This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kjvenus (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 11 December 2006 (Western democracy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reference Desk

CODY MATHERSON ON FB -

Cody Matherson (born June 17, 1959)in Pflugerville, Texas is an American singer-songwriter and producer. He is best known for such recordings as "Can I Borrow a Feelin?, "Krystal Rae", "Love My Mullett" and of course his attempt to harness the power and fame of his 1st hit with his not so celebrated follow up hit "Can I still Borrow that Feelin?", Said by Rolling Stone to be a cross between Barry Manilow, Lynard Skinnard and Elvis. In 1978, five of his albums were on the best-selling charts simultaneously, a feat equalled only by Frank Sinatra, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen and Johnny Mathis. He has recorded a string of Billboard hit singles and multi-platinum albums that have resulted in his being named Radio & Records number one Adult Contemporary artist and winning three straight American Music Awards for Favorite Pop/Rock Male Artist. Between 1974 - 1979 Matherson had 7 number 1 singles, five of which were consecutive. Several well-known entertainers have praised Matherson, including Sinatra, who was quoted in the 1970s saying, "He's next." In 1988, Bob Dylan stopped Matherson at a party, hugged him and said, "Don't stop what you're doing, man. We're all inspired by you and your killer mustache." As well as producing and arranging albums for other artists, including Ken Snyder Jr and Dan Grary (Gravy Dan), Matherson has written songs for musicals, films, and commercials. From February 2005 to December 30, 2009, he was the headliner at Pflugerville’s Graham Central Station, performing hundreds of shows before ending his relationship with the Gas-station/Night Club. From March 2010, he has headlined at The Blind Pig and the Chuggin Monkey in Austin’s famous down town East 6th street . He has sold more than 18 hundred records worldwide. The more ardent of Matherson’s fans are referred to as "Matherson Maniacs".. He was said to have dated the likes of Katharine Hepburn, Sigourney Weaver, Ingrid Bergman and the girl that played Jo on “The Facts of Life”

, Awards 1977 Emmy for Outstanding Special – Comedy, Variety or Music – The Cody Matherson Special 1977 Special Tony Award – Cody on Broadway 1978 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist 1979 Grammy – Copacabana Best Pop Male Vocal Performance 1979 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist 1980 American Music Awards – Best Pop/Rock Male Artist Guest appeared in several popular T.V shows such as: T.J Hooker, Hart2Hart, BJ Mckay & His Best Friend Bear and the Night Rider pilot episode

International Trade

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

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

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

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

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

Song info

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

The US, British and multinational Oil Corporations did not pay for the wars in Iraq, but they certainly are profiting immensely from the oil extracted there. The US Government, and thus the US taxpayers are footing the bill for those wars. And even once the oil fields are back in the hands of local companies the oil will be available first to the foreign oil corporations who rarely allow the wealth produced from the oil to flow to the common people. That oil will only enrich a select few locals business and political leaders as well as the executives and stockholders of the oil corporations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think he means it was a war to control the land of the 13 colonies, as well as the land to the west. StuRat 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what they've been saying for the last 230 years... Maybe it's a coverup. ;-) | AndonicO 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dominatrix - how to?

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

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

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

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

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

To be an effective dominitrix, one must be both assertive and subtle. Knowing what works as humilation is entirely dependant on the circumstances. Some like it hot, some like it sharp. Mathiemood 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

US residency after 5 years

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

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

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

iron man

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)~

• Misplaced Pages Reference Desk archive