Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

August 21

Rhapsody in blue clarinet solo

Does anyone know who the clarinet soloist in this video is? Also, why does the video say Derek Bailey at the beginning? According to the article he played guitar- was he playing something in this recording? 68.231.151.161 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, never mind on the second question, I can see that režie is Czech for the director of the movie. 68.231.151.161 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Drucker is the clarinetist. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

British Empire question

From all the colonies of the British Empire, did the British Raj/British Indian empire have a special position as causing particular pride or wealth in comparison to the others or not? Thanks. --AlexSuricata 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was referred to as the 'jewel in the crown' of the British Empire, probably due to both its size and its wealth, largely from things like spices. Cyta 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

India accounted for a majority of the population of the empire, and it was also the possession over which the British monarch styled herself 'Empress' or himself 'Emperor'. Marco polo 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

India was indeed The Jewel in the Crown, the very heart of the second British Empire. A lot of additional territory, including Egypt and Aden, was acquired specifically to secure the passage to India. Under the Royal Titles Act Queen Victoria became Empress of India in 1877. When India and Pakistan became independent in 1947 the Empire lost some 80% of its population. What remained might be said to have been merely a husk. Clio the Muse 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A tiny correction, Clio - it was the Royal Titles Act 1876, the inspiration of Benjamin Disraeli. This reminds me of his famous (and true) statement Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent! Xn4 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Xn4, the Act does indeed date to 1876, though the title, so far as I am aware, was not adopted until 1877. My apologies for any ambiguity. Clio the Muse 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The question of particular wealth in comparison to the others is fraught with controversy, as it impinges on the theory of 'colonial drain' which has been attacked by defenders of the Empire since Dadabhai Naoroji raised it in the Commons in the late nineteenth century. Modern estimates of the drain of resources from India to the United Kingdom tend to get bogged down in statistical nit-picking; Holden Furber calculations were that in the ten years following 1783 alone, when British rule had not yet reached all of India, 1.8 million pounds were transferred from India to England, without compensatory capital investment. (1.8 million in 1780 is 180 million today.) After 1857, the transfer was formalised as "Home charges", or India's contribution to the British exchequer, and were just under fifty million pounds a year on average according to recent calculations; at least twenty million pounds according to contemporary calculations. (Fifty million pounds in 1880 is three and a half billion pounds today. Twenty is 1.4 billion pounds today.) That's not a small amount.

An under-accounted contribution was that of the Indian Army, which was paid for by India but used by Whitehall as a free source of infantry in Africa and the Middle East, greatly reducing the cost of imperial adventures.

Basically, the British Empire without India wouldn't (and didn't) pay. Hornplease 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dock leaves

Why are dock leaves always found where nettles are growing? - Kittybrewster (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Out nettle, In dock: Dock shall ha' A new smock; Nettle shan't Ha' narrun.

See Teleology, though you might want to ask on the science desk and see what they have to say.—eric 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good question. I can find no literature that explains why. Though both are found widely in the northern hemisphere and can survive in many type of soil. It may simply be that plenty of different plants are found in close proximity, but because we closely associate dock with nettles, that we notice their proximity and comment on it. Rockpocket 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they are both plants of similar temperament and will therefore be found in similar climatic zones. Plasticup ^T/C 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta

How has this been interpreted since 1215 and why has it become such a cornerstone in notions of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon world?80.177.38.137 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory, MC has more clauses that deal with Jews than clauses that deal with anyone's freedom, liberties etc. It was ignored straight after it was issued. And it did not even aspire to do anything for the rights of anyone other than Barons. But it was a useful perennial club to hit the monarch with. --Dweller 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Summer School question moved to seperate section

I think you should consult our article on Magna Carta. It is important not because of its impact immediately but because it is one of the first steps on a long road to freedom. In it John recognised the power of the law over the King, some rights for Barons (rights that would be gradually extended down the social heirarchy over time) and important judicial rights such as habeas corpus made their first written appearance here. The 1215 Magna Carta was reissued in many forms, it was simply the first one. There were, Dweller, only two clauses dealing with Jews/money lenders, out of 60 something, which didn't reappear in later editions. There's an interesting argument on the talk page, with one contributor wanting to basically rewrite the article to say Magna Carta caused Nazism (I exagerate perhaps slightly I didn't read it all in detail). However it is quite right that this important step on the gradual march towards common law and even democracy is recognised for what it lead to, as much as what it was at the time. Cyta 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's strip away the verbiage and get to the heart of Magna Carta, the one core principle that might be said to have survived all others, not for a particular few but for everyone. It is this;

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any other way ruined, not will we go or send against him except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

This is now at the centre of our common law; but it is more than that. It sets limits to royal power, and is thus the first clear challenge to absolutism, a challenge renewed time and again. Yes, the Charter was overturned almost immediately, but as a set of ideas it did not go away, and was reissued in 1217 and again in a more definitive form by Henry III in 1225. Even the Battle of Evesham, and the defeat of the baronial rebellion, did not shift Magna Carta from its central position in the political life of England. During the reign of Edward I it was used to focus opposition to the king's financial exactions. Edward was thus obliged to acknowledge that he was bound by its provisions. When Parliament began to take shape as a permanent part of the English political landscape it took it upon itself the task of seeking reconfirmation and clarification of the document. Often sessions would begin with a public reading and a reaffirmation of the Charter.

So, how did this work in practice? It meant that all statues conflicting with this political keystone were declared invalid. In 1369, during the reign of Edward III it was declared that "If any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none." The provisions of the Charter were also extended during this reign in the so-called 'Six Statutes', which served to define law as 'due process.' The third of these extended the protection offered by Magna Carta by changing the wording 'no free man' to 'no man'.

Although it slipped into the background to some degree during the period of Tudor absolutism, it became a central platform in the seventeenth century opposition to the rule of the Stuarts. And here we enter the realm of the 'ancient constitution', as defined by Sir Edward Coke, amongst others, later to find its fullest expression in the Declaration of Rights after the Glorious Revolution. It makes no matter here that we are dealing with what was effectively evolving political mythology, a useful adjutant to the Whig interpretation of history, King John's Charter had ramifications well beyond its limited feudal origins. In one of history's many ironies it was the Tories in the eighteenth century who rallied behind Magna Carta in their defiance of the Whig oligarchy, forcing Sir Robert Walpole to stress the superiority of the post-1688 constitution.

But for many, in both England and the American colonies, Magna Carta was reinterpreted as a challenge to narrow parliamentary absolutism. One radical, Arthur Beardmore, arrested for seditious libel in 1762, arranged to be apprehended while teaching Magna Carta to his young son, becoming a hero in the process, the subject of a popular print. John Wilkes, likewise imprisoned for seditious libel, also invoked Magna Carta, "that glorious inheritance, that distinguishing characteristic of the Englishman."

While it is true that the Charter, and the mythology of the 'ancient constitution', became less and less relevant during the great age of Victorian reform, it acquired a fresh significance across the Atlantic. The 1225 version of the Charter was published in Philidelphia in 1687, part of a tract written by William Penn. After the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, lawyers turned to Magna Carta to justify Colonial defiance of George III, the new King John. The First Continental Congress declared that the colonists were doing "as Englishmen their anscestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties." In 1775 Massachusetts adopted as its state seal an image of a patriot holding a sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other; and the Founding Fathers went on to place the document above statute law in the Constitution. Due process was also to be incorporated in the Bill of Rights of 1791.

So, you see, Magna Carta has a historical relevance well beyond defining the selfish rights of thirteenth century barons.

Magna Carta and Anti-Semitism

I hope nobody minds, and I realise that it is slightly off topic, but I simply have to address this matter, flagged up by both Dweller and Cyta. I have now read the 'debate' you refer to Cyta, and I can confirm that it is both hysterical and ludicrous. What is even worse, for the image of Wikipedia itself, is that the Magna Carta page has been added to Category:Antisemitism. Yes, it has, and for what? Why, for this:

If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

Substitute the word 'bankers' then you more or less have the same reading. If Magna Carta is to be seen as 'Anti-Semitic' then one might as well add the whole of Medieval and early modern literature, theology and philosophy to the same category; anything from Chaucer to Shakespeare. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but to interpret Magna Carta in this light is grossly inappropriate. More seriously, it gives a spurious legitimacy to some very unpleasant and entirely modern thinking. If you really want a proper illustration of anti-Semitism what about this;

What is the worldly cult of the Jew? 'Huckstering'. What is his worldly God? 'Money'

Who is the author? Why, the same man who described Ferdinand Lasalle as a 'Nigger Jew', and said that the Jews of Poland 'breed like lice.' He is Karl Marx. You will find the above quote and others in the same vein in On the Jewish Question Now, would anyone care to add his name to the Catagory:Antisemitism? OK, OK; I'm being disingenuous and polemical, though I feel sure some of you will understand my point. Clio the Muse 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Incidentally, that cat was added recenttly. You've inspired me to start a fight that I will almost certainly lose: [1]. Hornplease 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I admire your courage, Hornplease. Unfortunately there are too many POV warriors around here, corrupting and distorting Wikipedia pages. The very best of luck. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Clio the Muse 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes good luck, I hadn't realised that category was there, the debate I saw I remembered from a while back and it seemed to have been resolved reasonably in the article. After all Magna Carta is hardly in the same league as On the Jews and their Lies which also came up recently on the reference desk. It is simply in my eyes a law on money lending, naming the only people allowed to work as money lenders. I am surprised by Marx's comments, he was after all Jewish. Must be one of those Self-hating Jews. After all, we all know the link between Communism and Judaism, see Mein Kampf. Now that's what I call anti-semitism. Cyta 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's daft to put it in the anti-semitic cat and I'm daft too, to have been wrong about the number of clauses. Perhaps I'm thinking of the Ordinances. --Dweller 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Summer School

Just out of curiousity, do they have Summer school in England? 38.112.225.84 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, thought the Open University has Sumer Schools for its undergraduates. DuncanHill 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we do have summer schools, but they are not the same thing as the (US biased) Wikipedia article. They are sponsored by youth groups, churches, etc rather than the education authorities, and provide training in a specific topic of interest, e.g. music or religion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They may also be run by schools themselves and by certain youth/eduction organisations (NAGTY springs to mind). Martinp23 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no equivalent remedial "summer school" though? As in for kids who failed to pass or meet requirements during the regular term, as is the case in the U.S.? 38.112.225.84 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - and in Britain one doesn't Pass or Fail a year. DuncanHill 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little? Here in the states you don't receive a grade per se for the year either, but certainly there must be some criteria by which students are deemed to have successfully completed a grade level and are therefore eligible to move on to the next one, or not, as the case may be. Unless you simply mean you call it something different, so in Britain you wotwottallyho or googlygob a year, or whatever. 24.22.163.169 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One simply moves up into the next year, we dont have the system of grades that you do in the USA. Education in the United Kingdom (I'm hoping that will come up blue!) may explain more. DuncanHill 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To make it totally clear, even if you are inattentive, not very bright and a serial truant who fails all and every test/exam that may be set, it's extremely unusual in the UK for you to drop out of your age cohort into the one below. --Dweller 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on Grades in the United Kingdom, but it only covers exam scores. In the U.S., you have to pass a certain number of classes in certain subject areas to graduate from high school. Passing means having an average score of at least 60 out of 100 on a mix of final exams, mid term quizzes, homework assignments, participation, etc. No one wants to fall too far behind and not be able to graduate at 18. So if you fail, say, English class in 10th grade, you may want to take English at summer school so you can get the course credit before entering 11th grade. Now what happens in Britain if a student completely bombs a year -- doesn't do his assignments, gets low scores on tests, etc.? -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He'll still move up to the next year - but will probably be placed in lower sets. DuncanHill 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but what if he's already in the lowest set? I mean, what do they do with someone who just completely makes no effort to succeed in school? -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also mention that in Britain one does not graduate from school - only from University. Secondary education in the United Kingdom should explain more (I'm hoping that will be blue!) DuncanHill 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst a student teacher at a college in Dundee (Scotland), a girl in my 1st year (the fair Amanda, whose hair was sooo blonde, like the sun, shinning like....enough) decided to change courses (to english/philosopy) and attend another Uni in Dundee, she was accepted but she had to attend a summer school, run by her new Uni, which enabled her to join her new course at the begining of the second year - have never heard of this happening to anyone else so i am assuming that it is quite rare, but there were quite a few people at the summer school (for 'quite a few people' read 'i don't know how many') Perry-mankster 09:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone makes no effort to succeed, or indeed is just not capable of attaining high levels in the usual subjects, they will usually end up in the bottom sets for subjects that are set. The teachers may come up with alternative plans for them, they might end up being excluded from school some days, they might spend some time in isolation, their parents may be prosecuted if they continually truant, the teachers might try to find a way for them to learn something or at least have the best chance (possibly helping find an apprenticeship, taking some more vocational subjects, etc). But ultimately, retaking a year during compulsory education (before you turn 16) is very rare. Skittle 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Novel name

I'm trying to think of the name of this novel I read a few years back in college. It was set mainly in Hawaii, the class I read it in was all ethnic or mixed race authors, I think the main characters were a young boy and his older sister, possibly of Japanese descent. There was something about cats taking away people's pain also, but it wasn't a huge part of the story/plot. Having no luck finding it, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 38.112.225.84 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it in Literature in Hawaii. Gotta love Wikipedia. Blu's Hanging by Lois-Ann Yamanaka.

A book named "THE GENIE"

I read a horror novel titled "The Genie" some years ago. It is the story of some sexual relationship between a genie and a human female. Can somebody say who the author is? I have forgotten the author's name. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.20.40 (talk)

Do you remember any more details? A character name, a location, any proper noun? Plasticup ^T/C 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

what is the financial regulatory agency? waht is also their function?

what is the financial regulatory agency in Nigeria? what is also their function? what are the possible recommendation for their shortcomings? Akinmusi 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Akinmusi

• You can get some information at Finance_Minister_of_Nigeria. --Halcatalyst 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Bangladesh

I am confused about Bangladesh's number of sub-district: one article "Districts of Bangladesh" says that it has 493 sub-districts(upazila) and another article "Table of administrative country subdivisions by country" says it has 474. Which one is correct about the number of sub-districts of Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.202 (talk)

It seems that upazilas are periodically divided or merged in administrative reorganizations, so that the total number changes. According to this Bangladesh government document, there were 481 upazilas as of 31 December 2006. Marco polo 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a discussion of the torturer as victim.

I read an essay (I believe it was a blog post) (possibly by Arthur Silber, though I've been unable to locate it on either of his sites (powerofnarrative or thesacredmoment)) which detailed the psychological process by which torturers or murderers who did terrible things in the service of a totalitarian regime transfer the idea of victimhood from their victims onto themselves--that because they had to endure the pain of doing these things, they were really the victims. I'm trying to tie this into a discussion of Ender's Game, but I can't for the life of me find the essay. Does this ring a bell with anyone? grendel|khan 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it pretty unlikely that anyone would argue that the torturers were "really" the victims (that is, removing the victim status from those tortured), but I have heard arguments that they are often also victims in their own way. There is some discussion of this in Grossman's, On Killing, I believe. --24.147.86.187 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, the bit I was looking for was on how the torturers tell themselves a story about how they're the real victims in order to deal with the guilt of what they've done. grendel|khan 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have what you're looking for, but you might be interested in John Conroy's book Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, which tells a different story. The torturers he examines are not particularly bothered by what they're doing, since they've fit it into a larger framework of a greater good. --Sean 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard and read about this kind of rationalization before. I don't think I found your essay, but maybe this is of interest or can help you locate it:

A couple of months ago, the Washington Post ran an article by Laura Blumenfeld titled The Tortured Lives of Interrogators. It's up to the readers to characterize the regime employing the interrogator.

In her paper The Psychology of Torture South African psychologist Shirley Spitz mentioned that "the torturer probably still experiences some mental stress through tormenting victims and through the subtle realisation that he too is being exploited by the system" and refers to Bendfeldt-Zachrisson, F., "State (Political) Torture: Some General, Psychological, and Particular Aspects", International Journal of Health Services, Vol.15(2), pp.339-349. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have what you were looking for either, but a related character in fiction is the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, who feels he is sacrificing his own happiness, even his soul, for the benefit of the great masses by keeping them ignorant and thus happy.--Rallette 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

...unless what you were looking for was this, from Slavoj Zizek:

The problem for those in power is how to get people do the dirty work without turning them into monsters. This was Heinrich Himmler's dilemma. When confronted with the task of killing the Jews of Europe, the SS chief adopted the attitude of "somebody has to do the dirty job". In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.

Which Silber quotes here.--Rallette 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you was the traditional cry of those who would beat small children. DuncanHill 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! grendel|khan 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Prague c. 1911

What kinds of events were happening in and around Prague in the decade before the Great War? Was there any internal feuding, battles with neighbors, invading interests? Anything I can find kind of tapers off towards the end of the 19th century and doesn't pick back up until the assassination of Franz Ferdinanad.

Thanks in advance

Beekone 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't provide specific events, I can provide a general context. Prague was the centre of Czech nationalism within the Czech-speaking lands of the empire. For several decades there had been a shift in power in Prague from the minority German-speaking bourgeoisie to a bourgeoisie that spoke Czech like the majority of Bohemians. During the empire's last decade, this shift in relative power was largely complete. Meanwhile, a diversity of parties had emerged among the Czech population, including class-based parties such as the Social Democratic Party. Bohemia was one of the most economically advanced parts of the empire, Prague was relatively prosperous, and buildings from this period include several fine examples of the art nouveau style. Marco polo 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very useful. Any idea as to the degree of struggle between Bohemia and Germany? I can't imagine they just handed Prague over without some fighting?

