Revision as of 18:11, 13 December 2006

Reference Desk

December 9

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)

Why do you need a response ASAP? Sounds a bit like a homework question to me... Nil Einne 13:04, 12 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)

Could it have been "A Gift From the Sea" by Anne Morrow Lindbergh? JackofOz 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm under the impression it wasn't a collection of essays. Crisco 1492 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Rice Burroughs' adventure book "The Land that Time Forgot" claims to be a bottle manuscript, and the 4th paragraph ends with "In two minutes you will forget me." Is this it? Vultur 12 December 2006.

That would be the one! Terima kasih Vultur. Crisco 1492 00:25, 14 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)

Is it just me, or is Annie's version of Whiter Shade the best of all? Vanatos 22:44, 11 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)

Interesting. What if we'll give you just one more week/day of life in exchange for our agreement not to subject your corpse to vile dishonors? Etc. Wareh 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd take the extra day. StuRat 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The questioner specified fish chowder, not clam. -THB 20:05, 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)

Yes and no. Suitcase sized bombs have not played a substantial role in actual world diplomacy or military interactions, and it requires substantial nuclear knowledge and resources to make a suitcase sized bombs (they are harder to make than a bomb the size of Volkswagen). So unless you are talking about stealing or buying a suitcase bomb from the USA or Russia, they don't really "equalize" anything — the only countries that have them are already big, strong countries. --24.147.86.187 17:33, 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)

The question is a bit vague. You could answer with links to articles ranging from the massive category of Cold War to the small categories of nuclear weapons in popular culture. It also matters what time period you are discussing. As an example of lines along with you could delineate an answer are:

• Military: The creation of the atomic bomb made it so that direct confrontation between the superpowers could never occur without the risk of all-out nuclear warfare. As a consequence you get the many different approaches and phases of the Cold War. For non-nuclear powers it meant that the world could be polarized along the lines of the superpowers, though this polarization need not be as rigid as it is sometimes depicted (the non-aligned states, for example, were able to shrewdly play the two against each other for their own benefit in many cases).
• Social: Depends on the culture you are talking about, but generally speaking the atomic bomb led, by the mid-1950s anyway, to the idea that the world was bound together in a common fate and a common state of risk. At some times this led to a high degree of anxiety, at some times a high degree of apathy. Wars could no longer be truly local and even neutral states would suffer in the fallout from a nuclear war. Fear of the bomb was used in many different ways by governments and non-governmental groups to attempt to affect policies. Fear of the bomb spilled out into many different areas of social activity. But in any case all of these assertions are highly based in specific locations and specific time periods, and changed quite a bit from 1945 to the present.
• Scientific: After 1945 almost all governments in the world realized that nations who lagged behind in scientific development would lag behind in military and economic development as well. Funding of science by the superpowers increased exponentially in the postwar period and respect for scientists generally grew. There were many different effects of this in different places.

You could imagine parsing out any of the above categories into many different categories, or adding additional categories. My point is that there isn't one way to gauge "significance" here and depending on how you want to do it, it can be a monumental enterprise. If this is an essay topic you really need to delineate along which lines you plan to discuss it, or at least spend a lot of time talking about the ways in which it is hard to succinctly talk about influence with something as influential as this. That being said, you could also argue that a lot of these changes were occurring anyway — it is hard to disentangle many co-influencing factors — and that some of these changes might be over-exaggerated (it is common for columnists to say things like the "atomic bomb has totally changed our lives!" though if you look at the bare-bones of what "our lives" means it is not clear that such changes are related directly to the atomic bomb). --24.147.86.187 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well said 24.147... | AndonicO 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

December 10

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)

Per "DON'T BITE THE QUESTIONER" the article Eskimo says "There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit in northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland, and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East." so your 'politically correct/professional' usage is questionable. Edison 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find that information from Google. Do an image search to easily identify the info you need. Here's one for inuit + children + clothes: here. Then substitute "mexican" for "inuit" and then repeat process for inuit + children + food and then mexican + children + food. The main differences are due to the drastically different climates. Inuits wear warmer clothes than Mexicans. Interestingly enough, "Eskimo" means something like "raw meat eaters". Also think that people tend to eat what's around them. A Mexican might eat cactus fruit where an Inuit might eat a seal, for instance. Also look at the articles Inuit and Mexico and related articles linked from those. If you need more help, just post follow-up questions here. -THB 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know the Inuits were in Greenland too! I thought it was just Canada. | AndonicO 18:04, 11 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)

Is this a reproductive effect?87.102.8.237 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on Clio the Muse's excellent work, I would point out that both the Byzantine and Persian empires had lost the support of many of their inhabitants because of the onerous taxes that they imposed to support their warfare and elaborate bureaucracies. The inhabitants of the Middle East may have welcomed the Arabs as liberators, particularly the Jews and Christians, who were treated with some tolerance by the Muslim Arabs. Also, most of the Christians of Egypt and many of the Christians of the Levant were Monophysites, who were seen by the Orthodox Byzantines as heretics. The Arabs at least accepted them as (lesser) people of the book, so they may have welcomed Arab rule for this reason as well. These factors (and the more important ones mentioned by Clio) help to explain how the Arabs achieved victory militarily. They gradually converted the conquered populations mainly by offering tax benefits and career opportunities to Muslims. So some of their subjects converted partly out of self-interest. Also, they used tax revenues to build magnificent mosques and to provide social support to Muslims, which no doubt attracted further converts. Marco polo 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Misplaced Pages discusses current growth in Claims to be the fastest growing religion. Marco polo 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My perception is that virtually every other religion only speaks to 'the Beyond' (life after death), while Islam deals with the here and now: daily prescriptions for living. It's basically a codified system of 'commmon-sense common law', now categorized as a religion. In my opinion is less a religion than a legal doctrine, which appears to appeal to a lot of people, mostly living near the equator, and mostly living in Central Asia and Africa. Mathiemood 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, our Claims to be the fastest growing religion article doesn't include Jedi, which in the UK grew from 0 adherents to 390,000, simply because of the Jedi_census_phenomenon. This infinite growth is hard to match. --Dweller 12:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I bet, just as a guess, it has something to do , at least these days, with the strictness of the religion (praying five times a day, month long Ramadan, etc.) I think, at least in Western culture, people are turning off of religion because it seems like a farce. I know fewer and fewer religious Jews, for instance, which may have something to do with the fact that Judaism as it is practiced in America is usually (discounting orthodox jews) a pretty lax religion. I think people looking into religion would find a religion with a more rigid code alluring. Also, to be somewhat crude and anti-religious, it seems that religion for the most part thrives in areas where the population is generally uneducated (ie poor.) The middle east is, while not terribly third world and while certainly containing both rich and poor, educated and not, a much worse-off area of the world right now in terms of distribution of wealth and education than the west. This could possibly contribute. Sashafklein 05:30, 14 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)

Thanks--Patchouli 19:02, 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)

Anytime. — Seadog 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Given your revisions of questions 1 and 5, the answer to No 1 is the same as No 2: Malachai.

Not having taken a survey of all scholars I cannot give a definitive answer to who the majority believes was historic. I would venture a guess that it would be someone from the era when the scene was dominated by the Assyrians (like Isaiah). Whether the majority would agree to earlier figures such as Elijah or even Deborah becomes problematic.

BTW, well answered by Mwalcoff –B00P 22:52, 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).

No, Hong Kong contributes in many ways. The article discusses ideas that you might use in detail and has links to other articles. The article on global cities classifies Hong Kong as a 10-point Alpha City and goes into detail on the characteristics such a city has. -THB 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One major cultural contribution is in the form of martial arts movies, such as those by Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li. StuRat 09:24, 11 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).

I cannot tell you how much it costs, but I would seriously doubt 60¢. The New York Times subscription rate is only $3.15 per week (45¢ per day), and (if I remember rightly, since I don't have one in front of me), the USA Today only costs 75¢ per day. Of course, subscription and purchase prices aren't the newspaper's entire revenue, but I would guess far lower than 60¢.

Not sure about national papers, but in my small town there are several popular newspapers from larger nearby towns, and I know that they're delivered by different people, all of whom are simply local residents.

Hopefully someone else more knowledgeable can give you solid information! Nyttend 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Times is $9.90 a week in the city, more elsewhere. (link). -THB 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Which "Times" ? There are several. Also, that link doesn't work for me. StuRat 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, each carrier contracts to deliver a single type of newspaper. Durova 23:38, 13 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

Sorry, I've read this 3 times and I still don't understand. Please can you clarify what the question is? And should we guess that you're talking about the US military? --Dweller 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the question is in the title. Ms. Monroe, if you don't get an answer here, go to this website and read that article. If it doesn't answer your questions, e-mail the moderator of that site Rod Powers. Good luck. -THB 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

US Supreme Court cases and constitutional theories

I am searching for landmark cases of the US SC:

1. A case in which the SC applied an extreme strict interpretation of constitution and gave verdict that severly opposed the social, cultural or political changes of the American society.

2. A case to the contrary, in which mild interpretation allowed to give verdict that pushed the American society forward.

I also look for quotes of scholars that would describe the basic principles of originalism, contructionism as well as theories of liberal interpretation.

Thank you in advance for your precious help. Yarovit 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)--

I don't know a whole lot about interpretation, but how about:

• Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education and then Brown v. Board of Education
• Dred Scott v. Sandford as an example of (1). -- Cat Whisperer 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• See judicial interpretation for some discussion of these topics. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider for (2) Griswold v. Connecticut Wolfgangus 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the case that led to, Roe v. Wade.

As for No. 1, you can also look at some of the cases that brought down the First New Deal, such as United States v. Butler. -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Falklands War" v "Falklands Conflict"

Have other (especially UK-based) editors heard / been told that referring to the "Falklands War" is erroneous, as war was never declared (by either party) and that therefore "Falklands Conflict" is the correct title? I'm just wondering if there's any awareness of this issue. --Dweller 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when does a war absolutly need to be declared (so if A invades B whitout a formal declaration it isn't a war? Ha, don't make me laugh). I remember a few wars that began without a formal/official declaration. It seems to me that you have been misled by ruleslawyers. But please, read the article Falklands War. Flamarande 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the United States hasn't actually declared war since 1941. That's why you sometimes see the Korean War called the Korean Conflict. But the distinction between declared wars and undeclared conflicts has become so muddled that no one wrings his hands over the name "War in Iraq." -- Mwalcoff 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dweller. I live in the UK and I am not aware, so far as I am aware of it at all, that there is a technically correct usage for referring to the conflict in the Falklands. I think it is mostly called the Falklands War, though there was never any official decalaration to this effect. It is true, as I have said elsewhere, that declarations of war as such now seem a little old fashioned, largely dropping out of the political and diplomatic lexicon. Indeed, I do not believe that there have been any declarations in this form, anywhere in the world, since 1945. But there is really no reason why an armed conflict, depending on the scale, should not be called a war. However, there is one small caveat I should add to this. The British struggle against Communist insurgents in Malay States from the late 1940s onwards was officially known as the 'Malay Emergency' rather than the war. This was to do, I understand, with preserving the validity of insurance claims held by British rubber planters in the area. Clio the Muse 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this was a genuine controversy at the time: although I only remember that because "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole" (whose author Sue Townsend was quite active in left-wing politics) parodied the point. I'm afraid that's all I can remember, though. AndyJones 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation for this line of thinking in The Times style guide but the regular editors at the Falklands War article don't think this is a reputable source. --Dweller 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Times doesn't want to use Falklands War because war wasn't declared but has no problem with the "War in Iraq" where war hasn't been declared? Rmhermen 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

US Military Expenditures

Hello,

I am writing a term paper explaining why the U.S. Military should cease its operations in Okinawa, Japan. I was going to support it with overwhelmingly heated protest from the Okinawans( which I think I have good support for), and the fact that compared to the rest of world-wide military operations, the bases simply aren’t worth the money and troops- especially with what is going on in Iraq.

What I need some guidance on, is how I could find some materials as to how much the United States spends, what projects that could use more money (Iraq War for example). It would be pretty easy to simply say more money would be better, but I am having some difficulty finding precise figures on spending, what could be helped, etc. I am sure this is on the internet somewhere, but I have searched tenaciously yet in vain.

If anyone could help me with those resources, or better structure my thesis any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.58.92 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, for one, the trillions of dollars being spent on the military could be used to reduce poverty in the United States. -THB 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This could VERY easily just turn into a flame fest, be careful;). As the article about the Military budget of the United States states ;), the US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined, 46% of the world's total in fact. I don't think any argument you put forward about a few billion dollars this way or that will have any weight what so ever. Sorry.. I agree with you, but budget is not where you should make your argument. On the other hand, you're probably better off trying to sell a fridge to a duck then to argue 'strategic importance' with the country that is still entrenched in Iraq. ;) Vespine 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To make an argument against US bases in Japan, you need to understand the historic context. After WW2, the US didn't want Japan to have a powerful military, which would have been seen as a threat. Thus, the Japanese Constitution was written such that their military is rather limited in scope and scale. This, of course, would leave Japan quite vulnerable, so the US, in turn, took on the role of the defense of Japan. It can be argued that it's time for this era to come to an end, and for Japan to once again defend itself. However, their are powerful enemies in the area, including North Korea and potentially China. Therefore, if we leave Japan to defend itself, it will need to dramatically expand it's military, and quite possibly will want to get nuclear weapons to balance those in NK and China. These are difficult issues to decide. The US, of course, also wants bases there as a method of power projection into the Western Pacific and Eastern Asia. StuRat 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So, unless Japan wants to spend a few trillion yen of it's own, it's best choice is to accept an American presence. I'm sorry for all those Okinowans, but you should support the US bases (IMHO). | AndonicO 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the potential enemies in China+ North Korea, especially since NK has nukes now and neither country really likes Japan for that matter. If the American presence was not there, would Japan HAVE to re-arm and expand its military? I actually agree with you guys on that that is a pretty... less desirable alternative, but I need to find some research on that topic. So I would be arguing that despite the crimes committed on the Okinawans, the bases are justified because if Japan was to rearm an arms race would occur?Takucharael 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Japan would likely be punished by the international community, at least for a while, for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by developing such weapons, even if they were legitimately needed for self-defense. I'd like to say the US would use their permanent seat on the security council to block any UN action, but that might not be "politically viable". Wouldn't a better option be to retain US troops, but confine them to their bases ? StuRat 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Elected communists/Marxist leaders in democratic governments

Salvador Allende is often called the first elected Marxist leader of a democratic country. How many other elected Marxists or communists have there been? Who were they? When were they elected? What countries did they lead? I can only think of Vladimir Voronin of Moldova. Soviet Dolphin 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• How about Robert Mugabe? --jpgordon 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Indian state of Kerala is unique in that Communists often win control of its government in free elections -- and keep control in free elections.

It's also true that Klement Gottwald and his Communist Party won a plurality in the 1946 Czechoslovak election, which was relatively free and fair. Once in power, though, the Communists quickly turned the country into a totalitarian state. -- Mwalcoff 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Giorgio Napolitano of Italy count? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jpgordon: Do you really consider Mugabe to be an elected leader of a democratic country? He's been intimidating opponents since the early 80s. Picaroon9288 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly the case. However, he was democratically elected, regardless of what he's turned into since (and, for that matter, regardless of what he was then.) --jpgordon 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to the asker: socialists and communists in San Marino, a microstate surrounded by Italy, were democratically elected and held a majority for a total of more than 12 years, from 1945 to 1957 (see History_of_San_Marino#Modern_independence and San Marinese Communist Party). Picaroon9288 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting question, and I am sure there will be lots of answers, depending if government is defined at a municipal, district, regional or national basis. But one example that tends to be consistently overlooked is the Democratic Republic of Georgia, set up in the wake of-and in opposition to-the the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. It was led Noe Zhordania of the Menshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party, Marxists but not Communists, at a time when it was still possible to draw a distinction between the two. In the elections of February 1919 the Georgian Mensheviks obtained over 80% of the popular vote, and Zhordania remained in power until his government was overthrown by the invasion of the Red Army in February 1921. Clio the Muse 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1916

Why did the rebels, take over a biscuit factory, a post office, a mill & a court building while leaving not attacking Army strongholds? did they want to loose?

Have a look at the Easter Rising. The aim was to hold important strategic locations for as long as possible, places that could be taken initially without a major struggle. It was a grand gesture, intended to give fresh life to the nationalist cause in Ireland. There was never any expectation that the Dublin Rising in itself would be victorious-A terrible beauty is born. Clio the Muse 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. From what I know, the Easter Rising was meant as a gesture, not as any sort of successful military action. This is the birth of the revolutionary movement, really, and at this point they really weren't militaristic at all. That all came later. Moreover, even when the IRA did pick up and start seriously violent tactics, they rarely, if ever, attacked "army strongholds." In a terrorist movement, it is simply not intelligent to go where the enemy is strongest. Sun Tzu makes a point about this (and then another, and another) in his The Art of War. It's why terrorists in Iraq today bomb civilians at mosques or, if they're attacking troops, will attack them when isolated. The British sent in some of their most brutal troops, well armed and violently led, (see Black and Tans) to suppress the Irish revolutionaries, who were relatively few in number, untrained, somewhat badly armed, and operated in isolated cells. They had to use evasionary and careful tactics. All of which is to say that, to read into your question further than you asked, even when the revolution was really violent later on, the IRA did not seek out open, man-to-man confrontation. The Easter Rising of 1916 was a desperate act not intended as a violent move. Michael Collins, James Connolly, Padraig Pearse, and the rest were merely seeking to draw attention to the British presence in Ireland. In the years directly before this, many Irish seeking independence from Britain had gone into WWI on the British side as a gesture in the hope that the British would repay them. This was not to be the case, and these early Sinn Fein precursors taking the buildings in Dublin wanted to call attention from a largely apathetic populace and international audience to the Irish Republican situation. So they took one of the country's most notable and poorly defended landmarks (The Post Office), and tried to hold it for as long as possible to get the most attention. Ironically, it was the British response (the killing of the insurrectionists) that, far more than the actual rising, turned the revolutionaries into martyrs and birthed the popular support of their cause.

Sashafklein 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking, a little bit, about the Black and Tans, you might enjoy listening to this.

. I love that clip. Sashafklein 02:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sashafklein; that was a very useful and interesting amplification. I have really only one small point to make by way of clarification. The Black and Tans were not formed until 1920, and were therefore not used against the nationalists in Dublin in 1916. Now, I realize that you were looking at the broad sweep of the conflict, bringing in later dimensions, and I understand that it was not your intention that this inference should be made. I just want to avoid any possible misreading by people who may be a little less knowledgeable than you and I.

On the wider point about war, yes, it is a classic principle that weaker forces should only attack a stronger opponent where they are most vulnerable, concentrating and dispersing as necessary. This does not just apply to guerilla warfare. It was used by Stonewall Jackson in the Valley Campaign, arguably the most brilliant exposition of the tactic in all of military history. For an alternative approach one could do no better than look at the early career of Fidel Castro, who at the Moncada Barracks attacked the enemy at just the point where he was strongest! But for circumstances the world may have heard nothing more of El Commandante after that fiasco. Clio the Muse 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

APUS HELP

okay..so...i really dont want to fail this class but everything i try to do to study just doesnt seem to be working. i have a really bad memory but i really need to pass this class. i have tried note cards,re-reading the chapter, outlines, and even IDIO To GUIDE TO APUS. im jusy not getting it. is there any suggestions? i just cant get into it. --Kittycat rox 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone who knows thinks it's really obvious but I've goolged and wikied it and have no clue, what's APUS? Vespine 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

AP United States History maybe? I have no idea. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

From reviewing the article, it looks like the test is pretty much the same as it was 25 years ago. Don't get too worked up over it: In a multiple choice test, they give you the answer, you just have to recognize it. In the essay parts, just do the essay by the book based on the material they give you, don't get fancy or try to do too much, and before you write the essay, plan it with a brief outline. Are you more worried about failing the class than the test itself? I would also talk to the teacher and express your concerns if you feel comfortable with the teacher. Talk to some of your classmates as well. The feelings you're having are common. Likely you'll do better than you expect. -THB 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Two other things. Instead of trying to remember isolated events try to make a chain of events. Like - First the British passed the Townshend acts, and then the colonists got angry, and then the British repealed the Townshend acts (I don't remember if that's the right order or not, but you see what I'm saying). Also, you can put things into rhymes. Good luck! --AstoVidatu 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A good teacher would put more emphasis on understanding the underlying trends and less on memorization. However, there are some key events and people whose names should be memorized. I suggest flash cards for those. StuRat 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The brain is a stubborn storage device. Just looking at a list of facts or things written on index cards may not get them into memory. Forced recall is required. Emphasize the things you do NOT recall and don't waste time on the things you DO recall. Here is a method for it: Take the practice tests and identify 40 facts you DON'T remember but need to. Put each one on a flash card (Q on on side, A on the other). Shuffle the deck and go through. Put the successful ones in 1 stack, the unremembered ones in the other. Reshuffle the not remembered and go through them again, separating out the successes. Keep repeating with the shrinking pile of non-remembered. Make up a special mnemonic for each of the really tough ones. Keep going until there is no non-remembered fact. The next day, reshuffle and repeat. Got them all? Then work for speed: how fast can you run the entire deck. This helps to burn in the memorized facts so they can be recalled under time pressure in a test. Edison 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that, but the flash cards article already said it for me. StuRat 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Flash card article is vague and the method is unnecessarily complex. The method here is defined and puts 40 facts in the mind of the learner (perhaps to be retained even after the exam!)Edison 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

ya..the notecards are the same thing as flashcards. am i just studying them wrong or something. i go through them and the ones i dont knowi put in a pile and the ones i do know i put in another. Then i keep going through the non known pile eliminating them once i get them right until i have them all memorized. --Kittycat rox 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To pass the essay portion of the test, study women and minorities. The hyper-PC AP people can't resist making the essay on women or minorities every time. Just took the test last year and the whole room groaned when they saw the essay question because we'd all made jokes about what it was going to be and... it was exactly what we'd thought - women in the African American enfranchisement movement i think. At any rate, don't freak out, because the AP has really wide grade margins. I think a 5 is anything above roughly a 75 percent and a 4 reaches down fairly low. If you study consistently, you should hopefully be able to hit a four, which is accepted by most universities as sufficient to bar you from having to take the class in college. I think notecards might be a bad idea because it causes you to focus on discreet pieces of information. THe important thing here is to think of the history as a storyline. This can be made difficult by the way history texts are put together - with separate sections for "Technology in the 1800s" or "Women in the 1800s" or "Religion in the 17th Century." Just learn the storyline well - what the basic gist of the period is in the various categories given, and all you have to "memorize" is the particular names, which you can then flashcard or outline. Don't be ashamed to read this stuff to yourself outloud. Sometimes just staring at notes is completely useless, but if you, for instance, say "Eli Whitney's cotton gin, although it reduced the number of workers necessary to harvest cotton, made the industry more profitable and therefore in the long run led to increased slavery," the information will actually have to pass through your head instead of bouncing off. This goes for writing outlines as well. If you're writing an outline, make sure to use your own words, so your brain has to grapple with the subject, instead of simply memorizing a line of a textbook for a minute so you can write it down. And maybe try reading the info ahead of time, so that when your teacher talks about it, what he/she says will actually imprint somewhat on your brain instead of just sounding foreign. Good Luck. Remember. It's supposed to be a hard class, but if you stay afloat, you should do just fine on the test. Sashafklein 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. ALso. I think most history textbooks are really boring and therefore difficult to understand. You might, if you have the time, consider reading some small more narrative works on periods of US history instead. You're probably past this part by now, but Birth of a Nation, for instance, does a good job of breaking the leadup to the Revolutionary War into a nice, cohesive narrative. And it's pretty short. You can probably ask you teacher (or the wiki reference desk) for works like this for various periods. YOu can only do this really, though, if you've got the time. Sashafklein 04:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have any more questions, feel free to message me. I have pretty immediate experience with this class. Sashafklein 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

December 11

Pinochet and the Devil

According to the major religious belief systems (such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam), will Pinochet meet up tonight with Satan/Iblis or will this come after a certain time has passed? --AlexSuricata 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Christian belief, any sinner, even Hitler, can go to Heaven if they have truly repented their sins. They must also take responsibility for their actions and redress them, and submit to whatever human processes might be appropriate eg. punishment for their crimes. The fact that Pinochet was never brought to justice does not necessarily mean he's going to Hell. JackofOz 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is, assume he's damned to hell—does he proceed there immediately, or is there some kind of waiting around first. According to Resurrection of the dead, "several churches" believe that "the dead remain dead (and do not immediately progress to a Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory) until a spiritual or physical resurrection of the dead occurs at the end of time." But many Christians believe you're in hell already upon your death (hell, some of them believe that if Pinochet was in a state separate from God during his life, he was already in hell). See further Particular judgment and Christian eschatology#Intermediate state. Wareh 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the phrase -- all the interesting people are in hell? Mathiemood 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it "All the interesting people are in Hell?"? Anchoress 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

link title

Do any of you know Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit? The basic premise is that in Hell there is no Devil, no fire, no torture; just three mutually incompatible people locked in the same small room forever, indulging in mental games and verbal torture. The play finishes with the classic line, Hell is other people! Well, just imagine Pinochet with, say, Eva Peron and Lenin. Hell is indeed other people. Clio the Muse 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is oddly quiet about Hell. By far the greater weight of writing is dedicated to how to ensure you get there (it's quite easy, whether you're Jewish or not) and once past that hurdle, how to maximise your "share of the world to come". To answer your specific question, Pinochet, as a non Jew, would only have had to observe the seven Noahide Laws to reach heaven. I'm not going to judge if he did or not... If he did, he's in Heaven. If he didn't... well, as is often the case with Jewish issues, there's no real consensus about whether there is indeed Hell and if there is, what it's like. (Two Jews, three opinions is the old joke.) You can look at our Gehenna article, but I don't believe it really reflects a spectrum of Jewish belief. I once read a definition of Hell that I thought was quite good. It was along the lines of Hell is a place where you can see Heaven, but you can't join in. Whether Pinochet is joining in or not...? I'd ask God, but I'm in no hurry to meet him just yet. --Dweller 10:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The views of different religious groups are discussed at Last Judgment. Edison 15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Catholicism, the Particlular Judgement takes place (esentially just a you-and-God judgement). From there, you go either to hell, heaven, or purgatory, depending on your life, and whether you are in "the state of Sanctifying Grace". I don't know if this actually takes time (since God is a spirit, and so is the soul) though. | AndonicO 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Protestantism (or at least Presbyterianism USA) no human (Jesus exempt) can be assured anything. God has the ultimate say and nobody (Jesus exempted) can say for sure whether someone went to heaven or hell. If you believe in the tenants laid out in the Apostles' Creed the bible says you will go to heaven, but God has the final say. You should always be skeptical if someone tells you you are going to heaven or hell, after all, who appointed them God? As for myself, (I am representing only myself and not the larger church or Christians in general) I believe in a merciful God. People are bound to disagree. Sifaka 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have picked up on the Muslim perspective I can say, from my reading and understanding of the Qur'an, that it is possibly the most direct of all. The wicked are consigned immediately to the fires of hell. There is no meeting with Iblis, no intermediate stage, no purgatory: the fires wait. Clio the Muse 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sc laws on probation violation

I need to know the laws or sc code of procedures on probation violation and sentencing for a family member who should have got his credits on time served and got out already but they messed up on his dates and not wanting to give him his credits and him serve another year. anything that you can tell me to help will be very appreciated thanks parkergirl05 Parkergirl05 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that South Carolina ? We don't generally give legal advice here. StuRat 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He should discuss it with his parole officer and his lawyer. -THB 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

experimental constitutional provisions

Have any of you heard about unusual, experimental or innovative solution/provision/right of freedom, in any of modern, contemporary consitution? Not limited geographically, but the state should be democratic. Thanks Yarovit 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? What are you referring to? What is your definition of "freedom"? Could you rephrase? 惑乱 分からん 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Prohibition in the United States? GreatManTheory 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted it the other way around, that democratic states normally don't provide freedom, which kinda puzzled me... 惑乱 分からん 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think examples of what he means would be a constitution that guarenteed the right to say...housing or education

State allegiances in the civil war

would you please help me find which states and territories were Union states, confederate states, and slaveholding Union states?

See the image in the article Union (American Civil War). –mysid☎ 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you could also see Confederate States of America. -THB 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's still not clear to you, there were four slave holding Union states-Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. The last two were also nominally part of the Confederacy. The break-away territory of West Virginia, which remained with the Union after the seccession of the rest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was also slave holding, though it did not officially become a state in its own right until after slavery was abolished. Clio the Muse 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Tennessee "Though Tennessee had officially seceded, East Tennessee was pro-Union. Tennessee came under control of Union forces in 1862 and was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation. After the war, Tennessee was the first state readmitted to the Union." from Border states (Civil War). So from 1862 on Tennessee was a slave-holding Union State, as well as a Confederate State, which also had an army (the Army of Tennessee) fighting for the Confederacy. Edison 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clio, there's quite a difference between succession and seccession. JackofOz 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Typo amended. Clio the Muse 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

materanal

If my sister is the aunt to my daughter what would the aunt be to my granddaughter?

Great aunt (see cousin#Family tree). –mysid☎ 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

judical review in the federalist number 78

what does judical review contribute to the practice of limited goverment and the rule of law? 64.173.170.64 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text: . Alexander Hamilton was certainly a great statesman. -THB 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jurisdiction? I assume you're American, I am not. Neither are many wikipedians. Please state.martianlostinspace 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Judicial Review.martianlostinspace 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I American, but a question regarding the "federalist number 78" is a clear reference to the Federalist Papers, in particular Federalist No. 78. I'm unaware of any other country in the world where the term "federalist number 78" would apply. Loomis 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Luciano De Crescenzo

I red few of his books,and I just finished reading "Storia della filosofia Greca"(i dont know how to translate it correctly).

I really enjoyed his books,so my question is,can you tell me more about him? I mean,about his life,is he still alive and what are his other most important publications?

Thanks

YXYX 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you read Italian, start at the Italian Misplaced Pages page on him: Luciano De Crescenzo. Some biography in English here. He seems to be still living (at the age of 78). Wareh 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Тhanks, this is excatly what I needed. I should have remembered to try to find it in Italian Misplaced Pages. Thank you again

YXYX 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Western democracy

The treatment of the immigrants(particulary the asians) in the UK is a real misery. There is no democracy but only racism. Majority of the Indian workers are not allowed to work in the UK. The Whites there call the indians The Kumars at no.42 , At workplaces they are being discriminated against. Whats the point of globalisation and all this talk about freedom. The ones who start it in Iraq today dont take the responsilbilities for the havoc in every iraqi's lives. What exactly does the west want? Is it blatant abuse of freedom?? The west is allowed all the liberty in the east but the same reciprocity is not demonstrated by the west.

21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjvenus (talk • contribs)

Caveat: this entire following answer is subjective.

I am from the U.S. and to me it seems the states don't have the same magnitude of problem with Indians as what you are describing, but we have plenty of discrimination problems. I have been in the midst of one recently as I go to Duke University (2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal). I myself do not discriminate against Indians. I think the reason discrimination and racism exist is because of historical reasons that perpetuate socioeconomically and down through families. The U.K. specifically has a deep historical connection through India with colonialism. The Indian population was looked down on back then as "backwards" and even inferior. Of course, science has proven that entirely wrong. The discrimination, though continues to exist, because it is perpetuated socioeconomically and somewhat culturally.

I don't have any statistics to back me up on this but it seems likely in the UK that Indians probably make a lower mean income than Europeans. This can be traced back to the old colonialism days where Indians were effectively servants. When the Indians broke free from this role, things only got marginally better because the Indian people were still thought of as servants and the British population were not prepared to welcome them into a higher social class by giving them equal jobs or pay. They were still racist too. The result is a lot of poor Indians with little job security.

So why is this inequality perpetuated today? What was a racism problem is now a mostly socioeconomic problem. In just about anywhere in the world a group of people who has lower income and general security is more prone to being marginalized. That is because low income groups have more instability are more prone to crime and other negative behaviors. This is further exacerbated by closed communities. (i.e self discrimination) The result is that people look at the crime and the instability of this population and associate it with ethnicity. People make up all sorts of bullshit reasons (pardon the language) to explain this, i.e. it's their culture or why can't they fix themselves? The cycle perpetuates anew because the upper classes do not want to associate with lower security groups. When Indians receive equal status and gain more security, the problem should mitigate.

As proof of this, I would say look at the United States. From what I gather of U.S. stereotypes of Indians, is that they are good at science and tech, especially computers an math. Since a lot of outsourcing goes to India, including help lines people have the belief that Indians have a difficult time communicating. As for Asians in general, one of the stereotypes is that they are very smart. Asians have high pay in the U.S. compared to other ethnic groups like Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans. (All three heavily marginalized in the U.S.) The result is that Indians and Asians in general receive less negative discrimination (stereotypes are a form of discrimination). I hope this answered your question or at least helped. 152.3.73.203 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Hi, KJ. That was a short 24 hours. If you think the way Indians in the UK are treated is bad, you should see how Mexicans are treated in the U.S. And the Germans treat Turks poorly. The French hate the North Africans. And the Iraquis aren't too fond of Americans, the Jews and Arabs don't get along, etc. All over the planet you'll find discrimination and hate. Globalization doesn't eliminate hate. My suggestion is that each person must do what he can to expunge hatred from within his own soul, love his or her neighbor as he loves himself, and treat others as he would have others treat him. It all starts on an individual level. -THB 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the West wants petroleum. Oil. Black gold. Texas tea. -THB 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a solution. If they treat you like **** in the UK then why don't you boycott the UK. What force on earth can force you (against your will) to go to the UK? UK is not the only country in the world. I'm sure Saudi Arabia will treat you like a proper human being. I heard that they like foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. 202.168.50.40 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that is the best advice. Your best bet would be to bring the discrimination to the management for the nurses. Personally, do your best to break the stereotypes. If you live in a primarily Indian community, that may mean getting out of your community a bit more. One thing you might try is to go to a store somewhere that is primarily frequented by primarily upper class Europeans and shop there, presenting yourself in a favorable light. By doing that you make these people see that Indians are perfectly capable of all the positive qualities they don't ascribe to you. I tried to that while abroad, and I sure got stared at but I did my best to prove that Americans are not shallow, money laden, and culturally unaware. I bet many of these people have not had a meaningful experience with Indians, and by doing this you provide the counterexample.

Oh, and about the West being treated well in the East, that is not true at all. Many countries like China tend to be xenophobic. A lot of people in the middle East think Americans are Evil or at least think we are villainous and greedy. I read a recent story about one American student's battle to get her exchange family in Japan to realize she genuinely wanted to learn and partake of Japanese culture and that she didn't want to be treated like a stubborn foreigner. From my experience abroad, Americans are thought of as shallow, money laden, and culturally ignorant, sometimes with a predilection for cowboyism. I tried to talk about it when people asked, and usually were surprised when I actually knew something about their culture. Sifaka 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Going right back to the original post, democracy and racism are not incompatible, sad to say. But there are, this fundamental point notwithstanding, many Asian workers in the UK. Indeed the Kumars at No. 42 is a television comedy which features Indian people making light fun of certain British cultural practices. You will find Indian and other Asian people in all walks of British life, and this includes a high number of very successful business people. There are, moreover, laws which specifically outlaw the forms of workplace discrimination you seem to be hinting at; so if you are speaking of some personal grievance, I urge you to seek legal advice. Racism may be a regrettable feature of democratic societies; but it is also a feature of these societies that you do not have to suffer this problem in silence. Clio the Muse 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I read many of the above comments but none were that satisfactory. The response is not that concrete. The Immigration tests for Australia and the US are becoming tougher. What exactly does the west really want? The culture to be appreciated around the world. The racist attitudes are quite anachronous in todays age, particularly when the west appreciates freedom & democracy on one side. The American concept of freedom & Equality is just a farcical with the highest levels of sexual impatience. 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Policy in North America (specifically Canada)

Hi, I have a question about immigration policy in Canada, though I expect the answer will be similar for many other countries (US, Australia ect).

I come from a European immigrant family and I have heard the complaint often enough from older family members that Canada doesn't let Europeans in anymore, only "middle easterners" and asians. This claim is certainly true if you look at the numbers in Canadian census, European immigrants are certainly the minority in moving to Canada.

My question is why? Is it becuase they dont apply as much? Is it because of Europes horribly low birth rate that people just are not leaving in droves. Are the europeans less skilled? Is there some element in Canadian Immigration policy that prefers people from certain countries? How signifigant is the refugee element?

I am looking for data/explanations to understand this trend, I looked at the 2001 census, but there is a lot there, and there is no actual data on who applied, just who got in. Just for a note, I am not a rascist or anything, I am just curious.

Have you looked HERE? I don't believe Canada gives preference to any country, but Canada accepts immigrants through two streams; the regular merit stream, which is based upon points (with education, age and proficiency in English having high priority), and the refugee stream. This would put non-English-speaking Europeans at a disadvantage, because they could not emigrate based upon need, and they might not have the English skills of, say, a family from the Indian Subcontinent. Anchoress 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A few more ways: Family class (to reunite separated families) and Business class (either skilled labor or "economic immigrants", those who have a net worth of $800,000 and can immediately invest half of it in a Canadian business) Rmhermen 22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was including your sections under merit (in my mind). :-) Anchoress 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's news in the UK is that about 10% of the UK-born population (5.5 - 6 million people) live abroad. About 603,000 live in Canada and 678,000 in the US (compare to 761,000 in Spain and 1.3 million Brits in Australia), so immigration rules don't seem to have impeded them much. -- Arwel (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada certainly does let Europeans into the country. In fact, under the "point system" Canada uses to grade potential immigrants, it's probably much easier for a European to immigrate to Canada than it is for someone from a Third World country. Indeed, I come across immigrants from Eastern Europe almost every day. There aren't a lot of immigrants from Western Europe anymore simply because there's no pressing reason for many Western Europeans to pack up and move overseas. (Unlike, say, when the potato famine hit Ireland in the 19th century.) -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe third world countries, but India and China, two of the countries most well-represented in Canadian immigration, aren't third world. Anchoress 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Or maybe they're "developing countries." Whatever -- you know what I meant. As much as they've grown, they certainly aren't at the standard of living of Western Europe, North America or Japan. -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This claim is commonly made here in NZ too. IMHO, what they really mean is we don't prioritise European or more accurately white people enough anymore. Many countries, I suspect including Canada used to have policies which discriminated against non-whites. What are the actual figures for immigration to Canada? I know in NZ, despite what the detractors claim, the country from which the most immigrants come from is the UK. Also, in terms of refugees, I don't know about Canada but I suspect you'll find as in NZ that the percentage of immigrants who are refugees (I mean under the refugees category) is actually small. Nil Einne 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, even Canada did so until around the second World War (see Head Tax (Canada), which was supposed to be a deterrent for Chinese coming into the country. Canada issued an apology and reparations recently.) There was also limitations on Eastern European immigration in the U.S. in the 1900s, if I remember correctly. ColourBurst 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As to the reasons, well as others have stated, quite a few immigrants emigrate for economic and social reasons. These reasons tend to be less present in Europe where many countries are considered developed and even those that are not, are often better off then those in Asia and if they do want to emigrate, would probably find it easier to emigrate to another European country especially if they are in the EU. Remember that emmigration is a big change and a big risk, you have to be willing to undertake the task. The conditions etc mean that Asians in general are more willing to undertake the process then many Europeans. Most importantly, bear in mind there are 3.6 billion Asians vs 750 million Europeans according to a quick Google (talking continents here). If we throw North America into the European mix it'll even things out a bit but then most of these people are also including Africans so we should throw Africans into the Asian mix. Nil Einne 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the number of immigrants to Canada in 2005:

Asia/Pacific, 138,054

Africa/Middle East, 49,273

Europe, 40,909

Latin America, 24,635

USA, 9,262 -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Two changes have happened since your older family members came to Canada: 1) Canada's immigration policy used to discriminate against people of non-European background. It no longer discriminates either for or against Europeans. So non-Europeans have an easier time immigrating than before, so long as they can meet the requirements of the immigration policy (either a close family member already in Canada, employment and language skills, or high net worth). At the same time, Europeans who want to immigrate need to meet those same requirements, which may be stiffer than the requirements they use to face. 2) It used to be necessary for many Europeans to leave Europe to achieve prosperity. That is no longer true. As other posters have pointed out, many European countries have become prosperous over the past 50 years, and Europeans from poorer countries now have the option of moving to a wealthier European country (instead of Canada), where they will be closer to their family and childhood friends and can more easily go home for visits. Therefore, Europeans have less reason now than in earlier generations to move across the ocean to Canada. If you are, say, Polish, why move 7,000 km to Toronto, when you can move 70 km to Berlin and enjoy longer vacations, a higher minimum wage, and easy trips home for the weekend? On the other hand, if you are Bangladeshi, Toronto could well be your best option. Marco polo 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fancy wording

There is a fancy word or phrase for " Chefs Choice". I am drawing a blank, can anyone help?

Do you mean du jour? Or leftovers? -THB 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Chefs-d'oeuvre might be what you mean. De jour is "of the day" and leftovers... well I don't want to dine where THB does... Sifaka 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you've not worked in a restaurant, Sifaka! xxxx du jour = xxxx leftover -THB 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Chefs-d'oeuvre"=masterpiece, maybe you mean "hors d'oeuvre"=starter or appetiser "du jour" comes from "plat du jour"=today's dish. "Chef's choice", is it "the chef's suggestions"? I can't think of a fancy version. Keria 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Poke center?

When talking about Pokemon, what's a "Pokecenter"? --Bowlhover 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A Pokecenter is the same as a Pokemon Center - a building that "rejuvenates" Pokemon - in the video games it heals them to fulL HP for free, in the show it's somewhat of a health spa sort of deal. You can also switch out Pokemon there as well. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing a school assignment, and a Pokecenter is supposed to be the scene of a crime. However, I know absolutely nothing about Pokemon. --Bowlhover 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Been a while since I saw the show, but the second episode deals with a Team Rocket break in at a Pokemon Center. You might use that as inspiration. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm just concerned I had my period on the 23 of November and it ended on the 27 of November, I was on Depo Provera for 7 years. My concern is that I had sex on December 6th but that was my first day of ovulation and I took the Plan B pills on Friday, I just wanted to know if there is a chance of pregnancy? I wanted to also know how long does it take for sperm to reach the oval?--72.78.190.114 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Maria Luna

So you had sex on Dec. 6th and took the pills on Dec 8th? From emergency contraception: "ECP's are licensed for use until 72 hours after sexual intercourse." Therefore, the pill probably did its work. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some useful general information in our pregnancy and birth control articles, but you need to consult a medic, both to find out medical details and to discuss your options. We have no medical expertise here. Good luck. Yours, Sam Clark 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it is very unlikely that you will get pregnant because of the unlikeness of getting pregnant even when you want it. My advice would be to get a pregnancy test or, if it is really serious or important, go see your doctor or an emergency room. If it turns out you are pregnant, you will have to decide what to do after that. Cbrown1023 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the second question: it takes anywhere from 45 minutes to 12 hours for a sperm cell to reach the egg. --Bowlhover 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can also get an inexpensive yet accurate home pregnancy test kit. Since you apparently do not wish to be pregnant, I do hope that you're not. Good luck. -THB 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If requesting medical or legal advice ask a doctor or lawyer instead. Good luck. Edison 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

American History

Which English Plan limited the powers of the ruler?

Do you mean the Bill of Rights, introduced by the English Parliament in 1689 after the succession of William III? By this Parliament made a clear declaration of the rights of the subject, and limited the prerogatives of the crown, thus laying the foundations for constitutional monarchy. The provisions in this measure were later confirmed and extended by the 1701 Act of Settlement. Clio the Muse 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Was the Magna Carta an "English Plan?" It limited the powers of the ruler, and the barons planned it. Edison 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is indeed confusing. Your topic is "American History", yet you ask of an "English Plan". The only possible connection I can think of would involve some sort of pre-revolutionary British proposal to the colonies, in order to avert revolution (if any indeed existed). Still, I don't quite understand the question, so I'm afraid I can't contribute any more. Loomis 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

British law and legal precedents before the American Revolution remain part of common law in force in the U.S. unless specifically changed by court ruling or statute, so the British Habeas Corpus Act 1679 law passed in the 1600's to prevent the King from locking people up in military bases outside the boundaries of the country was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as a limitation on incarcerations without legal process at Guantanamo. This would be a 'British plan' from the 17th century possibly limiting the power of the U.S. ruler in the 21st century.Edison 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

December 12

what did elisabeth kinsolving write?

i read an anthology of her poetry a long time ago. She became one of my favorite poets, but i believe i found her book in a used book store and she may not have been very prolific. Does anyone know where i can find any information about her or what she wrote? I've search amazon, google and metacrawler with no luck. thanks for any help.

Do you mean Susan Kinsolving? You will find her website here Clio the Muse 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure it was elisabeth. i believe it was a book from the 70's. but thanks.

It's such an unusual surname that I am surprised there is more than one! But, as you have discovered, there is no mention of an Elizabeth Kinsolving on Google, which is fairly unusual, unless she is, or was, a very minor poet indeed. Clio the Muse 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Barbra Kingsolver. She wrote The Bean Trees, first published in 1988. schyler 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Kingsolver didn't publish anything in the 70's, but perhaps the surname is spelt differently, though the list of variants is here didn't help me find anything. For what it's worth, Sally Bruce Kinsolving published four books of poems between 1921 and 1942 (in the major library collections I checked, these are the only two Kinsolving poetesses). A fictional Elizabeth Kinsolving is found guility of murder in Raymond Chandler's screenplay Playback. Wareh 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So there really is more than one poet with the name Kinsolving? Live and learn! Clio the Muse 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of fiction book with a quantum twists

My mother read a book in which the opening chapter consists of a wierd quantum relationship where a little boy is sitting on a peir dreaming about growing up to be a writer, while the writer his is dreaming about being is writing the story about the boy. I remember the author was male. Additionally the Trade Paper version of the book pictured the peir if I remember correctly. I have sought in vain for this title, but have yet to discover it. I rather hope that it will sound familiar to someone.

Thanks, D.M. Arney

Hi - could this be The Affirmation by Christopher Priest? It's a long time since I read it, but it features that kind of recursive relationship. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

UN Charter regarding military action at the time of the Korean War

Hello all!

I'm wondering which document of the UN was applicable to military intervention during the time of the Korean War - what the policy of the UN was, at that time, towards military intervention (and also, if available, an online source for this particular document?). Any help is appreciated!

Thanks. ArcticFlame 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Uniting for Peace -- AnonMoos 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... all right. Is there a document regarding military interventions in general (in the 1950s... as in scope, when UN military interventions are legal/justified, etc.)?

Thanks again for the help. -- ArcticFlame 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean seems to have been an exception. The first armed UN peacekeeping force wasn't until 1956 (United Nations Emergency Force in Suez) and it was considered innovative. Rmhermen 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of a TV series

Is there an easy way to calculate how many episodes of a given TV series I have see? Take the Simpsons, how can I calculate how many episodes out of the 385 I have seen without going though each one and reading the synopsis? An online survey perhaps? --The Dark Side 03:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. You'd be better off just reading each synopsis, it doesn't that that long. I didn't really realise there were 385 Simpsons episodes -- I've seen each one, most of them multiple times.

What a waste of 8470++ minutes of your life :-P Nil Einne 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine what you could do on wikipedia with 508,200 seconds... :-) | AndonicO 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rodeo

Could anyone tell what the the storyline of Aaron Copland's ballet Rodeo is? (The articles on Copland and Rodeo didn't have much.) Thanks in advance. --Philosofinch 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See here (pdf file) or its html-version for a plot outline. The piece is sometimes subtitled The Courting at Burnt Ranch (subtitle and ballet by Agnes de Mille).

Original Grant of Land from John Ingram dated 1416 A.D.

Hello,

I am trying to find a document or more detailed information on a document that I currently own, which I believe to be a historical document. The document is in in its original state, well intact and has the original wax seal with it. The document appears to be written in latin and and the caption that is with the document states that it is an "original grant of land from John Ingram dated 1416 A.D. during the regin of King Henry V. Along with the document is a photograph of King Henry V, a photograph of the battle of shrewsbury 1485 a.d. and also a photograph of a judge in wardrobe form the 1400's. I am not sure the correlation of all the items that are containted in a picture frame for the preservation of them all.

I would like to see if I can find out any further information on these items, if at all possible. I would welcome any valid information or some guidance as to where i can do further research on them.

please if anyone can help me with my research on these items, please contact me at <email address removed>. Thank you in advance for any and all help in this. I look forward to hearing from someone soon in the near future.

Sincerely;

Staceysangel

...

Er, photographs of the fifteenth century? Sam Clark 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Stacey. It's not really a good idea to include your email here.

Anyway, I have a feeling that this might be a facsimile of some kind, for the simple reason that a document of this antiquity would now be showing strong signs of ageing. Is the seal broken or intact? Again, if it is an original, the seal will almost certainly be broken. The way you describe it suggests that it is in some kind of presentation case or frame, with a modern English descriptive text and illustrations (not photographs!) from the life of Henry V. But look again at the date of the battle. The Battle of Shrewsbury, in which Henry fought when he was still Prince of Wales, took place in 1403, not 1485. If you can-assuming it is not behind glass-take the document in your hands. If it is an original it will be on vellum or parchment, made from animal skin, which will feel quite different to modern paper. Once you have done this come back with any more specific questions that might arise. But if you really do think it is genuine it might be best to have it examined by an expert. Clio the Muse 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to Clio's excellent post, a suggestion: if you could take some digital photos of the items, that might help somewhat. You could temporarily post them in your user space and then let us know here. --Dweller 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, he/she could just put it here instead. By the way, or article on John Ingram says he was born in 1565. Google confirms this with the first few links. I'd say that's a little off from your dates. | AndonicO 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There have probably been several thousand John Ingrams. Neither name is that unusual. --Dweller 12:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...

The question clearly means there are photos of paintings. And as for looking at a digital image of the document, how could you tell whether it was a scan of an original or a scan of a good reproduction? I have seen much older documents in museums and cathedrals in England which still have their wax seals. All we can really do is what some have attempted, i.e. check for anachronisms, then perhaps check for what similar random legal documents of minor historical figures have sold for recently at auction, and perhaps look for any reports of similar fraudulent documents. Antiques Roadshow ran a segment where someone had found a genuine letter from George Washington in an old box of junk, and their kid took it to school for show and tell, and the teacher announced it was clearly a fake. The questioner probably should take it to someone qualified to examine and evaluate it, to make sure it is authentic, find out the value for insurance purposes, and make sure it is framed with archival materials, (acid paper can destroy a document) or whether it should be kept out of the light. Edison 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the text? Does anyone hear know about the Black Salamander letter? Well, it was a fraud which evaded police because the text was made to look cracked. Perhaps the the text here can be checked (under a microscope) to see if the ink looks cracked? | AndonicO 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The questioner wants more information about the document, not just to find out if it's genuine and to that end, a scan will be extremely helpful, whether it's an original or reproduction. --16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs) toned downDweller 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Public conversation

Could you please suggest me some points over the topic " How does cultural background and family upbringing affect you and your speaking abilities?"

See U and non-U English and Google "restricted code" + "elaborate code": . -THB 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See also cultural capital. Sam Clark 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A different set of points: One way of reading this is that you are being asked about yourself, not about a general sort of theory. It may be that whoever set the question was trying to raise your awareness of where you come from, how it affects you, and what you may wish to change. Taking it this way, you could do something like: What are my own speaking abilities? I talk too softly; I talk too quickly. What is my cultural background and upbringing? My cultural background says one should be respectful. It says children are not allowed to say what they think. My upbringing was half by family, half by orphanage. 10 sisters, I was only son. What part of my cultural background and upbringing is reflected in my speaking? I talk softly because in my culture (as described) it is considered polite never to raise one's voice. I am hesitant and afraid of talking publicly (children shouldn't speak up). I sometimes shout when I have a point to make (because that is what I learned I had to do to get heard in the orphanage). I talk too quickly because I had 10 sisters who were always trying to talk first. --Seejyb 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Four more years!

Considering the 22 amandment to the US constitution, is there any possibility that any of the post-WW2 presidents would have won an election for a third term as president? Would Ronald Reagan have succeeded? Thuresson 08:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From memory, wasn't Bill Clinton achieving very hight approval ratings as he left office? --Sandy Scott 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind altho it's interesting to analyse each President on merit, it's actually a rather complicated issue, impossible to accurately consider. For starters, it's rather likely a President's popularity would have varied if the amendment hadn't been in place. People's perception of the person would likely vary if they were considering him (I usually like to be gender neutral but all US Presidents to this day have been male) for re-election. More significantly, the actions of the President and the responses of the people around him (especially Congress and the Senata) would probably vary if he were going to be facing re-election rather then a lame duck (to use American terminology). More importantly though, if you really want to consider the matter properly, you'd have to realise there is a good chance the people who became President, and when they became President would vary even if no one had been elected for a third time. For example, I believe GHWB a Republican was immedietly after Ronald Reagan. If Ronald Reagan had run and won the primary, obviously GHWB would not have been President from 1989 to 1992. It could have been Ronald Reagan or the Democrat candidate (who might not have been Michael Dukakis). Even if Reagan hadn't won the primary, if he has contested it, he could have easily changed the outcome. So even if none of the people from 1960 or whenever this amendment was introduced had a chance of winning, there's still a very good :chance they would have changed the people who did win. And in this case, we're not even considering the other point I made about how a Presidents actions would have probably been different. So while it's interesting to consider, bear in mind it's too complicated to actually make any resonable guesses Nil Einne 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The 22nd Amendment was a response to the long presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the first to violate the 2 term max tradition of George Washington. With the amendment, the U.S. might be spared a future with an "aging strongman" who has the money and influence to stay in power for life. The President in power when it was ratified, Harry Truman was exempted, and could have theoretically run for a third term (or more), but his popularity rating during the Korean War and after firing Douglas MacArthur was so low (only 36% of Democrats wanted him for a 3rd term per United States presidential election, 1952 that he chose not to run. Polling data for all postwar Presidents can be found at and is used in the following, looking at Jan-May of the election year, when candidate selection gets down to the wire before and during the primaries. (Granted, the responses might have varied if a President were allowed to run again.) Truman joked about running for a third term after he turned 80, but he was content to hang around the Truman library and discuss history with visitors. Eisenhower was popular: his Gallup approval rating Jan-May 1960 was 62% to 66%, but even if the amendment had allowed him to run for a 3rd term, he had suffered a heart attack in 1955 and a stroke in 1957, so he was medically questionable in 1960. He had even wavered over running for a second term in 1956 because of health, per Eisenhower's Presidency. Kennedy died young, and Johnson did not do well in primaries and his approval was so low, 36% in March 1968, that he chose not to run for a second term. Nixon 's approval was so low during Watergate, 23% that he would have been an unlikely candidate for a third term. Ford and Carter failed re-election to a second term. Reagan was 76 at the end of his second term, but his approval rating of 48% to 51% in the Jan-May 1988 was such that he might have been a viable candidate for a third term, especially with a Vice President who appeared qualified to take over if he became incapacitated, and after the landslide reelection to his second term. Reagan later called for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, so it looks like he had no philosophical objection to a third term. His Alzheimers did not become known until 1994, over a year after his third term would have ended with him at age 81. George H.W. Bush failed relection to a second term. After 2 terms, Clinton's approval, 52% to 70% in various polls, Jan-May 2000 was high enough he might have been a viable candidate, despite his impeachment. George W. Bush's approval rating has ranged from 31% to 38% in the past month. The unpopularity of the Iraq War would be a burden if he were up for a third term, but the economy has been doing well and he remains a strong fund raiser, so if the Democrats nominated a candidate with high disapproval or who could be attacked effectively with TV ads, who can say what might happen. Edison 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Franklin Roosevelt was not the first to "violate the two-term tradition"; he was only the first to do it successfully. See U.S. Grant#Third_Term_attempt_in_1880 and Theodore Roosevelt#Election_of_1912. Both men tried for a third term after 4 years out of office, but failed to get the Republican Party's nomination; in Roosevelt's case he then started a third party, an action which is often said to have split the Republican vote and given the victory to the Democratic candidcate, Wilson. (In about 30 states Wilson won a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote; of course this does not prove that he would have won without Roosevelt running). --Anonymous, December 13, 02:50 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.176.159.90 (talk • contribs)

O.K., FDR was the first to successfully get re-elected to a third and fourth consecutive term. I knew about Teddy Roosevelt but had not heard about Grant. His administration was widely criticized for corruption, so I wonder if he had any serious chance. The article cited says that he wanted the job but said nothing publicly. This may fall short of an attempt to secure a third term, since lots of former Presidents might have privately wished they were back in office. Sources are needed to shopw that he was behind a "draft Grant" movement. The earlier attempts clearly did not lead to any amendment to the constitution to prevent a recurrence. And someone who pops in and out of office as in the attempts cited would be more like a parliamentary government and less likely to become an entrenched "aging strong man" using the power of the state such as the secret police to stifle opposition. Edison 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was Morgoth during the Third Age?

In The Lord of the Rings, while Sauron is raising a gigantic Orcish army, and gathering Easterlings under his wing, where is Morgoth during the whole affair? Encased in some underground prison? Floating about the ether? Or has he already been 'vaporized', so to speak, as what happens >>>SPOILER WARNING<<< to Sauron later on? And please don't say, "In The Silmarillion"; I do know that much. :) Thanks. Lehokhan 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I did check out the link to Morgoth -- apparently, he was locked outside 'the Door of Night'. So, my next question is -- how would, say, Gandalf get to the 'Door of Night' from the Shire? Sail over the sea, past the Elfhome, and keep going? Or is this where The Lord of the Rings must be treated at a non-literal, metaphorical level only? Lehokhan 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do think Gandalf went there? Rmhermen 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Morgoth was deprived of all power to directly intervene in Middle Earth affairs over 6,000 years before the events of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and over 4,000 years before Gandalf first appeared in Middle Earth. AnonMoos 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Boney went to Elbow

Napoleon was "exiled" to Elba in 1814. Why did the allies allow his exile to be so comfortable (made "Emperor" of the island, allowed 600 guards, etc.)? And how could they be so stupid as to let him escape? All this seems extraordinary, and Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to shed any light. --Auximines 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The coast was regularly patrolled by ?British? ships, and it wasn't thought that he could actually leave without being seen. Also, I doubt anyone could forsee the French coming to love him (the people at least) after all he had done, especially in Russia. | AndonicO 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Auximines. Yes, you are absolutely correct: in retrospect sending Napoleon to Elba was a considerable mistake, one that was not repeated in 1815. But, of course, history is never made with the benefit of hindsight. As so often in the past, the allies misread Napoleon, and his remarkable ability to recover from a very difficult position. But they also misread France. In 1814 the country was close to military, economic and political exhaustion. Napoloeon was abandoned by virtually everyone, the army included, and it seemed inconceivable that he would ever be welcomed back. But France was still fighting, and fighting well, even after the disaster at Leipzig and elsewhere; and as the allies wanted a quick victory and the departure of Napoleon, their chief war aim, they agreed generous terms, which suited all sides. After the departure of the Emperor the King returned; and all seemed content that France would move down a tranquil and legitimate road. But Louis XVIII was not the man to inspire much in the way of affection, and it did not take France long to recover from the shock of defeat, especially as the allies had behaved with such leniency. Shying away from bourgeois respectability, France, for one brief period, took again to living dangerously.

But why Elba, and why under such loose terms of supervision? The simple answer is that the allies of 1814 had no unified view on how the fallen Emperor should be treated, and there was no precedent in European history for dealing with such a problem. But the most important factor of all was that Napoleon still had one important admirer among his enemies, and one with a particularly decisive voice-his former ally, Tsar Alexander of Russia. Alexander disliked the Bourbons, and still remembered the days of Tilsit, the invasion of 1812 notwithstanding. A chastened Emperor of Elba was the best solution for Alexander, a way of embarrassing Louis without offering any serious threat to himself. But Elba was but a short sailing distance from mainland Europe, and the waters could be patrolled constantly. After Napoleon succcessfully managed to return to France in the spring of 1815, Alexander angrily asked the Duke of Wellington, the leading British commander, Why did you let him escape? To this Wellington responded, Why did you place him there? As far as I am aware no reply was ever recorded. Clio the Muse 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, all very interesting. I did wonder whether there might have been some negotiations before Napoleon surrendered "unconditionally". It still all strikes me as very odd, and I'm surprised the issue isn't more widely discussed. The allies seemed to treat him more like a vanquished medieval king than the common tyrant he really was. Compare the treatment of Saddam today! Perhaps you'd care to expand the Elba article, Clio... --Auximines 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this is straying into chat rather than question-answering territory, but I'm not convinced that 'vanquished medieval king' and 'common tyrant' are mutually exclusive categories... Cheers, Sam Clark 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was really suggesting that maybe there was a fear of treating him too harshly. Divine right of kings and all that. Even though he wasn't royalty. --Auximines 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you the crowned heads of Europe were more inclined to view Napoleon as an upstart, rather than a tyrant. Concepts like 'tyrant' and 'dictator' really belonged to the world of Classical antiquity. Beyond the radical fringe, they did not form a part of contemporary political discourse. After all, it would have hardly have done for Tsar Alexander or Kaiser Francis to dismiss Napoleoon as a 'tyrant'. In practical terms you are quite right, Auximines, he was a tyrant, the first of the modern age, it might be argued. But it really wasn't until the twentieth century that the old usages came back to life. Clio the Muse 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed my comment. | AndonicO 11:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

horsemen and marshall on Parthenon

What is the significance of the horsemen and marshall on the Parthenon?°Pgbarnes 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Does this freize depict a battle or procession? Any info would be appeciated. PGBarnes

Did you read Parthenon#Sculptural decoration? Does that answeer your question? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comba Tai in America

I have found a brief history of CombaTai. It mentions a man named Dr. Samuel Adams Jones. It mentions secret contest in the hills of Mississippi. I would like further information.

Arab immigration to Palestine in the 20th century

I have come across a claim that the increase in the Arab population of Palestine during the first half of the 20th century was largely due to immigration from neighboring Arab countries. However, I suspect that natural increase (excess of births over deaths) largely accounted for the increase in the Arab population. The claim that the Arab population of Palestine were largely immigrant has obvious implications for the legitimacy of the Palestinian Arab claim to a homeland in Palestine. Can anyone point me to sources on the demography of Palestine under the British mandate? Thank you for your help. Marco polo 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this, Marco . The Arab population of Palestine was in absolute decline between 1914 to 1922, which might, I suppose, have been due to wartime conditions. Thereafter it began to increase. The reasons for this are not identified, though the figures suggest something more than a simple excess of births over deaths. The rate of increase for the Jewish population, in relative and absolute terms, was considerably greater. Clio the Muse 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Law: my band releasing songs to public domain

So my band have collectively decided to release all songs on our next album to public domain. Is there a certain official legal statement that we have to put on the little paper insert, or can it just say "All songs are hereby released to public domain" (or something along those lines)? NIRVANA2764 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the Creative Commons public domain dedication? —Keenan Pepper 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the killing of foriegn sitizens in a foreign country against their will an act of war?

If Russian KGB did for Alexander Litvinenko with the Polandium 210, then they killed a British sitizen, in Britain, against his will.

Is the killing of foriegn sitizens in a foreign country against their will an act of war?

And if so, will they nuke Ashby de la Zouch? Paul Silverman 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, how can you kill someone not against their will? :) Cbrown1023 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Armin Meiwes did. --Auximines 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I read an article about that last year. Cbrown1023 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Kevorkian helped a few people kill themselves. Not exactly the same thing but similar. Dismas| 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be considered one and can start wars. It is all about perception. Cbrown1023 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Read something about Euthanasia. It is not necessarily against the will of the person being killed.Mr.K. 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ashby-de-la-Zouch is safe, unless the Russians decide to rid the world of Skips, The Young Knives and Adrian Mole... in the event of nuclear, I'd be much more concerned about the inevitable fallout from the bombs hitting nearby Brum, Leicester and Coventry; Ashby is surrounded on all sides in that respect... Laïka 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was at one time, particularly during the high noon of imperialism, fairly common practice for western powers to use the death of their citizens-often missionaries-to intervene directly in the internal affairs of another nation. Nowadays it is very unlikely to be a casus belli, no matter what the circumstances. If it was there would be wars just about every other day. The British, incidentally, once went to war with Spain because a mad seaman claimed the Spanish coastguard had cut off his ear! See the War of Jenkins Ear. Clio the Muse 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher was killed by a foreign government agent in UK against her will. The UK government DID NOT declare war. 202.168.50.40 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Spanish coast guard did cut off Jenkins' ear. Apparently Jenkins was insulting a custom's official. --The Dark Side 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture: What do Poor Canadians Eat?

Culture: What do Poor Canadians Eat, considering their nearest grocery store is Safeway?

Once they are tired of Macroni & Cheese and Mr. Noodles and Hungryman and Donuts?

I see many people eating sandwich but how do they make them?

Any suggestions, I am getting really fedup eating the same thing over and over? Subjective Comments are okay.

What did you eat for breakfast, lunch & supper today, yesterday, and the day before? --Judged 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fallacy that junky packaged food is cheaper than healthy food. Buy some Heinz canned baked beans, some potatoes, and some cheap veggies. Cook up the beans with a bit of lemon juice, some garlic or garlic powder, some onion or onion powder, and other seasonings if you have them. Bake or steam the potatoes. Cook the veggies whatever way, depending on what they are (I recommend steamed brocolli or cauliflower). Serve the beans over the potatoes and veggies with a little butter, margarine or whatever if you like. Anchoress 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Anchoress, but beans give me gas. How do you steam vegetables? And can you steam the veggies in the Microwave? Please reply. Thank you. --Judged 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You left out Timbits. But how hard is it to make a sandwich? Two slices of bread and a slice of meat. Maybe some mayonnaise or mustard, maybe a slice of lettuce. Or instead of the meat, use peanut butter. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have been buying this prepared canned food, like Puritan Irish Stew, & Beef Stew. Some times I buy that "Chunky" cans, I can't remember the name but I can just buy those when its on sale (its expensive). I also buy this "No been only beef" cans cant remember the name again. But now I am so fed up with these cans but I need to be able to cook my food within 10 mins. --Judged 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly do you but the "slice of meat" in Safeway? Is it in the deli section?--Judged 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never eaten Timbits. But I bet they taste the same as donuts. --Judged 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Beans are really good for you and really cheap. If you eat enough of them you'll stop getting gas from them. You can cook veggies in the microwave. Clean them and cut them up into whatever size you like, bite sized maybe, try to make them similar sizes. Put them in a microwave safe container with a bit of water in the bottom. Put a lid on the container but DON'T SEAL IT, just leave the lid on loosely. Microwave for a minute at a time, stirring and testing the veggies after each time, until they're done to your taste. Replenish the water if it evaporates.

This is also a good way to cook frozen veggies, which BTW are a very good way to improve the flavour and healthfulness of such things as KD and Mr Noodles. Anchoress 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking Anchoress, don't you get fedup eating the same thing over and over? What do you eat when you are not eating veggies? --Judged 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's not the only thing I eat. But most of what I do eat requires a lot more effort and experience, and I didn't want to overwhelm you, because - no offence - you seem to be quite a cooking neophyte, and I find that it's impractical to help people eat healthfully and within a budget when the dishes are too challenging for them to prepare. If we were friends I could teach you a number of cheap, healthy meals, but it's just too tough over the internet. Also, I shop at a lot of better places than Safeway, and I didn't want to suggest things that would be outside your travel plans. But to answer your other question, I eat a lot of beans, veggies, and fruit. I eat a bit of dairy, some grains, and some soy products. And I live very, very cheaply. But it's quite a bit of work, possibly more work than you would be willing to do. Anchoress 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the size of your supermarket, a supermarket may have two different deli sections. One is a refrigerated section which holds pre-sliced luncheon meats, and one is a butcher's counter where the person behind the counter can slice off a requested amount of meat from a larger portion, and give you slices in the thicknesses you want. As far as what sorts of meats are available, there are ham, beef, turkey, sausages such as salami, bologna, capicolla, etc. And then there are different flavors, such as smoked ham, honey ham, brown sugar glazed ham, Italian roast beef, smoked turkey and chicken, etc. You can usually find cheeses in the same sections. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Canadians, in my experience, tend to eat cheap, highly-processed, non-perishable things. Stuff that you could keep in your freezer for a year and not be the least bit worried about. Also: lots of cheap fast food, McDonald's, KFC, cheap pizza made with rubbery mozza and low-quality flour, that sort of stuff. I can't say there's anything like the level of starvation that has occured in African countries over the decade. In Canada, it's not a matter of not eating enough calories, it's a matter of eating low-quality calories. Vranak 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you have Ramen up there. It's 5 for a dollar on this (the U.S.) side of the border. Dismas| 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rice is good with just about anything. Most people don't get bored of eating it everyday and it's a staple of many a diet. Of couse you need something on the side, but let rice be the main source of calories (carbohydrates). --The Dark Side 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Beans, rice, sausage, vegetables (different kinds), bread, fruit, eggs, ground beef/chicken/turkey, ect. Just go to Safeway, and buy anything under 2 American dollars (or it's Canadian equivalent), and you have loads of choices for dinner. | AndonicO 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See for US Dept of Agriculture menu suggestions. Canadians can probably survive on much the same food as US inhabitants. Many cities have stores owned by bakeries which sell short-dated bread and baked goods. They are the same as in the stores only not as fresh, and extremely cheap. Buy several loaves of bread and other baked goods (sweet roll, yum!) and freeze or refrigerate. No one needs a lot of meat (actually you don't need any.) Have toasted bread with generic jelly or generic cereal for breakfast, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. Buy a bag of potatos and a bag of rice, everything generic. Buy dried beans, they are cheaper than canned. Generic margerine is good, ditto cheese, or splurge and get Velveeta. Buy meat only when it is a loss leader, like $1.99 (US) pork chops or chicken, and freeze it to last until the next sale, or buy the cheaper chicken cuts like legs and thighs. Buy house brand canned vegetables or buy fresh cabbage. Don't buy soda pop or booze. Don't eat in restuarants or drink $3 mocha lattes. Don't buy from vending machines. $4 U.S per day is an ample food budget. Edison 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The basis of your premise is shaky. The closest grocery store is not Safeway (I don't recall ever seeing one in my area), but instead the National Grocers brands (Loblaws, Zehrs, No Frills, etc) and Sobeys. Anyways, Canadians aren't aliens (except in the US immigration sense) so why specify Canadians specifically? ColourBurst 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve - Who misguided who?

202.91.109.6 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)There different views about misguidance of Adam and Eve. Could you please tell me who misguided who that resulted ouster of the both from the heaven202.91.109.6 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)–202.91.109.6 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)?

Talawat Bokhari

See the article on Adam and Eve. Rmhermen 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In case your question is asked for misogynist or misandrist purposes, you can be relatively sure that a sage text like the Bible isn't going to contain anything massively sexist, like saying that Adam was responsible for Original Sin, or Eve was. That sort of simple answer to, 'why is there suffering in the world?' will not be gleaned readily from the Bible, or any other book (that I've read, at least). Vranak 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, poor old Eve has, on a point of interpretation, largely been made to carry the burden for 'seducing' Adam into disobedience. But since they both knew that eating the forbidden fruit was contrary to the command of God, I suppose they must be equally guilty. It was merely a question of whom the serpent approached first. Indeed, perhaps Adam is the more guilty, since of the two he had a longer acquaintance with the law. Clio the Muse 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work out well for Eve if she pleads ignorance: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14) Eve, deceived, gets the blame and now needs a husband as master.EricR 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this online bible, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge before he created Eve.

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Perhaps the Lord directly told her not to eat from the tree and she didn't believe Adam? The point remains however that she had some knowledge that the fruit from the tree was not to be eaten. --The Dark Side 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 versions of the creation of woman. The first is in Genesis 1:27, preceding the command about the tree. There are various interpretations for why there is repetition of the story. A persuasive one is that the second is a detail-laden version, explaining the previous, where it would otherwise have interrupted the narrative flow of the days of creation. --Dweller 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve (males and females) were punished differently, but rather equally. Eve was punished with the pains of child-bearing, and Adam was punished in that he would from that point on be required to work the soil in order to maintain sustenance rather than simply be able to pick fruit off the trees in Eden. Both were punished rather harshly. I don't see any sexism involved at all. Loomis 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They are both guilty in my opinion: Eve believed the serpent and disobeyed God, and Adam believed Eve and disobeyed God. They were really wanting to believe, otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. | AndonicO 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A classic rabbinic interpretation pins the origins of the sin on Eve's adding to God's decree. Compare

"002:017 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

with

"003:002 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 003:003 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

Eve added the bit about touching the tree. The serpent knocked her into it and pointed out that she hadn't died. This being self-evident, she then believed the serpent that there was no problem with eating either. That said, Adam as an autonomous being is not devoid of blame and is therefore not exactly spared from punishment. It's fairly clear that the Bible regards God's view as being that both were guilty, in different ways of different sins, but in terms of who misguided who... Eve misguided herself. --Dweller 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ww1 poet ..in the ****ing firth of forth

my husband has just told me of a program he heard on the radio a few weeks ago about world war two poets who emerged as a result of the 'usual' poets being in the trenches or dead even because of war. one poem had a lot of **** (fuck) in it and ended up ...... ' and we all ended up in the ****ing firth of forth. i wonder if anyone knows anything about it?? anneetc.

This is not by any of the war poets with which I am familiar! It sounds to me like lines from one of the many soldier's songs, much, much earthier than anything penned by Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfred Owen. Clio the Muse 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

December 13

Acronym for significant other + roommate

There's a word that has completely slipped my mind. Back in the... like... 70s, people were new to the idea of two people living together who weren't married, so they came up with a bunch of names. One of these was... I'm not exactly sure. I think it sounded like "Qusolque"? "Soquelbee"? -Max

I bet Max is thinking of POSSLQ. Note incidentally the assumption that the two people had to be of opposite sexes for the relationship to be worth considering. --Anonymous, December 13, 02:57 (UTC).

Thanks! That's exactly it! -Max

Jesus being prejudice

Was Jesus prejudice to anyone? Even homosexuals? Heegoop, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moneychangers in Jewish Temples. 202.168.50.40 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pharisees. Anchoress 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the New Testament which quotes Jesus as having said anything about homosexuals. That's all St. Paul. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He seemed to be rather prejudiced against those who rejected his claim that he was both the Messiah, as well as the son of God. Loomis 04:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I'd love to see your evidence for that statement. JackofOz 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice implies a judgment made in advance of any relevant facts, a judgment based only on irrelevant considerations. It's one thing to display anger at finding the money lenders desecrating the temple, but where's the evidence that he had pre-judged them before he got there and found what they were doing? Where's the evidence he was prejudiced against the Pharisees? I doubt you'll find any Biblical evidence to support the view that Jesus was prejudiced against any individuals at all, no matter who they were or what they may have done. He was all about abhorring sin but loving sinners themselves. JackofOz 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Anchoress 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (quote). That supports my point. He wasn't telling them to guard against the Pharisees themselves, but against their teachings. He made a vital distinction between people's behaviours, actions and teachings, and the people themselves. He submitted himself to the will of the Pharisees, to the point of being put to death. That doesn't sound like prejudice to me. JackofOz 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you though. If I tell a bunch of my friends to beware the teachings of homosexuals, or Christians, or liberals, isn't that prejudice? I think it is. It's not just separating the act from the people, it's the fact of grouping everyone together. 'The Pharasees'. They are a homogenous group whose teachings are to be looked upon with suspicion. That's prejudice, IMO. Anchoress 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's prejudice against certain teachings, not prejudice against the purveyors of such teachings. That's the thing that so many people fail to understand. The point of the "turn the other cheek" teaching was not to go out of your way to get violated, but that despite whatever injury one might sustain in an attack, we should never cease loving the attacker. JackofOz 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

lol Well I guess we'll have to disagree. No probs. :-) Anchoress 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Well, that's what Luke reports that Jesus said. B00P 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is from the parable of the rejected king, and is not an expression of 'prejudice' in any meaningful sense. The words are usually interpreted in an eschatological terms, taken to refer to judgement against the enemies of God. The example in question was drawing on the local traditions of the rule of King Archelaus in Jericho. Clio the Muse 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

what is the oldest form of the handfasting ritual?

i have been searching and searching for a document that cites the most original form of the ancient handfasting ritual, but i find so many variations. does anyone know of a document that has consistency and is proven to be both a valid and antique source of information? <email removed>

Have you had a look at the page on Handfasting? It has quite a useful link to a paper on the historical origins of the practice. It seems to have been one of those cultural practices that simply 'emerged' in the course of time. I doubt if you will find a single source for its beginnings, or for a standardised form of ritual. Clio the Muse 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the woman gets pregnant, is the man legally the father as in an actual marriage? Sounds like a sweet deal for the guy. Edison 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Hi

I am trying to find out the name of the famous hotel where Agatha Christie wrote most of "Death on the Nile". Hope you can help. Thanks

Mick Errington

• That would be the Old Cataract Hotel in Aswan, now a Sofitel hotel. --jpgordon 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian inscription

Hi

Does anyone know what the following translated Persian inscription describes: -

"If there is a paradise on the face of the earth, it is this, it is this, it is this."

Thanks

Mick

Maybe they are saying that Persia is paradise? | AndonicO 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be found at the Red Fort in Delhi, which has this inscription above the arches of its Hall of Private Audience. Proto::► 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Proto. I had heard it, but was having trouble placing it. | AndonicO 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Activist Organisation

I'm trying to ascertain the origins and connections of the political think-tank that calls itself The Strategic Issues Research Council, seemingly run by one Benjamin Crocker Works.

The organisation you're looking for is the The Strategic Issues Research Institute. They don't have an article on Misplaced Pages, however, their website would probably be a good place to start. Then, try Googling them to turn up articles and pages that mention them. Good luck with your research! — QuantumEleven 12:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas in Islam

Hi. My chaplain and I were discussing Christmas today and the conversation turned to Islam. We wondered how Muslims celebrate the day, as Jesus is a prophet. Thanks, Sam Korn 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Jesus is also a Messiah in some religions. I'm not sure what the Islam religion considers Him though. | AndonicO 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is haraam for Muslims to even say "Merry Christmas". Forget about celebrating it.nids(♂) 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is the position of just one radical Muslim cleric. Muslim clerics often differ on these things. However, I don't think that Muslims celebrate Christmas in any way, just as Christians don't celebrate the birthdays of Old Testament prophets such as Moses. Even the celebration of Muhammad's birthday, Mawlid, is controversial among Muslims as it comes uncomfortably close to worship of the prophet, whose instruction was to worship only God. Marco polo 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm suggested that celebrating the festivals of all other religions is haraam, and went so far as to issue a fatwa. The moderate view is that out of politeness and courtesy however, wishing a Christian with a "Happy Christmas" (Hindu with a "Happy Diwali", etc) greeting does not cause any harm, providing Muslims who wish them so are not explicitly endorsing or accepting the religious aspects. Proto::► 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...While the prophethood of Jesus is not denied (S XIX:30–32, V:75, II:285), to accept that God had a son or that Jesus is the son of God is to be both kāfir and mushrik. Thus:

S IX:30–'...the Christians Call Christ the son of God...they but imitate What the Unbelievers of old Used to say; God's curse Be on them...they are deluded Away from the Truth.’

An example that encapsulates the issue is in an MUI fatwā from 1981 on Muslim attendance at Christian services, especially at Christmas, the commemoration of the birth of Jesus. The fatwā cites seven āyāt: S XLIX:13, '...We made you into tribes and nations’; S XXXI:15, ‘...if they strive...obey them not...’; S LX:18, ‘God forbids you not... with those who fight you...’; S CIX:16, ‘I will not worship that which you have been used to worship...’; SII:42, ‘And cover not truth with falsehood.’

Hooker, M.B. (2003). Indonesian Islam: Social Change through Contemporary Fatawa. pp. p. 81. ISBN 1741140862. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) EricR 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Memory

To what extent are memory capabilities influenced by age and genetics? I can quote large passages from films, TV episodes and books (often minutes or pages), director credits and movie release dates from films I've not seen in ages, and so can my sister; but neither of my parents (aged 43 and 51) can even remember names of movies they saw a week ago. Is this due to their age?

Please see our article on Memory and aging. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't Austria join NATO?

67.170.245.103 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See our article on the Austrian State Treaty. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans

What are some of the more important differences in the beliefs and goals of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans?

Did you read our articles on Democratic-Republicans and Federalist Party (United States)? This appears like a homework question. Is it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The bible and history

It seems that the bible is fairly historically accurate (excluding any debate about genesis), I have a few questions about it (specifically the old testament)..

1. Just how accurate as a historical document is it - say in the case of the 'adventures' of the tribe of Israel, are there any other documents relating to the same time that tell this story from a non Jewish perspective eg Egyptian references to exodus etc. (links?)

2. Many other tribes are mentioned in the old testament (but generally the names don't mean anything to me) - can anyone give a link to a list of the tribes mentioned with a list of their modern day descendants/geographic location (is it clear what I am asking)

3. (Important fo me) Can someone give a geographical range for the full extent of places mentioned in the bible (old testament); do any events happen outside the middle east/egypt/mesopotamia/turkey?

4. Are all peoples assumed to descend from adam and eve - if so is there any mention of chinese/indian(eg indian subcontinent) peoples ie from which tribe/peoples would they be descended ?

Thank you. (This question stems from somebody suggesting to me that gog and magog (or their descendants) where actually meaning central asian and east asian peoples..83.100.254.21 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Interesting questions. A lot of the answers will vary according to POV or, more charitably, interpretation. --Dweller 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Q1.
• Q2.
• Q3. The first half of Q3 is way beyond the scope of WP, let alone this desk. I once saw a book on the subject. --Dweller 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Q4. A traditional (religious) reading of the Bible is that yes, all mankind descended from Adam and Eve. However, everyone was wiped out at the Flood. So the tribes would be from Shem, Ham and Japheth. The Semitic peoples came from Shem - hence the name "Semitic". Someone else could fill in which of Ham or Japheth is the one you're after. --Dweller 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Q1: You might want to read The Bible and history and explore some of the links from there.--Shantavira 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is charles switzerland?

Who is charles switzerland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah006 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Antique furniture Gainsborough chairs

Hi I was wondering why a Gainsborough chair was called a "Gainsborough" chair ? Thanks J

quote in front of book

Is there a name for the passage or quote that an author sometimes puts in the front of a book? --Wyckyd Sceptre 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Epigraph (and perhaps a dedication as well).--Shantavira 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient people

Going from Aristole to Plato to Socrates, I started to wonder who the oldest, non-fictional named historical person is? E.g. an ancient pharaoh (Tiu?) or a king mentioned in some ancient text. Things like ancient humans remains (like, say, Lucy (Australopithecus)) don't count. Thanks in advance. Sum0 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We just had this one recently - I think Tiu was about the first. Rmhermen 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Identify Piano Music

Can anyone give information regarding this peice of music played on just the piano?. --Username132 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive