can perform any action while I'm there and not be subjected to any laws of any countries. And provided, I remain in DMZ, I can do anything I want as a free person? 202.168.50.40 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. If you're a citizen of the U.S., you can be charged with a criminal offense for some (all?) crimes that you commit in other countries. For instance, the U.S. gov't is arresting quite a few people who travel to Asia to have sex with minors once they return to the States. Dismas| 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So? Don't return to USA. If the US army tries to extract you, you are FREE to kill them in self defense (provided you remain in the DMZ). 202.168.50.40 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly anyone who took residence there would be 'free' for about ten seconds, if that. Then they would be dead: another kind of freedom, I suppose. Clio the Muse 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the high seas? -THB 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ships in International waters are still subject to the laws of the registering country: not a place where one can be free, as in capital-FREE. Lowerarchy 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it should be added that, much like the ten-second freedom of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, you're free to do whatever you like no matter where you are - provided nobody stops you. Liberty and not license, and that sort of thing.Lowerarchy 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Korean DMZ may be demilitarized, but it is not de-country-ized. You would still be subject to the laws of whichever side of the actual armistice line you are on. In fact, since both the ROK and the DPRK claim to be the legitimate government of the whole peninsula, either side could try to convict you for committing a crime. -- Mwalcoff 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there still "Neutral Zones" on the borders of Saudi Arabia in the middle of the desert? I remember seeing old maps with a diamond-shaped area attached to the western edge of Kuwait called "Neutral Zone", but it doesn't seem to be there in modern maps. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It went some time ago, Zoe. Clio the Muse 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for oil production purposes, there is still a "Neutral Zone" - it is not the former diamond shaped one, which is indeed gone, but is along the coast of the Persian Gulf. The border between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is usually drawn in the middle of it, but the oil produced within this zone is shared between the two countries. I don't know how it works in terms of other jurisdictional issues. Cheers Geologyguy 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Antarctica? The article says there's no government there. Clarityfiend 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? You can do anything in Antarctica and not be subjected to any laws of any country, provided you remain in Antarctica? 202.168.50.40 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See the Antarctic Treaty System for some guidance on this question. I suppose you would have a choice between being shot to death in Korea or freezing to death in Antarctica. Clio the Muse

Smoke in restaurants (if you can find any), park wherever you like, run around nekkid! Well, maybe not that last one, brrrr. Clarityfiend 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Go here in Berkeley, California, and you'll be fine. Wareh 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe they are not subject to any law, what if someone went in there with an assault rifle and started shooting people? --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the questioner implying that law, (well at least "just" law,) is an impediment to freedom? I suppose that, in the absence of law, one would have the absolute freedom to do whatever one wishes. Yet it should not be forgotten that the inevitable flip-side of the "absolute freedom for one to do whatever one wishes", is the accompanying "absolute freedom for others to do whatever they wish to you". I've never been able to figure out why anarchists find it so hard to grasp such a ridiculously simple concept as that. Loomis 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists don't find it hard to grasp that: there are large literatures about the issue. The philosophical background to the original question, I suggest, is a particular understanding of freedom - as the absence of restraint - and of law - as command backed by threat. Both of these can be challenged: freedom might better be understood as the power to do what one desires (or even what one ought to desire). Law, as Loomis hints, might be understood as indirectly providing that power for certain classes of action. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I heard was "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Sure, it might be more complex than that, but it's alright as a basic rule. 惑乱 分からん 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 100 years or so, the moon might be a good option. :-) | AndonicO 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

AndonicO, vous me l'ôtez de la bouche! -- DLL 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a scene in Illusions by Richard Bach where the concept of "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else" was tested. In it, a vampire comes along to the protagonist and says that he's dying and if doesn't drink the protagonist's blood, the vampire will cease to exist (never mind him being undead in the first place). In this case, the rule as you've described it would not allow you to refuse the vampire. Of course, this is fictional, but you could extrapolate this to a real-life possibility where a person who has murdered your entire family requires a bone marrow transplant and you are the only match. Thus, the book continues on, the real rule is, "You are free to do whatever you want." The only caveat then is that you are now responsible for the consequences of your actions. You are free to kill, but you could be arrested and jailed; you are free to be a callous asshole with no cares for anyone else, but you won't have any friends. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could one be convicted on murder in space? Perhaps on a spaceship one is on the territory of the country, but if Buzz Aldrin had on the Moon, say, stabbed Neil Armstrong with the flag, or locked him out of the Eagle lander, could he be tried? EamonnPKeane 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident he would have gotten in trouble for that. Court-martialed perhaps? -GTBacchus 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are a US citizen you could be arrested for the murder when you return to the US from space. If you want to be free from other people you need it isolate yourself, but then you are still not free from need of food shelter. HighInBC 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