You realise that has nothing to do with Germany? Bohemia was part of the Austrian part of Austro-Hungary.--Tresckow 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. Is there helpful info to follow or just the zinger? Beekone 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up after World War I (as a result of the Treaty of Saint-Germain concluded at the Paris Peace Conference), Czechoslovakia (which incorporated Bohemia and regions to the east), gained independence—with Prague as its capital—in part due to the efforts of Tomáš Masaryk, whose biography offers insights into this time and place. During World War I, Bohemia did not openly rebel, but nationalists such as Masaryk faced a choice between exile and possible imprisonment. Also, many Czechs resisted fighting in the imperial army against their Slavic brethren, the Russians and Serbs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not let go of Bohemia without fighting. It was forced to let go after it lost the war. Marco polo 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the foot work, Marco. Beekone 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are still pursuing this, I would point out that many Czechs ultimately did take up arms against Austria-Hungary in the Czechoslovak Legions. Marco polo 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. This is all still slightly after the time line I'm after. Maybe no significant raids or battles or fighting of any kind transpired. I was hoping with all of that tension there would be a night of bomb blasts and gunfire somewhere in the annals. Beekone 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Beekone. Like Marco I cannot provide any specific information on the decade you have identified, though in general terms I believe it to have been reasonably peaceful. There were certainly none of the kinds of acute tension that you are looking for. In general the Czechs were well treated in the old Empire, represented in both the Reichsrat in Vienna and their own Bohemian Diet, established in 1861. After the creation of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867 the Czechs pressed for a tripartite partnership, though with no success. One small point of clarification: the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart in 1918, and the Czechs simply established an independent state without a fight; so they did in fact rebel. The Treaty of Saint-Germain merely provided recognition of the established political facts. The Ruthenian tail was later added to the territory of the new republic by the Treaty of Trianon. Clio the Muse 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beekone. If you go a little earlier in 1848 you would find serious uproar in Austria (not yet austro-hungary). See for example: Lajos Kossuth However it were the hungarians that wanted a piece of the cake.--Tresckow 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you may find it interesting that despite being part of Austria-Hungary, Bohemia was apparently autonomous enough that it had its own national team in the 1900, 1908 and 1912 Olympic Games. Austria and Hungary also had their separate Olympic teams. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input, guys. I'm a little disappointed by the findings, but it's also good to have a firmer grasp on the societal climate of Prague c. 1911. I've discovered in additional readings that Einstein accepted a position at the University of Prague in 1911 where he associated with writer Franz Kafka. It looks like the Czechs preferred their peace. They're truly a good people, as are all of you. Beekone 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Commodities Market for Flash Chips

This is actually several related questions. First, are there futures and other derivatives based on the prices of basic computer components like NAND flash chips or LCDs? Second, are there any commodity markets where these types of products are listed? If not, how could futures work? (Everyone needs to have a single agreed upon price for a quantity of a product for futures to work, right?)

I guess these questions aren't strictly limited to computing goods (especially the one about if futures can work without a centralized exchange to track commodity prices), but it came up in the context of how tech companies protect themselves against fluctuations in the market for such goods. 12.118.102.38 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 No. - From commodity "In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer are considered equivalent" - the problem with flash chips, lcds is that the quality (or capacity) is constantly improving. Bulk Copper for instance is much the same in 1970 as it is today, the same can not be said for chips etc.

Therefor question 2 - No.

Last question - I imagine such a market would work when there are no further improvements in the technology, in which everyone produces the same chips to the exact same specifications etc No.87.102.42.81 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I imagine (am fairly certain to be correct) that chips are produced to a specific order - unlike bulk goods like copper/palm oil which are produced because there is a general market for them.87.102.42.81 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best hope is for something like ultrapure silicon boules - however even these are produced to a certain width - and a given size will no be suitable for another application.87.102.42.81 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Commodity - and wait for market stability87.102.42.81 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia in 1812

I've just finished reading War and Peace. It details how some of the Russian people reacted to Napoleon's invasion, but I would like to place these events in a wider political context, so would be interested to know what the general reaction was. Thanks for your trouble. P. Bezukhov 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia (1812) would be a good place, and it does state that War and Peace does give good information on the reaction. 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow, Adam Zamoyski, HarperCollins, 644 Pages. ISBN 0-00-712375-2 may be a good start also, as might Alexander I of Russia SGGH ^speak! 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can offer you some interesting tidbits of information, P. Bezhukov, to flesh out that given in War and Peace. There was a strong Polish contingent in Napoleon's army, who looked to him to restore the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though he gave them little direct encouragement. When Mogilev was occupied some of the local Polish-speaking nobility formed a confederation, promising support to Napoleon Most, however, remained aloof, fearing that the French would liberate their serfs. Likewise, in Vilna the Lithuanian nobility were more lavish in their praise of Tsar Alexander than Napoleon, to the disgust of those Poles who came from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The one group the Russian government was most concerned about was the Jewish population of Belorussia, who only became part of the population after the Partitions of Poland. Napoleon was known to have pursued a liberal policy towards the Jews, setting up a Grand Sanhedrin in 1807, so it was feared that he would be seen as a liberator on his entry into western Russia. But, contrary to expectations, the Jews remained loyaly to the Tsar. In August, while the Grand Army was in the district of Smolensk, Marshall Davout told Napoleon that his troops were being deliberately misled by the Jews, causing a number of his uhlans to be ambushed by Cossack patrols. Boris Uxhill, an Estonian in the Russian army, was to write "The Jews regard us everywhere as liberators. They detest the French and help us where they can."

Alexander's greatest fear was that Napoleon would appeal to Russia's serfs, by far the largest part of the Russian population. Troops were therefore stationed in each province in anticipation of a serf uprising, along the lines of the Pugachev rebellion. But it did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. A proclamation was issued by the French, promising liberation and calling on Russian soldiers to support them. Beyond that Napoleon took no practical action, a matter he was later to express some regret over while in St Helena. At the time, though, he had good reasons for not doing so. The aim of the war was not to overthrow Alexander, but to force him to make peace. A widespread serf rebellion would have made this an impossible prospect. The potential that such a rising may have had is shown by the actions of some of the serf population in areas occupied by the French, and in neighbouring provinces. Commenting on the situation later in the century one Russian observer noted that the peasants of the Smolensk region had behaved 'like brigands.' However, one should not discount the actions of the French army in alienating the peasantry, by pillaging and acts of casual brutality, in much the same fashion as the Peninsular War. Many serfs fought with the partisans, inflicting serious damage on the invaders.

Some of the Russian clergy were later accused of collaboration, most noteably Archbishop Varlaam in Mogilev, who was later tried by the Holy Synod, stripped of his rank and confined to a monastery. His defence was that he only co-operated through fear, though others suggested that he had been tempted by Napoleon's offer of a cardinal's hat if he converted to Catholicism. Most of the clergy, though, were deeply hostile, telling the peasants that Napoleon was the 'Anti-Christ', a view that found particular support among the Old Believers. Uniting serfs, nobles, the Jews and the Orthodox against the invader, the campaign of 1812 is justly remembered in Russia as the Patriotic War Clio the Muse 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by your answers, Clio, but I'd like to make you aware of one minor but common mistake which I saw in some of your posts. The puppet state created by Napoleon on Polish territory was called Duchy of Warsaw, not Grand Duchy of Warsaw. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction, Kpalion; I shall make sure that I use the proper title in any future references. I absorbed this error from a reading of Norman Davies's book Europe. I've checked other sources and see that use of this title is fairly common. What, I would be interested to know, is the origin of the 'inflation'? Clio the Muse 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it (perhaps) be connected with the existence of the Grand Duchy of Posen and the Grand Duchy of Krakow? Easy to have it at the back of the mind that Warsaw should have at least the same status. Xn4 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but my guess would be the same as Xn4's. Probably some English-speaking author confused the Duchy of Warsaw with the Grand Duchy of Posen or some other of history's many grand duchies and later this mistake was reproduced elsewhere. I have a Polish translation of Davies's Europe at home and this error is corrected here. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are haitians of both North and Western african descent?

The first slaves of haiti came from spain that had been obtained from the north african slave trade and later they got the slaves from senegal, tuaregs, slave coast and the bantu's from angola and congo

read the passage "spanish period"

source: http://www.discoverhaiti.com/history_summary.htm --arab 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

URL fixed.  --Lambiam 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the web page is blank. The Spaniards may have brought a small number of North Africans to Hispaniola, but Haiti was very thinly populated at the time the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue. That colony was populated mainly by hundreds of thousands of slaves taken from West Africa, who are the descendants ancestors of most Haitians today. Marco polo 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancestors :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GeeJo! Marco polo 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

August 22

Go Like Who-Dray-Gah

This is a family expression, meaning to go very quickly. It comes down from the Bohemian side of the family, and I have tried to find out who or what this refers to. The spelling is phonetic, the best I can do.

This question really belongs on the Language desk and would stand a better chance there! Xn4 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interest Rates and Trade

Could someone describe how the trade imbalances with China and the subsequent huge current account deficits the US has accumulated helps to keep interest rates low in the US?

THank you AlmostCrimes 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it doesn't. The current account deficit is a sign of over-heated demand, which tends to push up interest rates. I suppose the only reason American interest rates aren't very high is that other countries (including China) are willing to buy American debt. Of course, that won't last forever... Plasticup ^T/C 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it the trade imbalance does mean that we buy enormous amounts of things from China without China buying anything from us except little pieces of paper; those pieces of paper indicate that China owns bits of us. The fact that China and a couple of other places want to own bits of us means that it's easy for people to borrow money from them, and that keeps interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. So the current account deficit with China is a necessary ingredient to keeping rates low at the moment; but it isn't sufficient. Hornplease 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Plasticup is right that the trade imbalances and U.S. current-account deficits do not by themselves keep interest rates low. Indeed, in other countries with large current account deficits, such as Australia and New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Britain), interest rates have been raised in order to attract the credit needed to fund the current account deficit and to keep their currency from plummeting (which would send interest rates soaring and make it difficult to service external debt). The United States is different from these other countries in that enjoys monetary hegemony. Its currency, the U.S. dollar, is the international reserve currency and the currency needed for purchasing the world's most vital commodity, oil. So, dollars tend to accumulate in the central bank reserves of nations that have trade surpluses with the United States, the most important of which is China. China could dispose of these dollars in several ways. For example, it could sell the dollars and buy gold or some other currency such as the euro for its reserves. This would have the effect of driving the value of its own currency up relative to the dollar, which would lose purchasing power in terms of the Chinese yuan. It would also force interest rates in the United States up to attract credit to fund its current account deficit. The resulting devaluing of the dollar and increase in interest rates would tend to correct the trade imbalance by forcing Americans to import less. However, at least until recently, the Chinese have not wanted to reduce demand for their exports in the U.S., because a drop in exports from China would probably lead to a drop in employment within China, which could in turn lead to social unrest within China. Therefore, to maintain employment in the export sector, the Chinese have used their dollar reserves mainly to buy U.S. debt (that is, to provide credit to the U.S.). Massive Chinese purchases of U.S. debt have driven down interest rates in the U.S. (though to be fair, there have been massive purchases from oil-producing countries and from other Asian countries, such as Japan, as well).

In effect, the trading partners of the United States (other than those in Europe) have been letting the United States buy on credit. That credit however, is in terms of United States dollars, of which the United States can issue an infinite quantity. The United States will therefore have the option (and ultimately perhaps the necessity) of inflating its way out of this debt, in the end leaving holders of U.S. debt with little more than pieces of paper. Perhaps for this reason, there has been a recent shift, over the past year or so, in Chinese reserve strategies, from the purchase of U.S. government debt to the purchase of more tangible assets through a sovereign wealth fund. Of course, when China spends its dollars on tangible assets such as mining companies, the shareholders who receive those dollars must find some use for them. A lot of the dollars still find their way to the U.S. debt market and therefore depress interest rates. This process is likely to continue until the United States is perceived to be inflating its way out of its debt, a perception that threatens to emerge if the Federal Reserve System increases the money supply to buy up structured debt, such as mortgage-backed securities, that lenders cannot unload to other investors in the current credit crunch. Marco polo 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Against International aid

Hello, can you tell me some reasons if possible, why some Media personalities are against overseas aid? –203.217.17.48 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're Australian, given that you use the phrase 'overseas aid' rather than the UK or North American variants. I certainly can't answer precisely what you ask without knowing which media personalities you're talking about. However, I think it is fair to say that Australia by and large isn't pulling its weight. It's ranked 19th out of the 22 OECD countries in terms of aid per capita; is the only country that is dragging its feet on agreeing to the UN's Millenium Development Goals; and may, indeed be among the worst offenders in an old, old game called tied aid, where the benefits of aid are shared between the recipient nations and specific companies in the donor nation. (The wikipedia article indicates that Australia has reduced it aid-tying below the level mandated by the OECD, but does not mention that tied aid is now almost completely phased out except by Aus, France and the US.)

Another word: Australian media is probably not as anti-overseas aid as it is repeating party lines on the subject in anticipation of the upcoming election. John Howard recently announced that he would double overseas aid; but it appears that he halved it a little while ago [2], so charities are naturally saying that it's all a little dodgy. The content as well as quantity of aid is in dispute, as Howard's government intends to change the recipients of aid in line with the Bush administration's policy on aid[3] (only give it to countries where we like the leaders/think they're honest); this was Paul Wolfowitz's job at the World Bank. Hornplease 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other arguments against overseas aid; firstly, there is the philosophical view that we are under no obligation to help poor people in other countries - or that we have no obligation to help other people, full stop. I'm not supporting this viewpoint, by the way, merely noting that it exists. Furthermore, there are critiques by various economists that argue that overseas aid doesn't work particularly well in helping, for a variety of reasons - for instance, that corrupt government officials siphon the aid money off for themselves. Have a look at the Wikipedia's article on aid for some starting points. --136.186.1.191

Many people, as well as 'media personalities' believe a governmemnts duty is to it's own people, those who elect it and pay taxes, rather than to struggling 'overseas' countries whose own governments can't provide for them. As mentioned, aid is not always effective, does it really help those who need it or those in power? Will it do any good anyway? Will those who get extra food go on to die of AIDS or TB or malaria? Will those saved from disease simply increase the number fighting over food? Plenty of money has gone to Africa especially already, if people see little effect they may become cynical. However I am surprised that media people speak out. It seems there are many very rich celebrities who could do a lot of good with their own money, much more willing to beg for the ordinary man's money whilst making themselves look and feel good as they 'save the world', rather like the famous people taking private jets to climate change concerts. It would be easy for these media people to say the PC thing without any effort, so I suspect they have genuine belief in what they say. Cyta 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., opinion polls have consistently shown that ordinary citizens think that a hugely larger proportion of the national govenment budget is spent on foreign aid than is actually the case -- and the conspicuous failure of many prestige projects (of the Tanzanian steel-mill type) in past decades has caused some to become rather cynical about the subject. The U.S. doesn't really "pull its weight" as far as direct aid goes (much of which is connected with security/military alliances or tied to U.S. companies and agricultural products), but the U.S. does have fewer trade barriers to LDC's than many other developed countries... AnonMoos 09:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, Americans still seem to believe that the Marshall Plan was typical or recent. What they don't realize is that the Marshall Plan was one of the things that inspired the John Birch Society to scream about helping the Nazis and Japanese, etc. Foreign aid has been unpopular at all times and places, and what aid there is is buried in appropriations bills so as to not become a campaign issue. Even liberal districts will vote against anyone who seems to be too pro-aid (this is because the left fragments over aid and will say, "Why give it to Fredonia, when Freedonia needs it more?"). Foreign aid is denounced by media figures of the Limbaugh stripe in the US, but it is also generally politically damaging. Even if Americans think the Congress should allocate aid, any individual aid bill can be presented to the public as a political negative. Hence, because no one can fight for a particular aid package (unless it's disaster relief), the power to designate and send aid is left to the executive, and the US hasn't had very many internationalist presidents in the last couple of decades. Geogre 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP address of the questioner is in Australia.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William of Ockham and Existence

I need a little help here. William of Ockham was a nominalist, but was he a scholastic, sorry, that should be scholasticist? I am working on the Philosophy article, Existence, you see. Nominalism seems to be a branch of Philosophy of Language. Perhaps there is a closely related article that might help fill in some gaps. TIA Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on scholasticism mentions him several times as being a famous scholastic; the List of scholastic philosophers includes him; and the article on William of Ockham itself calls him a scholastic philosopher. So it looks like the answer is: yes, William of Ockham was a scholastic philosopher. What are the gaps you are referring to? See also Problem of universals#Medieval nominalism.  --Lambiam 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this raises some doubt in my mind about the following paragraph, (or at least the first bit of it), from that article, which I guess I do not fully understand.

The nominalist approach to the question (not to be confused with the scholastic usage of "nominalist") is to argue that certain noun phrases can be "eliminated" by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning, but which does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that "Socrates has wisdom", which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for "wisdom", can be rewritten as "Socrates is wise", which contains only the referring phrase "Socrates". This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.

There is more, (not a lot on Ockham, the article is called Existence). Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, the "not to be confused" is quite confusing. "Current" nominalism is not that essentially different from "scholastic" nominalism; there is, rather, a continuity in the thoughts and arguments.  --Lambiam 08:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I have got that now, and the "confusing" bit has been removed from the article. In another section there is -

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, perhaps following the Persian philosopher Avicenna, argued that God is pure being, and that in God essence and existence are the same. At about the same time, the nominalist philosopher William of Ockham, argued, in Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic, written some time before 1327) that Categories are not a form of Being in their own right, but derivative on the existence of individuals.

which seems fine too. Thanks for helping. Newbyguesses - Talk 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark, here, but I should have supposed that nominalism is not a philosophy of language, or at least that it certainly was not (since 1915, I haven't kept up) but rather an extension of the idealism of Aristotle. Yes, I know, people don't always like calling Aristotle an idealist, but his Universals take the role of Plato's ideals. In other words, although it seems to be linguistic because of the Logos, what they were going on about was always ontology. Maybe I am not helping, but I've never been able to see them in any way but as idealists. Geogre 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To use the designation "philosophy of language" for (aspects of) Greek or Medieval philosophy may appear somewhat anachronistic, but is not necessarily improper, and especially not for Ockham. As the opening sentence of our article on the Problem of universals puts it:

The problem of universals is a phrase used to refer to a nest of intertwined problems about universals within the philosophy of language, cognitive psychology, epistemology, and ontology.

Nominalism is one possible position with regard to these problems.  --Lambiam 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Technology and the end of the Cold War

In an editorial today in the New York Times by Philip Bobbitt, the author says:

The end of the cold war was brought about in part because of technologies that empowered the individual and whetted people’s appetites for more control over their lives.

I admit to being a little perplexed. What technologies is he referring to? I am assuming he is gesturing towards information technologies, but I have never seen those cited as one of the "causes" of the end of the Cold War (which are usually about the economic woes of the USSR and the political unrest in the wake of Gorbachev's reforms). Any idea what specifically he is referring to and whether this account of the end of the Cold War has any merit? It strikes me as a little inaccurate, a wacky re-reading of the past in light of a present concern, but that's just me. --24.147.86.187 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely information technology. Without it, information comes from corporate and government sources - allowing governments to make the public believe that a threat exists when it doesn't exist, or allowing a governments to make the public believe that all is well when it isn't. That is why countries, such as North Korea, actively pursue any attempt at gaining information technology (as well as countries such as Taliban-run Afghanistan refusing to allow people to get an education, becoming literate, so they can read information). -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So what did that have to do with the end of the Cold War? Very little, yes? That's the part I'm having trouble with; I have no trouble thinking that information technologies could hypothetically lead to increased openness, civil society, etc., but their role in the end of the Cold War seems very small to me, since the Soviet bloc was very backwards in respect to information technologies. --140.247.240.228 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an editorial - I could have written "the cold war ended because west better XBOX360=ownage=better (internet=we won)" etc, etc. Why expect more?87.102.42.81 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a guest editorial? I would suppose it has to be, to be signed. I would suppose the argument is a variant on the luxury goods argument. If The People have televisions and short wave radios, they will have knowledge and desire better, and, if they desire better, they will demand better, and if they demand better, the government will fall. The founding assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny. (The Lockean idea that the people always have the power and will inevitably depose a tyrant simply doesn't bear up across history. It requires acute misery to provoke revolt, not ennui or misery. Furthermore, an armed populace is ridiculously poorly equipped to overthrow an immoral state apparatus (see half a dozen wars in Africa, half a dozen in the Middle East).) At any rate, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was roughly 1990, and the sorts of IT that are supposed to be revolutionary just weren't there. On the other hand, the East Germans had more access to information from the west than the average middle-Russia citizen, and yet it was slower to change. From what you're presenting, the statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps the argument is something other? Geogre 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I alluded to, the editorial appears to claim that access to info in the U.S. allowed people to realize Russia was not a threat and cease supporting the cold war on our side. Access to info in Russia allowed the people to see that their economy and military was struggling and cease supporting the cold war on their side. I used North Korea as an example of a country without access to info. I believe that the people of North Korea believe that the whole world lives in poverty and starvation as they do - so why revolt? -- Kainaw^(what?) 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that they didn't have access to info in Russia in any great degree that I know of (and any access they did have had less to do with the technology than it did the politics), and access to info in the US really didn't have anything to do with its role in the end of the Cold War (which is usually interpreted as being "sit around and wait" or "buy lots of nukes and make them try to match it), so neither of those arguments really hold up as historical arguments, I don't think. --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991) gives nice insight (though - I read it last week, when I was writing article related to Soviet collapse, so I also read other stuff that gave nice insight) -- Xil/talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read people claim that the fax machine and copier brought down Communism. That may or may not be true. It's certainly true that the failure of the Communists to match the West in terms of consumer comforts dampened support for Communism. Slavenka Drakulic explains in her books that the Communists were good at building tanks but in 40 years never made a single passable women's sanitary product. People used to keep stores of newspapers in their home because they never knew when there'd be a shortage of toilet paper, or what passed for toilet paper in those days. Meanwhile, the proximity of countries like Hungary (the first Bloc state to end the Communist power monopoly) and East Germany (where mass protests forced change) to the West meant people in Bloc countries knew they could have it better. This knowledge in and of itself didn't lead to the fall of Communism. But it meant that Communism had no mass support, and once Gorbachev started to weaken the pillars, it was only a matter of time before the house of cards collapsed. -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many fax machines and copiers in the USSR? I have heard anecdotally (from historian friends) that there were almost no photocopiers at the time of the collapse (and still aren't a whole lot), in part because the government saw little reason to give people the ability to quickly reproduce documents, but I don't know that for a fact to be true; it would be interesting. In any case, even in this form of argument the line from the editorial seems a bit overstated to me (and frankly I don't think it is needed for the argument the editorial is trying to make—it is an old saw that information technology has ups and downs, no need to try and make the end of the Cold War one of the ups!). --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The radio is technology.The BBC World Service is often credted with giving out unbiased news particularly useful to those in repressive regimes and simple radio recievers of the "cat's whisker"! variety can be constructed and hidden very easily.hotclaws 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Map of wealth distribution

I'm interested in learning more about how well income is distributed among different countries. Image:World Map Gini coefficient.png is useful in showing how well it's distributed overall in a country, but I was wondering if I could find something more specific; specifically for places like the US, India, and China. For instance, my hypothesis is that I would see high income along China's East coast, and a much poorer interior, while the United states would be more uniform (since it takes quite a bit of capital to maintain a farm). Does anyone know of any maps that would be interesting for me? --Ybbor^Talk 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC

[4] China Map

[5] United States Map

Oddly, the China map shows the flag of the PRC, but includes Taiwan. What's interesting is that Taiwan as a whole has a much higher income than rural US (note the Taiwan figures are for individuals and the US ones are for households and I'm assuming on average three in a household). I suppose that will never change. Farmers have industrialised and have come up in the world, but they still haven't equaled citydwellers in terms of income. Of course one has to take into account that prices will be lower there too. Especially land-prices. This a major explanation for how people in third world countries can live off incomes of just 20 euro or so per month. DirkvdM 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Five Year Plan and Great Leap Forward?

Why did Stalin's 5 Year Plan succeed in raising Soviet industrial levels to that of Britain and Germany while Mao's Great Leap Forward actually lead to a temporary decline in output? What were the fundamental design and calculation's differences in planning and focus? --Gary123 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have read the pages on the First Five Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward? I think, perhaps, that you overestimate the success of the Five Year Plan. which did not raise output to quite the levels that you are suggesting. There are also some similarities between what happened in Russia and China, in that both processes were accompanied by mass famine. But there is little direct comparison beyond that. Soviet industrial planning, for all its deficiencies, was carefully co-ordinated and, well, planned. It focused on the development of heavy industry in manufacturing centres, and applied resources and expertise in achieving a given set of realistic and identifiable ends. Mao's, 'plan', in contrast, was based on crackpot notions and half-baked thinking, all too characteristic of his whole approach to political and economic issues. You see, Gary, it comes down to one thing: a belief in voluntarism; a belief that historical progress was merely a matter of collective will: if people wanted something badly enough it would happen, and the mountain would move. If China the 'will' was Mao's, and he decided that industry was based on iron; the people must make iron, and so achieve the great collective leap. Agriculture was negelected, as were many other areas of economic activity. There was no proper co-ordination, and any form of expertise was suspect. Millions of people were turned to making pig iron in back-yard furnaces, turning out, for the most part, a very poor quality product. Stalin understood that high quality iron needs large-scale enterprise; Mao thought it was merely a question of will and incentive. The result, as we know, was disastrous. It was the economics of the treadmill: lots of energy expended for almost no pratical result.

Mao's 'enthusiasms' also impacted at this time on other areas of the economy. I would refer you to the Great sparrow campaign. Here the 'Great Helmsman' decided that sparrows were a grain-eating pest. Thousands were killed, with the result that the real pests on which the sparrows fed multiplied, reducing grain yields still further at a time of famine. In arguably one of the craziest episodes in all of economic history the Chinese were afterwards obliged to appeal to Russia for surplus sparrows. Clio the Muse 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Haitians are just of African descent, no mixing with indians or anything? while DR is mixed but the haitians are just of pure non mixing north & western african descent?

I'm not talking about the mullato side, i'm talking about the Negro side, What kind of other blood do they have in them, instead of just black??!!! or are they just black nothing else??!!!--arab 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) --arab 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question above that Haitians have minimal North African ancestry. Most Haitians are mainly descended from West Africans. Many also have significant European ancestry (from both French and Spanish colonists). I don't really understand this question. You say you are not talking about the "mulatto" side. Mulattos by definition have both European and sub-Saharan African ancestry. You are talking about the "Negro" side. I guess I am not sure what you mean by "Negro". Racial terminology varies from one culture to another. Note that "races" are cultural categories. There is more genetic variation within sub-Saharan Africa than there is between sub-Saharan Africa and other world regions, so in genetic terms, there is really no such thing as a "black" or "Negro" population set apart from other populations. This is a cultural category, and different cultures draw the lines around races in different ways. For example, in the United States, most mulattos are seen as "black" and possibly most "blacks" are in fact mulattos, in that they have some European ancestry. In fact, most people of all colors in the Americas, and particularly in the West Indies, have a mixed ancestry. (In fact, if you go back enough generations, hardly anyone in the world is genetically "pure.") Few if any Haitians are likely to have "pure" West African ancestry. Most will have some European ancestry. Most will have Central or Southern African ancestry, as significant numbers of slaves were taken from the Congo Basin, Angola and Mozambique, particularly during the later years of the slave trade. Perhaps there is some Native American ancestry in Haiti, but I doubt that it is significant, since the Spanish virtually exterminated the indigenous population of Hispaniola, and then, during the 1600s, ordered the remaining inhabitants of western Hispaniola to move east, closer to Santo Domingo. (See Hispaniola#History and Haiti#History.) Western Hispaniola was nearly uninhabited when the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue, which they populated with slaves taken from Africa and much smaller numbers of French colonists. Saint-Domingue became Haiti when it declared its independence from France. During and since the colonial period, some people of every background have migrated to and from Haiti/Saint-Domingue and the Dominican Republic/Santo Domingo, so the populations of the two countries have much shared ancestry. Because the French relied more heavily on slave plantations than did the Spanish, Haiti's population has a larger sub-Saharan African component. However, the population of the Dominican Republic has a considerable sub-Saharan African component as well, and both countries have European ancestry. Marco polo 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A minor elaboration-- while the indigenous Taíno of Hispaniola were almost completely wiped out, Native Americans from elsewhere were shipped to the island to work as slaves. It was not uncommon for "mainland" Indians to be enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean. I'm more familiar with the English trade in Indian slaves, which mainly involved export from Charleston, South Carolina to Barbados and other English colonies. Hispaniola received Indian slaves from French sources (like Louisiana) for sure, and probably from English and Spanish sources as well. One example I was just reading about is the French enslavement of most of the Natchez people, around 1730 in French Louisiana. They were shipped to Saint-Domingue. The number of Indian slaves sent to Hispaniola pales in comparison to the number of African slaves, and must be a very small part of general Haitian ancestry today. I just wanted to point out that Native American ancestry among Haitians need not be Taíno. It could just as easily be Natchez or any number of other "mainland" native peoples. Pfly 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

=== So what countries of africa did the haitians came from as slaves???!!! from the both spanish and french--arab 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Name the North(minority), West, Central, south and southeast african countries they all came from!!--arab 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first African slaves brought by the Spaniards were born in Spain; it is hard to tell where their ancestors came from, but in any case they were a few hundred on in the end many hundreds of thousands of imported slaves; possibly three quarters of a million. Once the Spaniards started importing African-born slaves directly from Africa, they took them predominantly from the Atlantic coast of West Africa, just as where the French and later the British (who obtained a monopoly on the trade) hauled them from. Although the trade lines later extended to sub-Saharan regions, that was always a small fraction. In West Africa the main supply was from the densely populated so-called Slave Coast.  --Lambiam 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Never forget that we are all 'Jock Thamson's Bairns' - (randy sod) :) Perry-mankster 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to look that one up. Its at Jock Tamson's Bairns, of course. Rmhermen 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Telecommunication Industry

Hello. How is a nation's telecommunication industry so vital to their sovereignty? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One might fairly ask if a telecommunication industry even is vital to sovereignty. Our article notes that the telecommunications infrastructure (which I submit is a distinct subsection of the overall industry) is important to the economy. However, claiming that that which is vital to the economy is therefore vital to sovereignty is where I see a problem with your original question. — Lomn 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it could be argued that cheap and efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a threat to sovereignty.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Finland's innovation in telephony credited to a deliberate policy of decentralizing the biz so that a hypothetical Russian invasion could never get control of the telephone system by seizing one building. This illustrates two aspects of sovereignty which can conflict: control over the populace and lack of control by foreigners. —Tamfang 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Batista and cuba

Please, Clio, can anything be said in favour of batista in cuba. was regime all bad.TheLostPrince 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, Lost Prince, that you may have in mind the usual sterotype: that Fulgencio Batista was nothing more than a corrupt dictator, a friend of the mafia and an oppressor of the Cuban people, a monster justly cast out by Fidel Castro? I would say here that the time for a reassessment is long overdue, and I am happy to report that some progress has been made along this road by Frank Argote-Freyre, whose first volume of a new biography, Fulgencio Batista: The Making of a Dictator, was published last year. Batista, in short, was a far more complex character than the traditional depictions have allowed. He himself came to power as part of a revolution, and made sincere attempts to improve the Cuban economy. The problem was that the price of sugar, the country's main product, had fallen sharply during the Great Depression, and was subject to periodic fluctuations thereafter. In response, Batista looked to tourism to fuel a recovery, drawing in the mafia, in the person of Meyer Lansky to help him sort out Cuba's notoriously corrupt casinos. It was so successful that when the American ambassador was asked why the Cubans tolerated the presence of so many gangsters, he replied "It's strange, but it seems to be the only way to get honest casinos." By the 1950s, largely thanks to Batista's efforts, the Cuban economy was booming. The problem was there was still a considerable gap between the wealth being drawn in to places like Havana and the relative poverty of the countryside; and it was on rural discontent that Castro built his revolution. Clio the Muse 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actors' Pay

Why do studios pay actors millions of dollars instead of an average salary. It isn't like the actors could effectively go on strike, because there are too many actors as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.76.61 (talk)

Actually, actors can go on strike, and the vast majority of actors make what you might consider "average" (perhaps even "substandard") salaries -- which is a prime reason to go on strike. The top few actors, however, are paid exorbitantly for the same reason that anyone else is paid exorbitantly -- their particular industry has determined that their work is worth that pay.

For a parallel example, consider the 1994 Major League Baseball strike: very highly paid professionals successfully went on strike, shutting down the season, despite the abundance of eligible (minor league) players who could be paid far less. — Lomn 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Show business is just that -- a business. And studios / studio executives are keenly aware of the business forces at work in their industry. So, here is just a representative example. Why would NBC pay Jennifer Aniston 1 million dollars to appear in a 22-minute week's episode of the TV show, Friends? Surely, NBC can find another actor (Actor "X") willing to do the job for far less -- even, say, $5,000 or $10,000 -- right? The answer is: NBC knows that Jennifer Aniston's work will bring in to NBC more than a million dollars of revenue that week. If her work did not produce such results, surely NBC would not operate at a loss just to pay her that salary. So, hypothetically, Aniston's work brings in to NBC, say, 5 million dollars of revenue ... they pay her 1 million dollars and keep the "profit" of 4 million dollars for the network. If NBC had hired Actor "X" instead (a no-name "nobody"), Actor X's work would not generate the 5 million dollars for NBC that Aniston generates. So, it is all business and economics. Aniston commands a 1 million dollar fee because she can. And NBC is comfortable with the profit margin that they earn (the extra 4 million) by hiring her for 1 million. In economics, it is an "equilibrium point" ... which simply means that, in order to make 4 million dollars of profit, NBC is willing to spend 1 million dollars in expenses (her salary). That is a simplified version of the economics of show business. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Once upon a time, actors did get salaries. In the days of the studio system, actors were "contract players." What spelled the end of the studio system is a favorite subject of speculation, but, ultimately, the corporations killed the corporate control over actor pay by being willing to do whatever it took to get the guaranteed box office of a star. Once certain actors became "stars," disparity between them and the rest got underway. If it were not for the Screen Actor's Guild, the bottom end would be way down to nearly zero, as the studios would be happy enough to pay Tom Hanks and stock the rest of the film with minimum wage actors, but collective bargaining has at least ensured that SAC members away from the star ranks can live on their pay. (And that leads the studios to shoot in exotic places, like "right to work" states and foreign countries.) Geogre 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This does not answer the question of "How does the studio figure out how much an actor is worth?". Do they just pick a number out of the thin air? Or do they bid on ebay? 202.168.50.40 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How does the studio figure out how much the actor is worth? The answer is no different than any other economic / labor situation. How does a hospital determine what to pay its nurses? How does a school determine what to pay its teachers? Etc. Etc. Etc. There is absolutely no difference between those situations (nurse, teacher) and the actor situation. The answer is economic equilibrium ... and, simply put, it is the "meeting point" of supply and demand. In plain English, that means ... NBC will pay Aniston the very least $ (salary) that it thinks it can get away with (and not pay a penny more) ... and Aniston will accept the very highest $ (salary) that she thinks she can demand (and not a penny less). So, where NBC's "very highest salary figure that they are willing to pay" meets Aniston's "very lowest salary that she is willing to work for" is the equilibrium point at which both sides are happy. NBC is happy at the equilibrium point of (say) $1 million and Aniston is happy at the equilibrium point of $1 million ... so both sides agree to that figure. Think of the equilibrium point as both sides negotiating back and forth, trying to wear the other side down. Aniston trying to get as much $ out of NBC as she possibly can. And NBC trying to get away with paying Aniston as little $ as they possibly can get away with. Where these negotiations meet ($1 million dollars per episode) is the equilibrium point and, therefore, the agreed upon salary. And, this is the exact same way that it works with nurses, teachers, janitors, brain surgeons, etc. Actors are no different. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Studios don't determine the worth of an actor. Several things have intervened to take this from a classic labor situation, the most important of which is the agent/agency. Since you seem to want to know about stars and upper echelon actors (I answered about the low end: SAG determines that), talent agencies have stepped in in the form of "management." The actors do not generally negotiate their pay: the agency does. In Hollywood (since we're on stars) and New York, the agencies like ICM (a horrible article...really horrible) will make a demand based on 1)what the talent got the last time, 2) what a similar star has gotten, 3)what polling, Q-rating, and other things indicate the actor will add to the take of the entertainment, 4)the actor's own preferences. Each of those can become artificially elevated or depressed in the negotiations. What the studio will pay depends upon each of those things, too, and its perception of the uniqueness of the actor's services (is there another teen hunk who can star, and this one is on the way up and therefore working for less?). The talent agencies work like a cartel, in economic terms, or a union for the highest income section. Geogre 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre - I don't understand (or agree with) why you are saying that the actor situation is different than the classic labor situation. There are two sides ... for ease of discussion, let's just say the employer and the employee. Those two sides will meet at the equilibrium wage. It does not matter "who" (specifically) the two sides are. The employer can be the studio, the network, the production company, whatever. The employee can be Aniston, her agent, her lawyer, her mom, ICM, whoever. Still, there are both sides: (a) one side seeking the employment services of an actor ... this is the employer (or, more likely, his representative); and (b) one side seeking employment as an actor ... this is the actor himself (or, more likely, his representative). So, as the two sides (represented by whoever appropriate) meet at the equilibrium wage point, that illustrates the classic labor theory of supply / demand of labor services. In theory, the final salary agreed upon by both sides is (theoretically) the only point at which both sides are happy / satisfied / and at equilibrium. NBC would not pay a penny more and Aniston would not accept a penny less. Who specifically is doing the negotiating for both sides is, essentially, irrelevent. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

We're running long, but I said that it's not classic free market, not the supply and demand don't function. Any time there is a cartel or when there is a successful collective bargaining body, the normal labor capital changes its function. A cartel usually applies to commodities, and collective bargaining to people, but agencies act like a cartel of people. In the usual wage-labor-capital arrangement, the individual worker sells his labor to the capitalist and receives a wage, and the buyer of labor wishes to buy cheap and sell dear, while the seller of labor wishes to do the same. However, because the capitalist has a monopoly on the means of production, he is in a position of power over the labor-seller. A Hollywood star can't be a star without the studios and their control of capital and equipment, let's say. As long as the single worker is selling to the capital, that worker is at a huge disadvantage in power. When all the workers together make a single decision, they make labor the same as capital: a single voice with equal power to the capital suppliers. What is curious about the Hollywood star (not the rank and file actor) is that the agents lock up all the stars and then negotiate in their own interests and will "blackball" studios, directors, etc. They are putting themselves in a medial position of capital themselves against the studios. So long as they deliver very high pay to their clients, the clients will come, but they also endeavor to ensure that no client can get the big pay without them. Supply and demand still function, but not wage/labor/capital dynamics. Geogre 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To the Original Poster - you can think of actor's salary (or anyone's salary) much in this way. If you walked into a pizza parlor, how much are you willing to pay for a pizza? If the pizza parlor was charging $1000 for a pizza, that number is unacceptable to you (it is too high) ... so you will simply go to another pizza parlor to do your business. You want to "get away with" paying as little as you possibly can. On the other side, you have the pizza parlor owner who needs to set the price he will charge for the pizza. If he charges $1000 for the pizza, he knows that that number is unacceptable to customers ... no one will patronize his shop ... and he will go out of business. At the same time, if he charges, say, 3 cents for a pizza ... every one in the world will go there to eat ... he will not make any profit and will drown in debt ... and he will go out of business. So, there is some number (in between the 3 cents and the $1000) at which BOTH the parlor owner is happy / satisfied and the customer is happy / satisfied with the transaction (of buying & selling the pizza). Both market forces (the supplier of the pizza and the demander of the pizza) are at equilibrium. This pizza example is the same exact thing as what happens when a supplier of acting services (the actor) negotiates with the demander of acting services (the studio). And with any other job, as well -- surgeon, professor, janitor, secretary, etc. Equilibrium point is "how high is the employer willing to pay" and "how low is the employee willing to accept". (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

A notable exception to this theory is Premium pricing (that needs a RD project article created!); a cynical aspect of this is that simply by charging more for a product, it can be seen as "better" than equally good rival products. I heard a talk by a pre-Internet data entrepeneur, who couldn't shift his product no matter how much he slashed the price. In a last ditch effort before bankruptcy, he tried offering the product to new prospects at vastly more than the opposition. It was an instant success... and he's now a very wealthy man. Caveat emptor. --Dweller 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An oldie, which I've seen attributed to George Bernard Shaw:

"If I paid you $1,000,000, would you have sex with me?"

