This question has been puzzling me for a long time, but it's taken a while to work out how to word it. I am NOT trying to gain opinion, or to troll by asking something provocative in the hope of getting flames, it is a genuine query. As such, I'm not looking for polemic answers, so much as a genuine explanation, and hopefully answers will be genuine, non-partisan responses:

Why does the US in general seem to have such a negative attitude towards socialism? Communism, yes, that I can understand, to some extent, at least - it may be "government of the people, for the people, and by the people", but its monolithic nature is largely anti-capitalist and anti-democratic, at least in the sense of democracy as understood in the US.

Socialism in modern parlance, though, doesn't share those qualities, but rather usually refers to the social democrat model - it is, in its generally accepted form, somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism, without the extremes of either model. It says that you can get rich through your own deeds, but that not everyone is able to, and those that can't require the government to step in to help, and as such, the state is responsible for maintaining a framework which will support the public.

It's even more perplexing given that most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International.

There are frequent questions on these boards relating to things like "is it true that education/health/etc costs less in Europe?". In many cases the answer is "yes", and it is largely because of the SocDem structures in those countries.

Let's face it, many of the major points of the New Deal, possibly the greatest economic package the US has ever unveiled, were inherently socialist. Yet when there's even a hint of state spending on social policies today (e.g., the recent fight over healthcare policy), the country seems to be up in arms.

Now, I can understand that the US, in general terms, may prefer other forms of political party, but I cannot for the life of me understand the pariah status that even the mildest social democrat tendencies elicit from its people. Why does this attitude exist?

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick explanation would be that it runs counter to America's ideal about "rugged individualism". There's a built-in assumption that it encourages laziness and discourages industriousness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a question that has been puzzling political scientists since the early 20th century. A common answer is "no feudalism, no socialism." This means that while Europeans have an ingrained class consciousness that dates back to the era of serfs and lords, the U.S. has always been a theoretically "equal" country, at least for white people.

You're really asking two questions. One, why are Americans afraid of the word "socialism." Secondly, why is there so much opposition to welfare-state policies in the U.S.

For the first question, you have to remember a couple things. Firstly, most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden. Most Americans aren't really into Western European politics and wouldn't know that most Western European nations have been governed by officially socialist parties at one point or another or that those countries have done a lot better that the U.S. in addressing certain social ills. Secondly, socialism -- real socialism, meaning public ownership of the means of production -- is generally thought to have been a failure, even by left-of-center people in the U.S. Today's supposedly "socialist" parties in Western countries have generally dropped socialism from their platform. They advocate "a market economy but not a market society," which basically means they're just left-of-center "bourgeois" parties nowadays. Their "socialist" name is more a throwback to the old times than anything else. So it would make little sense for an American political movement today to associate itself with "socialism" when the only reason "socialist" parties in Western countries still do so is tradition.

The second question is harder to answer and really depends on one's point of view. My opinion is that because of the racial pseudo-caste system that has always existed in America -- or the perception of that system -- most white Americans associate themselves with the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots." They identify with those who would be on the losing end of a redistribution of income, whether or not this is really true. Most poor Americans aren't black and most black Americans aren't poor. But in the mindset of the typical white person, "welfare recipient" means "minority." Ronald Reagan helped ingrain this attitude with his fictional Welfare Queen, who, he always pointed out, lived on the South Side of Chicago -- the black neighborhood. There's an extremely widespread attitude in the U.S. that poor blacks are living high off the hog on the tax dollar of the hard-working middle-class person. For some insight into this phenomenon, read about the Reagan Democrats, working-class whites who voted for Reagan in the 1980s.

Interestingly, I once saw a poll of Americans that showed about 20% thought they were in the wealthiest 1% of the country and another 20% thought they would be some day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"most Americans would associate socialism with the Soviet Union, not with Sweden" I've heard this explanation before, but is it true? Has anyone conducted an opinion polls or anything about this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else to remember: Most Americans are far more comfortable with government activism to address social problems than the current political status of the country would have you believe. If you read over some polls, for example, you'll get a picture of a country somewhat farther to the left on economic issues than you would expect. For example, a 2007 poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 69% of respondents thought "Government should care for those who can't care for themselves." That's up from 57% in 1994. The number may have decreased since 2007 with all the anti-Obama hysteria being pushed by the right wing.

And a fourth factor: Right-wing forces in the U.S. such as the Heritage Foundation have convinced many Americans that welfare-state programs have done more harm than good. For example, the Cato Institute likes to claim that the U.S. has spent $9 trillion on government programs to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson began his War on Poverty in 1964, yet we still have a lot of poverty, so social welfare spending must be a failure. What they don't tell you is that poverty actually declined markedly in the 1960s when these programs were enacted and stagnated after the government stopped enacting new anti-poverty programs in the 1970s. Few Americans are aware either that industrialized countries with strong welfare states actually have far fewer social ills, including poverty, than the U.S. There's really no monied interest out there to disseminate such facts to Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to your question could be the subject of a book, or several books, since there are many perspectives on this question. And, of course, books on this have been written. Probably one of the more interesting ones, is What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank. According to his thesis, there was a time 100 years ago or so when the culturally conservative, modestly educated white working (and agricultural) class of the interior and South of the United States supported the economically leftwing Populist Party. However, over the years, the culture of the left in the United States shifted away from that of the culturally conservative working-class whites who theoretically should make up the largest base for left politics.