history

why did virginians and other southern planters make the decision to implement salvery in the seventeenth century? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.32.65.23 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Read Slavery in the United States and Slavery in Colonial America. It was considered the most viable form of labour, especially in large plantations. Clio the Muse 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the slave-owners, they were too stupid and too blinded by their racism to understand the economic reality that slave labour is no less costly than hiring free men and paying them "slave wages", which is just what they did after abolition. Think about it. A slave has to be bought, housed, fed, attended to when ill, etc., all of which costs money. It may be counterintuitive, but it can actually be more economically efficient to just hire a "free man", (no need to put down any cash to "buy" him), pay him barely enough to survive, and no worry if you work him to death, you haven't lost any valuable "property" that you paid money to acquire, all you would have to do is hire another. Loomis 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not all slaveholders were racist and stupid. You are talking about people's grandparents' parents and grandparents you know. A good many slaveholders were former slaves, as well. Surely you wouldn't consider them racist. -THB 11:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But you left out of your calculations the ability to profit by selling off the natural increase of his slaves. Remember that the U.S. didn't import any new slaves after 1808. After that slavery continued for almost 60 years from the children and grandchildren, etc. of those earlier slaves. Rmhermen 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course. The right to the ownership of the offspring of one's slaves would tend to balance things out a bit. (I'm actually rather disgusted with myself right now for referring to human beings as mere animals, but the point must be made). Still, I haven't dreamt up this argument all on my own. The diseconomics of slavery has actually been the basis of much academic study I've read. The consensus seems to be that slave labour was far less economically inefficient than slaveholders believed it to be, and that the late 19th century classical liberal model of the "free man" entering into a completely unregulated contract of labour tended to be actually more economical for the slave-owner/employer than pure and simple slave labour. Loomis 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people. It was a northener, Eli Whitney, who breathed fresh life into the general economics of the south. Slavery was wrong in principle; but the people who operated the slave system did not do so because they were stupid. Clio the Muse 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In inventing the cotton gin, Eli Whitney definitely benefited slaveholders in an economic sense and provided them much wealth. And it's only common sense that the wealthier one is, the longer one can afford to maintain a wasteful lifestyle and inefficient business practices. So yes, Whitney's invention indeed "breathed fresh life into the general economics of the south", and if anything, prolonged the ability of the south to withstand abolition. However, what that has anything at all to do with the proven diseconomics of slavery, I have no idea. Loomis 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You might begin, then, by recognizing the contradictions in your own statement, and then proceed to a little more in-depth reading on the Cotton gin, to take one obvious example, and other aspects of the southern economy. It will help to give you at least some idea. It's best not to use meaningless terms like 'stupid' in describing motives and attitudes from the past. Clio the Muse 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary scholarly anaysis said that a free workman who was paid piecework or a share of the crop was more productive than a slave, whose incentive was only to do enough work to avoid punishment, and who therefore required a high degree of supervision. Edison 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Help! Thanks, Edison, but I am not trying to claim that slave labour was more productive than free labour, because it was not by any reasonable economic criterion. What I did say was that the cotton gin made southern plantation economies, based on slavery, profitable, and thus gave fresh life to the whole system. And this was not because southern plantation owners were stupid. Clio the Muse 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people" (03:08, 8 December 2006). "I am not trying to claim that slave labour was more productive than free labour, because it was not by any reasonable economic criterion" (08:55, 8 December 2006). Talk about a flip-flop! Why is it that some people are completely incapable of admitting they were wrong? Loomis 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to put it as simply as possible, in terms I hope you'll understand. Please try your best. Imagine a shopowner who happens to be a simpleton. His shop doesn't even make a profit. In fact, it generates a loss of £1,000 a month. The business is basically managing on bank credit, but his credit limit is near the its limit. In other words, without some sort of miracle, he'll soon be forced into bankruptcy. But lo and behold! The lucky bastard happened to have bought a lottery ticket that week, and his numbers came up! He's just won £10,000,000! Simple as he is, he's a man of habit. Despite his newfound wealth, there's still nothing that gives him more pleasure than running that little shop of his, and so he continues with it. Though wealthy, his meagre intellect remains unchanged. The simpleton then pays all his debts to the bank out of a tiny portion of his winnings, and puts all the rest into a savings account. Now he's both debt and worry free, and free to continue to run his pathetic little shop, which continues to lose £1,000 a month. Yet the simpleton that he is, the way he looks at it, he's a wealthy man running a shop. He still doesn't have a clue that the shop is still losing money. All he sees is a bank account that keeps rising in value (due to interest). He's making money now! Isn't he? He's turned his business around and now he's making a profit! Isn't he? Of course not. He's a moron living in a world of illusion. His business is still a pathetic failure.

With the introduction of he cotton gin, slaveholders, in a sense, "hit the jackpot". Their plantations were now cash cows. Yet none of this in any way, has anything remotely to do with the proven diseconomics of slave labour. (Thanks Edison, for your corroborating remark!)

You might also want to read up on slavery. It's been around since pre-history and exists even today. It certainly wasn't confined to the Southern United States and the planters didn't suddenly decide to implement it. It was legal in England and other places the original planters moved from. There were slaves in the north as well but the farms there were smaller. A lot of labor was needed for large plantations. The ultimate reason was to earn a profit from the labor the slaves provided. Indentured servants were used, too. -THB 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some good work on this question: Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery; David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage; Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death. In general, the debate about how to explain the Atlantic system and plantation slavery (and the debate about how to explain abolition) is over the relative contributions of 1. economics and the rise of early modern capitalism; and 2. culture in some broad sense covering religion, the invention of race, the emulation of (supposed) classical greek and roman models, etc. Yours, Sam Clark 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Another excellent source on this question is Audrey Smedley's Race in North America. Smedley finds evidence that the conditions of indentured servitude and of slavery were nearly indistinguishable in early 17th century Virginia. African slaves, for example, were often freed after a period of servitude. The lines began to be drawn more sharply and the institution of slavery crystallized in the late 17th century after white indentured servants, black slaves, and newly freed servants and slaves banded together in revolts against the exploitation and power of the plantation-owning gentry. In order to create divisions among the colony's landless majority, poor whites were granted privileges and encouraged to feel superior to blacks, who were thenceforth trapped in a more rigid state of servitude. Smedley argues that the institution of white privilege and superiority across class lines was crucial to the cultural construction of race in North America. Marco polo 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did they implement slavery? The Native Americans died or rebelled when enslaved. Indentured servants worked their 7 years, then went into business in competition. Slaves were like multiple generation indentured servants without the scant legal rights of white indentured servants. It is hard to imagine from today's perspective the fundamental lack of legal rights of slaves in the southern U.S. in the years before the Civil War, which were in practice far less than the rights they had before 1800. In the best cases, they were practically members of the family, and had living and working conditions similar to those of the owner's hired hands. In the worst, they were whipped, raped, branded, abused without practical limit and worked to death on sugar plantations or murdered outright. While there were laws on the books making it a crime to kill or maim a slave, and requiring clothing, food , shelter, and meal breaks, in practice a slave could not file a complaint or testify against a white, so the legal protections would require the intervention and testimony of another white person. If a slave owner caused a ruckus by beating his slave in a mad drunken rage on the town square in front of some other white man's family, legal process could be instituted to take the slave away from the abusive owner, in the same way that early cruelty to animal laws could be used against a teamster who whipped his horses excessively. Yet there were cases where skilled slaves (carpenters, ironmakers, etc) were paid wages sufficient to allow them to buy their own and their family's freedom. This provided a positive incentive to be productive, not break equipment, not poison the master, not burn down the house with the master in it, and not run away. Edison 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