"Wow, nobody ever asked me that before. Well, yeah, I guess I would."

"Okay, how about a quickie for $10?"

"No! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

"Oh, we have already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

--Anonymous, August 23, 2007, 22:25 (UTC).

August 23

main issues for the political bases

The U.S. Presidential hopefuls in the Republican and Democratic parties are now courting their respective bases, those voters most likely to vote in primaries and in caucuses such as the Iowa caucus. What are the main issues and concerns, in each case, for these party faithful? --Halcatalyst 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of the issues are the same for both parties, such as Iraq, although the positions on each issue will be different for each party. In more general terms, I suspect that candidates from both parties will want to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policy, which has not been a success. How to deal with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians/Isreal will also come up. For Democrats primarily, the future of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the prisoners in them will also come up, as will freedoms given up in the PATRIOT Act and by Bush's executive orders (such as the freedom from having your phones tapped without a warrant). Allowing federal support for stem cell research will also be a likely Democratic issue.

Immigration remains unresolved, as do perennial social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Then there are those "flag-burning issues" (things which won't generate any new law, but which candidates up for election bring up to distract the electorate from the real issues), such as banning gay marriages, banning abortion, requiring school prayer, etc. I would expect these to come mainly from Republicans this election cycle, as they have the most reason to distract voters from the real issues (like their failing to catch Bin Laden when in power). StuRat 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Isreal? I can't resist inserting this: Keats and Chapman were walking through the Jewish neighborhood of Dublin one day, when they met a mutual friend, Paddy O'Cohen.

• All stopped to have a little talk, which turned to the conditions in the Near East. O'Cohen delivered strong opinions on the need for security and expressed his strong support for the policies of Ariel Sharon. Keats and Chapman each offered slightly differing opinions, but all were on cordial terms, and O'Cohen went his way.

• After a moment, Keats commented on the great feeling of isreality which O’Cohen had. But Chapman demurred: "What isreality?" he asked. --Halcatalyst 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is information, and sources aplenty, in Democratic presidential debates, 2008 and Republican presidential debates, 2008. Rockpocket 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TMI. In a nutshell, what turns the partisans on? --Halcatalyst 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center asked voters who self identified as Democrat or Republican (or Democrat- or Republican-leaning) what they considered the most important issue effecting the 2008 Primary vote. The results were as follows:

Most Important Issue	Democrat voters	Republican voters
Iraq War	38%	31%
Economy	16%	12%
Health care	13%	3%
Education	12%	5%
Terrorism	5%	17%
Immigration	3%	12%
Abortion	1%	7%
Foreign policy	8%	8%

-- Rockpocket 05:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Rockpocket. Extrapolating,

Democrat priorities	Republican priorities
Iraq war 38%	Iraq war 31%
Economy 16%	Terrorism 17%
Health care 13%	Immigration 12%
Education 12%	Economy 12%
Foreign policy 8%	Foreign policy 8%
Terrorism 5%	Abortion 7%
Immigration 3%	Education 5%
Abortion 1%	Health care 3%

• These are illuminating but incomplete results. Probably everybody reading this realizes that poll outcomes depend on the questions asked; questions can be worded in such a way that the answers given by well-designated pollees are quite predictable. Reputable organizations like Pew of course do their best to avoid this problem. But some words in the political space are extremely emotionally charged: for example, "terrorism."
• I'd like to know of attempts to encapsulate the issues as they would be viewed and expressed by the two sides. For example, on abortion: (1) Abortion is a moral evil. (2) Abortion is a woman's right. Those diametrically opposed propositions have been bruited continually for over 30 years and have been adopted in the R and D party platforms. But what about the other issues? Anybody care to distinguish between R/D views on foreign policy, for example? Or point to a place where someone else has attempted to summarize the issues for each side? --Halcatalyst 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, your example of abortion is not an example of diametrically opposed statements. That particular debate is one where there can be no progress because the "warrant" of the argument is never stated and cannot be empirically determined. The question is "personhood" and "legal personhood." One side takes a stand that metaphysical personhood begins early (perhaps conception) and that therefore legal personhood should begin at the same point. The other side takes the position that legal personhood depends upon a series of tests (viability outside of the womb, etc.). These are both matters of asserted principle and cannot be proven nor disproven. Both are speaking of a legal definition that depends entirely upon community consent and trying to say what it must be without such community consent, and therefore neither can talk to the other. However, "moral wrong" and "woman's right" are not opposite statements. Smoking is a "moral wrong" and a "woman's right." Getting drunk is both. In other words, morality and rights are not separate matters and do not routinely exist at opposite ends of a single spectrum of licensed action. Utgard Loki 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. --Halcatalyst 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the illogic, I'd say the way I expressed the two sides of the abortion issue is the way the partisans on each side would describe it, which is what I'm looking for. Would you agree?
• Here's another shot: (1) U.S. foreign policy must be muscular and nationalistic. (Republicans) (2) U.S. foreign policy shoud emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation. (Democrats)
• I could devise more such summaries, but I would like to know what others think: people here and/or what has been published elsewhere. Help? --Halcatalyst 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Summaries such as the one you provided for foreign policy are good, in general, but the parties do vary from time to time. In that example, after a blatant failure of diplomacy, like the Iran Hostage Crisis, even Democrats will tend to favor military action. Conversely, after the failure of militarism, as in Iraq, even Republicans will tend to favor diplomacy. StuRat 05:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to speak for anyone, but I would summarize, for myself, two axes along which the parties in the US split. One is on the issue of collectivism and the individual (one of the oldest of US tensions). If one believes in greater federalism and federated responses to problems, and therefore federal accumulation of income, then one is Democratic. If one believes that only the individual is sovereign, then one is Republican. However, if one is answering "sometimes," then one is Democratic in today's atmosphere. Therefore, "Is there a role for the federal government in the amelioration or solving of social ills?" (not "how much" anymore, I would say, but just "any").

Is the United States special or enjoy a special destiny in the world? If you answer "No," then you pretty much have to be Democratic. If you answer "yes," then you're more likely to be Republican (unless the answer is, "Yes, it is the first nation God means to solve the problems of poverty"). There is an adjunctive position to this. "If the US is divinely or historically special, is the duty of the government to interpret the will of God/History for its people?" If yes to that, you're darn near guaranteed to be Republican. Should foreign policy be determined by the treatment foreign nations give to their own people? If yes, you are definitely Democratic. Should foreign policy be determined by the ideological alignment of a foreign government? If yes, you could be either, but, if "no," you are definitely Democratic.

Does the United States enjoy a corporate right to material wealth? If yes, GOP. If no, either.

Is the world about to end due to God's will? If yes, almost surely GOP. (This is most emphatically not fringe, nor irrelevant, nor merely coincidental. James Watt and George W. Bush have both argued that some of the actions they have favored are commendable because the world is about to end. In Watt's case, he purported to have a dream of a civil war in the US when overseas oil ran out, and so he believed that every domestic drop should be consumed first so that we could then have a foreign war. In Bush's case, he told Woodward that global warming and history's judgment of his presidency did not worry him because of the nearby apocalypse.)

Is the Bible a "literal" guide to both one's personal and one's political life? (The quotation marks should be self-explanatory, because there are no literal interpretations of the Bible.)

Do individuals have a duty to their fellow citizens, or is it merely a virtue to help others? If "duty," more likely to be Democratic.

Is the free market a sovereign determinant of worth, or does the free market inevitably lead to corruption? If "sovereign," then Republican. If "corrupt," Democratic.

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? Utgard Loki 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent response. Thanks! --Halcatalyst 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, all, for your thoughtful responses. Behind the scenes politicians can be thoughtful too. Would that the public political discourse were also. But that discourse is mediated by television, mostly, and its modus operandi is the production of ideas which can be compressed into 30- or 60-second segments (the "debates"); the politicians, or at least their handlers, believe that repetitious, emotionally-laden "sound bytes" are the means to sway the undecided; and the most likely caucus/primary voters, that is the partisan activists, as a whole, accept this system. The candidates in turn pander to partisan prejudices during the caucus/primary season, only to moderate what they say during the election campaign; and the media seize on and sensationalize trivial "gaffes" to try to excite public interest, but the vast majority of citizens are not that interested and indeed tire easily of these games.
• As an active volunteer for one of the candidates, I say this not cynically but sadly. --Halcatalyst 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Late commment, but as to that Pew Study, I could see many people being concerned about both the Iraq war and terrorism and covering both by calling them "Foreign relations", etc. If they weren't explicitly mutually exclusive, I would be wary. 68.39.174.238 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on voting for John Edward. If he can communicate with the dead, he can ask Lincoln what to do ("whatever you do, don't watch any plays"). I think Edward's the best candidate since Paul Simon (even if Garfunkle wasn't his choice for VP). :-) StuRat 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

state caucuses

What states besides Iowa have Presidential caucuses? --Halcatalyst 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to United States presidential primary, Nevada and Iowa have caucuses, while all the other early States have primaries. As for the later States, Nebraska is replacing their primary with a caucus for the first time next year. Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 also lists as having caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Washington and Maine. Rockpocket 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Halcatalyst 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is much discussion in Michigan of an earlier primary, or, as State Sen. McManus puts it in a letter to the editor today: "A semi-open primary, as I proposed in Senate Bill 624, which the Senate passed Wednesday, would maximize participation without compromising party rules." This would be a setback to John Edwards' hopes. Wareh 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky or Stalin?

I've read-and heard it said-that it would have been better if Trotsky had suceeded Lenin as Russian leader rather than Stalin. Is there any real reason to suppose that he would have been more humane? Blanco Bassnet 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No one can say what might have been. Given how barbarous and paranoid Stalin was, it's easy to argue that Trotsky wouldn't have been as bad. It's also easy to argue that Trotsky, the general, would have conducted the Russian affairs during WW2 better, but, ultimately, it's impossible to say. The personality-driven massacres of Stalin would not have occurred, but there is no way to be sure that show trials and disappearances wouldn't have happened anyway. Furthermore, given Trotsky's preference for decentralization and anarchism, it's also possible that, had he succeeded, he would have been replaced by someone else. There's no telling. We know what did happen: Stalin was a monster. We cannot know what would have happened. Geogre 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky learnt a lot about how to run a military machine, but remember that he wasn't a soldier, he was a politician in charge of the Red Army. He saw the need (as others didn't) to rely on the advice of professional soldiers. Perhaps because he was driven out and assassinated, we're inclined to see Trotsky now as a victim, more rational, more of an idealist. He had some good qualities (it's hard to say that of the bruiser Stalin!) and was brighter and more capable, but he was also a 'hard man'. The following isn't properly applicable to Trotsky (who was far from 'unselfish'), but here is one of my favourite Joseph Conrad quotations...

“ The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement, but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims. ”

I offer this as part of the answer to your question because it's arguable that in the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s no humane leader would have survived. Xn4 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Fantastic Conrad quote. I assume that's from The Secret Agent? Very nice. I almost want to nick it for my commonplace book.) Geogre 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geogre. That's from Under Western Eyes. Xn4 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He would almost certainly have been much too busy raising hell elsewhere to be causing massive famine and organising show trials for old friends at home; Stalin, on the other hand had nothing else to do.Hornplease 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

afaik Trotsky was an extremely intelligent bloke, but that doesn't necessarily make a good politician. Perhaps Trotsky would have had Stalin killed in 1946 1940 in Mexico, as opposed to vice versa.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is possible to give a meaningful answer here, based not upon speculation, or counterfactual assumptions, but a reading and an interpretation of Trotsky's record when he was in power, rather than writing about its abuses from the margins of history.

In the early 1920s he was one of the party 'hard-liners', fully behind the oppressive and politically counter-productive policy of War Communism, when the economic justification for this had passed. He was also the man responsible for the destruction of Russia's independent trade union movement, an advocate of the 'militarisation' of labour. It was he, moreover, who in 1921 was behind the brutal supression of the Kronstadt rebellion, a protest against the Bolshevik government's misuse of power. He accepted with some reluctance the partial return to free market economics, ushered in by the New Economic Policy, believing that the peasants should be coerced by a policy of enforced collectivisation, prefiguring Stalin on this issue by some years. In the 1990s, Dimitri Volkogonov, a Russian historian, discovered previously unexamined Russian state papers, showing that Lenin and Trotsky worked together on a policy of deliberate terror, again foreshadowing Stalin. He was later to denounce Stalinism from exile not because it was violent, but because it was violent for the wrong reasons. Secret police, a one party state, show trials, deportations and mass shootings were as much a part of the 'Trotsky system' as they were that of Stalin. We might as well, I think, let the man speak for himself;

Violent revolution was necessary because the undeferrable demands of history proved incapable of clearing a road through the apparatus of parliamentary democracy. Anyone who renounces terrorism in principle must also renounce the political rule of the working class. The extensive recourse, in the Civil War, to execution by shooting is to be explained by this one simple and decisive fact. Intimidation is a powerful instrument of both foreign and domestic policy. The revolution kills individuals and thus intimidates thousands.

Would things have been any better under Trotsky? No, they would not. Clio the Muse 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having reread some of the contributions made in the above by other editors I would just like to correct one or two small factual inaccuracies. Trotsky most definitely did not have a preference for 'anarchism and decentralisation'. Stalin was as bright, capable, intelligent and as well-read as Trotsky, and a far better political tactician. If any one has any doubt about this I would urge them to read the excellent biographies by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Trotsky's own Stalin is sour, inaccurate and, at points, racist. Clio the Muse 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Russia under any form of communism would have been bad, regardless of the virtues of the leader. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with a lot of Clio the Muse's comments above - but I think that the quotation dredged up to 'let him speak for himself' is more than a little disingenuous. Trotsky, like other Bolsheviks, enjoyed being blunt and matter-of-fact about these kind of things. It was necessary to be so, in their view, because if the Bolsheviks and the workers in general absolutely refused to make use of violence or non-legal methods where necessary they would inevitably be defeated by their (less scrupulous) opponents. For all its bluntness, Trotsky is not really doing a great deal more in this passage than renouncing pure pacifism and defending the principle that violence may in some circumstances be both necessary and justified. In this case the circumstances were the need to defend a popular revolution against internal enemies, heavily backed by foreign powers, who were attempting to restore a brutal, authoritarian, and fantastically inegalitarian regime. That regime had denied its citizens any semblance of civil rights and had presided over carnage on a massive scale during Russia's involvement in WWI, which had led to its decisive rejection. The POV that violence was indeed necessary to defend the revolution against reaction can be put quite strongly. But in any case, if we leave the specifics to one side we are left with a principle to which any practical politician would subscribe. It is easy to strip passages like this from their context and present them as an apparently unique endorsement of violence, when in actuality, every war, foreign intervention, or suppression of internal dissent is justified in essentially the same terms, but in less direct and self-conscious language (Iraq, anyone?).

To reiterate though, you had him bang to rights on deeds. The man behind Krondstadt and the militarization was certainly no friend to the Russian workers. 89.243.7.4 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, 89.243, what a lot of value judgements! You will note that the quotation, disingenous or not, was in reference to the essential point of the question. It was selected entirely at random, and I could produce other examples, to confirm that Trotsky was just as brutal and no more 'humane' than any other Bolshevik, including Stalin. There were many decent left-wing politicians who, unlike Trotsky, renounced 'terrorism in principle', and managed to contribute in their own way towards greater concepts of human justice. But, as I have said, Trotsky denounced Stalin, not because he was violent, but because he practiced the 'wrong sort' of violence. I rather suspect that, on the basis of what you have written, that you also have concepts of the right and wrong sort of violence. I have no idea what you mean when you say that Trotsky was 'no friend to the Russian workers'. He was a Bolshevik, was he not, and by your estimation at least, a defender of a 'popular revolution.' Or do I take it that some 'defenders' are more equal than others?

Anyway, more generally, and for the benefit of other readers, let me straighten out a few factual misconceptions. People might think from the above that the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas II, or am I to take it that the 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian regime' was that headed lattery by Alexander Kerensky? The truth is, of course, that the Bolshevik Coup of October 1917 hijacked the 'popular revolution', that of February 1917. They then went on to establish a 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian' regime; undermining the independence of the Soviets; dismissing the Constituent Assembly, established by the most democratic franchise in Russian history, because they were in a minority. All power went not to the Soviets, but the the Bolshevik Party, more specifically to the Council of People's Commissars and even more specifically than that to Lenin, and ultimately to Stalin. This monoply was sustained by Cheka, the first Soviet secret police, that practiced forms of torture of Medieval flamboyance. The Bolshevik coup, moreover, was a direct cause of the ensuing Russian Civil War. Although it is certainly true that some of those in the Volunteer Army wanted to see a restoration of the old regime, this was far from general. One of the leading causes of the White defeat was a complete lack of political consensus.

Now for the regime of poor old Tsar Nicholas, the one that 89.243 clearly has in mind when writing of a 'brutal, authoritarian and fantastically inegalitarian regime.' Of course it was nothing of the kind. For all its faults-and there were many-it was positively benign compared with what was to follow. Finally, and though is totally and utterly beside the point, I would ask people to consider if Nicholas should be charged alone for standing by his friends and allies in 1914, and for defending the territory of Russia? Yes, the carnage of the Great War was terrible; but the 'crime' of Tsar Nicholas was no greater than that of Herbert Asquith or Raymond Poincare. And, yes, before I forget-Long Live Holy Russia, remembering always the Blessed Martyrs! Well, I'm only human, and have to permit myself at least one value judgement. Clio the Muse 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For all his faults, Nicholas has long struck me as a more decent and honourable man than any of the other significant monarchs of the Great War. He fumbled his abdication (as he did so many other things), but he did little to deserve the hatred that came his way from much of a defeated nation. Since I realized what the tune was when I was about thirteen, I have always found the hymn God the Omnipotent (sung in the Church of England to Prince Lvov's tune for God Save the Tsar! rather thrilling. Hear it here. Xn4 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is thrilling, and beautiful. Thanks for that link, Xn4. Clio the Muse 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A US base in the USSR

After seeing so many interesting discussions on the subject of World War II, I decided to ask another question.Can you give me any information about Western military bases in the Soviet Union (Poltava, Murmansk) and about the Soviet air base in Bari? Thanks, Jacobstry 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of no western bases, either at Poltava in the Ukraine, or at Murmansk. The Yugoslav Partisan Air Force had the use of several bases in Italy from 1944, including one at Bari in the south. I know of no Soviet presence. Clio the Muse 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two US airbases were established in former Soviet republics of Central Asia and used for operations in Afghanistan - one (now closed) was at Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan, the other (still open) is at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. Xn4 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On Poltava, there was a book written: Infield, The Poltava Affair. I'm not aware of anything other than passing mentions of the Soviet Air Force detachment at Bari with the Balkan Air Force, or the RAF squadrons in north Russia in 1941 and 1942. Murmansk was not a "western base" in any real sense. Merchant ships and warships spent time there, sometimes several months between convoys, but contact between the ships and the city was prevented. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow this link. I 'm not sure what the "Poltava Affair" was about, however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Murmansk was a Western base in World War I. See also the Polar Bear Expedition. Rmhermen 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

communications pre-telegraph

I was thinking about The Shootist, in which John Wayne's character rides into town and buys a newspaper reporting the death of Queen Victoria, and that made me curious: when her uncle died 64 years earlier, how long did it take to get word to all the colonies? —Tamfang 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By 1833 the introduction of steamships had reduced the Atlantic crossing to 22 days. You will find somre details here [6]. The passage to Australia was probably three times as long. Clio the Muse 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can British Tourist become a criminal?

The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."

You are a British tourist, you go to Cuba, buy a Cuban cigar and then travel to Mexico and enters USA. Would you be a criminal when you enter USA even if you are already consumed the cigar in Mexico.

Second question, the law states "merchandise", is that only physical goods or does it also cover services like prostitution or health care services. What is you did not pay for the services, aka receive the services for free, are you still a criminal? Is Michael Moore and a bunch of SICKO americans criminals?

202.168.50.40 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the "services" of a prostitute is illegal regardless, at least in the US and UK it is. Furthermore, I would image that people under the "jurisdiction of the United States" include anyone travelling through it. However please remember that wikipedia cannot and will not give you legal adivce SGGH ^speak! 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about the UK - if a consenting adult pays another consenting adult for 'sex' here, that isn't unlawful in itself. Subject to the usual age limits, a man or woman working alone, not in a brothel, not on the street, not advertising such services, is not committing any offense, nor is the person who pays. Xn4 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine US authorities would try to prosecute a non-American for going to Cuba; in fact, they rarely take action against Americans who do so as tourists. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do US customs officials balk at allowing people into the US if they have stamped Cuban visas in their passports? Corvus cornix 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have three in mine and they have never stopped me! But quite frankly, Corvus cornix, Cuban visa stamps are pathetic; small and easy to overlook. Clio the Muse 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the US "ban" on travel to Cuba is aimed at businesses wanting to do business there, not individuals looking to travel. Technically, an American who buys even a candy bar in Cuba is breaking the law, but the law's intention is to prevent people from buying a million Cuban candy bars (or cigars). -- Mwalcoff 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

God and nuclear war

Any religious people here? What's the current thinking on what God's reaction to a full-scale, planetwide nuclear war would be (i.e. one that threatens to destroy all life on earth)? Would God intervene to prevent this 'unauthorized armageddon', as it would be contrary to his grand design for humanity, as written in the Bible? --62.136.226.208 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think He would prevent it... but that doesn't mean we should be presumptuous and test that theory either. Prophecy has a history of being conditional. ◄Zahakiel► 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would he do such a thing? Man's fate is man's own doing, if I understand the Bible correctly (and not being a believer, frankly). That's what free will is all about. God doesn't intervene directly (in any measurable way) in every other stupid thing man does, no matter how much harm it causes, I don't know why this would be anything more special. --24.147.86.187 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that's why the question was directed to those who do believe that He has a plan. He may not intervene always on an individual scale, but there's no such thing as unbounded free will either. Humans have all kinds of limitations, natural and (as in this case) otherwise. ◄Zahakiel► 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a plan, but he gave man the free will to do himself in (as an individual and as a group), last time I checked. It's not free will if you can't make the wrong choice. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No the christian god concept removes free-well when he feels like it. "Exodus 7:13: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them;" and "Exodus 10:20: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart,". Since from reading the christians bible I can only conclude their god is a sick and twisted creature of evil, then who knows what he'd done about a nuclear war - he might enjoy it. --Fredrick day 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

God supposedly has a plan for the redemption of humanity. Humans unleashing something that would destroy all humans (and end his 'experiment') would throw a big spanner in the works as far as God is concerned. I think I saw this theory mentioned here before - but look at WWII. God saw that things were starting to get 'out of hand' WRT the 'Final Solution' and he intervened to cloud Adolf Hitler's judgment, strike him with insanity, deliver the Aryans into the hands of their enemies and scatter their people to the four corners of the earth, never to be a threat to anyone ever again. It's an interesting interpretation. --62.136.226.208 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So now God gets credit for Hitler losing the war? Funny how he waited for 6 million to die first! And amazing that he ordained that Stalin should have control over all of Eastern Europe. And etc. etc. etc. I think this business of assigning God "credit" for things like this is a bit far-fetched. The Bible is pretty explicit that the works of man are the works of man alone — if man does evil, he does it by his own hand, not by God's. If he does good, he does it by his own hand. God tells man what he'd like man to do, God provides a way for man to attain immortality, but God does not intervene when man makes bad choices. Hitler's insanity was purely pathological (caused by a virus he contracted years before he took power), not divine, and in any case had very little to do with the downfall of Nazi Germany on its own. Yes, you can interpret all of history through a "God is responsible for good things" lens but it is an epistemologically silly approach, and belittles any true nature of religion, in my opinion. --24.147.86.187 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not find this current, but C. S. Lewis did suggest God would stop an all-out nuclear war. Try the last two verses of his poem On the Atomic Bomb... Xn4 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As if your puny gadget

Could dodge the terrible logic

Of history! No, the tragic

Road will go on, new generations trudge it.

Narrow and long it stretches

Wretched for one who marches

Eyes front. He never catches

A glimpse of the fields each side, the happy orchards.

I don't really see that poem as implying that God would stop nuclear war at all. It looks to me like Lewis is just arguing that the atomic bomb, despite all the hype about it being some new power, is really just a new form of the same sort of power that people have always had, and that despite its apparent monumentality history will march on. There were a number of intellectuals who took the position just after the end of World War II that the bomb was not as significant as it was being made out to be by scientists (Gertrude Stein famously said that she "had not been able to take any interest in it" and that it was "not any more interesting than any other machine"). That's the light I read Lewis's poem in; I don't really seem him implying that there would be divine intervention in the case of nuclear war. --24.147.86.187 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Free will does not mean that God left humans and doesn't care about what they do. In the past, God certainly has intervened to save both individuals and groups and to punish the wicked (e.g. the Flood). In any case, the Bible says that the Lord "will remember [his] covenant between ... all living creatures of every kind." In other words, because God created life, he has the power to take it, but if his whole creation is at stake, he's not going to just watch us kill everybody. There are things that our finite mind cannot comprehend in the field of morality, but we should do our best to exert the free will we have and to not destroy our whole race. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of history as God's will in a nuclear age was addressed several ways. Lewis's statement, above, is in contrast to T. S. Eliot's Little Gidding, where the London Blitz reminds Eliot of the vanity of human wishes. This is a subject he returns to, in a way that is more in concord with Lewis's lines, in Choruses from The Rock. In it, he imagines a barren waste (a waste land?) and the Holy Spirit (as "the wind") commenting on humanity's concerns: "And the wind shall say,/ Here were decent, godless people,/ Their only monument the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls." For Eliot, the human losses of even a nuclear war were neither confirmation nor denial of spiritual reality, because the bomb would be God's bomb, or not, but the true waste, true apocalypse, was that of reality. (Elsewhere, in East Coker, Eliot makes this clear, with "Go, go, said the bird, mankind/ cannot bear very much reality.") W. H. Auden seems like a more hardbitten and worldly thinker, but he argues that divine history and human history only sometimes intersect, so the apocalypse occurs "in the fullness of time," and that fullness is not ours to know. In other words, he thinks that the nuclear war might occur because it is the right time by God's schedule and that it simply couldn't occur otherwise.
• The problem of free will and history is similarly...assuaged?...by suggesting that when the time is right the right things arise on their own will. By this view, and I believe it's pretty orthodox, Hitler didn't have to become Hitler, but someone did and Hitler willed it. Judas Iscariot is the classical focus for the question, because theologians have wondered since the beginning of Christianity whether he was damned. The general view is that Judas didn't have to betray Christ, but someone did, and Judas willed it. Getting back to The Bomb, though, it would appear, to humanity like this: if God does not will it, it simply would not happen, and if God does will it, then someone will desire it and commit the act. God would not need to "intervene," because no one would try it. Geogre 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the C. S. Lewis poem, as 24.147.86.187 thinks. It has struck me that in his The Magician's Nephew, Jadis finds herself alone in the desolate world of Charn after using the Deplorable Word, a device which killed all living things except herself. The book came out in 1955, so there's a parallel with nuclear war. His poem On the Atomic Bomb appeared in 1964, after Lewis's death. In Mere Christianity, he wrote: "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love of goodness, or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating." Henry Margenau quoted this and added to it: "It is of course our free-will which permits the pursuit of evil. One might ask, why would God create a world in which evil is allowed? ...It is through this act of divine grace that God allows us to accept or reject him, or to seek knowledge or remain ignorant. Yet, all of this in no way diminishes his universal power and knowledge." Xn4 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've always been fascinated that people who claim to support a "culture of life" can at the same time accept the existence of nuclear weapons. The NNPT obliges the "nuclear haves" to work towards the elimination of these weapons, but no mainstream politician (in the US at least) supports that notion. During the Cold War there were frequent ecumenical conferences on what should be the Christian response to the threat of nuclear war. I've read the transcripts of a number of those assemblies. The anti-nuke clergy generally took an "it's an affront to all Creation" view, while the pro-nuke folks espoused a "better dead than Red" view dressed up in religious language. It's mind-boggling to me that the elimination of these weapons isn't the #1 political issue for people of all political stripes; it's like ignoring a rattlesnake under the baby's crib. --Sean 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be be only 14 but I've read the bible from cover to cover and there is no "grand design for humanity". The bible is more like a history book-- Phoenix 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Che!

Slightly related to the question above about Trotsky. What would the world be like now if Che Guevara had survived and was still alive now? --62.136.226.208 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alberto Korda would likely be more obscure. —Tamfang 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not go to Cuba and find out for yourself? For I have seen the future and it creaks! Sorry; I'm being facetious. In what way would the world be different? Why, the Cuban government would be making periodic announcements about the health-or lack of it-of two geriatrics, as opposed to one. Clio the Muse 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia and Venezuela have popular, populist leaders currently. The stability of that oil revenue and the like brought was insufficient for an indigenous population convinced that the oligarchic structure of power would not change. I have no idea what things would have been like in Cuba if Che had survived, but it doesn't really matter, because he almost certainly would not have been there. South America, now: I cannot imagine it being unchanged if Che had survived into the 1980s. Hornplease 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Che-led 'Union of South and Central American Socialist Republics (USCASR)'? Regan wouldn't have liked that much, would he? On the other hand, maybe Che would have eventually grown up to become just another pompous, corrupt, power-hungry, self-serving leader of exactly the same type that had oppressed him in his youth and first turned him into an 'angry young man'. This seems to happen to most of them, despite the best of intentions before and immediately following the revolution, when the ideology and the reality finally collide. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

US Coins

Why do US coins have the word "Liberty" on them? Belinda12.207.111.70 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Liberty? Liberty is really what America is (soem may argue was) about. It's jsut too much to put in an answer. Read History of the United States, Liberty, Lady Liberty, and Statue of Liberty. If you still have any questions after that, ask again and a little more elaborately. schyler 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could also take a look at Give me liberty or give me death, Liberty Bell, and Liberty pole. A key phrase from the Declaration of Independence, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is also in the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights. The United States Constitution uses the word in its first sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to ... secure the Blessing of Liberty .... There are numerous other uses of liberty as, in modern lingo, a "buzzword" during the founding era of the US. Pfly 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 24

Counties of Iran

I am confused. I was reading about the counties of Iran and the articles of each provinces of Iran. 9 articles of each provinces of Iran had different numbers from the articles Counties of Iran. These 9 provinces are Qazvin, Kermanshah, Khuzestan, Fars, Hormozgan, Kerman, North Khorasan, Razavi Khorasan and South Khorasan. Please, take a look at these articles and the article "Counties of Iran" and please tell me, which one is right about the number of Iran in each provinces? Thank you.

As in Bangladesh mentioned above, perhaps some counties were divided or merged recently, so that all the articles were accurate when they were written. I wonder whether the CIA website would have good data on this. —Tamfang 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is science Infinite?

Will we ever run out of things to discover in physics or mathematics? Is science infinite? And what about Art and other stuff will we ever run out of ideas for films, painting, plays, books etc? 89.243.215.246 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Einstein said that the only 2 infinite things were the universe and human stupidity, and he wasn't even sure about the universe. That leaves human stupidity as the only definitely infinite thing. But I reason that with all that stupidity (aleph-null), there must be at least an aleph-1 amount of science, art, creativity as well. Or, at the very least, a very great number of stupid scientists, stupid artists, stupid writers etc. Maybe this very post is a perfect demonstration of that.  :) -- JackofOz 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Einstein made such a mediocre statement. In Wikiquote it is just attributed, but not sourced. For the OP: not directly related to your question, but maybe technological singularity can provide some useful information for your purposes. --Taraborn 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious question in the philosophy of science. How you answer it will depend on what you ultimately believe science is, what you believe are the limits of human comprehension (if there are any), and whether or not you believe science is truly progressive or not. One of my favorite essays on just this question is Ludwik Fleck, "Problems of the Science of Science" (1946) which is unfortunately a little hard to come by these days. In any case, there's no simple answer to this, and the deeper you probe into it the more difficult the entire problem becomes, largely because in the end it rests on the ever-tricky of how exactly one relates ontology (what the world is) and epistemology (how we know). (And JackofOz, Einstein did fundamentally believe that the all aspects of the universe were in theory graspable by the human mind, unlike, say, Niels Bohr, who believed that representations were all one could have and that our language would in the end limit our understanding. Just a nitpick!) --24.147.86.187 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is definitely not finite - we will never run out of things to discover and/or invent in mathematics. As far as physics and the rest of the natural sciences are concerned, most scientists would say we are nowhere reaching the limits of what can be discovered or understood by the human mind - see unsolved problems in physics, unsolved problems in chemistry and unsolved problems in neuroscience. However, a contrarian view was taken by John Horgan in his 1996 book The End of Science. Gandalf61 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that whenever science answers one question, it opens up several others. For instance, the word "atom" means "uncuttable" or "irreducible," but more than 100 years after the establishment of atomic theory, scientists realized atoms were made up of subatomic particles. The behavior of subatomic particles completely messed up established theories of physics, leading to the creation of quantum mechanics theory. Then they discovered quarks, and for the past 40 years have been figuring out what they're all about. There are now all kinds of unsolved problems with the Standard Model of particle physics. And they all come from further investigation of a problem thought to have been solved 200 years ago: What is the basic unit of matter? The more that question was investigated, the more questions arose. The same can be said about just about any area of science. -- Mwalcoff 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on "Random article" nuff sed ;) Perry-mankster 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the late 20th century, quite a few pop science books came out predicting the end of science. Hubris! I like the Isaac Asimov quote, thought frustratingly can't find it right now - he says that knowledge is fractal: the more one knows, the more there is to know - each solution opens a new universe of questions. Adambrowne666 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Around 1900 there was also this sentiment that in the field of theory (almost) everything was discovered and all that needed to be done was fill in the gaps of factual knowledge, which would be simple administrative work. However, there were still some nasty issues like the particle/wave duality of light, some of which were solved by Einstein in a way that raised even more questions - Mwalcoff's point. DirkvdM 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf, since mathematics is the language of science and the way we view the world scientifically, if mathematics is infinite, then isn't science also? DirkvdM 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara?

Has there never been a full-length bigraphy of Tristan Tzara? If not, why not? He may not be a household name, but he founded Dadaism, and everybody has heard of that. And he led such an intersting life. I'm a screenwriter who's had some success with bio-pics, and I'd love to have Tzara for my next subject, but I can't do all the legwork of a biography. 64.131.162.63 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Matt Bird

There is none written in English. One has recently been translated from French; I have heard that another is in the works. I cannot remember the name of the translated work, but I did remember reading about it approximately two years ago in the TLS or the NYRB; it seemed to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Hornplease 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not in English, but there are several works in French.[7][8][9] You can buy a 1930-word biography for $9.95.[10] I've no idea of the quality.  --Lambiam 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What piece of classical music is this?

It starts off the Word for the Wise broadcast at Merriam Webster. It can be found here. Thanks! Baseballfan 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's from a symphony by Josef Haydn. But which one, I don't know. -- JackofOz 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article finder?

I try to stay as informed as possible, so I subscribe to The New York Times, The LA Times, The New Yorker, Harper's, and various other periodicals. And if that wasn't enough I go to a newspaper stand fairly regularly, and pick up a whole bunch of magazines and newspapers there. I didn't know where to ask this, so I decided to ask it here. Does anybody know of a website that gives me good articles, interesting editorials, or controversial columns in various publications? I've looked all over the internet for a media guide, but I can't seem to find one. If anyone can help me out it would be great.--Bobpalloona 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)BobPalloona

Proquest comes to mind, as one can search numerous journals and publications. However unless it is accessed at a library that has it, you'd need a login, such as with a student ID. There are plenty of other periodical indexes out there too. Hope that is of some assistance. Baseballfan 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like what you want is some sort of editorial service that will cull the "interesting" (in your tastes) from the rest. Blogs often serve such a function these days, serving as specialized collections of links and commentary about certain types of media. --24.147.86.187 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of clipping services. Without knowing anything specific about your interests, I can tell you that I use Google News and then go to Slashdot for a supplement. I let my bloggers, like DailyKos alert me to some other things, and I'll check in on Salon.com and The Nation online. However, the really specialized news aggregators are subscription, and I am poor. Geogre 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

United States to invade Iran?

I asked my contacts in Iran, and they tell me:

"Not at all! The United States won't attack or make war on Persia, because they don't want to change the regime here. It's all talk and no action, so that ordinary people in the world and especially in the US will continue to support the US. The United States profit enormously from Persia's oil and strongly want to maintain the status quo, but this is all hidden. Did you know that the United States and the UK caused the Islamic Revolution in Persia in 1979? This was an entirely American plan in my country!"

Is this accurate?--Sonjaaa 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no! The CIA were involved in the rise to power of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, helping him in his arguments with the prime minister in 1953 for example. When he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979, the US froze Iranian assets. They also, along with many other countries, backed the secular dictator Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. I fail to see how the US benefits from having an islamic theocracy in Iran as opposed to a secular government, who would be more likely to support the US and less hostile to the US and its favourite ally Israel. Now I would expect some Iranians to have been told a few lies by their government, but I doubt the successors of the revolution would claim American influence. And while people exist who blame the US for absolutely everything in the world, this sounds a very strange claim to me. Cyta 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "helping him in his arguments with the prime minister in 1953 for example"—that's understating a bit. I mean, they helped stage a coup. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was more than that, my choice of words was poor. Cyta 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the Iran hostage crisis must, by this odd contention, have been part of Jimmy Carter's deep-laid plan? Scepticism, Sonjaaa, is, as Napoleon said, a virtue in history as well as philosophy! Clio the Muse 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything can happen when Commander Koookoo-bananas is president. Gzuckier 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Subquestion:

Do Iranians call their country "Persia" instead of Iran as we do? --Taraborn 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at iran says it's called "Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān". Corvus cornix 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And as usual Wikipedia have an article, Iran_naming_dispute. Cyta 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Art versus science

Can anyone point me to any essays or quotes - if such exist - on the virtues of art over science from 17th or pre-17th century philosophers? I realise this is an obscure one - any help at all would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is going to be that "science" isn't science in the 17th century. It's mostly "natural philosophy," but the general line taken is Aristotle's. In Poetics, Aristotle argued the superiority of "poetry" (any fiction) over "history," for history tells us merely what has happened, while poetry tells us what "must" (by logic) or "should" (by morality) happen. Because morality and logic are from a superior position in the universals, poetry is superior to the mundane recording of the actual. Ok, well, that's poetry, except that Philip Sidney, in Defense of Poetry, extended that to what you might call "art" in general. In fact, the general attitude throughout is that the universals and divine are more ennobling than the grubby reals, and therefore more appropriate to communicate. Do you want to tell your people about a tyrant being overthrown? Yes. Do you want to tell them of a frenzied mob killing a good king? No. The duty is to communicate. Otherwise, there isn't an opposition really between "investigating the natural world by philosophy and by art."

If you believe Jonathan Swift's A Tale of a Tub is 17th century, you can find some ridicule of the Royal Academy -- though nothing like what he would unleash in the 3rd book of Gulliver's Travels. Geogre 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful answer, thanks Geogre Adambrowne666 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You will also find the articles 17th century philosophy and History of science helpful.

As Geogre says, in and before the 17th century people saw 'art' and 'science' in classical terms. I should put it more simply: in Latin, ars is 'skill' and scientia is knowledge, and the two are complementary. I can't think of any early modern philosophers who took a view on knowledge (sciences) having less virtue than skills (arts). Indeed, if we focus on the general nature of the centuries leading up to the 17th (the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Scientific Revolution), they developed (especially in Northern Europe) Aristoteleian natural philosophy into what we now know as physics, astronomy, chemistry, botany, biology and so forth. Men with classical educations like Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz began to lay the foundations of the modern world. If you have time to look at the work of the philosophers, you should perhaps concentrate on the most significant ones. A key man of the period, René Descartes, was himself important to the scientific revolution. Francis Bacon developed the Baconian method, a form of scientific inquiry. Baruch Spinoza, apart from being a rationalist, was a lens-grinder and saw the benefits of science as an aspect of philosophy. And so on... read the articles on them and others! Xn4 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The critical distinction or friction was probably one of logos vs. praxis. "Projectors" and what we would call experimental philosophy was open for satire (Swift, above), but it's not just satire. Some natural philosophers worked from universals to particulars, in the deductive method, and this was "pure" and classically ordained. Others poked and prodded and worked from experiment to figure out laws (inductive method). All of them were obeying the Baconian method, in England, but the scientific method only tells you what to do after you have the hypothesis, and some people seemed to have no hypothesis. This group (what we would now call experimentalists) was opposed by those who wanted to have the pure idea first. However, I'm simplifying, for it was not merely being an experimenter that was a 'problem' for discussion. After all, people like John Arbuthnot (got to point at one I wrote) attacked Woodward's "principle means practice" attitude in medicine.

Descartes, as we all know, famously had to do the Method and therefore the rationalist set of principles before the exploration. Newton, too, had the idea and then investigated it. On the other hand, there were people who seemed to be blowing up dogs (yes, they did) just to see what would happen. Others did, in fact, think they could get sunlight out of a cucumber. From Thomas Shadwell's The Virtuoso to book 3 of Gulliver's Travels and onward (and the examples there came from Arbuthnot), there is a two track argument going on (too dedicated to universals, and you're Woodward; too free of them, and you're a Projector), the art vs. science is really Nature (understood in an Aristotelian and Christian sense) vs. Actual. At least that's how it seems to me. Geogre 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more shout out for what I consider to be a simply great as well as fascinating bit of philosophy from a contemporary German thinker. "Indicted and Unburdened Man in Eighteenth-Century Philosophy," from Odo Marquard's Farewell to Matters of Principle, Wallace, Robert M. and Susan Bernstein, James I. Porter, transl., OUP, 1989 (got it with an Odeon imprint), 38-64, is really, really cool. He wrote on the same subject in In Praise of the Accidental, and it's interesting both in terms of its discussion of theodicy and the origins of social science in the 18th century and what it says about the post-war moment in German thought. Way, way neat. Geogre 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Okay, thanks again - thanks too Xn - I'm gonna print this out and read it at my leisure. Adambrowne666 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical customs, England

(moved from WP:HD by 69.118.235.97)

Can you describe for me the history and the mechanics of "a living" in 19th-c. England, as alluded to in novels by George Eliot, Jane Austen, and others? I surmise that a "living" is a sort of endowment established at a given church for the support and salary of the rector, and I take it to be a rural or provincial custom. But how is it established, and who administers it?

One phrase that I have repeatedly encountered is "The living was in his gift." How does it come to be in anyone's gift?

Thank you for your help.

209.247.23.5 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Anne Lunt, Temple, NH -- [[email redacted to prevent abuse by spammers etc..]]

Some ecclesiastical posts were (and are) in the hands of temporal appointers. Notably, many rural rectors (etc) of the type your authors delight in describing, would have been appointed by their local great land-owner. --Dweller 11:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio will fill this in comprehensively, I'm sure, but the 'living' of a parish was usually the small income that was attached to the position of the rector. The income came from tithes or the endowment of glebe lands. For reasons usually to do with the original gift of land to the parish and the organisation of local feudal system, the right of advowson was usually vested in a local landowner. He could appoint the rector who would then either conduct services himself or appoint a less well-connected clergyman as the vicar. The right of advowson was hereditary, but the income from tithes and glebe lands was like any other asset, and could be impounded or used as collateral.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia says "The right of presentation which, originally, was conferred on a person building or endowing a church, appears to have become, by degrees, appendant to the manor in which it was built."

The right of presentation is covered here.

This system actually continued until all glebe lands were centralized sometime in the 1970s. Hornplease 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio can make little improvement on the information and links that you and other editors have supplied here, Hornplease! I have only one small addition to make on the question of advowsons. Over time the English monasteries gathered a great many of these, most often by some form of grant or bequest. At the time of the Dissolution in the sixteenth century the right of parish nominations, along with the lands, passed to lay benefactors. Clio the Muse 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant stuff includes Advowson, Patronage#Canon_law and Parish#Church_of_England. Whoever had the living in their gift could select the priest for that parish when the incumbent dies or retires. Vicar#Anglican might be useful too (vicars, rectors and curates being different things). Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this sense of living is the origin of the phrase eke out a living: eke is an obsolete word meaning also, and to eke [something] out is to supplement it. —Tamfang 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

german violent videogames ban

I read today that violent videogames may be banned in germany.. Can someone provide a link etc giving more infomation on what constitutes 'violent' in this context etc. Plus is there a relevent page? Thanks87.102.79.29 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're thinking of is more concentrated. They're not banning violent video games in general, just the hyper violent Manhunt 2 which Rockstar is currently toning down and re-issuing. Even the US banned the original version. Beekone 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Not what I meant - Gears of war, and dead rising were unrated and as such never got an official release.

I wanted to know what the policy was - most computer games invlove 'killing things' don't they.?87.102.75.201 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably to do with the degree of slaughter and torture, but you're right. Mario's been killing goomba's with 8-bit fire balls for almost twenty years. Beekone 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

StGB#.C2.A7_131:_Representation_of_violence might be of some interest. --24.147.86.187 12:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks - if anyone is interested there is also Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien - relating to things that 'corrupt young people'.87.102.84.56 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not about violence itself its about either showing nazi symbols (thats why Wolfenstein was banned) or depiction of the death or killing of humans. Some games just make them Zombies with green blood to pass that requirement. Its not about violence itself.--Tresckow 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Eastern European Fashion

Does anybody know of any quirky fashion trends in and around Prague in the late 1800's, early 1900's? Did the standard attire for the rest of Europe apply there or did they adopt a more Russian image? What kinds of mixtures were happening? Even if you know of a good book I should checkout, that would be helpful. Thank you! Beekone 15:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On the question of fashions, Beekone, I can only make an educated guess here, but my hunch is that Czechs, among the most advanced of the people of the old Austrian Empire, would dress little differently in Prague, as they would in Vienna. If you wish I could point you in the direction of some good reading on Czech history in general, and the history of Prague in particular. No prêt-à-porter, though! Clio the Muse 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You would get a to some degree differng fashion in hungary were hungarian style ornaments were on uniforms and some civilian suits. At this time many people would still have worn their folcoristic traditional costumes. But generally and especially in the upper class and middle class just normal. Same for Russia id say.--Tresckow 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wi, prêt-à-porter! Everything is helpful. I'm not looking for a glossed over definition of the clothing styles. Little quirks will help maintain realism. Pedestrian fashion is important for illustrating the time line in an obvious way, but the exaggerated trends of high fashion would be like icing on a cake. Thank you, Clio and Tresckow! Beekone 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog tags of Jewish soldiers in the Allied armies during World War II

Dear Sir/Madam,

Assuming the notion that Jewish soldiers serving in the Allied armies during World War II could possibly be (and were probably) captured by German forces, was the information of their religious affiliation encrypted considering antisemitism was quite prevalent amongst the population of the previously mentioned nationality ? I'm not trying to say that all Germans would of lynched the first Jew in sight, but I'm skeptical that they would of received the same treatment than the other prisoners and even less if the antagonists would of been part of the Waffen SS.

Sincerely, Matt714 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources http://www.fathom.com/course/21701756/session2.html http://books.google.com/books?id=6dExD3wChyMC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=jews+american+army+wwii+dog+tag&source=web&ots=BjtL-9LH3l&sig=-2c56Ew3bKqh9zGtyi5lwUF99aA say that american jews had an 'H' on their dog tags signifying 'hebrew'87.102.75.201 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This reference http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq70-1.htm suggest's that having a religion included was optional - see

Markings consisted of name; officer file number, or enlisted service number; blood type; date of tetanus inoculation; service; and religion, if desired by the service member: Catholic (C), Protestant (P), or "Hebrew" (H).

As for the actual german treatment of jewish prisoners that is another question - which you could ask if you wish.87.102.75.201 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The treatment accorded to Jewish prisoners of war was determined, in large measure, by their national origins. Those from Britain and the United States were afforded some degree of protection under the terms of the Geneva Convention; those from Russia had no protection whatsoever. In general the Germans behaved atrociously towards Soviet prisoners of war. For example, it was captured Soviet soldiers who were the subject of the first test gassings at Auschwitz in early 1942, regardless of religion or of race. Of the 100,000 or so Russian Jewish soldiers who fell into Nazi hands almost none survived. The western allies, as I have said, generally fared better, though even here there were exceptions. If you are particularly interested in the American case I would refer you to Given Up for Dead: American POWs in the Nazi Concentration Camp at Berga by Flint Whitlock. Some 350 soldiers, mostly Jewish, taken by the Germans in the Ardennes offensive of 1944, were separated from the other prisoners and taken to the slave labour camp at Berga south of Leipzig, in the only known case where Americans were subject to 'special treatment.' Clio the Muse 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The users of the Wikipedia reference desks have again amazed me by their prompt and concise replies. My sincere remerciments to everyone who replied, this was exactly the information and even more that I was searching for. Matt714 08:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Shias in Lebanon

I would like to know something of the history of the Shia community in Lebanon. --arab 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no certainty as to when the Shi'a community first established itself in Lebanon, though they were well settled across the Levant by the tenth century. Later still Shi'a emirates were establlished in Tyre and Tripoli, though these collapsed at the time of the First Crusade in 1099. After the fall of the Crusader kingdoms, the Shi'a peoples, who had withdrawn to the hinterland of Lebanon, were persecuted by the new conquerors, the Sunni Mamelukes. People were forced out of the mountainous areas of Kisrawan where they had taken refuge in the wake of the Crusaders, moving through the Beqaa plain, to new strongholds in Jezzanine and Jabal Amil, in what is now the south and east of Lebanon. During the time of the Ottoman Empire the Shi'a were largely ignored, though they found themselves competing for scarce resources with the expanding community of Maronite Christians.

During most of the Ottoman period the Shi'a largely maintained themselves as 'a state apart', though they maintained contact with the Safavid dynysty, which established Shi'a Islam as the state religion of Persia. These contacts made them all the more suspect to the Ottoman Sultan, who was frequently at war with the Persians, as well as being, in the role of Caliph, the leader of the majority Sunni community Shi'a Lebanon, when not subject to political repression, was generally neglected, sinking further and further into the economic background.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century the Comte de Volmy was to describe the Shi'a as a distict society, outside the main currents of Lebanese life; and so they were perceived by their Sunni, Druze and Maronite neighbours, right into the twentieth century. It was by default that they found themselves as part of the new state of Grand Liban, created by the French in September 1920.

Interestingly, the Shi'a were among the first to take advantage of the new political realities. The Sunni had attempted to resist the French mandate; and when they were defeated, refused to participate in the administration of what they considered to be an artificial political entity. Sunni opposition had aimed at the creation of a 'greater Syria', where the Shia would have been a permanent minority. But in the new state of Lebanon they acquired both an independence and a far greater political significance in relation to the size of their community. This was further emphasised by French colonial policy, which sought to reach out to the Shi'a, with the intention of preventing a possible alliance with the Sunni.

After independence in 1943, although the Shi'a remained part of Lebanon's delicate confessional and political balancing act, their homelands were still economically among the most backward areas. Many of them gravitated towards the slums of Beruit, progressively becoming more radicalised in the process; they also became deeply resentful at the affluence of the Sunni and Christian middle classes, prospering in the liberal atmosphere of the 1950s. In 1959 the Shi'a acquired a more determined and unique voice, when Musa al-Sadr arrived from Qom to take up the position of Mufti. In 1967 he established a Supreme Islamic Shi'a Council, regulating the affairs of the community, and giving it as high a profile in the state as the corporate bodies set up by the Maronite, Sunni and Druze. People who had been carried along by left-wing and secular currents were slowly drawn back into a reinvigorated Islam, many joining Amal, the militia founded by Sadr in 1974. Although Sadr disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1978, his influence, and his radical message, lived on, contributing later to the rise of Hezbollah. The Lebanese Civil War, and Israeli intervention in southern Lebanon, also went a long way towards consolidataing a new and more radical Shi'a identity. Clio the Muse 03:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you for all of this information, Clio the Muse.Philip the Arab 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since haitians are just of West African descent, does include all the countries of west africa?

Let Me List Them:

Benin Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Cape Verde The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Mali Mauritania Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo

Even though they too have Central, South and SouthEast african ancestry, but still does it include all countries of west africa?--arab 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing geographical terms referring to broad movements of populations with the precision required by political boundaries. It means "West Africa" in a hazy way, and should not be taken to refer to specifically 21st century political entities (or even biological populations, necessarily—a lot of time has passed since then). --24.147.86.187 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "95%" does not mean "all", and "predominantly" does not mean "fully". The ancestry of the large majority of current Haitians goes back for the larger part on ancestors who came from West Africa, in particular the Slave Coast and the Gold Coast. These are geographic indications. The local kingdoms from that time no longer exist, and the present republics there have no historic relationship with these kingdoms and have different boundaries.  --Lambiam 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that slaving was a business for Africans as well as Europeans and the supplied slaves came from a wide area. Rmhermen 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

August 25

Recent NYtimes Article

ON green CEO or executive directors. Does anyone remember seeing this? I read it and put it aside but now cant find it!! Lots of googling to new avail. If anyone remembers this article, or something similar can you point me in the right direction? (or help me brainstorm more search terms, I have used green, environment, CEO, executive director, officer...)

Thanks

Ebenbayer 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How long ago was this? Last week? Last year?  --Lambiam 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one about the Energy Security Leadership Council, a group of CEO's supporting alternative energy: [11] --Sean 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, "Companies Giving Green an Office", from July 2007. [12]. Search for "global warming managers" and you'll find more related articles. --24.147.86.187 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

property rights on banned things

Hi. I wonder if a person still enjoys certain property rights on things which are banned. For example, if person X breaks into person Y's house, and steals all his millions of dollars in narcotics and unnecessarily powerful weapons, would person X faces theft charges, or possession of stolen property in addition to the possession of illegal banned things? --Duomillia 05:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether they would actually face such charges is one thing, but sure, it is theft and illegal, even if the person originally enjoying the goods was possessing them in contravention of the law.  --Lambiam 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Person X would be charged with breaking and entering, as well as possession of narcotics. I don't think a DA would try to get them charged with possession of stolen property; it would be conceptually confusing for a jury. Person Y would probably be liable to be charged for narcotics as well if they reported the theft. This is one reason why illegal things are often stolen—they can't be reported as stolen without self-incrimination on behalf of the person reporting it. --24.147.86.187 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OKAY im confused ,please answer this!!

The slaves came from the Gold Coast which is Ghana and the Slave Coast. (togo benin and western nigeria) The people who settled in Benin came from Niger because the Edo people came from Niger Area(so they have Nigerien ancestry) and the 1st people that settled in Togo came from both Ghana and Benin. So they both have Ghanaian and Beninese descent. Just read the history of Benin and Togo you know what im talking about. I just confusing about togo and benin, So the people of benin have nigerien descent and the togolese have beninese and ghanian descent. it's just confusing so help!!!!!!--arab 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody everywhere came from somewhere else. Not only in Africa; look for plenty of examples in Europe. There is a constant stream of migrations going on, like billiard balls caroming on a pool table. It is mainly meaningful to ask for someone's ancestry with respect to a specific migration. As you move back in history it gets more and more diffuse, through migrations and through intermarriages. Also, do not confuse geographical designations with political entities. It is not as if the area that is Togo was deserted before the Portuguese came, upon which people from the areas that today are Ghana and Benin moved in. It is rather meaningless to say that these people were of "Beninese and Ghanian descent". Was Hannibal of Tunisian descent, Archimedes of Italian descent, Euclid of Egyptian descent, and Heraclitus of Turkish descent? Togo has quite arbitrary geographical boundaries that have no ethnic or tribal relevance, and no relevance in any sense at all in the period you're interested in.  --Lambiam 11:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iran

How have America's military and political actions in the Middle East region helped or hindered Iran? --Longhornsg 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Ajax--Funnyguy555 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the better question might be how have America's actions in the Middle East helped or hindered America?! They have certainly aided Iran by no direct process; they have, however, indirectly and unintentionaly, provided the political context for the the victory of Shi'a radicalism and a militant form of Iranian nationalism. Even more seriously, by knocking out the regime of Saddam Hussein the United States has removed the one effective political counter to Iran in the whole region, adding greatly to the power and prestige of the present regime, headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What follows, I have to sresss, is a brief essay on realpolitik as it is applied to international relations. It is not an attack on the United States, a defence of Saddam Hussein, or a justification of Islamic militancy. Insofar as Clio has a view it is this: the history, the politics and the religious tensions in the Gulf region are enormously complex. It is, or should be, the one place on earth where all wise men fear to tread.

First, a brief word or two on the nature of Shi'a Islam and how it applies to Iranian politics. Iran is the one country in the world where attitudes and outlooks are dominated by millenarian form of Islam, known as the Twelver School. Central to this is the idea of a Mahdi, a messiah to come at the end of time and rule the world with justice. Muhammad al-Mahdi, by Shia tradition the twelvth Iman, was withdrawn from the visable world in the ninth century, though he remains poised to return, transmitting his wishes in the meantime to the faithful through deputies. In practical terms this has meant that all temporal authority is viewed as illegitimate, except when endorsed, as part of a temporary arrangement, by Shi'a theologians. This need for a balance between secular of theocratic rule was recognised in 1503 by the Safavids, though in practice it has been difficult to achieve. Even so, the Iranian constitution of 1906 made provision for clerics to oversee parliamentary enactments. Though this was never implemented the idea remained latent and powerful. It gave Shi'ism a powerful political and revolutionary focus that simply did not exist in Sunni Islam. In helping to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the CIA not only destroyed a legitimate and democratically elected government, but it also encouraged a counter-response, with an outcome in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

With the support of the United States, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, emerged from the 1953 coup more absolute than ever. He began a programme of westernisation and modernisation, aiming, in his own words, for 'the Great Civilization.' For most Iranians, though, he was little better than a foreign-sponsored puppet, whose oppressive and brutal security apparatus, SAVAK, was built up with American and Israeli aid. The secular political opposition, including the Communist Party, was destroyed. In the end only the Muslim clerics were left as a channel for national discontent, a discontent expressed in the most uncompromising form by Ruhollah Khomeini.

It was the writing of the man we now know as Ayatolla Khomeini that led in 1963 to the first great public protest against the Shah. Sent into exile, Kohmeini continued his criticism, drawing on all of the established Shi'a traditions, theology and scholarship. His interpretation of how government should be conducted in the absence of the Iman was to provide the political and theological basis for the Islamic Revolution. The Shah was ignoring both the clergy and the Constitution of 1906. His government was therefore not merely wrong; it was blasphemous. The only government that could be relied upon to be truly Islamic was that under the supervision of the ulema, the general body of the Muslim clergy.

The success of the Revolution, and the return of Kohomeini, saw a clear deterioration of the American position in the region. The whole event was carried forward on an explosion of anger, directed fist at the westernising practices of the Shah, and second against the United States for sustaining his regime for so long. This found early expression in the Iranian hostage crisis, which served to demonstrate the military and political impotence of Jimmy Carter's presidency. The political chaos within Iran also provided the opportunity for Saddam to to begin the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, an act of opportunist aggression. Here the United States initially maintained a position of neutrality, though this changed when the Iraqi offensive faltered. Fears over an Iranian advance was to lead to U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, including the supply of chemicals, which were used in attacking Iranian troops. Support did not stop when it was discovered that Saddam was also using chemical weapons against parts of his own population.

The war stopped with an uneasy peace, a militant Islamic state on one side of the divide, and a secular Arab dictator on the other. But Saddam was an unpredictable Frankenstein monster, as the United States discovered during the First Gulf War. Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, the cause of the war, had been helped on its way by previous massive U. S. arms sales to Iraq. The war concluded with the 1991 uprisings, when the Iraqi Shi'a in the south rose in revolt, although this was suppressed because George H. W. Bush and his coalition partners offered no support.

Thereafter American policy in the region, and Iran-United States relations was characterised by a deep sense of confusion, perhaps nowhere more evident than in George W. Bush's Axis of evil speech, which failed to draw any distinction between the different degrees of 'threat' presented by Iran and Iraq. As I have already indicated, thses two powers, with deep mutual hostilities, held one another in check. The game was changed out of all recognition by the Second Gulf War, conceivably one of the most misguided steps in the whole War on Terror strategy pursued by the White House. With Saddam gone Iran is immesurably stronger, with support across the region; from the Shi'a militias in Iraq to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The weak Iraqi democracy is in no position to withstand Iranian pressure, and any American withdrawal will only make the position worse. President Bush now has the wolf by the ears: he does not want to hold on, but he dare not left go. It's impossible to predict what may come. Clio the Muse 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The reaction to US support for the shah seems like a good example of one extreme leading to the other. If you push people too hard in one direction, you'll likely see them move in the opposite direction. I've heard the suggestion that the present Iranian movement should run its course. It will start to disgust people, which will cause increasing support for the countermovements (which there must be - Iran is a fairly 'modern' society). Most importantly, this will come from the inside and will therefore stick. This is a very important lesson for the US. Btw it's too late for Iraq. Both the US leaving and staying will have unacceptable consequences. So in retrospect (?) they should not have gone there in the first place. Then again, a solution from within may take a long time. No easy answers. DirkvdM 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not directly addressing the question, but the thread somehow led me to the article on Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the puppetmaster behind Mossadegh's overthrow. I had listened to a radio segment on him a couple of years ago, and was now delighted to find the bit on how he nearly blew his cover at the Turkish embassy in Tehran:

"When playing tennis and making some frustrating mistake he would cry out, "Oh Roosevelt!" Puzzled by this, his friends asked him about this interesting way of expressing his annoyance with his game. He explained that as loyal member of the Republican party back in the States, that every Republican had nothing but scorn and hatred for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he despised the man so much that he took to using FDR's name as a curse."

---Sluzzelin talk 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange to hear Kermit described as the puppet master rather than the puppet! I am sure his girlfriend is the sort of strong woman Clio would respect as well. Cyta 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

21 grams

Does the life force in humans have a discernible weight? - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No.

This appears to be a science question, not humanities. --Anonymous, August 25, 2007, 10:50 (UTC).

Not until ghosts can haz cheezburger.hotclaws 10:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The expression "life force in humans" sounds hardly scientific to me. It's a fine folklore or ancient traditions question, so it fits perfectly here. --Taraborn 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 21 grams is supposed to be the weight of the final breath. Many, many, many cultures have associated the breath with the life force, from ancient Hebrews to the Romans ("spirit" = "breath"). The film 21 grams explains, I think, that that is the amount of weight a body loses at the moment of death. Well, that is bogus, as each particular body would have to vary, and other things are lost besides breath. Geogre 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This goes back to actual zany experiments by one Dr. Duncan MacDougall, who believed he was measuring the weight of the human soul (not breath or life force) leaving the body as the patient was dying. Different patients gave different results, but for the first reported on the measured weight loss was "ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce". Another conclusion of the good doctor was that "this substance ... weighs about one and one-fourth ounces per cubic foot".  --Lambiam 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just saying what is lost at death. Air is heavy, as we all know from our own nation's Mr. Wizard (even humanities geeks). One's weight loss at the flicker of death would be air volume, but then other things could go out after the loss of muscular control. Geogre 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's very delicately put, Geogre! I've seen a little death, and the passing of water happens as often as not. Xn4 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Office in Japan

What is a Ward Office in Japan? What sort of a directory is kept there? I read in a handbook on Japan that the directory is now available in Korean as well. Something to do with census? Thanks for any clarification. Chakkshusravana 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The wards of Japan are the administrative subdivisions where local administrative issues are handled, including family registration (which implies Japanese citizenship and includes registration of residence). Possibly the directory refers to that, but the wards also maintain a second separate "stand alone" residence registration for Japanese citizens, and furthermore an alien registration. Without further context I can't be sure.  --Lambiam 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. With that article you linked, things at once became clear. Regards. Chakkshusravana 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mozart's laughter

Some people say his laughter was rather... well... ridiculous. Do we have any solid evidence for that fact or is it just an urban legend? --Taraborn 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The giggle produced by the persona Mozart (played by Tom Hulce) in the movie Amadeus was rather... well... ridiculous. As it is generally accepted that movies portraying historical characters meticulously stick to well-researched and well-established historical fact, and that no self-respecting director would even move an inch away from that under the guise of artistic freedom, this must be equally true as the historical fact that Salieri caused Mozart's death.  --Lambiam 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, and someone else can recall better, I'm sure, Schaffer got that from a letter from one of the people offended by Mozart, but it was a single line. He was supposed to have a grating laugh. Well, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Geogre 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More actually, it's a sad commentary on modern life that, for most people, the sum total of their "knowledge" about Mozart is the film Amadeus. Schaffer never intended the play as an accurate biography of Mozart. He knew as well as anyone else that there is no evidence that Salieri poisoned Mozart, or even tried to. Who knows what other historical inaccuracies he introduced? And who knows how far Forman's film diverged from Schaffer's play? (these are rhetorical questions, btw). My suggestion is to love the movie (as I do), but please look elsewhere for the truth about Mozart. -- JackofOz 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weddings

If my nephew is getting married by a justice fo the peace on Monday, and we just found out yesterday (8/25/07) what is the proper amount of money to give as a gift?

Thanks,

regalbobg

Regalbobg 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your income and closeness dictate. If you have a lot of nephews and not much money, not much. If you have a small number of nephews and nieces, and you're rich, some more. JP weddings are normally a sign that the couple don't expect much ado. There is no correct answer to this question, however. Utgard Loki 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A book named "THE GENIE"-a reply

Hello Somebody had answered my question which i had posted here earlier. sorry for this late reply. you have asked whether i remember any character or place i am searching for. i know this sounds stupid but i dont remember a single place or name but i only remember that the book was a work of fiction in which there was a genie having a sexual relation with a human female almost as a ritual. please somebody say the author. thank u.

Searches for books with "Genie" in the title show no possible match. I suspect the title was different, which leaves us little to search on.  --Lambiam 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro just died?

I have just heard that Fidel Castro has died - is this true or a rumour?? --AlexSuricata 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No one here can say for sure at this moment, but probably it's a rumor. See Fidel_Castro#Premature_death_rumors and here. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool section. A.Z. 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslims of Spain

I would like to know something of the impact on the Muslims of Spain of the completion of the Reconquista in 1492.Philip the Arab 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip, this question badly needs the Clio treatment. Although it's Saturday night, she may drop in. I can say briefly that the Reconquista of Andalusia (see also Al-Andalus) had a huge impact for those Muslims who failed to convert to Christianity. Despite some initial promises of tolerance, their position got more and more painful and because they couldn't practise their religion, those who wanted to do so had to leave. No doubt if young most such migrants had more adventurous lives than they would have had at home in Andalusia, but especially for the older ones it must have been as heartbreaking as every such mass migration is. In Alan Whicker's words, "If you're twenty, there's a good life waiting for you somewhere. If you're sixty, weep."

You'll also find a little useful material in the articles Granada, Alhambra decree and Caliph of Córdoba. I can add that even today, more than five hundred years on, in the mosques of Andalusia which were converted to churches Muslims are still prevented from saying prayers after their own religion. If that impact can still be seen now, think back five hundred years to a more violent age. Xn4 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two more articles which will help you: Moors and Spanish Inquisition. Xn4 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio's getting tired, Xn4, but how can she possibly avoid giving this question at least a little of her 'treatment' after your fanfare!

It's an interesting topic, Philip, one that uncovers what might be considered as the first serious act of 'ethnic cleansing' in all of European history. The Moors of Spain were to be the victims of a state policy that had as many racist as religious overtones.

As Xn4 has indicated, the surrender of Granada in 1492 was accompanied by a treaty, allowing the Spanish crown's new Muslim subjects a large measure of religious toleration. They were also allowed the continuing use of their own language, schools, laws and customs. But the interpretation of the royal edict was largely left to the local Christian authorities. Hernando de Talavera, the first archbishop of Granada after its fall, took a fairly tolerant view. This changed when he was replaced by Cardinal Cisneros, who immediately organised a drive for mass conversions and burned all texts in Arabic. Outraged by this breach of faith, in 1499 the Mudejar rose in the First Rebellion of Alpujarras, which only had the effect of giving Ferdinand and Isabella the excuse to revoke the promise of toleration. That same year the Muslim leaders of Granada were ordered to hand over almost all of the remaining books in Arabic, most of which were burned. Beginning in Valencia in 1502 Muslims were offerd the choice of baptism or exile. The majority decided to accept this, becoming 'New Christians', of very great interest to the newly-established Spanish Inquisition, authorised by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478.

It is important to understand that the Converts, though outwardly Christian, continued to to adhere to their old beliefs in private, a conduct allowed for by some Islamic authorities when the faithful are under duress or threat of life, a practice known as taqiyyah or precaution. Responding to a plea from his co-religionists in Spain, in 1504 the Grand Mufti of Oran issued a decree saying that Muslims may drink wine, eat pork and other forbidden things, if they were under compulsion. There were good reasons for this; for abstinence from wine or pork could, and did, cause people to be denounced to the Inquisition. But no matter how closely they observed all of the correct forms, the 'Morisco' or Little Moors, a term of disparagement, were little better than second-class citizens, tainted, it might be said, by blood rather than by actions.

Despite all of these pressures some people continued to observe Moorish forms, and practice as Muslims, well into the sixteenth century. In 1567 Philip II finally made the use of Arabic illegal, forbidding the Islamic religion, dress and customs, a step which led to the Second Rebellion of Alpujarras. This was suppressed with considerable brutality. In one incident troops commanded by Don John of Austria destroyed the town of Galera east of Granada, after slaughtering the entire population. The Moriscos of Granada were rounded up and dispersed across Spain. Edicts of expulsion were finally issued by Philip III in 1609, against people who were now perceived to be a threat to the 'purity' of the Spanish race. Clio the Muse 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

August 26

Video footage of communal exercise

In old videos of life in totalitarian or collective regimes (Nazi Germany, China, former USSR, etc.), a common theme shown was communal exercising - a large field of people all doing calisthenics, for example. I've always wondered about the purpose of those scenes, and the facts behind them. Was the general population required to participate in communal exercise programs or were these just the more health-conscious people getting together to exercise? Did the local governments release that footage to show how healthy and happy their people were, or did opposing governments use that footage to imply how extensively the other governments intruded upon and controlled their citizens' lives? 152.16.188.107 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Nazi Parades? --1ws1 06:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these videos showed what appeared to be regular folks (not soldiers) performing directed, organized exercise. I've seen it in old videos of other nations as well. 152.16.188.107 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened in the US and UK, as well. There was a craze for calisthenics, and both children in schools and factory workers could be found doing their jumping jacks in the open air. Geogre 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they are usually shown to show how happy and healthy people are. You can find the same thing in US and UK footage from the period as well. In the early 20th century physical education and so forth became seen as part of the way to a better, stronger society, and synchronized movements of any form (education included) have long been symbols of a vigorous, unified state. The latter makes them especially salient images for communalist societies, which love to show that everybody is singing to the same tune. In the US and UK this national improvement drive also had connections to quasi-eugenic beliefs. --24.147.86.187 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Socrates Vs. Solomon 44 and Solomon 49

These are two exerpts from wikipedia's article on Socrates:

1. Socrates stressed that "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know." (Solomon 44)

2. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers (Solomon 49),

My question is, "What are Solomon 44 and Solomon 49? I know for a fact that they aren't books in the Bible or Platonic writings. But do they somehow relate to the Solomon in the Bible? And where exactly can the documents or books titled Solomon 44 and Solomon 49 be found? My search has come up entirely empty and I'm thinking whoever authored the Socrates article must have provided an innacurate source.

Aug 26, 2007

--anon.

• They're attempts at MLA citation/"Harvard notation," apparently, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the author used inaccurate notes. First, Wikipedia's featured articles have been the subject of gloriously stupid wars over notes, where one side just gives notes and the other demands that everything be a footnote, specifically. The footnoting formatting changed. In fact, some articles had the popcorn of notes all over and then had it all "disappear" when the format fiends changed their stuff. (Go into the Edit mode of the paragraph and look to see if notes are embedded in the text but not displaying. It happens.) Other people have been excitedly cutting out "references" that aren't footnotes, too.
• Now, in that case, it's probably to Robert C. Solomon. I don't know if it's to Introducing Philosophy: A Text with integrated Readings or one of the many others he edited/published. The point is that this is what happens when the foolish little battles happen, and not a sign of bad editing or writing. Geogre 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Solomons" were introduced in an edit that left no clue about which Solomon what. The same edit introduced a "(Gross 2)". I suspect these paragraphs were copied and pasted from another source. In googling for a possible source, I came across the following howler: a "free term paper" entitled "An analysis of Socrates' Oedipus Rex".[13]  --Lambiam 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. Well, it's probably someone copying from his/her own paper, let's hope, rather than trying to incorporate a copyright violation. I found the Solomon, but the thing is...it's such an absolutely obvious statement (first one) and then such an obviously wrong one (or overstatement, really, because it's Plato who "objects," but not "object" like revolutionary) that I hope they're not circulating lies on the web.
• By the way, I have seen the most astonishing garbage handed in that had been downloaded. The people doing so had gotten every bit of what they had paid for: an F. Geogre 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In the 8th ed. of Solomon's textbook, page 44 is completely blank, so much so that it doesn't even say "this page has been left blank intentionally." The Mad Echidna 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited (and the provenance of these paragraphs) are clarified here: Talk:Socrates/Archive 1#Beliefs Section.  --Lambiam 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and GIGO strikes again. It's sad. All I can say is that I flatly turn around any paper any student gives me that has citations which never required the student to stand up or move about. I allow web sources, but only just, and only as adjuncts. That's some poor research. (Senior paper... in college?) Geogre 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of the six references mention Newark High School Library, so this may have been a high-school project.  --Lambiam 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dixon-Yates contract -- 1950's controversy

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspires an article to be created or enhanced: Dixon-Yates contract Please consider contributing

What was the Dixon-Yates contract - 1950's controversy? Please reply with references. Or just redirect the red link to the appropriate article I am supposed to be in. Thanks. --1ws1 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Googling "Dixon-Yates" turns up a good number of relevant hits. By restricting the search to en.wikipedia.org, I found that it is mentioned three times: once as a requested article, once in Aaron Wildavsky (who did his thesis on the controversy), and once on User:The stuart/Class Notes/Recent American History (1945-1975), where it is summarized as "TVA announces that it dosn't have enough power to power the new atomic facilities in Kentucky, asks for millions from congress to build a new power plant Admin instead supports a project from two private companys, headed by Dixon and yates hence the name "Dixon Yates controversy" congress investigates, Dixon Yates contract given with out competition Becomes Dixon Yates scandal Admin drops the whole thing when Memphis says that its going to build its own power plant." 152.16.188.107 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[History] The Righteous and Harmonious Society Movement: The Boxer Rebellion

Why did the The Righteous and Harmonious Society Movement become known as The Boxer Rebellion? Why the term "boxer"? 207.69.139.141 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of Righteous Harmony Society. 152.16.188.107 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dali Lamas Sex Life

Has the Dali Lama ever had sex? Does he have any children? If he doesn't have any children is he allowed to have them? Is he allowed to have a wife? 207.69.139.137 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Dalai Lamas, including the current, 14th Dalai Lama, were reared and raised entirely by males, and celibacy is taken seriously during their entire lifetime. Tsangyang Gyatso, the 6th Dalai Lama was the exception confirming the rule in the cases not excepted. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Tsangyang Gyatso states that he is also the only Dalai Lama ever to have been deposed and exiled, which was done 'in response to his uncivil lifestyle'. One supposes that this has rather encouraged all his successors to stick with celibacy! Xn4 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

song id

Hi guys, I recently heard a song that i've heard many times before, and just couldn't think who it was by or what it was called. It's an electronic/dance song, from around the year 2000, and contains a piano part that i think was featured in the film American Beauty . The song is quite well-known i think. Any help would be appreciated. Dylan-t 11:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but we do have American Beauty: Original Motion Picture Score and American Beauty (soundtrack). Adam Bishop 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Could somebody please write an article on the documentary Zeitgeist released in 2007. I do not have the knowledge to create a page, or one of the calibre this movie/documentary deserves. This is an amazing film, which is free to watch at zeitgeistmovie.com, and is a mind blowing presentation of how governments use fear and panic to manipulate the populace. I believe it is essential viewing for any free thinking cultured human being and needs a page to further knowledge about it as well as create a base for discussion. I am using this area because i believe i may be able to contact like minded people who believe that truth should be taken as the authority, not authority taken as the truth Gerald121 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not really a question for the Reference desk. Try Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. Cheers, Skarioffszky 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question has already been written once, and deleted for not providing any evidence it is notable. The page has since been protected, due to attempts to bring the article back without satisfying the notability guideline. Any new article would need to be written in a sandbox first, and a request made to unprotect the page, before moving the content there. -- 68.156.149.62 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know. But, alas, Gerald, it is not; for truth is both nebulous and elusive. Clio the Muse 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy in South Dakota

Could someone help me understand this: According to this list, the life expectancy in South Dakota is 66,6 years - http://www.aneki.com/cities_lowest_life_expectancy.html . Why is this? Colorado tops the list in the oposite side of the scale: http://www.aneki.com/city_life_expectancies.html . Could anyone explain these large variations, despite the fact that they're only separated by one state (Nebraska) geographically.
--Petteroes 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What is terribly fishy is that these lists claim to be per city, but give 6 cities all the lowest value of 66.6, all in South Dakota, after which there is a jump to 68.6. Whatever the source, that can't be right.  --Lambiam 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This overview per state of the life expectancy gives 78.0 for South Dakota and 78.4 for Colorado, based on the 2000 census data. Lowest is District of Columbia with 72.6, followed by Mississippi with 73.7. Highest is Hawaii with 79.8. Aloha!  --Lambiam 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambiam! All this probably prove (once again) that researching on the internet is a risky affair :) --Petteroes 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep.

If you look at the aneki.com pages again, you will see that although the page titles say "cities" with the highest/lowest life expectancy, the column headings on those pages say "counties". If you look up the six counties, you will find that two of them were merged in 1979, which suggests strongly that the data in the table is seriously out of date. Notice that the page does not give a date.

The other thing you will find out is that the five remaining counties (i.e. originally all six) are all adjacent. Since there are only about 30,000 people (as of the 2000 census) living in all five counties put together, it makes sense that whoever tabulated the statistics would have processed them as a group. (In more populous states or districts they would not have done that.) Then whoever produced the stupid table on aneki.com must have failed to realize this and assumed that the average life expectancy applied to all the counties individually.

--Anonymous, August 26, 2007, 19:53 (UTC).

Nice work. The last census in Washabaugh County, South Dakota was in 1970, so the aneki data is at least 37 years old. The earliest available census data appear to be from 1920, so the aneki lists are probably at most 87 years out of date.  --Lambiam 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more to life expectancy than meets the eye. We all know that it's higher for women than for men. It's easy to forget that at birth it's lower than at any other age. There are endless factors other than geography, but if you look only at geography the picture is never clear. For instance, male life expectancy at birth in Scotland (74.2 years) is lower than in England (76.9 years). However, there are huge variations within Scotland - from 77.7 years in East Dunbartonshire down to 69.9 years in Glasgow... but in the richest areas of Glasgow all life expectancy is higher than in the poorest neighbourhoods of East Dunbartonshire. So read all such statistics with caution! Xn4 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note about these South Dakota counties: Todd is almost entirely within the Rosebud Indian Reservation and its population is 85.6% Native American. Shannon is entirely within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, pop 94.2% Native American. Mellette is 52.4% Native American. Bennett is 52.07% Native American. These counties are among the very poorest in the United States. Pfly 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Joke

i don't get the joke, anyone to explain?

• Why did the Canadian cross the street? To get to the middle.

If you smiled at that joke, you are probably a Canadian, in "The U.S. and us: why Canada became a nation in 1776", The Gazette (Montreal), July 4, 1992, Saturday, Pg. A2 -- 172.173.208.123 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always a mistake to try to explain a joke, especially this one, as I am English, not Canadian. Anyway, here goes. 'Middle of the road' is an expression used to denote moderation, or to describe people who have no pronounced tastes, either one way or the other. Whether this is true of Canadians or not I could not possibly say, which is a very 'middle of the road' answer! Clio the Muse 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio is likely right. Canada is known to be a country of the the middle, with very few extremists (religious, political, academic, or what-have-you), and even fewer enshrined extremes. This is also a take-off on the classic "Why did the chicken cross the road?" "To get to the other side." I am a Canadian, and I did laugh. Bielle 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadians are also known for being very nice and slow to anger, slow to amuse, slow to ... Therefore, it's also a personal attribution. I.e. a Canadian would like to be in the middle personally, as well as politically -- not too hot or cold. Sort of like, "How can you tell a Finnish extrovert?" "He stares at your shoes" (from Garrison Keillor). (Yes, though, a political joke.) Geogre 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of some ancient joke I heard once, about how every Canadian kitchen contains a small appliance called a blander. Gzuckier 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, guys and gals. While I take full responsibility for my contributions to the expansion of this thread, let's close the door on ethnic jokes before we get into unkind territory. Bielle 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 27

The Problem with Interconnectivity

Hello, and in case this is the wrong section to post please correct me.

I was watching on the news about the so-called "China food product scare" when a startling thought came to me and it deals wih interconnectivity. As the United States is a major consumer of reasources on a global scale and China (another major power) is the main distributor of reasources to other nations my question is this: If China's "product problems" kill people, are a threat to others, etc... Then people would (hypothetically speaking of course) stop buying products from China for various reasons. But, because of the China-United States interconnectivity the market sourrounding China and all Chinese related product would diminish significantly and sooner or later: Major trade between China and United States would cease. The problem with this would be that the United States economy would lose a lot of money via stock and the market would crash (well in theory anyways). Is this realistically possible? Or are China and the United States too connected to be able to cease trade? Would this scenario be possible with other major powers? (e.g oil in the Middle East or technology from Japan) If so what are the possible consequences from an event? Thank you for your time and answers! User: ECH3LON

There has been foreign trade loss in the past at a scale high enough to cause major problems with the U.S. economy. Just think about the gas shortage of the 70's for a simple example. However, I do not see that happening with China. For example, the head of China's equivalent of the U.S. FDA, Zheng Xiaoyu, was recently executed for allowing bad drugs to be distributed (usually after taking bribes from the manufacturers). Perhaps to avoid a similar fate, Zhang Shuhong (head of toy manufacturing) committed suicide after a recent recall of toys from his factories. The way I see it is from the complete opposite view of most economics. The U.S. is "the" consumer. If it collapses, there's no consumer. Factories around the world will shut down. So, it is the best interest of countries like China to ensure that the U.S. remains stable enough to continue being a massive consumer that they can ship endless amounts of goods to. In other words, my opinion is that China is dependent on the U.S. to keep consuming just as much as the U.S. is dependent on China to keep producing. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Crecy

I was reading about the battle of Crecy (today is an anniversary!) and would like to know more about the tactical background. Your page explains that it demonstrated the significance of battlefield fire power, but does not explain how the English came to devise this technique. So what caused Edward the third to abandon the accepted practice of the day, using heavy cavalry as a strike force, and rely upon archers? Jubal Early 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

According to our article English longbow, the longbow actually originated in Wales, and the English learned from losses they suffered from the Welsh that trained bowmen were very effective militarily. It was actually Edward I who began training a corps of longbowmen based on this experience. Now, this is pure speculation on my part, but the English may have chosen this tactic partly because they knew that the French did not have a force of longbowmen, because the tactic would have the advantage of surprising the French the first time it was used, and perhaps because longbows were easier to transport by ship than a comparable number of horses. I hope that those who know more than I do (e.g., Clio) will correct me. Marco polo 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it unlikely the longbow was used as a 'surprise weapon' against the French, they were well aware of it after the first encounter, but it seems failed to adapt their tactics appropriately. An army of longbowmen is not something you can simply choose, the English had had compulsory longbow practice since the reign of Edward I. The tactics used had shown success both for and against England in the wars with Scotland, in fact I believe that although the longbows were inspired by the Welsh (who also fought for the English in France) the tactics were inspired by battles against the Scots. I can't point to particular battles, I am sure Clio will, in fact I remember a similar question before. Cyta 08:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand Muftis and Ayatollahs

Which Muslim countries have their own official Grand Mufti and Ayatollah e.g. Lebanon's is Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah?

See List of Grand Ayatollahs for a start. I dunno about official ones. --Sean 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian surnamnes differences

Which Iranian surnames are meant for Shi'ite Muslims, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Jews and Christianity?

What makes you think Iranian surnames are apportioned according to religion? If a surname ends in -ian, the bearer is most likely of Armenian descent, and if they still self-identify as Armenian probably a Christian. Other names are for example recognizably Azeri, but while most are Shi'a Muslim, various other religions are found among Iranian Azeri, quite similar to the situation among ethnic Persians, so you can derive no useful information from this.  --Lambiam 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the reason I ask this question because I met this Iranian girl and she said her surname is Hosseini, and she is a Bahai. Usually, Muslim have this surname, Hosseini. How could you explain?

Lambiam did just explain. The surname alone is no guarantee of a specfic religion. The girl herself, her parents, her grandparents might have converted to Baha'i from any of the the other religions, or from none at all. Bielle 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bahá'í faith has its religious background in Shi'a Islam, just like Christianity has a religious background in Judaism. There is nothing strange about a Christian having a given name like Abraham or David, or a surname like Abrahams or Davids; why would Hossein be a strange given name for a Bahá'í, and Hosseini a strange surname? In view of the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran, I would not expect Iranian Bahá'ís to have a surname flaunting their religion.  --Lambiam 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture identification

This seems like a longshot, but can anyone identify the gentlemen pictured in this album cover? I'm posting this here instead of the entertainment section because I suspect it may be real person, possibly a Nazi due to the lyrical content of the title song. Is anyone aware of any Nazis that suffered from facial paralysis or a stroke, as this man seems to have? The liner notes identify the picture as Yellow Head, by Harvey Stafford, but nothing came up on a google search. --Joelmills 01:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks vaguely like a young Simon Wiesenthal. But he was no Nazi - in fact, precisely the opposite. -- JackofOz 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A little more thorough searching reveals that the artist's full name is Harvey Bennett Stafford, and he also did the cover of The Melvins' Night Goat. He's also edited a book on death in Mexican popular culture, so it seems less likely that the man on the cover is a Nazi and more that it is just an odd drawing. --Joelmills 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a younger Charles de Gaulle? It is something of an ambiguous drawing—anyone with a broad nose, thin head, and thin moustache looks pretty similar. --24.147.86.187 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The more I stare at that picture I become convinced that he has Horner's syndrome as well. --Joelmills 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, who's using my picture?Gzuckier 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

who was tien B

I am interested in any informationn regarding a philosopher of the last centuary named TIEN B (SPELLING MAY BE INCORRECT).

The Category:20th century philosophers does not list anyone with a vaguely similar name. The closest I see is Tyler Burge. Do you have any further information or context? The name sounds like Tien Pei, but I can only find Tien Pei Chun, who is a politician (and garment merchant), not a philosopher. Tien is Wade-Giles transcription for what in Pinyin is Diǎn, but expanding the search accordingly gave no results.  --Lambiam 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee? -Arch dude 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent insight, Arch dude. I bet that's it. Wareh 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

Philosophical question on another desk. A.Z. 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The last time I heard a tree fall in the woods, it did make a sound. Something like uh-oh. Maybe it was an ent.  --Lambiam 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That was funny. A.Z. 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Third French Republic

It is often said that the Third Republic was one of the weakest and most devisive in French history yet it is also the one that survived the longest, lasting from 1870 until the Fall of France in 1940. What I would be interested to know is how it managed to survive the early challenges from the left and, in particular, from the right? Pere Duchesne 05:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax increase penalty

Can the court order a person to pay higher income, sales and property taxes as a penalty for some violation of the law for which they have been found guilty? Clem 08:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt it, as in general the judicial system is completely separate from the many and various tax systems. Unless, of course, the law violation was in respect of not paying enough tax. Did you have an example in mind of why they should want to do this rather than simply impose a fine?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an example really. This idea originates with a modified version of the Fair tax proposal in which instead of a 25% or 30% flat sales tax rate for each person the sales tax would be adjusted to match each individual's income, assists and liabilities at the point of sale as facilitated by the growing capability of data transmission and processing electronics. Since a fine is a liability one might then receive a sales tax deduction if the system did not have a corresponding rule to prevent it and if a rule were included then it would also be possible to increase the sales tax to include a portion of the fine. Hope that makes sense.

Courts can do any damn thing, but a higher court might well reverse it. this sounds like something that could well be reversed. Gzuckier 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Courts do strange things, but they can't lawfully do any damn thing if the damn thing is unlawful. Even when a court wants to go beyond its powers, it needs to be able to explain itself, if challenged. While this discourages foolishness, it's astonishing how many bad judges there are - in lower courts, especially. One reason for this is that in many (if not most) countries a good lawyer can make more money as a practising lawyer than as a judge. Xn4 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

After death, Does everything goes back to the way it was like before u were born?

You know, same thing what we have experienced before we were born, think about it back then u didnt exist u werent alive and after death it is going to be the same thing, you dont exist anymore. we came from nothingness and we go back to nothingess after our body functions stop.--arab 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

is this a question? It's like this for everybody except you. Once you die, the entire Universe will spontaneously collapse. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Myes, good old metaphysics and whatnot. It makes for interesting discussions, but *not* in My Universe. So please, go discuss it in your Universe with My Alternate Self.

But to answer the question, it seems likely that there won't even be nothingness. Pain as you're dying, quite likely, and then, who knows.Nimlhûg 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you will experience after DEATH is exactly what you had experienced before both your parents were born. 211.28.129.251 10:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the undiscovered country, whose travellers never return from its borne. (Some thing that we fall off the face of the earth on the journey. Others describe the far shore exactly.) Geogre 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question has to be 'no'. The world changes in many ways during your lifetime and it doesn't return to its state before you were born when you die. Your actions change the world around you while you live. You touch people while you live in many ways great and small. Your deeds live on in the world you inhabited and your spirit lives on at least in the minds and hearts of those who knew you and those whom you encountered. Your body and spirit merge again with the earth and the human community that gave rise to them. Whether your spirit continues in some other form we cannot know. Marco polo 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to Wikipedia will live on, at least in the edit history.. Edison 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In the words of Addison... Xn4 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whence then this pleasing hope, this fond desire

This longing after immortality?

Or whence this secret dread and inward horror

Of falling into nought?

'Tis the divinity that stirs within us

'Tis Heaven itself that points out an hereafter

And intimates eternity to man.

To the OP: In the words of dr.ef.tymac ... Uhh, how do you know what things were/are/will be like before you were born? Just because you don't remember it here doesn't mean you aren't/weren't/won't be there. dr.ef.tymac 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Safety in Enugu, Nigeria

What is the level of safety for an American citizen traveling to Enugu, Nigeria?

I first read the Wikipedia article on Enugu, Nigeria and read: "The city's economy has diversified in recent years and is largely dominated by trading, commerce, and small-scale industry. Flying into Enugu today brings no reminders of the capital city that bore the brunt of the military activities in the Nigerian civil war. Enugu is indeed a lovely place. The array of fine resorts and hotels that have sprung up around the city, the natural serenity of its environment, and a near absence of violent crimes have made Enugu a first choice destination for tourists from within and outside Nigeria." However, I then read the U.S. Department of State's Travel Warning issued January 19, 2007 and still current as of today, August 27, 2007. The report is very alarming and can be found at http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_928.html. I then visited Enugu's own web page on safety in Enugu (http://www.enuguweb.com/safety.htm) and that report was alarming as well! I'm wondering if the Wikipedia article on Enugu needs to be edited or if there is information that I am not aware of. Please advise. Thank you. Briandgleason 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)