I have to admit that I haven't read Frank's book, but I can give you a historical explanation for this. This happened in a couple of steps. First, during the first half of the 20th century, there was a big migration from rural areas to the growing industrial cities of the North, Midwest, and, to a lesser extent, California. This migration brought together both black and white workers. At first, the left-leaning Democrats did not seriously challenge segregation and other forms of legal, institutionalized racism, and they were able to hold on to their majority in both northern urban areas and across the South. However, beginning in the 1950s and increasingly in the 1960s, a coalition of educated white liberals and (in all but name) social democrats formed an effective coalition with blacks within the Democratic Party that led to civil rights legislation and black allegiance to the Democratic Party on the one hand. On the other hand, this trend led to alienation particularly among poorer and less educated whites, who felt that the Democratic Party had abandoned and forgotten them and become the champion of the blacks. This led to racist indignation and a feeling of betrayal among poorer and less educated whites, particularly when the educated elites who really controlled the Democratic Party seemed to prioritize racial issues ahead of bread-and-butter economic issues of concern to working-class whites. This alienation only increased during the 1970s and -80s when parts of the Democratic Party took up the causes of feminists and lesbians and gays, which offended the culturally conservative values of (often very religious) working-class whites outside of a few coastal enclaves in the Northeast, Midwest, and California, where working-class whites are not so culturally conservative. The rightwing Republican party, beginning in the 1960s with Richard Nixon and especially in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, seized on this sense of alienation, cultural distaste, and latent racism by making scapegoats of "liberals", "cultural elites", and government as a whole. Republicans, and their very popular rabble-rousers in the media (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly, have convinced many whites of limited education and/or income that government (i.e., the government that takes your tax money and gives it to black welfare queens and funds gay marriage) is the source of working people's troubles, never the solution, and that the Democratic Party (which stands to the left of the Republican Party) is the enemy of normal white people (or "real Americans", in the words of Sarah Palin). Marco polo (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very short answer would be that, like you said, it is "somewhere between US-style capitalism and communism". During WWII there would have been strong objections to anything perceived to be "somewhere between US-style capitalism and Nazism" - I think it's understandable that anti-Socialist sentiments came along with anti-Communist sentiments during the Cold War. In my understanding, before WWII all sorts of political ideas Americans would consider pretty radical or unfavourable today were much more acceptable. --π! 03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bugs's abbreviated answer: "Socialism" has become shorthand for: People who work hard will be forced to support the lazy. Tempshill (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thinking of opponents of socialism all over the world, though, not just in America. And there are significant numbers of opponents of socialism in the UK, Australia, etc., so another way of looking at the question is: why do we tolerate government spending on social projects so spinelessly elsewhere in the world? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Way back in 1906, Werner Sombart published an essay "Why is there no Socialism in the United States?" which has remained a kind of classic in the field... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more point I would make is that the political economy of the United States almost guarantees that socialist options never even make it to the table. The reason is that our two main parties are beholden for financing on rich people and corporations (and American political campaigns, with their requisite paid TV ads, are very expensive). Obviously, rich people and for-profit corporations do not want any policies that reduce their capital, wealth, or income, as almost any socialist policy would, so they will not fund candidates or parties who propose such policies. Instead they will fund their opponents, who paint themselves as champions of hardworking "real" Americans—who are virtuously self-reliant and don't need government help—and as opponents of handouts for poor (read black) people. Likewise, all of the major media in the United States are privately owned and effectively controlled by the wealthy and capital. Furthermore, those media rely for income on corporate advertising. No major media outlet dares to present any remotely socialist policy proposal without also presenting an overwhelming and withering critique of the proposal by conservative Republican media personalities. This is done in the name of "balance", but somehow the major media balance always tips toward policies that favor the interests of the wealthy and capital. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even with all that, the American media are accused by American right-wingers of being far too liberal in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Socialism," has been described as the government taking an active interest in the welfare of the people. People during the 20th century came to expect the government do do lots of things for their benefit, such as disaster relief, social security, and medicare, without it constituting dreaded "socialism." In 1927 there were devastating floods of the Mississippi River and some of its tributaries, and initially President Hoover Coolidge said that it was not the federal government's job to provide housing and food for those flooded out of their homes. It was expected that the Red Cross, from charitable donations, might rent tents from the Army. Today we take it as a given that the government should send all needed aid (however lacking the result may be in practice). We expect the government to provide monthly checks to those who have never been able to work due to birth defects, to widows and orphans of workers, or to workers disabled by illness or injury, and that medicare should fund medical treatment of the elderly, but these are not generally though of as the dreaded "socialism." The working poor, who get up early to go to a crummy low paying job, hate the notion of a nonworking multigeneration "welfare class" which lays around and gets a check, while being equally capable of doing the same crummy job. They hate "transfer payments" take their tax dollars and hand them over to nonproductive folks. At the same time, the working poor fear illegal immigrants who will work for less pay than the barely living wage they get, and they hate the export of jobs to the Third World where someone will make gadgets or talk on the phone for scant wages. These hatreds and fears are manipulated by politicians and radio and TV bloviators. Edison (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think a very simple answer here is that there seems to be a widespread belief, especially among conservatives, but others as well, that "Socialism" is nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "Communism". APL (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Limbaughs and the Hannities and their kind use the terms "liberal", "socialist" and "communist" as equivalents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the House Unamerican Activities Committee had a lot to do with where the US is now politically. Communists, socialists, and even liberals were attacked, publicly humiliated, and lost their jobs, and this sinister attack on the rights of the left rightly left a permanent impression that it was dangerous to publicly be a "leftist", which left very few remaining, from then to right now. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, have you ever heard of a decade called "the sixties"? (From fifty years ago to forty years ago.) AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I well remember the 1968 election, when the liberal-leaning American public elected that well-known leftist, Richard Nixon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After giving a mighty thumping to Barry Goldwater (who presented himself as an explicitly ideologically Right-wing candidate) four years earlier. If even Angela Davis was able to hold on to her job at UCLA, I don't see how it can be said that the populace of the United States was so uniformly traumatized that none dared to express a leftish sentiment... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Grutness's question, or to one small part of it: most of the US's major allies have, or have had, some form of socialist government in power in recent history, in name at least. The UK's government is the Labour Party, as is Australia's (spelt Labor in their case) - both these parties are members of the Socialist International. Perhaps Britain's Labour Party (aka New Labour) just hasn't got around to leaving it. It's a conservative party, though arguably not as conservative as is the Conservative Party. Blair and Brown have happily hosted Thatcher at no. 10; they're happier to make approving references to her than to Attlee, I believe. -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the American attitude towards socialism may be the result of the Cold War. However, it is indeed possible to be both democratic and socialist, as is the case with Democratic socialism and the New Democratic Party in Canada. Rightists in the US often point to the Nazi Party as an example of extreme socialism, but this is an incorrect argument as the Nazis themselves were far-right, and American rightists are often also the ones participating in climate change denial. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American antipathy toward socialism may also have something to do with the labor unions and antiwar movements back in the early twentieth century. Both tended to be socialistic, and in the public eye became associated with anarchy (strikes) and weakness (pacifism). The upper and middle classes hated Eugene Debs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.66.60 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic idea goes "all the way back". A great many immigrants in colonial and early federal times came to America in order to acquire land "fee simple"--which they could truly own and on which they could do more or less as they pleased. For centuries it was quite possible to acquire land for cheap and live more or less free of government inference. Today this is less and less an option. Personally I might call myself a socialist, but my (paternal) ancestry fits the model described above to a T--poor landless people in Europe who came to America and, after some generations of semi-serfdom in colonial times, acquired land--and then every time government started to impinge upon their way of live sold the land and moved west to the fairly lawless frontier (where "impinge" might mean something as simple as having to serve jury duty!). Having researched my own family history somewhat I've come to realize that this instinct is deeply ingrained in the US. It was several centuries in the making, and arises from a frustration with the European model--at least the European model of several centuries past. Memories linger long in the deep countryside and mottos like "Don't Tread on Me" still hold meaning. Personally, I think this mindset began to become obsolete a century ago, but I think the age-old desire to own your own truly "private" property, without little to no government meddling, runs deep in some parts of the US. Pfly (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is jury nullification morally acceptable? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of your teachers asked you to write an essay on this question? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Consequentialism. If you agree with the theory that the article describes, then the answer is "yes". If you disagree, then the answer is "no." --M@rēino 19:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk, not a debating society, sorry. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question could be framed as asking for references relative to when jury nullification has been considered moral. In The Devil and Daniel Webster, a fictional work from 1937, a man is acquitted by a jury of the damned, who found against the Devil, saying ""Perhaps 'tis not strictly in accordance with the evidence, but even the damned may salute the eloquence of Mr. Webster." Saving a man's soul from hell contrary to the law and the facts of the case was considered moral in that story. Common law supports the right or at least the power of the jury to find contrary to the law, as a check against tyranny. Nontheless, jurors who espouse the doctrine have been removed from the jury, and counsel (in the US) generally may not tell the jury it is an option. In the US, it has been considered moral for juries to have refused to convict Peter Zenger [1]under colonial era libel laws for criticizing the Governor, or to enforce the Fugitive Slave law[2]. Uses of jury nullification widely considered immoral occurred in the U.S. South when all white juries ignored clear evidence of the lynching of Negroes[3]. The morality of nullification is all over the map, as defendants protesting the Vietnam War[4], opposing abortion, supporting marijuana use or opposing limits on gun ownership have sought to get juries to render verdicts "not strictly in accord with the evidence" by making emotional appeals[5]. See also [6], [7], (in military trials), [8]. Edison (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jury nullification is not only morally acceptable, it is morally required. If a law is unjust, the jury should never enforce it. After all, the people are governed by the laws, so they should have the final say in which laws are valid. Without this vital check on governmental power, there's nothing to stop the government as a whole from degrading into despotic tyranny where the people have no say in anything. Although jurors have the power of jury nullification, they currently don't have the right to be informed of it! This means that only the few jurors who already were aware of this right would exercise it, while the vast majority would continue to convict people of violating unjust laws. In effect, our court system today is a "trial by lottery": anyone who is lucky enough to get even a single juror who is aware of jury nullification would be acquitted, while those who aren't so lucky get convicted for breaking unconstitutional or immoral laws. --75.60.15.160 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the criticism that "a jury is a group of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty"... --Jayron32 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one juror aware of jury nullification would be best advised if he never used the term "nullification," because if another juror complained to the judge, he might be replaced by an alternate and the deliberation restarted, or a mistrial might result. The underlying justifications for jury nullification could be cited, with reference to the Peter Zenger case and the Fugitive Slave Law cases, which are taught in civics and American History. The worst thing the juror could possibly do would be to print out something from the internet and hand it to the other jurors as if it were an additional instruction. Any jurur can also "hang" a jury and prevent a guilty verdict, but again they can be replaced unless the "continue to deliberate" rather than just hunkering down and saying, "Nope, my mind is made up!"Edison (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that jury nullification is a good way to fight unjust laws. For example, in US states with legal medical marijuana, the federal government can still prosecute those who grow marijuana for the patients. Such a stupid law just screams for jury nullification. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikipedia articles about German WW II U boats mention their being scuttled in Kupfermühlen Bay, but I can't find where that is. Can someone enlighten me? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Google and enter [Kupfermühlen Bay] or [Kupfermühlen Bucht] and you should see many references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps cant seem to find it. Are we sure on the spelling? Googlemeister (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, Bugs, and found nothing useful but more references to scuttled U boats. Googlemeister, that's the spelling that's used in the various U Boat articles. See German_Type_VII_submarine#Type_VIIA for example. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Kupfermühle. It's German for "copper mill". I can't tell if it's near a bay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I wonder if it's part of Flensburg Fjord. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kupfermühlen Bay is a small inlet to the north of Flensburg, close to the Danish border. I've been trying to answer the above thread but couldn't because of endless edit conflicts. Try googleing it instead of searching the maps. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Duncan. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the north-westernmost corner of the Flensburg Fjord (Flensburger Förde (German) / Flensborg Fjord (Danish), forming part of the German-Danish border. If you still haven't found it, search for "Kupfermühle Bucht" (German) or "Kobbermølle Bugt" (Danish). Otherwise click the link in the top-right corner of the "Kupfermühle" article, it will show you the location on e.g. Google Maps. 80.167.179.233 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News stories say protesters in Iran are accused of desecrating portraits of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini. Online dictionaries says that to "desecrate" is to violate the sacred character of an object. I have understood that Islam opposes the worship or veneration of an image of a person, and that mosaic designs were historically used in mosques (or the Dome of the Rock) as geometric decorations, rather than portraits, icon, or statues. so there should be no temptation to venerate an image of a person (or animal). When did it become acceptable to consider as "sacred" the portrait of a religious leader, given the historic iconoclasm of the religion? Is it possible to "desecrate" an image of someone who is merely respected and fondly remembered but not "sacred?" Is it acceptable among the Iranian religious leaders, but not among the Taliban of Afghanistan/Pakistan? Edison (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabis are a lot stricter than Iranian Shi`ites in enforcing "aniconism" in religion -- the Persian miniature tradition was not at all afraid to produce quasi-devotional images depicting prominent Islamic figures, as long as certain conventions were adhered to (such as that the facial features of Muhammad generally could not be shown), etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, journalists are not above using some bit of hyperbole in describing an event, or extending the meaning of words beyond their original intent. So desecrate can mean simply "to damage or destroy in a disrespectful manner" just as a crusade can mean "a campaign against something undertaken with strong fervor". The fact that a news article described the destruction of a portrait as "desecration" does not mean EITHER that a) the journalist believe that the object in question was actually sacred or holy or that b) the person destroying the object believed that either. Its just "poetic lisence" with a word. That's all. --Jayron32 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alamnews, in Iran, called it "sacrilege" defined by an online dictionary [9] as "outrageous violation of what is sacred" or "gross irreverence toward a hallowed (i.e., holy, consecrated, sacred, revered) person, place or thing." Edison (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron has already mentioned, it doesn't really matter what the dictionary says a word is supposed to mean. In this case they just mean "destruction". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there are no religious overtones, and the news would be just as likely to use the word sacrilege to describe the destruction of the portrait of any other respected public figure, such as the Oil Minister? 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. Journalists! What do they know? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I think Adam Bishop's point is a little simplified although I may get what he's trying to say. The destruction of potraits of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is likely to be seen as far worse because he's viewed as a far more important figure. This doesn't have to mean he's worshipped per se. Sacrilege may be chosen to convey the strength of the insult that it's viewed as without necessarily conveying that it comes to a religious level. Also in terms of the Iranian news thing, remember cultural and language issues may come to play. It may not even occur to the writers that anyone is going to think they are worshipping Ruhollah Khomeini since to them that's automatically nonsense. I would agree that there is a very blurry line between religious or sacred worship and holding someone to an extremely high esteem especially when the people don't give a great deal of thought to how and why they feel so strongly about someone or something but of course it doesn't stop them at least thinking they high esteem or reveration is not in a religious manner. BTW, I think it's fairly obvious that desecrating is used in non religious contexts even in the US and other countries. Considering my earlier point, you might say the fuss in the US over desecrating flags reveals they're awfully close to worshipping the flag and I may agree with you but I suspect many of those who go ape shit over such things would vehemently disagree. I also doubt all the proponents of the Flag Desecration Amendment suggest that the flag is a holy thing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athiests and Jehovah's Witnesses see the veneration of the American flag as coming to close to worship of it, and violating the prohibition against idol worship. See also [10] and [11] which agrees you can't "desecrate" something unless it is "sacred." See also Albrecht Gessler which discusses the legend of people in the 1300's being ordered to venerate the dictator's hat on a pole, and William Tells refusal. See also Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refusal to bow down before the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. Does a requirement to venerate a statue, hat or flag, or a prohibition against tearing up a photo or burning your flag make them "sacred" or idols? Edison (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're missing the point that it's not the U.S. flag itself that's sacred, but the souls of those who died defending what it stands for, namely us and our freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)So why is it illegal to burn it? Very little freedom there...hotclaws 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is still iconographic. They're not missing the point, there's just a disagreement on interpretation. If folks were willing to change from revering the flag to revering a yellow polka-dotted sheet to represent the fallen, you could say they were missing the point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that uk prison sentences are too weak. I wish to lobby for increased sentences. How do i go about this,who do I approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.209.162 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be your Member of Parliament? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the standard method to express your opinion of matters of government policy is to write to your MP. You can find their address here. Unless a lot of people write to their MPs about something like this, not much will happen, but you will probably get a personal reply from your MP. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to do some research into how long average sentences actually are for certain crimes (be sure to look at how long people are actually serving, not just the minimum time set by the judge before there is a chance they could be let out). It's always good to check that you are arguing from a position of knowing the current situation, and I know many news sources in the UK report the minimum set by the judge as if this is the sentence that will be served. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to figure out how these prisoners are going to be housed, since overcrowding is already a major problem.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed just how you are going to pay for it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed if this serves any useful purpose at all, and if it does, if the resources spent to achieve it could achieve more if used differently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they've already come up with a solution for the overcrowding in UK jails. I am a product of this solution. You wouldn't want more like me, would you? No, I thought not.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the history of man and war consisted of invading and conquering other people's territory, whether it was ethical or not, what is stopping USA from conquering Canada? Surely US would win easily, so why not? 192.12.88.10 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They tried and failed already. They learned their lesson! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US has a fairly strong and friendly alliance with Canada. There is nothing that the US would gain by conquering Canada. NW (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. This holds true for countries as well. Think about the consequences. The US would be pissing off nearly every NATO nation and quite a few from the UN as well. They'd loose friends quickly! Thousands of people would die on both sides. And really, what would be gained? They have a strong relationship with one another. If the US is going to invade a neighbor, they should invade Mexico. There'd be a much smaller illegal immigrant problem and the border to the next two countries would be quite a bit smaller than the current US-Mexico border. Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans won easily against the Poles in 1939, but that didn't make it a good long-term strategic conquest for the country. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. doesn't invade Canada for the same reason people don't go punching random people in the face without provocation. Ok, SOME people do that, and we call them assholes. --Jayron32 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the War of 1812, the protection of Canada by the world's greatest superpower of the time, Britain, deterred any U.S. invasion until the 20th century. By that time, the United States had friendly relations with Canada and enough goodwill in Canada for profitable commercial access. Since the early 20th century, the United States would have had nothing to gain from invasion that it couldn't have through commerce, especially since the conclusion of NAFTA. On the contrary, the Unites States would have a great deal to lose from invasion by destroying the goodwill among Canadians that is the best safeguard of U.S. (elite) interests. Marco polo (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x4) In addition to the excellent reasons of policy just stated: No one doubts that the U.S. would win in the end, especially given the relative sizes of the U.S. and Canadian Forces, but the cost to the U.S. would be incalculable. The military rules of thumb are that an invader needs a ratio of about 10 to 1 over the defender, and (from experience in the Third Balkan War and Iraq) about 1 occupier for every 30 hostile or indifferent inhabitants, i.e. about a million G.I.'s. It's hard to think of an incentive or a provocation, that couldn't be satisfied in some other way, which would justify the loss of life and wealth. And while the lowlands by the U.S. border would be relatively easy to take, the Canadian back-country, like Russia's, is physically hostile and essentially limitless. You could kiss goodbye to most of Alaska's perpetually-vulnerable oil and natural gas. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to face insurgents wielding hockey sticks and tossing curling stones, not to mention a potential disruptions to the US's vital beer supply ? StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Is there some menace based there? Is there something valuable there? Would the benefits of such aggression outweigh the goodwill lost? Edison (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Satan and Saddam would take over the world of course. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(After the US President makes an emergency landing in Canada...)