December 8

Renaissance euphemisms for the phallus

A strange request: can anyone provide me with some 16th or 17th Century euphemisms for the penis, or an erection? Thanks Adambrowne666 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pizzle. -THB 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was hoping for something even more euphemistic - more the renaissance version of 'manhood' Adambrowne666 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

William or Willie. Pecker. Really, I don't think you'll find too much innovation here. I'm sure a Shakespeare expert will be along shortly to help. -THB 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In the (in)famous Fanny Hill, it's frequently referred to as a "machine". That was written in 1748, which is a bit late for your needs and I would guess by its very name, may be anachronistic for the earlier period. --Dweller 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of about thirty in the introduction to Eric Partridge's "Shakespeare's Bawdy". I've got a copy at home and if I remember (...don't hold your breath...) I'll post it here. AndyJones 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also this book: A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and Their Significance (Paperback) by Frankie Rubinstein . -THB 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also A Glossary of Shakespeare's Sexual Language by Gordon Williams. I own all three books we've mentioned and I think Williams' is the best, and certainly the most up-to date. I've occasionally thought Misplaced Pages could have a decent article on the general subject of Shakespeare's Bawdy. Anyway, here's that list of - actually 46 - terms used by Shakespeare for the penis, some directly and others punningly, according to Eric Partridge: bugle, dart of love, lance, pike, pistol, poll-axe, potent regiment, standard, sword, weapon, hook, horn, carrot, holy-thistle, pizzle, poperin pear, potato-finger, prick, root, stake, stalk, tail, thorn, bauble, cock, cod-piece, distaff, instrument, needle, organ, pen, pin, pipe, stump, three-inch fool, tool, yard, lag end, little finger, loins, nose, Pillicock, R, Roger, tale, and thing. AndyJones 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic - thanks so much - you've certainly raised the standard! Adambrowne666 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you taxi a B-17 backwards?

I have a bet with my dad, please help me win!!

Dad told me a story about a bunch of WWII pilots in a bar, drinking, when one of them bet the rest that he could taxi a b-17 backwards. He went out and proved it. How did he do it? The planes can't turn their props the other way, and Google has left me high and dry.

Thanks! Maureen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.179.46 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Most if not all fixed-wing propellor aircraft are designed in such a way so as to allow the pitch of the propellors to change in order to adjust to their varying requirements during flight. Sort of like a car's transmission. High pitch to take off, and low pitch while cruising. I don't know of the particular specs of B-17, but I do know that certain planes are/were designed in such a way so as to allow the pilot to basically reverse the angle of the pitch to such a degree that they would actually produce reverse thrust. I'm not talking about reversing the rotation of the blades, they're still rotating in the same direction. What I don't get is why the other pilots couldn't figure it out. Maybe they weren't B-17 pilots. And then again, maybe I'm wrong and the B-17 isn't designed the way I assumed it is. What I do know for certain though is that at least some propellor planes are designed to be able to taxi in reverse. Loomis 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the trick is that most B-17's did not have propellers capable of reverse pitch, but this particular one did. According to this article (PDF), Hamilton Standard propellers with reverse pitch were developed (to supplement the brakes on landing, like reverse thrust on modern jets) around the end of WW2 and first went into production in 1946. I don't know about other brands of propellers. But there must have been some early experimental installations, and if you were a pilot flying one of them, wouldn't you want to pull a trick like that? --Anonymous, 03:30 UTC, December 8. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The B-17's a taildragger. As I recall, the rear wheel is connected to the flight controls, so the full thrust of the engines would be trying to swing that wheel around. Have fun trying to keep ahold of the controls. --Carnildo 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be particularly interested and would appreciate it if the original questioner would come back to us and tell us if we we're right. Loomis 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll admit I'm pig-ignorant about this, but -- what would happen if you got some speed on the taxiway and then stopped one side and powered the other? Could you do something like a bootleg turn but end up keeping your momentum in the same direction? (Hopefully without messing up your wingtips?) (I'm sure experienced pilots are now laughing themselves silly.) --jpgordon 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing is a ground loop... it accidentally happens to pilots in tail-draggers occasionally. Unfortunately, they can be very dangerous, as the plan spins around, it often tips, as the outer wing will generate some lift, and so lift up that wingtip, forcing the inside wingtip down where it may contact the tarmac. 192.168.1.1 12:20pm, 9 December 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.143.116 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not a pilot, but I don't think the plane can taxi fast enough to do a bootleg turn | AndonicO 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cody Matherson

On the commentary for the eighth season of the Simpsons, in the episode A Milhouse Divided, it is mentioned that the idea for Kirk van Houten's song/album "Can I Borrow a Feeling?" was based on a compilation of "worst album covers" featuring the album "Can I Borrow a Feelin'?" by Cody Matherson . So my question is, is the Cody Matherson album genuine or a hoax? The album cover itself looks rather photoshopped, and I can not find any information about Cody Matherson via Google... so, is it real? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.70.141 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rodeo

Could anyone tell me what the storyline of Aaron Copland's ballet Rodeo is? Thanks in advance. --Philosofinch 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You might find some clues in Aaron Copland and Rodeo. Clio the Muse 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles were not very helpful. Also, you spelled Copland wrong. --Philosofinch 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Clio the Muse 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an explanation. meltBanana 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That link requires a Google account. StuRat 10:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well get a google account. They are free as far as I remember and massively useful as they allow access to Google book search, which I would heretically suggest is the best thing on the internet. In the intervening…

For this new ballet, de Mille expanded a movement, "Rodeo," from her her ballet American Street (1938), which had used gestures and movements derived from horseback riding (a dance created without knowledge of Eugene Loring's comparable choreography for Billy the Kid, which she came to admire). She cast her scenario (later revised) in two scenes, the action taking place on a Saturday afternoon and evening on a ranch in the Southwest (eventually specified as Texas) around 1900. Scene one opens with folks strolling around a corral during the intermission of a local rodeo. The Cowgirl dresses and acts like a man in an attempt to stay close to the Head Wrangler, with whom she is infatuated. Other girls, including the frilly Ranchowner's Daughter, enter and flirt with the cowboys. The rodeo resumes, the cowboys displaying their skills. In the hopes of getting the attention of the Head Wrangler (who is smitten with the Ranchowner's Daughter), the Cowgirl attempts to ride a bronco but just gets in the way. Finally, the exasperated cowboys order her away and complete their show.

As twilight approaches, sweethearts move in and out of the encroaching darkness as the Cowgirl, alone and lonely, finds herself moved by the spaciousness of the sky and the land. Out of the darkness, a small group of dancers perform a square dance, not to music but rather to the sounds of clapping hands, beating feet, and the cries of a caller.

Scene two takes place at night outside the ranch house. While some dance inside, others flirt, smoke, and drink stage front. An elderly Mexican man yearns for home. The Head Wrangler, accompanied by a fiddler, brings the dancing outside. A waltz follows. Unable to find a partner, the Cowgirl tearfully leaves with the Mexican, who tries to console her. In the midst of the waltz the men are suddenly called away to return a stray cow to the corral, leaving the women alone. The men, mopping their brows, return to finish the waltz. At the start of a vigorous hoedown, a young Buck seeks a woman equal to his passion (the hoedown, according to de Mille's scenario, being a competitive dance of sexual aggression and submission analogous to flamenco). Soon after the hoedown begins, the Cowgirl appears, wearing a dress and a bow in her hair. Everyone gapes. Only the Cowgirl can stand up to the Buck, who kisses her. "He grabs her, forces her to dance his way and wears her out by sheer brute strength. That's all she's wanted. She has met her master." The ballet ends as all join hands for a grand promenade. meltBanana 15:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

International Trade

I've had some problems lately on how trade is conducted internationally. What I don't understand is how countries are benefitting from trade. Isn't it the private companies that trade resources to either other companies or the people of another country? I understand that with the growth of companies, a country is going to prosper along with the market, but is that the only affect? Are imports and exports being bought by "nations" rather than "companies"? Any enlightenment will help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rentastrawberry (talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

See trade and international trade. If you are really interested, The Wealth of Nations makes good reading on this subject. Trade between nations that are to some degree capitalistic is indeed primarily between companies, but remember that companies are ultimately owned by individuals or groups of individuals. Every transaction of imported and exported goods and services adds up and is figured into the GDP which is a measure of all the goods and services that a country has gained. Like companies, countries are groups of people. You could also look at trade between U.S. states, between a U.S. state and another country, or between groups of countries, like the EU or Mercosur. It's basically looking at the same thing at different levels.

The basic idea of exchange is that both parties are better off in material goods or wealth than they would have been had the exchange not occurred. This is true at an individual, company, or national level.

The rise of multi-national corporations have blurred these lines somewhat and made it more difficult to assess the situation. In addition, not all trade is made by companies, as governments also purchase goods. -THB 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the most useful way to think of this is in terms of employment, income and balance of payments. International trade benefits 'countries' rather than 'companies' as increased demand for goods and services from abroad would mean more people at home are employed and/or are getting paid more. Alternatively, companies competing with cheap imports may lose out and have to sack workers or reduce their wages, meaning that there is less employment and income in the relevant sectors at home. Taking this approach solves the problem with multi-national corporation since trade within the multinationals (Apple buying parts for iPod from China and Thailand for assembly elsewhere, etc.) can also count as international trade and their effects on 'countries' evaluated. The balance of payments refers to the payments that flow in and out of countries and trade is part of this. The volume and speed that payments flow in and out of countries directly affect the exchange rate and, hence, affects stability and growth of the national economy in general. Lastly, don't forget that despite all the talk about globalization, the international trade system is still based on the states being the main negotiators. If American farmers can't export hormone-fed beef to Europe, they don't go to talk directly with European supermarkets but lobby the American government to bring the case against the EU to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. --Ithi s 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Song info

Does anyone recognize the song on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YrYvj3HZ1I&mode=related&search= (starts ca. 02:53 and goes further)? A bit hard to search by scattered words. Thanks. --Brand спойт 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any working sound on this computer. Could you give some recurring phrases and a small description, too? =S 惑乱 分からん 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a mix of punk rock and alternative featuring only female voice. The only words I've understood are "I" and "we" recurring in the chorus. --Brand спойт 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightwish - Sacrament of Wildness good voice, crap lyrics. Nightwish; probably would sound better if sung in finnish. meltBanana 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) BTW they sound nothing like -->>> Melt Banana so give them a listen. (or else) meltBanana 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I would like to know the names of some countries that the united states went to war with over natural resources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.181.30 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The United States, to my knowledge, has never claimed access to natural resources as a justification for wars it has entered. However, many have argued that both of the United States' wars with Iraq have involved securing access to oil in the Middle East. Marco polo 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the only reason Iraq became enough of a threat to justify war was because it had oil, but that doesn't mean the US is there to "steal it's oil". That would be quite impossible. It would take decades to extract all of Iraq's oil, even with all of the infrastructure working, and the value would never exceed the cost of the wars. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It might, if the world is running out of oil and the price rises as a result. Also, the leaders who decided to start the current war drastically underestimated its cost and may have thought it would be a smart investment. Marco polo 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they did underestimate it, amongst themselves, they just lied about the cost to get approval for the war, which never would have happened had they said it would cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. (That's getting to be serious money, even for the US.) "A few billion dollars here and a few billion there, and sooner or later it adds up to be real money". StuRat 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider land a natural resource, then the War of 1812 (with England), Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War could all be said to be, at least in part, about gaining or holding land. StuRat 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that the Spanish-American War would count but the Revolutionary War would have to count. Rmhermen 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Desert Storm was initiated over the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Iraq claimed to invade Kuwait over slant-drilling of oil (a natural resource). The U.S. entered the war to protect Kuwait (and whatever oil-drilling practices they were doing). Looking at a map, it is apparent that if Iraq held Kuwait it would also gain the natural resourse of a sea-connected port - which the U.S. denied by entering the war. --Kainaw 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq already had a sea-connected port at Umm Qasr. Rmhermen 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason Japan entered WWII was to secure access to oil and other resouces. Clarityfiend 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Wars are probably the most obvious example. For "countries involved" you could list the various Native American groups or nations. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, (though I'm a bit surprised that he's taking that particualar position). People so often speak of the war as being "all about oil". There's a lot of truth to that phrase, but it's all too often taken out of context. The fact that Saddam had oil enabled him to prop up his regime, to dole out cash to the families of terrorists, to afford costly wars of aggression, to develop chemical weapons to be used in those wars, and even to build a nuclear power plant at Osiraq. Yes it was indeed, in a sense at least, "all about oil". Yet it had nothing to do with the US "stealing" oil from Iraq to serve American greed. Loomis 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put Loomis. But I don't see how the Revolutionary War was fought for recources, unless you mean the taxes they didn't want to pay? | AndonicO 13:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dominatrix - how to?

Odd question - but I'm relatively new to the world of being dominant and I'm just wondering if anyone can provide any insight on ways to determine what would be good things to use for humiliation with someone? Aside from basic stuff (someone is overweight, etc)... how do you figure out what someone's "buttons" are? Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing domination with humiliation. --jpgordon 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Humiliation IS a form of domination :) Skyeblue 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Read a few of these listings, and you'll get a bit of an idea. Also have you checked some of the external links on the BDSM page? I have a friend who does it professionally, and I'd be happy to give you some tips, but IMO it'd be a bit too prurient for the main board, so if after you've done some reading you still need info, post to my talk page and I'll tell you privately. Anchoress 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I had expected Anchoress to know the answer to this question. :-) StuRat 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

US residency after 5 years

is it true that there is going to be a law that says that every illegal who has been in the US for 5 years or more when the law is passed (next year I believe) will get the residency?.--Cosmic girl 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to predict the future. There may be such a law under consideration, but until it survives any media attention and passes, we don't know whether it will. Marco polo 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You could look through United States immigration debate and its links. I don't see any mention of a five year plan but do see that Bush specifically opposed a general amnesty as opposed to a "immigration pathway". It would not be unprecedented: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized 2.7 million immigrants who had been in the country four years. Rmhermen 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

iron man

i was just reading the iron man article and it says that the song Gets me through, has lyrics resembling iron man. no, actually it doesn't. the lyrics are," im not the antichrist or the eye of man." not iron man.Jk31213 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics website all seem to diasgree with you including I Right - Misheard Lyrics which mentions this mishearing. Rmhermen 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Mississippi Senate Race

Hello,

I am struggling to find scholarly articles and research for a paper on the 2006 Mississippi midterm election for Senate. I need information on how the campaign was run, and how the democratic or republican parties influenced the race. Articles from newspapers would be best as sources. If anyone could help that would be great.

Sincerely,

Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.242.95 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Do you mean the US Senate or the Mississippi Senate ? StuRat 09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the US Senate, see Mississippi United States Senate election, 2006, for coverage of the election won by the incumbent, Trent Lott. The other US Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, does not run for reelection until 2008. StuRat 09:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the race was particularly close or otherwise significant, I'd expect very little coverage of this election in US national news media (probably limited to the results of the election). I would guess you are from Mississippi, in which case you should know the names of many newspapers in the state. I'd do a Google search on the names of those newspapers, to find their web sites. Then, from their web sites, see if you can search for articles on the campaign. If you know the names of the candidates, those would be good search terms. StuRat 09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious Rights For women

Hey everyone! What are some solutions that could improve women's rights within religion and in other areas of of life? Anything that could improve their life, give them more rights, etc. I need responses ASAP! Like right now if at all possible! Thanks so much! -I choose to remain anonymous

You might want to check equal rights, women's suffrage, reproductive rights, gender equality, and some of the results of this google search. Good luck. Anchoress 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, anyone??? I'm desperate!!

Well, I'll give you a few hints. These are some of the initiatives that are most relied upon to improve the lots of women and are in effect to varying degrees in different cultures at present:

• suffrage (right to vote}
• reproductive rights (the right to determine how and when we procreate)
• Constitutional reform (legislating rights on a federal level)
• education and literacy (studies show that literacy greatly affects female equality)
• penal reform and criminal law reform (protecting women's rights to safety and security)
• affirmative action (promoting qualified women ahead of similarly qualified men in order to balance gender equality in certain industries and areas)
• access to counselling and emergency services (to help women in crisis)
• access to health care (to improve medical outcomes, particularly relating to childbirth and FGM

I hope this helps cuz I'm squoze dry. Anchoress 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Achoress, I agree with all of your points except "affirmative action". That's the same as discrimination. Why would you need to "balance" gender equality? If men and women are both allowed to join an industry according to their skills, the gender ratio would eventually balance out. --Bowlhover 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; if you look at what I said it's "These are some of the initiatives that are most relied upon to improve the lots of women and are in effect to varying degrees in different cultures at present". I'm not saying whether they are just, necessary, or effective. Let's not get into a debate about this; I worded it the way I did with extreme care to avoid it turning into an argument about just this exact thing. Anchoress 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And, becoming part of the power structure of religions is quite critical to achieving these rights. In religions where women can't lead religious services or participate in the policy and decision making process, their other rights are also deprived. This is analogous to how women's rights in society were quite minimal until they gained the right to participate in the political structure, via voting and holding office. As for how to demand access to the power structure of religions, I can think of some strategies that might work:

1) Organize. Form a group, draft a list of demands, and present them to the religion.

2) Call a strike. Women should refuse to attend or contribute time and money to the religion, until their demands are met.

3) Form a parallel religious structure. Much like the Girl Scouts were formed in the model of the Boy Scouts, or the YWCA was formed in the model of the YMCA.