Bush: "Canada, isn't that one of our northern states ?"

Aide: "No sir, we aren't scheduled to invade and annex Canada until 2010, sir." - Chilly Beach. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I can think of several things Canada has that the U.S. wouldn't want, and would be stuck with if we invaded. Draft dodgers. The metric system. Socialism. Quebec. Canada might have an oil reserve, though, so stay tuned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also have better beer than we do, but if we pissed them off they might stop making it. So I suggest an invasion would be a bad idea. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You guys drink our beer? I had no idea Americans liked, even. What brands to you drink? Canadian? Alexander Keiths?174.3.102.6 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of LaBatt's cans on the side of my road while walking my dogs and every spring during Green Up Day. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Labatt is the third most popular import beer in the U.S. - it does not rank in the top ten beers (Corona and Heineken do though). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get involved, but are you out of your mind?! Canada has awful beer. I suppose if you compare Labats to BudLight we've got an even split, but American craft brews are stellar, and I know of few good Canadian craft brews. Disagree if you will, but name names, if you dare. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of the Family Ties episode in which, to impress some girls, Alex P. Keaton tells them he is a fighter pilot on a mission to invade the Dominion of Canada in the morning. The irony is of course that Michael J. Fox is Canadian. So too William Shatner who plays Secret Service agent Jerry O'Connor in the 1980 film The Kidnapping of the President, who acts like a smart alec to all those in the RCMP, as if he only ever was a farmboy from Iowa ( or was he born in space as the recent movie said ) How fast they forget. Don't worry Canada, if those traitorous whigs try to have a go at you, your British brothers will unite - and probably run away. Actually, I think Iran is next, after Israel blows up its reactors. C.B.Lilly 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

¶ The only conceivable circumstance that might draw a foolish U.S. into a military expedition against Canada might be if Quebec declares independence and somehow stumbles into a shooting war over it. The Rest of Canada would be split into more than one piece, Albertans (like some Québécois) are always threatening to apply to join the U.S.A., some First Nations militants might see their chance, and it's unclear what kind of confusion would ensue. Perhaps the U.S. would want to rescue a tourist, aid worker, journalist, diplomat or spy (or kick out detain a Canadian one perhaps incommunicado for enhanced interrogation), or take strong measures with a flood of refugees. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the Reference Desk is not supposed to be a forum for speculation or debate, and though fun it's no doubt best left to the alternative historians. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1920s and 1930s, the US drew up plans to invade Canada, and Canada drew up plans to invade the US. Neither plan was ever carried out. See War Plan Red and Defence Scheme No. 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they'd just have a larger territory to administrate, full of trees and tax evaders. 213.122.6.175 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, by mentioning the word tourist, you have gone and reminded me of the movie Canadian Bacon, where the late John Candy played a US sherriff, trying to rescue his girl from those up north. Again, another forgetful Canadian. I did not realise the film was not released until nearly two years after his death. He was good. The relationship Canada has with its smaller in area but larger in population neighbour is similar to that between us in New Zealand and those over there in Australia. Too many of us have become rats leaving a sinking ship, to go to where it is too hot, and there are snakes. None here, and we don't want them. If I recall, Michael Jackson was not allowed in here once because he wanted to bring his. He did come some other time. I have that many aunts uncles and cousins over there, I cannot count them all. And my mother tells us one of her grandmothers was from over there, so I am one eighth ocker. Oy oy oy. I admire their sporting prowess. We get jealous over here, but it is because we have adopted that everyone wins and gets a prize mentality, which no one cared about when I was little. No one bothered to spare our feelings then if we were no good at sport - it was just motivation to get better, rather than allow us to be coddled. We need their competitive, non apologetic spirit. I suspect, Canadians may get jealous of Americans also, but why bother ? Who ever we are, let us embrace it, be proud, and do all we can, which does not include invading each other. I promise. If foreign troops ever dare set foot on New Zealand soil, and sure we may get overrun and occupied, but I will kill as many of them as I can until they put me in front of a firing squad, before I accept any foreign ruler. Irony is, most of our Prime Ministers have been English, and one of our best, Michael Joseph Savage ( whom my grandfather, who was in the Napier Earthquake, probably voted for ), was Australian. But if our rulers do not do us the courtesy to be democratically elected, they may consider themselves enemies of the Dominion of New Zealand. After all, the Bible does say there is a time for war. It's in Ecclesiastes - the Byrds turn turn turned it. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

In the Harry Turtledove Timeline-191 books, the US does invade and conquer Canada, grants independence to Quebec as a puppet state, but has to live with an insurgency for many, many years. Utah is also pretty much a lost cause, as well. Woogee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last part may be true anyway. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the Fenian raids (though they had more to do with Irish nationalism)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not toss in the St. Albans Raid as a suitably recent casus belli? —— Shakescene (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any elementary school kid in Canada could tell you those were reasons for Confederation (well, theoretically they should be able to tell you, but I rather doubt that they would given the low standard of Canadian history education these days). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't all that much in Canada that the US really needs and don't already have in their own land, certainly not enough to make it worth all the bother. China long had a similar policy of not invading places because they were so sure there was nothing they could gain from the barbarian nations, at least nothing they couldn't get much easier by demanding tributary payments. And if the USA suddenly invaded some other country for no reason but conquest, the rest of the world might get a little annoyed. 80.47.90.109 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, why don't some US states secede and join Canada? Pfly (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, why do they wear such an eclectic variety of hats there ? This doesn't seem to be the case in adjacent South American nations, so what's different about Peru ? If the answer is "tradition", then how did this tradition start ? StuRat (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us an example of the hats you have on mind? Alpaca hats originate from the Incans, and peru occupies much of the Incan homeland.174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "chullo hat" seems to be the most common, but I've seen many other types of hats there, too, like this one: [12] and this one: [13], and this one: [14], and this one: [15] (a fedora ?), and this one: [16] (a bowler hat ?), and this one: [17], and this one: [18], and these 3: [19], and this one: [20], and this one: [21], and this one: [22], and these: [23], and this one: [24], and this one: [25], and these: [26], and this one: [27], and this one: [28], and this one: [29], and this one: [30], and this one: [31]. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have an eclectic variety of hats in the U.S.? --Jayron32 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking American men for an example, I don't really ever see older men in anything but either baseball caps or golf caps. In the cities you may see some youths wearing do-rags. The only other hat I see on men on any sort of regular basis is just a knitted skull cap of sorts in the winter. So, no, I don't see any evidence of an eclectic variety in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely every man in Texas walks around with a Stetson on, or has tv weaved an elaborate web of lies? ny156uk (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Okay, if we include the cowboy hat and throw in the do-rag, that's four. And to me, that's not a lot of variety. I never see any fedoras anymore. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Dismas, you don't live in a U.S. college town, somewhere with serious cold winter, attend the opera (or a African American church on Easter) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pork pie hat has become popular among singers in the US, particularly Justin Timberlake. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he'd been wearing one in that Super Bowl halftime show, he could have used it to cover Janet Jackson a little more quickly than she covered herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you'll find this diversity of hats in Bolivia as well as Peru. Second, I think that it is just a way that people in that culture region express fashion sense or individuality. It is true that in the United States, though there is some regional and ethnosocial variation, within each U.S. subculture there is little variety in headgear among U.S. men. That is because fashion sense is considered unmanly in the United States and because for those men who defy this cultural bias, fashion sense is usually more a matter of shoetips and the cut of one's clothing. For U.S. women, I think you will find a little more variety in headgear, though, here again, there is a cultural bias against hats, not per se, but because they interfere with a woman's hairstyle, which is perhaps the signature expression of fashion sense and individuality for most U.S. women. In Peru and Bolivia, it so happens that people use hats to express fashion sense and individuality. This is not surprising, since hats are a near necessity in a region where the low latitude and high altitude (thin atmosphere) make the sun's rays dangerously strong, and where cold winds often blow. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it follows that the necessity for hats also means a large variety would be expected. And, if this was true, wouldn't countries like Chile also have such an eclectic mix ? StuRat (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the short infomercial (infomercials are long, but such advertisements for the slap chop, sham-wow, etc. are about a min and half long, while infomercials are about a hour long) that airs before snuggie?

Usually products advertised this way come and go: these advertisements might run for a few months, then the ads stop. Which product is this?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to provide some context here. Where in the world are you? Which channel or network are you talking about? What is snuggie? What time of day do you usually see these?/Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks well for you that you are "snuggie" illiterate. The "Snuggie" is a brand-name for a ubiquitously advertised blanket-with-sleeves that is worn instead of a robe - but which opens in the back, not the front. The advertisements (on U.S. cable-TV, at least) are fairly cheesy. I see we have a redirect for it, which I linked. But for the original questioner, I don't think the commercials air in general in any particular order, though an individual station may have such an order. But if we assume it's for a similary cheesy product, one can suggest: Shamwow!, Slap Chop, Chia pet. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I assumed it was the nickname of some show or series. Since the OP mentions sham-wow and slap chop as examples of the type of short informercial, I guess none of those are the answer. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're selling Snuggies for dogs, now. Woogee (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I can't really be specific about the channels where I watch these infomercials. Here is snuggie.174.3.102.6 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the hostility? Why so much cheese?174.3.102.6 (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many southeast asians such as Burmese(Bamar people), Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese and others are living in India? Which Indian regions are they living in? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese (in the sense, people coming from Burma. belongs to various different ethnic groups) refugees are quite numerous in the states bordering Burma. Otherwise SE Asian populations would be rather scarse in India. In major cities you could find Vietnamese or Thai restaurants, though. --Soman (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, there are many Indians in Southeast Asia. India is a booming economy. So why would there be Indians only in Southeast Asia and not the other way around? There are southeast asians in India, but I don't know how many there are. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, how do they begin to say what a finger, arm, ear, etc., is worth? 71.161.42.92 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for compensation for losing a finger, etc., due to someone's negligence? That's not really an actuarial decision. It's made by the legal profession. I don't know how lawyers work these things out - it's pretty arbitrary, I think. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and this document for the position in the UK. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone how much they'd want for an arm would likely generate a different value than what someone would pay to not lose an arm. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the right is a photograph of an East German flag that I am curious about. I know from the person I received it from that it is designed to be hung vertically, as opposed to being flown horizontally like a "typical" flag. However, that's about all I know. Why I am most curious about it is that I've been searching the web looking for photographs of other vertical East German flags, but I cannot find anything that looks like it. Is it rare? If not, is there any reason why I can't find photos of it online? Does it have a special name that the keywords "East German vertical flag" just won't find? Also, I'm curious about why it is gold-red-black from left to right, as opposed to black-red-gold as current German flags are when they are hung vertically (based on information from this webpage). I would much appreciate any answers anyone is able to provide. Thanks!

With specific reference to the G-R-B rather than B-R-G order of colours, perhaps the photo has been taken of the flag's reverse side? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but the coat of arms only appears on one side. And based on the orientation of the coat of arms, it appears that it is gold-red-black. TFCforever (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFCforever (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'd love to create an SVG graphic version of the flag, like the standardized flag graphics used across Wikimedia projects, for example in "flagicons". Can this flag be faithfully represented by taking the "standard" East German flag and rotating the coat of arms 90 degrees, or is it more complex than that? Thanks again.

It's a "hanging" flag or vertical "banner", meant to be draped along the outside walls of buildings, etc. For an analogous flag, see File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg. It wouldn't be too difficult to make an SVG of it, based on File:Flag_of_East_Germany.svg and File:Flag of Germany (Hanging state flag).svg... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm working on an SVG file right now. TFCforever (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be easy: you can get the charge from File:Coat_of_arms_of_East_Germany.svg. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, I remember seeing a cartoon that extolled the virtues of Abstract expressionism. The first panel depicted a man (dressed in typical 1940's clothing) pointing to an abstract painting, with the caption "Ha ha! What does this represent?" In the second panel, the painting angrily points back at the man, with the caption "What do you represent?" My questions are - who drew this cartoon (I _think_ it _might_ have been Rothko, but I may very well be wrong), where did it first appear, and - most importantly - is it available on-line anywhere? Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon is by Ad Reinhardt, and I found a copy here. DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks very much indeed. Tevildo (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Merry Christmas! DOGRIGGR (deflea) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pancuronium bromide is one of the most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence, so doesn't its use in lethal injection make lethal injection unconstitutional? --70.247.248.43 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If used on a conscious entity, you'd have a point, but that is not the case in executions. It's the supreme court that decides what's constitutional and what isn't; in the U.S., they have thus far not found the use of that drug in execution unconstitutional. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that it is "most horrible and inhumane poisons in existence"—it's a paralyzing agent with no hypnotic effects, so if you have that, AND THEN something awful, and you aren't made unconscious first with something else, then you can feel a lot of pain. But it isn't administered by itself—it is part of a "drug cocktail" designed, ideally, to knock you out and kill you without you feeling anything. The Supreme Court has ruled this does not violate the 8th Amendment when done "correctly." In the same ruling, though, they note that if a state continues to use potentially problematic means of killing inmates without sufficient justification in the face of feasible alternatives, that this might be considered an 8th Amendment violation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point of execution by lethal injection is an advance to make execution less painful that say the electric chair, why would anyone choose a painful drug ? If any society is going to have executions, by all means they should be humane. Execution itself is not cruel and unusual punishment, and I do not believe the Framers intended it to be thought of as an example of that. Just because some murderers are brutal and sadistic, does not mean Society should lower itself to their level. I believe in a life for a life, but in a civilised manner, according to due process. If we adopt capital punishment again in New Zealand, I do not think we will return to hanging, so if we decide on lethal injection, I hope we choose humane drugs. Then the concern for the condemned should not be any earthly pain, but their eternal condition thereafter. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Does any know the exact birth date and month of Christiane Wilhelmine Luise of Solms-Roedelheim and Assenheim, the wife of Carl Friedrich Wilhelm, 1st Prince of Leiningen? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was born 24 April 1736 at Rödelheim. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who had Regent Franco and his grandson photo in 1959/1969 ? thanks. --58.152.136.167 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your question a little more clearly? I think I know what it means, but I'm not sure. Are you asking if someone possesses a copy of a particular picture, or who had taken the picture (i.e. who had photographed the Francos), or something else? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One photo showing Franco standing behind his eight-year old grandson Francisco Franco y Martínez-Bordiú, 11th Marquess of Villaverde at the boy's First Communion in 1962 can be found at generalisimofranco.com. I couldn't find out who took that photograph. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if any search-and-rescue dogs that worked Oklahoma City, 9/11 and/or Hurricane Katrina were in one of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade events. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City happened in 1995, so any dogs that were involved there would be very old, particularly for large breeds. Even 2001 is a long time ago for a dog. Can't answer your primary question, though. Acroterion _(talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware the Oklahoma City bombing happened in 1995. But were any of the search-and-rescue dogs from that event in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade of that same year? I'm also aware 9/11 happened in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina happened in 2005. But were any of the search-and-rescue dogs from those events in the same parades of those years?24.90.204.234 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a shorthand term for the fallacy (IMO) in which a person says "We should pay anything to save the life of a child" or "one human life is priceless" or "a price can't be put on a human life"? Strictly speaking, I can't say it's a logical fallacy; just bad public policy; if taken literally, it means that we are all immoral if the world does not put 100% of its economic output into saving a single life — but this is all opinion; I'm just looking for a shorthand term for the argument on either side. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Society first. Country first. Humanity first. There have been many political, religious, and social movements in the past (and present) that place the whole before the person. It has nothing to do with logic. It is just an emotional argument to get people to do what you want them to do. -- kainaw™ 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand it's not a logical fallacy, because it depends on the subjective measure of how you value a human life and human economic output; I'm just wondering if there's a shorthand term for the claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." --Tango (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a better summary than mine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianism = the greatest good of the greatest number. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In term of fallacy, though not logical but the transcendental realty on the question whether the proposition holds a phenomenal or paradoxical validity, I think a shorthand term for the fallacy is a pseudo-proposition in tautology.Couchworthy (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two named fallacies that come close are the argumentum ad misericordiam and the fallacy of Unobtainable Perfection, on which we don't have an article, but which is listed in Madsen Pirie's book. Of course, the statements as they stand are just premisses - until the speaker draws a conclusion from them, we can't really decide what particular branch of invalid reasoning he's using. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spending whatever amount of money is suggested on primary healthcare in Africa will usually save the life of one child per ten dollars. This will almost always save more children's lives than whatever safety measure is being proposed. If the proponent was really interested in saving children's lives at any cost they would do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Not to be pedantic but because I'd like the 1 life per US$10 reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be pedantic. I wasn't intending to give an exact dollar figure, but here is a good reference giving the cost of saving a life at exactly ten dollars. here is one in the same ballpark. Here is a way to do it for under a quarter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save a child's life for:fifty cents (per year);a few dollars DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking for some recent high quality sources on the role of birth control and foreign aid in the fight against world hunger. Thank you very much. --Truckhurry (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well I'm not sure about birth control, but I think you can find some good sources on the effect of foreign aid in the Malnutrition article, particularly in its references. I've heard that Plumpy'nut has been a successful foreign aid campaign... TastyCakes (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Birth control, the main argument is probably most classically expressed in The Population Bomb—if you look for articles discussing it retrospectively that are more modern, they will probably have what you want (some such sources are linked to in the article, but I can't personally vouch for them). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In recent decades, people interested in aid and development in relatively poorer countries have found that a single-minded focus on the technicalities and availability of birth-control and contraception -- to the exclusion of all other factors -- usually doesn't end up changing things in any major way (except in a few situations where a society happens to be at a stage when many people are already predisposed to decrease family size). The single strongest factor towards reducing fertility in a way that actually benefits people is actually improving women's education (as opposed to coercive Indira Gandhi style forced sterilizations, which do little or nothing to improve a country's level of economic development). Unfortunately, the 1970's population alarmists are considered by some to have had a basically neo-colonialist mentality (i.e. rich white people unilaterally arrogating to themselves the privilege to order around non-whites "for their own good", without much interest in what the non-whites have to say about the matter). AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please. --Truckhurry (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it more generally, plenty of people are in favor of population control - as long as it's someone else's population that's to be controlled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I read a lot about poverty and hunger on the net, and they always talk about foreign aid being insufficient but never mention birth control - I have to scroll down to the comments at the bottom of the articles where people always bring up the issue of birth control. Surely, there must be some academic published work on this issue - regarding the efficacy of birth control as a means of reducing poverty and hunger vis-a-vis foreign aid... --76.67.184.31 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos gives the crux of the matter: The single strongest factor towards reducing fertility in a way that actually benefits people is actually improving women's education. Unfortunately birth control has been made a cult issue and can't be addressed directly.--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. --Truckhurry (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The earth's population will approach an unsustainable total of 10.5 billion unless contraception is put back at the top of the agenda for international efforts to alleviate global poverty. A report by MPs released today challenges world leaders to put the contraceptive pill and the condom at the centre of their efforts to alleviate global poverty, tackle starvation and even help to avert global warming." [32]
• "Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change, damaging life-nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to poverty, experts concluded in a conference report released Monday. Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050, they warned." [33]

--Truckhurry (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of meditation Was Ram Bahadur Bomjon practising when he was sitting in the tree? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arboreal.--Wetman (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read in a magazine that in contrast to Finland, which is a representative democracy, where the people vote who gets to officially represent them, and these representatives then decide on government decisions, Switzerland is a direct democracy, where the people vote on government decisions directly. In Finland, there have only ever been two direct votes about government decisions: The first time in 1932, to vote whether prohibition of alcohol should be abolished (result: yes), and the second time in 1994, to vote whether Finland should join the EU (result: yes). In Switzerland, there are apparently direct votes about just about anything. Now, in small enough groups, the group can actually regulate itself and have a consensus that everything works as agreed, but in nation-scale populations, there needs to be a specifically appointed instance that decides that a vote is needed, holds the vote, counts the results, and announces what the result is. There also needs to be some sort of governmental instance that actually acts upon the result. How is this handled in Switzerland? JIP | Talk 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how Switzerland handles the particular instances of direct democracy. What I read in an introductory text in politics is that in general the democracy in the West is the representative democracy whereas the democracies in most developing countries are proxies. It also seems, as you stated, the strength of partisan nature (the politics in the ideological lines, mostly in the past) or the strength of interest groups in bipartisan or polypartisan nature in bargaining also seems to play a direct democratic role in a representative democracy.Couchworthy (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The process is detailed in Voting in Switzerland, especially Voting in Switzerland#Referenda. See also Swiss referenda for commentary on the processes of particuarly noteworthy refendums.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that referenda are mulitple questions asked of citizens at the same vote, while referendums is the plural of the referendum as an individual and separate vote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: you're wrong according to six online dictionaries I just checked under www.onelook.com. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English says that "referenda" as the plural is formal usage; the other five -- American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Encarta, Webster's New World, and Random House (via Infoplease) -- all just list the two plurals without distinguishing them as to usage. --Anonymous, 01:18 UTC, December 21, 2009.

Okay, found where I got that opinion from: it's in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is also quoted on Wikipedia at Referendum#Terminology: "Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning ballots on one issue (as a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning things to be referred, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues." This I take to mean: multiple votes each on one issue = referendums; a vote on multiple issues = referenda. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's talking about what would be etymologically logical; it makes no claim that anyone actually makes such a distinction. And you left off the end of it: "Those who prefer the form referenda are presumably using words like agenda and memoranda as models. Usage varies at the present time (1981), but The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981) recommends referendums, and this form seems likely to prevail." (At least, that's what it says in the OED Supplement; I can't access the OED Online from home to see if they've changed it since 1981.)--Anonymous, 10:22 UTC, December 22, 2209.

It says in the article Voting in Switzerland:

Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time. In addition, in most cantons all votes are cast using paper ballots that are manually counted.

How far does this extend? Can a person go up to the government and say, for example, "I want eating bananas in public in the municipality of Kleiner Irgendwodorf to be penalised because they smell bad" or will this be counted as frivolous? On the other hand, can just one single person cause the entire country to vote on, for example, replacing the entire direct democracy with an absolute dictatorship with the proposing person as the sole dictator? JIP | Talk 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Switzerland, but in American states with the voter initiative system, you need to have a certain number of signatures of registered voters for a referendum to go on the ballot (the state legislature may also be able to put a referendum on the ballot). A measure enacted by referendum is subject to the same constitutional restrictions as any other law. For example, in the case Romer v. Evans, the US Supreme Court overturned an anti-gay law that had been enacted via a referendum in Colorado. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the English articles don't cover all of this. If I recall correctly from previous queries and discussions, you are able to read German, JIP, and the German articles on de:Volksabstimmung (Schweiz), de:Volksinitiative (Schweiz), as well as de:Obligatorisches Referendum and de:Fakultatives Referendum explain quite a bit more.

Bottom line: On a national level, it makes sense to distinguish between three types of votes:

• Popular initiative: This is the one where you potentially could ask for a vote on publically eating bananas in Irgendwodorf, it is the only instrument where the people (an initiative committee of between 7 and 27 citizens with suffrage) can come up with their own text. Before anything else happens, however, the text has to be approved by the Federal Chancellery, who will check the text for ambiguity, potential advertising, differences in translations, etc. Once the committee gets the green light, it has 18 months to collect 100,000 signatures, which again have to be checked and verified by the Chancellery. Popular initiatives can only suggest revisions of the Swiss Federal Constitution. There is no corresponding popular instrument for changing laws on a federal level.
• For changing federal laws, there is only the reactive instrument of the facultative referendum. Basically, once the Federal Assembly of Switzerland has made a legislative decision, you have 100 days to collect 50,000 signatures asking for a vote on the newly passed law, etc. Alternatively, the wish of eight cantonal governments also suffices to ask for a referendum within the same period of 100 days.
• Finally, there is the obligatory referendum: Any change to the constitution made by Switzerland legislative body must also be approved by the people in a federal vote. This is done automatically and requires no collection of signatures.

The fact that there is no direct instrument to issue a referendum on federal laws has led to a couple of odd and contrived popular initiatives, suggesting amendments to the constitution which don't really fit in a constitution.

This is just a very basic overview on the federal level. Cantons and communities have their own individual instruments, with differing thresholds and requirements. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin is correct. On a conceptional level, Switzerland is often described as a semi-direct democracy. Whereas in a theoretical direct democracy every question would be decided by a simple majority vote, in a semi-direct system the usual representative organs of the state (legislative and executive) are complemented by direct popular authority exercised in circumscribed ways. In such a system, the people, apart from electing representatives as they do elsewhere, also act as a sui generis additional branch of government that is perhaps best conceived of as an additional chamber of the legislature with the limited but overriding powers (called Volksrechte or people's powers) described above. A similar, but less extensive system (indeed partly based on the Swiss model) has been implemented in California.

As Sluzzelin says, at the cantonal and municipal level, the people generally have more authority. For instance, in my canton, the people can directly create or amend cantonal statutes, not only the cantonal constitution, by popular initiative. They can also exercise a form of facultative referendum (called "constructive referendum" or Volksvorschlag, people's proposition) that if adopted does not simply veto a bill passed by Parliament, as on the federal level, but amends it. Finally, all new cantonal state expenditures above two million CHF are also subject to referendum, so the people get to vote on new infrastructure projects and the like.

But these substantial powers are checked by federal oversight: the cantonal people act as a "normal" branch of cantonal government and remain bound by federal law and the cantonal constitution; their actions and enactments are subject to federal judicial review like other cantonal acts of government; the same applies mutatis mutandis to the municipal level. For instance, it used to be common until relatively recently that the naturalization of new citizens would be decided on by popular hand vote at municipal assemblies in many cantons. This resulted in relatively many people from unpopular minorities, notably immigrants from the Balkans, being denied naturalization. A series of controversial Federal Supreme Court decisions circa 2000 then held that cantonal authorities may not arbitrarily (for instance, without a rational reason) reject a petition for naturalization; and since this is difficult to ensure in a popular assembly, many cantons have now shifted this authority to representative branches of government.  Sandstein  05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the original question, the problem of frivolous initiatives only really exists at the federal constitutional level, because the other popular instruments are reactive or, at the cantonal level, subject to federal judicial review. Up until recently, frivolous initiatives were not considered to be a practical problem, because overly radical initiatives (such as the introduction of Nazi-inspired authoritarian government in the 1930s or the abolition of the army in the 1990s) had always been resoundingly voted down. But recently a number of populist initiatives, notably providing for mandatory lifetime imprisonment for certain serious offenders or the recent minaret ban, have unexpectedly succeeded despite arguably violating basic civil rights and the European Convention of Human Rights to which Switzerland is a party. How to address this problem is an entirely unresolved and strongly debated issue in current Swiss politics.  Sandstein  06:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I've looked all over and can't find the info, so I turn to you.

I'm looking for information and the name of an African tribe whose men court the women by wearing tribal makeup and costumes, but most noticeably show off their bright, white teeth and eyes, flashing their mouths and eyes while dancing. I know that this tribe is well known, as I've seen it many times on various documentaries, so it's not an obscure, hard-to-find people.

I would like to know the name of the tribe and if possible, a link to a Wikipedia article related to them.

Thank you in advance! Siouxdax (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of the Wodaabe. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is the tribe I've been looking for. Unfortunately, there's little information about them online. Thank you so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siouxdax (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search the National Geographic site. NG has been photographing the Wodaabe over many years, both stills and footage. Possibly the sites that show up on Google Images hits would be informative too. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of a map that shows the administrative divisions of Romania after the Second Vienna Award? Wikimedia has got a good map for the Hungarian side, but I've been unable to find a corresponding map of Romania anywhere on the Internet. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Atlas of Romania" on Wikipedia Commons here [34]. These images could be of use: [35] [36]. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Vonnegut, some Asimov, Hitchhiker's, a bit of Ring World, Ender's Game, and a lot of Neal Stephenson. What I'm looking for now is some stuff from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This was prompted by the mention of Forever War elsewhere on the RefDesk. Any and all ideas are welcome. I'm not picky! I'll just sort through what's listed and keep what sounds good. Thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two obvious candidates that aren't on your list are Heinlein and Dick - but I'm sure there'll be plenty of other suggestions forthcoming... :) Tevildo (talk)

Phillip K. Dick tends to be a little on the weird side. I know that's sort of interpretive when it comes to sci-fi, but stil... The Legacy of Heorot and its sequel are good. Solid Larry Niven stuff. Peter F. Hamilton is nice, too, but that's ahead of what you're looking for and his books are huge. HalfShadow 02:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dune, but ONLY Dune specifically, and ONLY the novel specifically. Don't, under any circumstances, read ANY sequels of Dune, and don't, under any circumstances, attempt to view the David Lynch film. It will ruin your life. Dune is great though. --Jayron32 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing brainfart, definitely have read Dune... and too much of the subsequent books :-/ 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt there's anyone alive who hasn't read it. After the first book, it just becomes a mess, though. HalfShadow 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the book back in about 1974, but for some reason I could never bring myself to read it. I finally either gave it away or sold it about 20 years later, having never opened it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American SciFi in those decades was dominated by cold war sentiment. Get some authors from the other side of the iron curtain: Stanisław Lem and Strugatsky brothers are my favorites. Staecker (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who like Asimov also like Arthur C. Clarke. And, as already mentioned, there's Robert A. Heinlein -- but in his case I'd say to skip anything he wrote after 1968. You've read Ringworld by Larry Niven; try his earlier works in the same series (Known Space series, which included most of his works before Ringworld). --Anonymous, 02:45 UTC, December 21, 2009.

And The Mote in God's Eye. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much stuff... I've just finished a very enjoyable collection of short stories by James Tiptree, Jr.. My personal favourites are quirky surreal writers like John Sladek, but going by the lisrt you've mentioned I'd try Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, some Alfred Bester (excellent, especially The Stars My Destination), Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, Philip Jose Farmer, R. A. Lafferty, Vonda McIntyre, Roger Zelazny, and Kim Stanley Robinson. That should keep you busy for a while :) Grutness...wha? 09:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, Zelazny. I strongly recommend Nine Princes in Amber. It has a wonderful sort of noir feel to it, while being speculative fiction of the most speculative kind. (I'd probably have classified it as 'fantasy' if I had to pick, but it seems other people are happy to put it in Scifi. Not that it's a particularly useful distinction.) 86.176.191.243 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite Zelazny is Lord of Light. amazing. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest Alfred Bester, but I see you beat me to it. I especially liked The Stars My Destination and The Demolished Man. Sjö (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the already mentioned Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov, I also liked Richard K. Morgan's Altered Carbon. And so far, Singularity Sky by Charles Stross is pretty good. Sorry, just re-read and saw that you were looking for older works. Dismas|^(talk) 11:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this classic short story by a famous writer http://manybooks.net/pages/forstereother07machine_stops/0.html Do not look up the Wikipedia article about it, as the article plot summary is so detailed that it spoils the story. I like the Stainless Steel Rat series by Harrison, as they are light hearted, as is Bill the Galactic Hero. Dune I found dull. There was another SF question that had many suggestions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_November_23#Science-fiction_novel_with_literary_merit.3F 92.24.103.234 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more outliers for you: Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban; has deservedly won awards. And the first three books of The Dancers at the End of Time by Michael Moorcock, as enjoyable as SF gets, IMO. Slightly off-target, but Gormenghast by Mervin Peake is well worth pursuing - the first 100 pages are hard to get through, but very well worth it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Gormenghast. 92.24.103.234 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The masters are well covered, but there are others worth discovering. Just skimming Category:American science fiction writers, some of my favorites are: Daniel F. Galouye, Philip José Farmer, Roger MacBride Allen, Poul Anderson, Nelson Bond, Leigh Brackett, Lester del Rey, Theodore Cogswell, L. Sprague de Camp, Samuel R. Delany, Alan Dean Foster, Leo Frankowski, Keith Laumer, Ursula K. Le Guin, C. C. MacApp, Dean McLaughlin, Mike McQuay, Richard C. Meredith, C. L. Moore, Alan E. Nourse, Lewis Padgett, Mike Resnick, Mack Reynolds, Fred Saberhagen, James H. Schmitz, Clifford D. Simak, E. E. Smith, George O. Smith, James Tiptree, Jr., A. E. van Vogt, A. E. van Vogt, Manly Wade Wellman, Paul O. Williams and I am still a big Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You like van Vogt twice as much as the others? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I recently had a similar interest and Googled "top science fiction books", as a way of just trying to figure out what was "canon". I found this site to be pretty useful in that regard. (This is where I came across The Forever War, incidentally.) It turns out the canon of "good" sci-fi, for those of us who aren't interested in either highly derivative works or more Star Wars hackwork, is quite small. Of the biggies that I don't see mentioned above in my skimming, is William Gibson, in particular Neuromancer. If you are interested in something fairly current, the latest Margaret Atwood books (Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood) are both pretty interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the other post linked to above, I've read Neuromancer and one or two other things by Gibson and they seem average and unremarkable to me. 92.24.103.234 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, um, I still don't see where you mentioned Gibson, but anyway, to each their own. You asked what is classic... it's definitely "classic"! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth paragraph from the end. 78.147.27.40 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although neither is always classified as science fiction, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are both excellent books. Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is in the same vein. Slaughterhouse-Five is technically science fiction as well, but it's very... odd. As a side point, Neuromancer is no longer unusual because all of the ideas have been hijacked so many times and are almost tropes by now. SDY (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Brave New World and 1984 are both definately science-fiction, unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of what SF is, 78.147.27.40 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More clichés than tropes. OMG, cyberspace! It's almost painful to use Gibson phrases, colored as they are with the early '90s web enthusiasm. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The web only became available for public use in 1993, and I expect it only became commonly known some time after that, so the "web enthusiasm" you are referring to is more likely to be enthusiam for, and the greater availability of, computers. 92.24.34.242 (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was web/net enthusiasm, not general computers. I recall it quite distinctly. As with most enthusiasms, it was about what could be rather than what was. Information superhighway was another buzzword at the time. A lot was made about MMORPGs and MUDs and how we'd all be constantly making and remaking our identities constantly. "Cyberspace" was the term de jour (see, e.g. A Rape in Cyberspace—1993). And in the end, it was kind of right, but much less exciting! The 1990s were a time of lots of rhetoric regarding the web and the net—things took off rather quickly once it was opened up. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could I skip Lloyd Biggle, Jr.. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's mentioned Jack Vance or Cordwainer Smith yet? Chun the Unavoidable will be paying you a visit. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordwainer Smith was definitely the first on my recommendatory list. If you don't mind going even older, there's a lot of good stuff by William Tenn and Theodore Sturgeon.

OP HERE. I'd like to sincerely thank everyone for taking the time to share their favorites and a bit of background as to why. My Amazon.com wishlist is now bulging at the seams, and for that I am very grateful. I hope you all have a happy holiday season, however you choose to celebrate it. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During a session of intense Wiki surfing, I remember coming across a specific term for the phenomenon where someone thinks that an idea they came up with was their own unique concept when in reality it was inspired by an outside source. I'm pretty sure it started with a C. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyket (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. Just found the answer deep within my browser history. Its "Cryptomnesia."[reply]

Wish I got here just a little quicker. That is a term I hear a lot. A common fear among PhD students is that they will spend a few years studying a certain topic that they think they came up with all on their own, only to find out that it is already well-covered by others. It is referred to as cryptomesia - they didn't "come up" with the idea. They got it from being exposed to research as they got to the PhD program, but forgot where they learned the information. -- kainaw™ 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unwarranted fear. I run across this constantly in my own work—once you start learning at high volumes, it is easy to internalize that knowledge and lose the memory of how you got it. In fields like graphic design I suspect it is really common—you start with one idea, and then gradually modify it again and again until you get it to the "perfect" (self-satisfying) state, and only later realize that the "perfect" state is actually something you saw a year earlier, more or less. I suspect that when people complain about movie posters being verrry similar to previous posters, that is a large part of what is going on, not deliberate copying. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article: Cryptomnesia. --Jayron32 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not exactly similar, I wonder if Zeitgeist is also involved here? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In our modern times, with the availability of electronic texts, it should not be a hindrance to save every piece of information that you read and keep track of the source. At the end of your work - PhD, writing a book, developing software or a patent - you could always check that you didn't copied something without intention. ProteanEd (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as easy as that, in practice. The problem is not having everything, the question is being able to recall everything. We are not talking about searching for a single equation or phrase here, we are talking about much more abstract issues. The movie poster analogy is, I think, telling—can I really keep an archive of every poster that I see? Even if I could, is there a reliable way for me to check that I am not inadvertently copying something I saw a year ago? In written work, I use hundreds of sources, PLUS the ideas I get from conferences, newspaper articles, talking with friends and colleagues, etc. Even in a hypothetical universe where all of that is archived, how am I going to restrospectively go back and make sure that I didn't pick up a turn of phrase from someone else? Am I going to run my entire book through a diff algorithm? Is said algorithm really going to be able to parse my language (and their language) for deep semantic resemblances? I see no reason to suspect that this will be the case anytime soon. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Subconscious plagiarism" perhaps: This link, though the web designer needs spanking for choice of background texture, covers this issue that was litigated over the George Harrison song My Sweet Lord and says: Harrison conceded that he had heard HSF prior to writing MSL, and therefore, his subconscious knew the combination of sounds he put to the words of MSL would work, because they had already done so. Terming what occurred as subconscious plagiarism, the judge found that the case should be re-set for a trial on the issue of damages. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Ya beat me to it. "My sweet Lord (doo lang, doo lang, doo lang)..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you both beat me to it. That opinion is standard in every copyright course in law school. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Source amnesia. 195.35.160.133 (talk) Martin. —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hello!

Is there an article about the jordanian secret intelligence service on wikipedia? If yes, where can I found it? Greets, Hohkl 13:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.33.168 (talk)

From the list of intelligence agencies, it is Dairat al-Mukhabarat al-Ammah. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several redirects, including Jordanian secret intelligence service. That's part of making Wikipedia work. --Wetman (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I could use some direction regarding a historical matter. I understand that my brother-in-law's mother attended what became the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. A Bosnian national, she was chosen by her school to present the Archduke with flowers during the motorcade through the city. My understanding is that she was able to complete the honor a short while before the assassination.

I have done some photographic research and I have not been able to locate many photos that feature children. Do you know of a resource rich in common photographs of the motorcade?

Any help you can give me with this matter is greatly appreciated!!! Thanks so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.100.77 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a documentary on the assassination on the History Channel, one of those timeline things, which counts down, like the Final 24 series. It may have been one of those Crimes that Shook the World episodes, with actors and photos of Gavrilo Princip. Perhaps the History Channel's website might help. C.B.Lilly 13:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • :contribs)

The Google/Life/Time image archive actually has quite a few of Ferdinand and the assassination. I don't see any of children, but in this one his wife seems to have roses, which she doesn't in any previous photos that I saw of the day. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any photos of the actual assassination, just some of the assassin being taken in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the possible locations that fit the following ctiteria

1. There is a quick-to-flood body of water (river or lake) directly to its east, 2. From here one can visit an amazing structure that all of us should visit at least once in our lifetime.

I have done enough search on Wikipedia nd other search engines but could not get the answer which fits the above

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.77.45 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nile is famous for its floods and has one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World near it. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might fit Lake Amadeus, east of Alice Springs and close to Uluru, if one considers the latter to be a structure. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be the Taj Mahal, but that is on the South bank of the Yamuna river. Tango is probably right. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are commonly-held beliefs among Jews regarding the afterlife? What is the consensus opinion on what happens after death among practitioners of Judaism?

65.203.61.73 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly little in the Judaism article, but the last of the thirteen principles of faith is relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on the internet in that regard, including these three: [37], [38], [39]. --Omidinist (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, in the religion of the Biblical period, there wasn't yet a firmly developed belief in afterlife rewards or punishments, but rather a shadowy realm known as Sheol. AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a book review on Amazon (for Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy by John Hale), I read the following quote:

Financed by the windfall of silver from the nearby mines at Laurium, the Athenians soon constructed a fleet of over 300 triremes, the most advanced naval vessels in the eastern Mediterranean.

This is interesting, because it would seem that the only way silver could help is if there were a sufficient level of international trade. I'm assuming that the discovery of a precious metal, used as currency, can only alter the fortunes of those who acquire it if they trade with outsiders. I cannot see, for example, how a discovery of gold today could make the world as a whole richer, although it would certainly help an individual country. Am I right, and if so, what were the primary conditions of international trade that enabled Athens to benefit from its windfall? It's been emotional (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They imported grain (much of it from the Black Sea coast area), which freed some peasants to be rowers. In ancient times, Greece proper had a relatively small amount of useful agricultural land, which could only feed a limited number of people using ancient agricultural methods, and if you went beyond those limits without importing food from outside, then somebody starved. That's why the Greeks were constantly establishing colonies outside Greece, and why infanticide was very common. AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, in the economic theory of Mercantilism (and most theories prior to it), precious metals *are* wealth. More gold equals more wealth, by definition. Mercantilism doesn't really have any followers anymore, primarily because such a simplistic view of wealth doesn't really work in practice. Secondly, even without international trade, there is domestic trade. If need a trireme, you need someone to build it for you. This means you have to pay them (or if they are slaves, pay their owners or buy the slaves from their owners). This requires money. To get the money, the state needs to either increase taxes (never popular, and likely to reduce overall productivity due to opportunity costs), or needs some other source of income - for instance the new silver. The state can take that silver, mint new coins, and pay the boat-builders with the "free money" (seigniorage) of the new coins. You see this even today, where central banks create new money in response to economic demands. It's easier with fiat currency than with precious-metal backed currency, as the banks don't need to find new gold and silver deposits to make more money. You can't keep creating money, though, as with too much new money you run the risk of inflation. On the reverse, by not creating new money you run the risk of economic stagnation, as the money supply doesn't increase with economic growth. -- 128.104.112.94 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a more basic level, if the area within which precious metals have a recognized economic exchange value is growing in population and economic activity, yet the supply of precious metals is not growing (or is not growing in proportion), then there is a deflationary tendency. This was observable in the 19th-century, when increases in the stock of precious metals (caused by gold rushes etc.) partially kept in check long-term deflationary trends.. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those answers so far. I'm interested to hear more. Is it accepted that the deflationary trend is sufficient to correct the market, or is it possible that people will resist the deflationary pressures for too long, leading to stagnation? It's been emotional (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deflation is generally considered to be a bad thing, since it encourages people with wealth to sit on their money and hoard it, in anticipation of it growing in value in future, so decreasing trade and economic activity. However, my second remark was offered solely as an addition to 128.104.112.94's remarks, and not because I thought it had any real relevance to the situation of ancient Athens.

What does actually have relevance to the situation of ancient Athens is that ancient Greek communities were faced with a basic choice -- use frequent infanticide and/or periodic colony-founding emigration to keep the population at or below the level which can be supported by local agriculture during one of the relatively commonly recurring bad-harvest years (in which case you can manage to feed your inhabitants with locally-grown food); or import food from overseas to support a larger population, a strategy which also require maintaining a navy to guard the food shipments (because if your population has grown far beyond what can be fed by local food, and the food imports are cut off, then you're really screwed). At various historical stages, Athens went in for the maritime strategy in a big way... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question of international trade in ancient times; Athens and other Greek states likely did have a robust international trade. Remember that the Silk Road was very active during this time. The Bagram Treasure (sadly a redlink right now, mentioned briefly in articles on Bagram and Alexandria on the Caucasus) dates from before the time of Christ, and features a wide array of luxury and trade goods from Greece, Egypt, China, India, etc. etc. I'm looking at a book right now that indicates that Chinese silk dating from the 8th century BC has been found in the Greece, and B.C.E. era silk has been found as far as Colchester. It also states that Ancient Greek goods could be found as far away as Japan. While the Greeks may not have had direct contact with far east asians, such evidence points to the existance of robust trade across Eurasia. So yes, Athens did have the international trade availible to take advantage of the silver, as the OP asked originally. --Jayron32 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, that almost entirely refers to the Hellenistic period, and has relatively little direct relevance to the motivations for pre-Hellenistic independent Athens in deciding to build up its navy. At that time, the Phoenicians dominated Mediterranean trade, and Greeks had few opportunities to directly trade with places more remote than Crimea and the Nile delta... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows the Greek origins of the Japanese wind god. International (and even global) trade was definitely present much earlier than most of us would imagine. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the father and mother of Charles-François Lebrun, duc de Plaisance and who were the father and mother of Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès, duc de Parme? Also did Charles-François Lebrun married anyone else besides Sophie de Marbois and when in 1804 were Sophie and him were married?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the French wikipedia, Charles-François Lebrun was the fourth son of Paul Lebrun and Louise Le Cronier. Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès was the son of Jean-Antoine de Cambaceres and Marie-Rose Vassal (source). I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to the French wikipedia Charles-François Lebrun was previously married to Anne Delagoutte. They had a son named Anne Charles Lebrun. I've checked all of my books and I can't find when in 1804 Charles-François Lebrun and Sophie de Marbois were married. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may help as well. JW..[ T..C ] 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a good map of the Pindus Principality. Actually, I can't find any acceptable map of it anywhere (yes, I googled for it). It would be amazing to find a map with towns marked. I'd like also to find out if the Pindus Principality had one or more official languages.--151.51.3.183 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard this characterization after Howard Schmidt's appointment spoken by a non-Arab individual, stating the real motive behind the appointment was to enhance computer eaves dropping capability on Islamic culture. Are such characterizations fair or justified or true? 71.100.6.206 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Such characterizations basically exist to solely disparage the recipients. Namecalling is generally the last resort of people who have no other concrete rational reason to criticize someone. If there were valid criticisms of these people, then their opponents would not have to resort to base playground tactics to degrade their character. --Jayron32 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Valaida Snow "was held for 18 months between 1940 and 1942 at Wester-Faengle, a Nazi concentration camp."[40] I have never heard of that camp before, and a Google search for "'Wester-Faengle' without 'Valaida'" does not yield anything else (apart from this novel). According to our article, two biographies even "contradict the assertion that Snow was held by the Nazis". Does anyone know more about this concentration camp? — Sebastian 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on either of the references at List of Nazi-German concentration camps. Very odd. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Wester-Faengle was an internment camp for alien or enemy civilians, such as the British ran on the Isle of Man, as opposed to a concentration camp for those the Nazis saw as enemies of the German race because of their race, politics or "social deviancy". The Wikipedia List mentions that there were over 1,500 of the latter, most of which were destroyed, so Wester-Faengle might have been too small to show up on many lists. But that's just semi-informed speculation on my part. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the list refs, [41] lists 1634 camps, with no obvious match for this name. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't think about the subcamps. Somehow, few people seem to talk about them, as evidenced by the fact that that's a redlink, and that there no article on de:Außenkommando, either. (We do have lists, most of which are very plain, such as List of subcamps of Auschwitz. The only one with a relevant lead is List of subcamps of Neuengamme.) I think the "1,500" is a double error/misunderstanding: The original reference speaks of 15,000, but that seems to refer to all subcamps, including the small camps created ad hoc for the local population. I would be surprised if they had kept Ms Snow for 18 months in such a camp. — Sebastian 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Goebbels' Diary for May 20, 1942, refers to the American journalists who were transferred from Germany and Italy via Lisbon. (The Goebbels Diaries, edited & translated by Louis P. Lochner, Doubleday, New York 1968) —— Shakescene (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Goebbels mentions Wester-Faengle, or are you merely confirming that the Nazis did capture Americans? — Sebastian 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using that as a possible hint about dates because both the journalists' return and Valida Snow's were in 1942. I was wondering if they'd been part of some larger exchange of Axis and Allied civilian internees. (Of course Valida Snow might have returned in a different month or in different circumstances.) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! That's an interesting observation indeed! — Sebastian 10:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on the above, I had been thinking that Wester-Faengle may have been a camp in Denmark. But that doesn't seem very likely either, because, as our article Frøslev Prison Camp says, that camp was built only in 1944 "to avoid deportation", which seems to indicate that they had no camp there before 1944. — Sebastian 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler's Black Victims: The Historical Experience of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans and African Americans in the Nazi Era" by Clarence Lusane mentions Snow and begins in great detail about how her history is vague and confused, but based on that name Vestre Fængsel seems most likely. meltBanana 03:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it - thanks! I'll add that to her article and I'll create a redirect for Wester-Faengle. — Sebastian 04:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed in the ITS Catalogue of Camps and Prisons in Germany and German-occupied Territories, vol. 1, p. 49 (Arolsen, July 1949), with a variant spelling: Vestra Faengstel. I've created a REDIRECT page for that spelling and documented the instance on the Talk:Vestre Fængsel page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, can polenta be cooked in a microwave? If so, on high or a lower power? How much time per ounce? Can polenta be eaten raw? Is it okay to merely warm it? 208.54.5.67 (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about preparing polenta from scratch (cornmeal and water) or about serving prepared polenta, which hereabouts comes in sausage-shaped packages? The former needs a stovetop and a lot of stirring. (Google "polenta recipe" for plenty of them.) The latter is ready to eat, but is more palatable when hot. A microwave will work; a frypan with a little olive oil in it is better. PhGustaf (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was the Polish-Czech border changed with the Dunajec River dam?174.3.102.6 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wasn't. Hypothetically, the line remains where it always is, regardless of what happens around the line. --Jayron32 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Britannica says: "In March 1975 Czechoslovakia and Poland modified their border along the Dunajec to permit Poland to construct a dam in the Czorsztyn region, southeast of Kraków.". Many of our pages use this reference. Should we change our articles?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go. Looks like you've answered your own question. --Jayron32 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, what does the boundary look like before and after?174.3.102.6 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How, not why.174.3.102.6 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the text of the treaty in Polish and Czech, alas without the attached maps. If you don't speak any of these languages, here's a summary: Czechoslovakia ceded 24.9439 ha of land between Lýsa nad Dunajcom (Poprad County) and Sromowce Wyżne (Nowy Targ County) to Poland. Poland ceded 24.9439 ha of land between Wojkowa (Nowy Sącz County) and Lenartov (Bardejov County) to Czechoslovakia. Additionally, Poland agreed to pay Czechoslovakia the cost of the operation (expropriation of inhabitants, lost roads and telecommunication lines) and in the future, pay for any damages caused by the dam. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The common American dandelion is all over the place. And I have seen similar flowering plants that have been confused for dandelions.

Is there an easy way or simple handheld device to harvest dandelion seeds and strip them of their feathers (the fluff that helps them fly) so only the seeds are left behind?

Are the dandelion seeds edible? If they can't be eaten, can the seed be used for feeding chickens and livestock?

What about other similar plants, like the flowering feathered seeds of the salsify? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the rest of your question but as far as feeding chickens, there should be no problem from a feed standpoint. I think the problem would be that common dandelion seeds are very small. They wouldn't be all that filling for the chickens. And I also think that you'd be able to get a lot more seed (overall mass rather than number of seeds) out of some other plant. Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the dandelion is quite edible; dandelion greens can make part of a nice salad; dandelion root makes an ersatz coffee called Dandelion coffee, dandelion flowers can be used to make Dandelion wine. All that said, I agree with Dismas on this, the seeds may technically be edible, but given the low yeild per area of dandelion seeds, and the high labor inteniveness in collecting them, your probably better off eating just about every other part of the plant. --Jayron32 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a handheld device (or maybe something somewhat larger) that you could point at the dandelion, and it would suck all the seeds off the head, pluck or grind the 'fluff' off (some people call 'em dandelion feathers), and deposit the seeds in a bag you can empty later. I wouldn't be too surprised that this sort of thing has already been patented.

As for the false "giant" dandelion, I think that some people confuse salsify or goat's beard with giant dandelions, just because the way they go to seed, looks so similar. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have this problem....probably described best as sehnsucht.....and this permanently causes me a feeling of unease,restlessness,and sometimes depression....i honestly am a nice and well mannered person,yet strangely i feel more at the rest and peacefull,the closer i get to things of abstract evil (reference the movies event horizon (with sam neil in it) and the chronicles of riddick (specifically the necromonger religoin) on wikipedia for an easier understanding of what abstract evil im mentioning),its like a strange love of the dead...i once played land of the dead,road to fiddler`s green on the xbox...and honestly when the game started,i felt strangely at peace when the dead made there characteristic sounds......

i have personally done as much studying as i can,and continue to due o nthe exact nature of this kind of abstract evil....but i desperately need to be pointed in the right direction,what is the name of this thing i seek,what is it`s embodiement?

i could go on for many,many pages and books worth of material describing what i seek,but not knowing what it is,or what it`s called....this is the subject of my sehnsuct,(if i speleld that word correctly),

so i post on here to see if there is possibly someone more knowledgeable than me in this feild,who can tell me what it is i seek based on the description i give...please help me,and please dont shun me abruptly,if you cant answer me,then just say so please without being abrasive,i happen to be very sensitive...

and please dont tell me it is something as simple necrophilia,because ive researched that myself,and my issue,my sehnsuct,is far more complex than that

thank you very much for any help given ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, unfortunately, cannot provide any personal medical advice. If you have concerns about your psychological condition, --Jayron32 07:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need i repeat myself?im using a concept of emotion,not a psycological condition,since when was an emotion a psycological ocndition?i thought i clicked on the philosophy category in the reference desk section,i figured someone here would understand based on the category the nature of my communication,philosophical thought and context.......if i was asking for psycological advice i wouldve been very direct.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if i were more defensive i might be tempted to perceive that as a dismissive insult....but i conede that i may confuse people at first....just veiw this from a philosophy standpoint please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-.- could you aleast be somewhat empathetic and tell me of a nice article to read, (please nothing insulting).......i suppose if i had of wanted to discuss philosophy i shouldve looked somehwere else than the reference desk,humanitys,philosophy section in wikipedia....well,names arent everything i suppose... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are being empathetic. You said yourself it was a problem, and you yourself mention depression. See a doctor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empathetic?you sound like an automated answering machine..your being biased towards veiws not in your native comfortability by automatically associating two unrelated and standalone words like depression and problem to literally means "psycological problem"....depression is also another word for sadness,which isnt a disorder in and of itself....i dont feel like embarassing you tuttle by bringing up a dictionary link on "sadness"....as for the other two of you,less answering machine,more freindlyness

for god`s sake,you can feel sadness at a breakup of a relationship,and thats not a medical disorder...you can feel angry from an insult,thats not a disorder.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand that the Reference Desks are not a discussion board, and the questions that you are asking are not ones that we can help you with here. If you want to talk on-line about your feelings, you need to find a chat room. If you are concerned or worried by your emotional state then you should talk to a medical professional. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like Weltschmerz and Melancholia, especially the illustration on that page. 195.35.160.133 (talk) Martin. —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

wow,thanks guys,i honestly didnt exactly know how this thing worked,and ty for the book suggestions,ill get right on it,will probab;y help me with the book im working on ^^,lol,maybe ill figure out someway to get a mention of it on wikipedia when it`s finished,here is hoping :)

Which country has had the most stable (least variable year over year) rate of growth in GDP net inflation over the past 25 years? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003 Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivkah הי"ד opened a Beit Chabad in Shelley’s Hotel, 30 P J Ramachandani Marg, in the Colaba area of Mumbai (Bombay) and at a later date it moved to Nariman House, 5 Hormusji Street, which was also in the same area. Can a user please supply me with the answers to the following questions: 1) What was the precise date that the Beit Chabad moved from Shelley’s Hotel to Nariman House? 2) How many rooms did Beit Chabad have in Shelley’s Hotel and on which floor of the building were they situated? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where the wood-poor Netherlands got ship timber to build such a powerful sail fleet? Was it imported during the 16th century economic growth? 85.132.99.243 (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]