StuRat 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the women would be willing to do radical things like that. After all, they believe in the religion as well, and refusing to attend religious ceremonies would be going against God. --Bowlhover 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Something which is largely defined by Mullahs, Rabbis, and Christian priests (all men - how amazing) in the 3 major religions. If they are not willing to fight for their rights they will never ever recieve them. No right was ever given without somebody fighting for it. If women are unwilling to fight for their rights let them stay at home, taking care of their kids (I suppose that is also a fullfilling life). Flamarande 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Marriage

Hello I would like to know does a person of the Jewish Faith have to marry another Jweish person? Thank you.

Just Wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.129.40 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Try reading the Jewish view of marriage, skim some of the other topics in the Judaism portal, check some of the external links, and that might answer your question (which I'm not sure I understand, but it seems to be about Jewish marriage, so the first link should be a good start). Anchoress 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the stream of Judaism. An Orthodox (as well as a Conservative, I believe) Rabbi will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew, whereas a Reformed Rabbi will. Loomis 13:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat more complicated than that, of course. The Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis is officially against presiding over mixed marriage ceremonies, although individual rabbis are free to do so if they choose. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

complete details about Girish Karnad, Mr.Rohinton Mistry , MrVijay Tendulkar and Mr.Vikram Seth

for preparing a project complete details about Mr.Girish Karnad, Mr.Rohinton Mistry , MrVijay Tendulkar and Mr.Vikram Seth is required.Kindly please help and give.

Thanks Er. Rajeswaran —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.226.19.200 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Did you try Girish Karnad, Rohinton Mistry, Vijay Tendulkar and Vikram Seth? --Richardrj 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Novel

I remember reading about a novel which started off with a page by the narrator explaining that they found the content of a novel (I believe in a bottle). I remember distinctly that the page either started or ended with "Read this, and I will be forgotten." Any ideas which novel this is? Crisco 1492 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your description makes one think of Message in a Bottle, but you say the novel was found in a bottle, so that does not quite fit. -- Seejyb 17:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think quite a few authors found their inspiration in the bottom of a bottle, including Ernest Hemingway. :-) StuRat 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant content of the novel, but the "Read this and I will be forgotten" is the part that I remember best. I think there is the possibility of it being by Earnest Hemingway. Any idea which of his novels include that device? I'm pretty sure that it isn't Message in a Bottle, because the book I'm thinking of is older. However, I am sure that only one / two pages came from the narrator, who just copies the content of the message, which forms the content of the novel. Crisco 1492 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe wrote MS. Found in a Bottle which was parodied in the 1960's with the "MS" interpreted in a feminist interpretation. I could not find the cited phrase in it, but it might be paraphrased somewhere in it. Edison 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is from Hemingway. It's not a theme I am familiar with, anyway. Clio the Muse 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not poe, for sure. What a lovely predictament. Stu, do you have any idea which of Hemingway's novels would of included that plot device? Crisco 1492 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think StuRat was being witty. Made me smile anyway. Poor old Hemingway.--Shantavira 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to Hemingway's alcoholism. I included the smiley to make it clear I was joking. StuRat 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, aku bodoh... possibly one of his contemperaries. Any come to mind? Crisco 1492 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative Criticism of Jane Austen

I have read the criticism section in the Jane Austen article, but I am looking for a book or full essay with negative criticisms of Jane Austen. Google didn't help much. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance! --SolidNatrix 14:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Early on, Charlotte Brontë (quoted here) and Elizabeth Barrett Browning did not jump on the bandwagon. But Austen's greatness has been so widely acknowledged since then, that any dissent you find is likely to be very polemical and/or shallow. Wareh 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also D.H. Lawrence. The fullest quotation I could find online is final exam, question #2, here. Wareh 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You could have this from Mark Twain, no less; Jane Austen? Why I'd go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book at all. More modern critics have included Edward Said, in his essay Culture and Imperialism, and Lionel Trilling, who wrote essays on Emma and Mansfield Park. In Jane Austen: A Collection of Critical Essays, he makes the following observation about Mansfield Park;

No other great novel has so anxiously asserted the need to find security, to establish, in fixity and enclosure, a refuge from the dangers of openess and chance...It scandalises modern assumptions about social relations, about virtue , about religion, sex, and art. Most troubling of all is the preference for rest over motion. To deal with the world by condemning it, by withdrawing from it and shutting it out... to live one's days in a stasis and peace...to us seems not merely impracticable but almost wicked. (pp. 124-40)

On Trilling's crtique specifically you could also look at Paul Pickrel's essay, Lionel Trilling and Mansfield Park. You'll find this in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 27, no. 4, Ninteenth Century, Autumn, 1987, pp. 609-21. Good luck! Clio the Muse 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bach and Whiter Shade of Pale

The writers of the pop song Whiter Shade of Pale claim the inspiration came from Bach's air on a G string cigar advertisement. Which piece of Bach music did it really directly come from please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.184.199.224 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Our article on Whiter Shade of Pale says: "The Hammond organ line of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" was inspired by the Johann Sebastian Bach's "Sleepers Awake" and "Air on a G String", but contrary to some belief, the song is not a direct copy or paraphrase of these or any other Bach piece." Gandalf61 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

and it gives the following reference: "What Bach Piece is A Whiter Shade of Pale?".  --Lambiam 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Milk and poultry

I understand that eating meat with meat is forbidden under Kosher rules, due to the fact that it is stated in the scriptures that it is wrong to cook a kid in its mother's milk. However, this would imply that non-mammalian animals, sucha as fish or chickens, which do not produce milk, can be eaten together with dairy. So, are dishes such as chowder (fish and cream) or chicken pizza (chicken and cheese) allowed in Judaism? Laïka 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not chickens, because they are mammals, even if they aren't red meat. -Fsotrain 17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chickens, along with all other birds, are not mammals. And even if they were, they don't produce milk. Unfortunately, I don't have a great understanding of Kosher rules, so I have nothing more to add. GreatManTheory 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find all such rules just plain silly. Imagine you were going to be eaten by a cannibal, would you be relieved to learn that, after killing you and before you were cooked, eaten, and defecated back out your body would be "treated with respect", by the cannibal. That wouldn't make a bit of difference to me and I sure can't imagine why an animal would care about that, either. StuRat 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On "treating with respect" in general, transpose it to human terms: after you kill your enemy on the battlefield, does it matter what you do with his body (say, drag it through the streets)? It seems that in many practically indifferent matters, people believe that callousing their sensibilities—even ones that could be criticized as empty and hypocritical—makes them worse people (say, more disposed to transgressions that are not practically indifferent). Now, how much kashrut really has to do with "treating with respect," as opposed to ritual law plain and simple, I couldn't say. Wareh 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See Kosher foods#Seafood: 11:9-12 for fish and dairy, and Kosher foods#No mixing of meat and dairy for a comment on poultry and dairy. Certain groups of Jews who keep kosher will eat these combinations and certain groups will not. -THB 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One should understand that Jewish laws are not all directly described in the Torah, nor even in the (Babylonian) Talmud. I believe that the chicken / milk law is one of these "fence laws", interpretations or extensions made to protect the believer from inadvertently confusing chicken meat with lamb or veal. Once these laws were decided on, they had the same strength as the original writings. So by my understanding the law describing chicken and milk would originate after about 500 CE, and it does not have to be literally written up in the Torah to be a law. -- Seejyb 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seejyb is correct. Poultry is not meat, but is treated as if it were, by convention and tradition. B00P 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Chowder isn't Kosher because it's made of clams, which are not kosher. It's unrelated to the meat/dairy thing.

And Stu, are you not at all concerned with how your body is dealt with after you die? Most people, I would think, would like to be buried, while a good deal of others, for their own reasons, are attracted to the idea of cremation. Should I take it, though, that in the unfortunate event that while walking with you down the street, you collapse and die of a heart attack, you wouldn't mind if I simply threw you in the nearest dumpster? Certainly you'd prefer your remains to be disposed of in a more dignified manner. Am I wrong? Loomis 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I care to some extent, but so much less than I care about being killed in the first place that it's insignificant by comparison. If I had the choice of being allowed to live, but having my body disrespected in the worst possible manner when I eventually did die of natural causes, versus being killed now and having my body "honored", I'd take the first option every time. And, when we extend this discussion to what animals "think", it even becomes more absurd to imagine they are concerned about having their body "respected" but don't mind actually being killed. StuRat 11:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bomb

What is the siginficance and did it change anything in our lives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.168.189 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

A big part of that answer involves defining "us"; our lives in Hiroshima were changed quite a lot. Our lives in western Greenland, not so much --Mnemeson 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

... appart from that time in 1968 when a B-52 crashed near Thule "scattering three hydrogen bombs on land and dropping one into the sea." list of military nuclear accidents. Keria 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The greatest effect was likely preventing the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact nations from conquering Europe. StuRat 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Atomic weapons made human-caused destruction of the planet Earth a likely event. -THB 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did change a lot of things. Nuclear power plants are a pretty useful spin-off. (but a bit controversial) I also think it ruled out the possibility of the Soviet Union and the USA going into a direct war with each other. And as soon as a nation has nuclear weapons, it can get away with a lot more things.Evilbu 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Like the six shooter was called the "equalizer" in the old western U.S. because it made a small weak man the equal of any big strong one, the nuke in the 21st century gives a small and weak nation or group the power to inflict huge harm on a powerful nation, to a degree that in the early 20th century would have required a huge navy and army and brilliant generals and leaders. Now all that is needed is a suitcase sized bomb and a way to smuggle it. Edison 00:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It changed history for one, and it will continue to change it in ways we can't imagine (for better or worse). | AndonicO 13:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Food/Clothing for Mexican/Inuit children

I need to find information that will allow me to compare the food and clothing of Mexican children to those of Eskimo children. Where should I look? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.65.8 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

First, learn the PC/professional word "inuit", it should improve your searching. 2nd, you could check out the articles on Mexico and Greenland. Don't know much about Greenland, but I think they import a lot of cheap foods from Europe.惑乱 分からん 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason behind Islam's rapid spread?

It's very much established that Islam is rapidly growing and maybe the fastest. So, why is this? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and the Islamic armies were nomads, giving them an edge on survival in any environment, basically saying the Islam spread "by the sword"? Or was it because Islamic generals were good politicans and their religion spiritually appealed to many? I would like to know how Islam came to spread so fast, not how it's spreading right now. No offense is intended to Islam and all other institutions that possibly grew mainly by force. History is what it is. Thanks. --69.210.130.186 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Begin with the History of Islam and proceed from there. I think, though, you seem to have a good grasp of the reasons for the beginnings of Islamic expansion. It was, and is, a militant religion with a simple message, which spread rapidly amongst the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, providing a focus for political unity. However, its possible that it may have been contained there but for the fact, as you suggest, both the Byzantine Empire and its great rival the Persian Empire had exhausted one another in a prolonged and destructive war. Under the Emperor Heraclius, the Byzantines had prevailed; but no sooner had hostilities concluded than they faced a fresh assault from an unexpected direction. It was a combination, therefore of organization, simplicity of message and military circumstances that led to the rapid advance of Islamic armies to the north, east and west. It is important also to take into consideration the political and military talents of Abu Bakr, the first of the Sunni Caliphs. Persia went under and Byzantium managed to hold out with difficulty. The Empire's defeat at the Battle of Yarmuk opened Egypt and much of the Levant to Islam. After that there was no other significant power standing in its way, allowing an advance all the way to the Pillars of Hercules and beyond. Clio the Muse 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you said "Islam is rapidly growing", but this discussion has been about how it was growing rapidly centuries ago. I'm not sure about the current growth rate, do we have any figures on that ? StuRat 11:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Google "fastest growing religion" and you will be left in no doubt.--Shantavira 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam is founded on the principles of patience. Its catching on in everyones lives. 17:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)~

Incentives for accepting refugees

How much money does the UNHCR give, for instance, to Czech Republic because the country accepts refugees?

I couldn't find any information at http://www.unhcr.org/home.html .--Patchouli 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to indicate that the UNHCR spent $26,702 in the Czech Repulic last year. The Czech Republic has contributed $137,586 to the UNHCR this year, so the Czech Republic is a net donor to the commission. -- Mwalcoff 15:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1950s - 60s movie name spoken in the movie caused an audience reaction, what was the reaction, cheer?

In the late 50s when a charcter in a movie spoke the name of the movie, the audience would react. What was that reaction? I remember it being a cheer, it may have been a boo, but I only went to a couple of movies as a kid. The Tonight show audience would always ask Johnny Carlon a question when he mentioned a subject. JC, it was hot in LA today. Audience, How hot was it? Jay Leno got bent out of shape when the audience continued this practice when he took over. This is the type of reaction I am asking about for the movies of the 50s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.26.156 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Judaism

I have read the relevant articles on Judaism, but still a few things were not clear to me. So, i thought that i post my querries here.

• Is there any last Messiah/Prophet (whichever is the correct term) of Judaism. If yes, who is he?

• Who is the last common prophet between 1)Judaism and christianity, 2)Judaism and Islam.

• Is there any legend parallel to second coming of christ.

• According to Jewish escheatology/judgement day, what will happen to Non-jews. (For example, Islamic escheatology doesnt speak good about Non-muslims or non-christians and thus encourages others to convert to Islam. But judaism does not convert others, so how does it view them at the end of the world.)

• I learned recently that Abraham is not accepted as a historical figure by the scholars (though the wiki article is not very clear about this). So who is the first Messiah prophet of Judaism, who is a historical figure too.

Thanks. nids(♂) 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I do know that in Judaism they "believe" in a Messiah but hasn't come "yet". Also I do think they believe in a form of judgement, see here. I am not so sure about the other info. — Seadog 13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi nids. Here are some answers to your questions:

1. See Jewish Messiah. In short, yes, Judaism does expects a messiah, who has not come yet, but he will not be a divine being like Jesus is supposed to be, just a human being who sets things right. Jews differ in how much they cling to the messiah idea, with some, such as Chabad followers, making a bigger deal out of it than others.
2. Malachi.
3. No -- there is no second coming in Jewish lore, as far as I know.
4. This page says any Gentile who follows the Noahide Laws gets to participate in the World to Come.
5. Judaism says the Messiah has not come yet, so there is no real answer to your question. I'm not sure, but Omri and Ahab, kings of Israel, may be the first Biblical characters mentioned in contemporary secular sources. -- Mwalcoff 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, thanks for your kind reply but I think i have to elaborate my 1st and 5th questions.

• In first question, i am referring to the last Messiah prophet who has walked on earth. Not the ones who are yet to come.
• In fifth question, i am asking who is the first prophet of judaism who is a historical figure too. For example, Noah and Adam are not accepted as real historical figures by the scholars. Same is the case for Abraham. But David is a historical figure. And (perhaps) Moses too. But who is the first historical figure who is also a Prophet.

Thanks.nids(♂) 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to question one there hasn't been any messiah "yet" in the Judaism faith, but for question 5 I am not to sure. — Seadog 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is secular historical evidence for any Biblical prophet. Kings, yes, but I don't know about prophets. David was a king, not a prophet, and although there is evidence that future Judean kings referred to themselves as the "House of David," no evidence contemporary with David himself has yet been found, as far as I know. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, only that we haven't found anything belonging to him yet. -- Mwalcoff 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also here is some more info on the Jewish Messiah. Cheers.— Seadog 15:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these replies.nids(♂) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Hong Kong contribute only financially in the Asia-Pacific Region?

"Does Hong Kong contribute only financially in the Asia-Pacific Region?" I highly hope that some really useful information can be provided by this web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.186.25.151 (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

newspaper delivery costs in the USA

I am preparing a research for newspaper business in USA. I want to know a few things about newspaper distribution. >>How much does it cost to distribute a newspaper like USA today or New york times on an average to readers across USA? For example, you may say it costs 30 cents or say 60 cents. >>Also tell me more about distribution infrastructure in USA. Is there any special distribution companies which distribute papers or is it somekind of a franchisee system or is handled by each and every company seperately? >>Does a same delivery-boy distributes papers of all competing newspapers in a street?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.123.117 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Belfry of Mons, Belgium

Who were the architects of the current structure and when was it completed..were there earlier belfry's on this site? Did WWI cause damage to Belfry? Did WWII cause damage to Belfry? Any help would be appreciated! Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.66.148 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

According to the Dutch wikipedia it was built in 1662 . That's all they tell us. Skarioffszky 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source giving 1719 .EricR 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Designed by Louis Ledoux, built in 1662 and renovated in 1864, according to my 1910 Baedeker. The 1929 Blue Guide describes the Belfry and doesn't mention that it was damaged in WWI. -- Necrothesp 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, i was looking at the wrong tower.EricR 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody "translate" the 20/20 section for people who are married 20 yrs, 20 yrs of service are comleted, 3 years of marriage was active duty and the rest while retired

Full Privileges - the "20/20/20" former spouse

Full benefits (medical, commissary, base exchange, theater, etc.) are extended to an unremarried former spouse when:

1. the parties had been married for at least 20 years;

2. the member performed at least 20 years of service creditable for retired pay; and

3. there was at least a 20 year overlap of the marriage and the military service.

Concerning medical care, if the former spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan, medical care is not authorized. However, when the former spouse is no longer covered by the employer-sponsored plan, military medical care benefits may be reinstated upon application by the former spouse.

If a 20/20/20 former spouse remarries, eligibility for the benefits is terminated. If the subsequent marriage is ended by divorce or death, commissary, base exchange and theater privileges may be reinstated. Medical care cannot be reinstated.

Limited privileges: the "20/20/15" former spouse.

Divorces before April 1, 1985:

A four year renewable identification card authorizing medical benefits (no commissary, base exchange, or theater privileges) is awarded to an unremarried former spouse when:

1. the parties had been married for at least 20 years;

2. the member performed at least 20 years of service creditable for retired pay; and

3. there was at least a 15 year overlap of the marriage and the military service.

Concerning medical care, if the former spouse is covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan, medical care is not authorized. However, when the former spouse is no longer covered by the employer-sponsored plan, military medical care benefits may be reinstated.70.252.86.140 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Manuela Monroe

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive