Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 18

General Mike Jackson
General Mike Jackson, what are his poltics, is he considered symathetic to new labour, is he a Conservative, or does he sympathize with more left leaning factions? BenGurion.
 * In the UK serving members of the armed forces aren't allowed to belong to political parties so his politics are, until he resigns or retires, a private matter for him. AllanHainey 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cameroon
As it stands now, between Mr. Cameroon's and Gordon Brown who is likely to win the next general election? Bengurion

I'm assuming you mean David Cameron and not Cameroon's most prized specimen of hunky manhood. It would depend on the circumstances at the time-if the economy is going well,what's going on with foreign affairs. At present,Labour is having battles over its foreign policy in Iraq,but if Gordon Brown can distance himself from that and keep it associated with Blair,it may help him.

Another factor is the timing.Assuming that Blair has gone,it will depend on how long Brown has been leader of Labour.With Blair announcing he will stay at least another year(that takes us up to mid-2007),it may be then a wise strategy to call a general election in late 2008/very early 2009. The voters may decide(as they did with John Major in 1992) that since he has only been in power a very short time,he may deserve a bit more time to see his policies come to fruition. Lemon martini 00:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoder of university degrees.
Who was the first European monarch to hold a university degree? Did Chairman Mao hold a university degree? Bengurion


 * Did you read our article on Mao Zedong? He studied at university, but apparently never got a degree.  As to the first European monarch to hold a university degree, a lot of our articles don't explicitly mention whether they got degrees or not but one possibility is Olav V of Norway, who ascended to the Norwegian throne in 1957.   --Robert Merkel 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!


 * Edward VII studied at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1860s, but it doesn't seem he ever took a degree (this was a pretty comon practice at the time, not anything unusual). Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Locke'd Up
My english teacher has challenged me to find a connection between John Locke and a small town in Indiana. the only hints he gave me were, "Utopia in England". all i've got so far is that the auther of the book Eutopia, David Hume, was one of his mentors. any help would be greatly appreciated.


 * Well there is a Locke township in Elkhart, Indiana but that might be too obvious. Nowimnthing 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I do not think it is to obvious, what possible connection could Mr. Locke have with Indiana besides the naming of a town after him?


 * Check out New Harmony and Robert Owen. alteripse 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That could be it, except that Owen was Welsh, not English (though he did live in England for some time). Also, I don't see any direct connection with John Locke. Loomis 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a century between Locke and Owen, but the connection I was thinking of was Owens' repeated attempts to form utopian communities based on social ideas, especially those concerning the nature of property and labor, and the rationalist social contract that are in part based on Locke's social philosophies. New Harmony was one of these social experiments. I confess the connection is not obvious, but I am not sure what the english teacher had in mind. alteripse 11:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Locke-Owen-New Harmony connection. I read Locke many years ago, and I don't know much about Owen in the US, but one could look at Locke's idea that the mind was a blank tablet, written on by the senses and our thinking on what we sense, i.e. that what we think is not innate and inherited, but a product of our environment (this is where he writes on human understanding). It seems to be echoed in Owen's ideas that we are shaped by our environment, that a man can be changed by his circumstances, that our ideas are not made by us but for us by our environment. Furthermore, Locke's writings on government could easily lead to utopian ideas. It would be most almost impossible that Owen was unaware of Locke's writings, and he may refer to Locke's views on this somewhere in his own writings. As for Utopia in England, maybe that had something to do with the way New Lanark was run, though it was really a business venture - a sort of Lockean benevolently governed Utopian business venture (New Lanark, New Harmony - New World next? Utopian thinking?). Sorry I can't give you a definite reference to that, but the links I've given may help if the WikiPedia articles are unclear. --Seejyb 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of share holders neccesary to charter a corporation.
In the US how many intial shareholders are neccesary to charter a for profit corporation? I ask this because I received contradictoray information, in law school they said one was sufficent, in bussiness school they  said more than one was neccesary. Bengurion.


 * I know the answer for Canadian corporations is definitely "one", and I can't imagine it being any different in the US. Surely one shareholder is sufficient to form a US corporation. I've also been to both business school and law school. From my experience, "one" is definitely the answer. I'm curious though, about the contradictory evidence you've been presented with in business school. If you expanded on that we might be able to figure out what the supposed "contradiction" is all about. But certainly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the answer is definitely "one". Loomis 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a sec...you're the incredibly irritating guy who asks a million inane questions ranging from "why is sex boreing [sic]?" to "why does my mother hate me?" right? Please stop, you're actually starting to make me agree with Dirk on something, that you're annoying the hell out of both of us. And the idea that I might actually be in total agreement with Dirk on something quite frankly scares the hell out of me! :--) Loomis 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See, there's a reason and a purpose for everything, Loomis. Now, all you have to do is to overcome this irrational fear of crazy loopy Dutchmen, and you and Dirk are off on the the tangent of eternity ... I mean, the journey of a lifetime.  Don't forget to send postcards.  :--)  JackofOz 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis; looking at your user page, accept for the fact that you are Canadian we are somewhat similar; if you hate me then you probally hate yourself. Bengurion. As my user name suggests I am a zionest (though I am not a Jewish) I also am a Russianofile, (though I have not yet got around to learn the langauge) I am also a lawyer with a bussiness degree. Bengurion.
 * As this edit shows, Bengurion asked at least some of his questions from the same AOL proxy as the Swinson inamorato. Are they the same person? --Lambiam Talk 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i except; that you Probally hate. zionest Russianofiles with -- bussiness degrees Loomis rushin is indeede a phun langwage Too lurn Loomis howevers inglish; is the internashonal langwage Of bussiness Loomis so it - mite make beter cents phor yoo too lurn that furst but also its rong for zionests to kil millions. of innconcent lesbian civilians in beirut with a handgun fron north korea by hiding in a tank and starving without potatos Loomis 10:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Columbus
While it is known that he tolerated slavery as a a viceroy did Christopher Columbus ever personally own slaves? If he did where they black or native Americans? Bengruion
 * He didn't just tolerate it, he accepted it. There was no idea of "racism" back then, although soon after people like Bartoleme de las Casas were crazy anti. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)

Baghdad building
Is there any importance to this building I found while browsing Baghdad on Google maps? I searched for famous palaces or mosques, but I couldn't specify my search. It might just be another mosque, but it seems large and possibly bombed on the east side, so I thought it may have some significance. Hyenaste (tell) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing this zoom to this map, it would appear to be "Grand Mosque". Apparently confirmed by image searching for that here Mnemeson 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone hate Ben Gurion?
Bengurion asks reasonable questions, for example the corporation question is something which could help many people. Benngurion. Most of the political and historical questions are not different from what other people ask. Bengurion Is it possible bengurion is being persectued because of his prozionist and antiStalin/ KFA politcal beliefs. Bengurion. Bengurion is descent guy, leave hims alone! Bengurion.
 * Some people just like to think of themselves as police. They should just mind their own business.  I see no vandalism in your asking questions.  If some people are bothered, they should grow up and simply ignore your questions.  --Nelson Ricardo 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you friend. If you ever need legal advice just write the question on the reference page. Bengurion
 * I'm interested to know how you ever got through law and business school with your, uh, creative approach to spelling, grammar and punctuation. --Richardrj 07:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG I just got his name,I thought it was Benji-rion a cutsie double-barrelled first name,my bad-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

I used to hate Ben Gurion, but since they opened the new terminal, it's much nicer. --Dweller 09:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An Israeli once tried to ring the airport, but apparently dialled incorrectly. When someone answered, he said "Hello, is that Ben Gurion?" The voice on the other end said, "No. He's dead". And hung up. --Dweller 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of post is this?? Are we talking about David Ben-Gurion? Why do you say he "asks the right questions" if that man has been dead now for three decades? And why is it so hard to stop a sentence and start a new one without writing "bengurion"? Evilbu 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To explain: there is a user called Bengurion, who made the initial post. For some reason he refers to himself in the third person. --Richardrj 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, how naive could I have been?! So this is the user about whom Loomis and DirkVDM seem to be agreeing? Still that does not explain the excessive use of his name. I have chosen the name evilbu, but I don't write "What is the center of earth's land. Evilbu.  I think this would be the best formula.  Evilbu.  Evilbu assumes the earth is a ball" And whow wrote all those Malkoviches?????Evilbu 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich. --14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that our lawyer/business school friend thinks it appropriate not just to sign his posts, but to sign every sentence within them - a novel approach, certainly. While I'm on, he doesn't sound like the Swinson guy. --Richardrj 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's the lawyer in him - he must be too used to telling people 'sign here, here, and here, initial here, sign, sign, initial, cross, sign'. To keep in practise, he signs, signs, and signs.  And when he doesn't remember that, he just forgets to sign altogether ;-) - Mnemeson 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Artemesia Gentileschi
Self portraits or portraits about her —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.169.239 (talk • contribs) 02:28, August 18, 2006 (UTC).
 * What about them?  (NB. The preceding sentence was an example of a question.  Now it's your turn to ask one.)  JackofOz 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And please sign your posts, as it clearly says in the instructions at the top of the page. --Lambiam Talk 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Artemisia Gentileschi? --Lambiam Talk 05:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Self portrait: Image:ArtemisiaSelfP.jpg. --Lambiam Talk 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

U S Government
Why does the government takes so long to capture Osama Bin Ladin? They are wasting our tax dollars playing cat and mouse with Bin Ladin. What about our social securities when we retire in fifty years? From my understanding, war is another method to stimulate the U.S. economy, yet the government is taking money out of Social Securities Fund. Why are we paying for Social Security when we know for a fact that we wont be getting nothing in the future. Thank you for all your responses.Masterhp 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is not a soapbox, and is not for discussing personal opinions. Thank you. --Lambiam Talk 07:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me, if you won't be getting nothing then what's the problem? You know that in some poor countries, they actually do get nothing when they retire, and that's if they're lucky enough to afford to retire at all. Loomis 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not wasting my tax dollars. Maybe just the six bucks I have to pay when I enter the country, but I can afford that. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Clay, what border crossing do you go through where they actually charge money to get into the US? I must have crossed the Canada/US border hundreds of times, and they've never charged me a cent. Loomis 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a toll, or a ferry? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows Osama is in Vegas with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa69.29.78.229 18:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read about the social code over there, I forgot name (typical) but it is basically you can't rat anyone out if they ask for your help, read about it in National Geographic. Also the terain over there really isn't tamed


 * The problem is Pakistan. Bin Laden is most likely in western Pakistan, under the protection of local warlords.  The government of Pakistan has little control over the area, yet refuses to allow anyone else to invade.  They should just redraw the western boundary as far west as they can actually control, and leave the rest to it's fate.  I imagine it would then be invaded by the US and bin Laden would be captured, killed, or forced to flee.  The US doesn't want to piss off Pakistan too much, however, as they have nuclear weapons, and this could lead to Muslim fundamentalists taking control there, which is a worst-case scenario.  The US has apparently decided that catching bin Laden is not as important as keeping Pakistan as an "ally". StuRat 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly I think that the average American politician (of both parties) isn't the least concerned about the American social security as he is too busy brownnosing ppl who contribute generously to fund his campaign, and screaming about keeping America safe (because this is what you want to hear and will vote for).


 * George W. Bush managed to increase enormously the national debt since God knows when, but still the majority voted for him because he is a "War-president and a Christian" who is concerned about "American security and family values".


 * "War is another method to stimulate the U.S. economy" is simply a naive statement. War serves to repay the favours and the funds certain companies and friends (the much exagerated military-industrial complex) gave you when you needed them (funding your party and your campaign). It isn't as easy as that (no American president is really forced to make a war), but another major fact is that the masses everywhere like military victories and if you can provide them with a war they will vote for you.


 * What are you expecting? If you vote for someone who promises you security and War abroad you won't recieve someone which is concerned about your economy or your retirement pensions. A modern war is more expensive than we can possible imagine, and any amount of cash the federal goverment can get their hands on is going to fund that noble end. The American ppl voted for him and they will pay for it with taxes and will recieve less for them. What is really funny is that you won't blame Bush for it. NO, you will blame the next responsable Administration (which might even not be the very next one, but only when noone can hide the figures any longer) which will really have to deal with the financial burden. My bet is that you will curse the responsable administration and long for old George W. Bush. But these are consequences of Democracy: you actually will recieve what you vote for.


 * About border redrawing (post above) nobody really knows if Bin Laden is there or not. Fact is that Usama could be anywhere. Flamarande 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A deficit is the amount an individual yearly budget runs short, while the national debt is the sum total owed (all of the deficits, plus interest, less payments made). StuRat 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty safe bet bin Laden is in Pakistan, since he was last seen just over the border in Afghanistan (Tora Bora), and it would be difficult for him and his entourage to hide anywhere else. StuRat 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That sighting is over two years old. Bin Laden is a millionare and has many followers in many countries. He could have shaved his beard and his hair (or even made a face job - a bit unlikely though) and simply walked to another country to be hidden by an Al Quaeda cell. Noone is capable of controlling all ships, planes, and borders of the entire world. Let's not even talk about stolen and forged passports, etc.  Heck, the United States can't even stop the illegal immigrants from crossing the Rio Grande. I think a cunning man like Usama can keep on moving and hiding for a long time, notice that what really caught Saddam was the fact that he stayed put. If he had kept moving and had left Iraq he wouldn't have been caught as easily as he was (strange sentence - I hope you can understand it). Flamarande 21:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, he is quite tall, which is hard to hide. Second, moving is dangerous, as it would subject him to numerous security checks, any one of which could lead to his capture.  Second, we have movies of him, some fairly recent, showing no change in his appearance.  Third, he would have to travel alone to have any chance of slipping through the security holes, and he never travels alone, but always with numerous bodyguards.  Finally, he is just safer if he stays put, so why would he leave ?  He can also lead al-Queada, or what remains of it, from western Pakistan, by sending out videos to his press agency, also known as al-Jazeera. StuRat 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He is quite tall but clearly not a Giant. There is something as sending a pointman ahead to inform you if there is a check point further down the road. The movies could be have been made anywhere (and his beard and hair could be good wigs - who knows?). A large border has always some parts which aren't controlled (the Rio Grande being a fine example). Staying put is dangerous because as soon as your enemy knows where you are, you are dead meat. Better keep on moving from time to time and keeping the number of ppl who know where you are to an absolute minimum. Al Quaeda is not a totally organized organization, it is more like an umbrella for many organizations who use "Al-Quaeda" as a battle-cry and is better understood as a example or a cause worth fighting for (for fanatics and ppl obsessed on vengance). Al-Jazeera is presenting the news to an Arab public and defends the average muslim view. CNN might be a little fairer? but it clearly presents the American view and can be accused of being Bush's news agency. The videos of Ussama are simply the scoop of the month. Flamarande 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if randomly murdering civilians until you get what you want is the "average Muslim view", then al Jazeera is doing a good job, yes. If bin Laden stays put then he can have a minimum of people who know where he is (just one to bring him supplies, if he wanted to do it that way).  When traveling, he would need a whole network of people in various locations to hide him, transport him, etc.  His facial features clearly have not been changed, which makes him easy to recognize. StuRat 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * STU? First you accuse Al Jazeera of being Ussama's prees agency ("sending out videos to his press agency, also known as al-Jazeera". As I point out that Al Jazeera is presenting a Muslim POV and is as fair a CNN, you accuse them of working to murder civilians ("if randomly murdering civilians until you get what you want is the "average Muslim view", then al Jazeera is doing a good job"). Do me a favour, and try not be blatantly one-sided. The world is not White and Black. It is largely Grey.


 * Noone took it badly that the American press (like CNN) favoured American troops invading Iraq, but to be honest the American press gloryfied a half-witted invasion of a country whose dictator (while a murderous bastard) had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. The American president and his administration forged and spiced documents (WOMD which simply dissapeared?), ignored its diplomatic and its intelligence community, and has made a real mess in Iraq. Now every Iraqi who has lost a (or several) family member(s) because of American collateral damage can join a guerrila movement (lets even ignore Abu Graib, or soldiers who simply go bananas and kill ppl needlesly, besides simple military sum who plunder, rape, and kill - in all wars some soldiers freak out, and in all armies such scum (just look to the British army) is present, but American officers were turning a blind eye towards it. Nice Mr Bush, just provide more reasons and recruits for the enemy. But does this viewpoint appear in CNN? NO. Better to hide it, so when it comes out (and it almost always does) you really will look guilty as Hell.


 * Now I am not telling that Al Jaazera is truly fair in its presentation of the news, but neither is CNN, and I don't accuse CNN of being the propaganda instrument of the Bush administration. You are soo inocently naive (well most of us are :). Try to understand how the other side thinks and take everything with a bit of salt.


 * Have you ever heard about the old saying "you can run, but you can't hide"? If someone really wants to hide himself he wont stay put in one place. If someone with a large budget is searching for you, they WILL find you. Someone who knows something will eventually be caught, bribed, betray you and provide the intel to your enemy. This what happened with Sadam: He stayed put. (And don't forget torture - which is legal according to the POV of many Americans, makes you wonder about American values though). You can run, but you can't hide, BUT YOU CAN KEEP ON RUNNING. Move from time to time, hide in large cities (with a good disguese) amongst the masses, keep yourself always on the move and noone will ever catch you. His facial features can very easily be disguesed (and even more easily he can put on a Burkha - just an example). Flamarande 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with most of what you said on Iraq, it has no bearing on the behavior of al-Jazeera. At least they now label their wild anti-Jewish and anti-American conspiracy theories  as such, but they still have no place in any news organization, their only purpose is to incite hatred.  As for posting "news" from bin Laden; posting calls to murder civilians is not news, it's inciting terrorism.  Imagine if CNN posted a "kill all Muslims" message from, say, the Ku Klux Klan, would that be "news" ?


 * Also, CNN doesn't cover up what's happening in Iraq, the military and Bush admin does, so don't blame the media. At worst, CNN can be blamed for "not asking the hard questions".  I could also say that of al-Jazeera, however:  "Why don't Muslim countries offer much of any support to the Palestinians except for weapons ?  Do they want the Palestinians to live their lives in poverty ?  Why are Palestinians forced to live permanently in refuge camps instead of being integrated into each host country ?  Why don't Muslim governments oppose fundamentalists, give women equal rights, allow democracy, etc. ?"  As for finding somebody in hiding, like I said, with just one loyal person to hide him and bring supplies, he would never be caught.  I doubt if bin Laden is living like that, but he could, if he wanted to.  Bin Laden in a burka would be interesting, not many women are that tall, he would need to carry a basketball with him, LOL. StuRat 07:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As for torture, I think almost everyone would permit it under certain circumstances, like the scenario "captured terrorist has planted a nuke in the city which will detonate in an hour, there is no time to evacuate, and the terrorist isn't talking". If you say you wouldn't torture him under those circumstances, I don't believe you.  As for me, I think the Geneva Convention should be reciprocal.  That is, if the other side doesn't follow it, then you don't have to do so, either.  This will ultimately give both sides an incentive to do so.  Saying "you can do whatever you want to our captured soldiers and civilians, like sawing their heads off while they scream, and we will do nothing if we capture you" is an incentive for the terrorists to do whatever they want.  Note that the US has used methods that might be called psychological torture, by some, but hasn't engaged in physical torture (except by a few nut jobs, perhaps). StuRat 07:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may not be a soapbox, but questions like this come around all the time. --Proficient 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I rather think that these discussions prove the value of a good honest debate and the value of free spech. They always begin to divert from the original question but I don't see any real problem with this. Flamarande 14:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SIGH. Talk about exagerated scenarios. I am not the goverment, and I think that the goverment should be much more responsable (and held more acountable by the other powers) than I am. The goverment represents us all and the damage they can do (and are doing in the USA) is of a much more serious nature and degree. I don't want a goverment which is a dumm and iresponsable as I am. I want a smart goverment who follows the law (the letter and the spirit of it).


 * As for your idea of changing the Geneva convention into a "reprocity policy", (quoting: "I think the Geneva Convention should be reciprocal. That is, if the other side doesn't follow it, then you don't have to do so, either.") I really beg to difer. If someone rapes my sister I certainly should not be allowed to rape his sister in exchange. In your opinion 6 million Germans should have been sent to the gas chambers after WWII, right? We are supposed to be made of better stuff than war criminals and fanatics, and not blindly follow the old policy of: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Haven't you learned anything of the last 2000 years of human history?


 * I'm only talking about the Geneva Convention as it applies to prisoners of war. I'm including terrorists in this category, though the US government does not.  The Nazis actually treated most American POWs decently, precisely because they wanted their POWs to be treated decently by the US (especially towards the end, when they knew that they themselves might soon be prisoners).  As for retribution over the Holocaust, I would go along with mass executions of SS members, as I don't buy "just following orders" as an excuse for genocide.  This means kill those who did the killing, not random German civilians. StuRat 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alltough the SS as a whole was surely guilty of many warcrimes (especialy the Totenkopf-units) many of the Waffen-SS were simply elite forces (a bit like the marines). It is also a basic understanding of war and military law that during wartime you (soldier and officer) have to obey superior orders.


 * If the Waffen-SS weren't in charge of genocide, then they would get a pass, sure. However, I've never bought that just because someone in authority (commanding officer, boss, teacher, parent, spouse) tells you to do something, that you are then excused for doing what you were told.  Each person should be held responsible for their own decisions, including whether to follow orders.  I would make an exception for cases where disobeying orders would get them killed, but I don't think this was the case in Nazi Germany.  They needed all the soldiers they could get, so a wash-out from the SS would likely just be transferred to another service. StuRat 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The US has kidnapped persons of other countries, and taken them to certain contries (like Syria) where torture is not prosecuted. Like the Muslim guy of 60 minutes who happened to be a Canadian citizen who was arrested in the USA and accused of being a member of Al-Quaeda (Innocent until proven guilty?? Proof? Under the Patriot Act the CIA, FBI, or the NSA don't need to follow any of these rules). He was not taken before a judge and did not receive any of his judicial Inalienable rights (something you are so proud of, and has fallen to the gutters everytime you go into a war) taken to Syria, tortured, found to be innocent and only then returned to Canada. American justice at its finest hour, indeed !


 * If I take someone to be tortured by a third party does that make me innocent? Talk about washing hands like Pilate. Soo sure you are that the US doesn't torture ppl anywhere. It isn't like the American goverment hasn't recently lied to its citizens or to the world before or has hidden things from you, right? The US constitution and all your rights are being trampled on by this administration in the name of national security, while the Congress and the Senate are just washing their hands and failing (not even atempting to !, because they are afraid of losing votes of the frightened sheep) to control the executive branch always passing the hot potato to the "liberal" judges. The judicial branch is the only institution who is attempting to fufill its role, being all-too often blamed of imposing a "liberal left-winged policy".


 * Al Jazeera is guilty of providing images we want to see, nothing more. This "hatred" (gloryfing one side and damning the other, aka as propaganda) is what their audience wants to watch. If their aduience wants to see it then Al-Jaezera will provide it. Face it, the majority of us wants to see dead ppl, victims, Paris Hilton, mass destruction, porn, and shoking news (available in almost all channels). Are you in favour of censoring Al Jazeera? Well then how about the letters of the Zodiak killer? How about the images of OJ Simpson? Who do you really trust to decide what is worth watching and what to censor? The US goverment? The PTA? You? Me? Between a world with a excess of bad news (propaganda) and another with a excess of censorship I will take the first anytime.


 * "Al Jazeera is guilty of providing images we want to see, nothing more." ... that's not my def of news, which would be "providing images that show reality, not just want people WANT to see". StuRat 04:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of us will never see the full true reality in the news. Nothing sells as well as bad news or our military heroes. How many criminal cases do you know of which were simply dropped by the media? How many news were spiced to sell better? How many dead Iraqi civilians were shown in CNN during Iraqi freedom (unless you believe there weren't any)?


 * These "hard questions" we want impose upon the Muslim world are the most blatant example of Double standards I think of. Since when do we really care about the rights of average Muslim woman? Isn't that the stone we always like to throw against all the Muslim countries? How about also cleaning our own home at the same time? How many western countries do you know where competent women recieve of equal wages for the same work and are promoted as often as male co-workers? How many female senators and congresswomen in the USA do you know (I am not even going to mention a female Vice-president or God forbids Blacks and Hispannics :) ? How about calling a female rape victim "a slut" in a court of law and getting away with it, because the 12 jurors agree with you?  How about "our" religious Christian fanatics who commit all sorts of injustices like child labour, polygamy, religious indoctrination, forced mariage of underage girls, etc (we curse the Muslim Madrasahs, but we allow certain fringe Christian schools guilty of the same crimes right "here" at home).


 * You would compare wage inequality with women being banned from working altogether and girls banned from getting an education ? You compare a cross examination for rape in the US with the order of the village elders in a Pakistan village to gang rape a woman ?  You compare low percentages of women in Congress to women being sentenced to be stoned to death for accusations of adultery ?    You need to work on your priorities. StuRat 04:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to work on my priorities? You have to stop being naive :). Most of us in the WEST simply don't care what happens in the Middle East or in Africa, we only like to use these gender injustices as a rock to throw against them. Alernativly, many of us believe that we can impose our "superior" values and our political systems (democracy) through the barrel of a gun on other contries and cultures. They are forgeting that during these invasions we kill way too may innocent ppl and cause massive destruction, besides humiliating their national and cultural pride. In the end these WARdemocrats get suprised that the invaded support our enemies. We invade their country, kill their relatives, destroy their homes, and in the end they support our enemies. How could they be soo bloody ungratefull ?


 * And you neglected to answer the last point. Shouldn't we in the spirit of fairness also make the same hard questions to our "Christian fanatics" or do we need to protect Christian religious rights from the grasp of the goverment unlike the Muslims? Flamarande 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; Christian and Jewish fundamentalists would be just as dangerous, if they ever got real power, as the Muslim fundamentalists are now. StuRat 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We want to judge everybody else to full extent of the law and moral, but as soon our guys commit the same crimes we begin to scream: "Forgive them, for they did not know what they were doing" besides denying all charges ad absurdum. Do you really think that Saddam is getting a fair trial in Iraq while some of his laywers have been murdered? Why didn't he get a trial like Milosevic by the UN courts (whatever)? Is the US gov realy afraid that he will be found innocent?


 * I'm fine with Saddam being judged in the UN courts, but that's up to Iraq to decide, isn't it ? The UN courts do seem rather pathetic, as they couldn't even finish Milosevic's trial before he dropped dead, and seem to be totally dropping the ball on the Rwanda Genocide trials, but I'd still use them if that's what the Iraqi's choose. StuRat 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The same Iraq we had to invade to liberate? Or are you talking of the elected goverment which is despised by a very large part of the Iraqi ppl as colaborators and puppets of the Americans (I actually respect them somewhat - but way too many Iraqis don't)? Fact is that that trial is a political hot potato and the Iraqi judge and the Iraqi gov will be blamed for killing Sadam for the Americans by many Iraqi's and will be very lucky to survive. It would have been a 100 times better for the current Iraqi gov to pass the potato to the UN but I sincerly believe that the US didn't allow it as they don't like the idea of the international court. Flamarande 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The last Iraqi election was free and fair, even the Sunni's voted. Those that say they are puppets of the US just don't like democracy.  Since most of the population is Shia and most of the elected official are, as well, I would say it's a lot closer to being a puppet government of Iran. StuRat 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We want to impeach Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval room and for lying to us, but George W. Bush who is guilty of real criminal actions is untouchable because: A)He always tells us he is doing it for our security and we always have to believe him. B) He is a member of the Republican party. C) He is a born-again self-rightous Christian who believes in the Lord and prays alot, and C) He is the average WASP.


 * Stu I am not going to continue this conversation any longer, truly sorry. It began with the failure of the US goverment to aprehend Usama and the current and future cost of these wars upon your lives (American social security and your future pensions). Every time you escaped my answers, blaming and acusing other guys (first Pakistan, and then Al Jazeraa). I will finish with a very loose quote (almost surely changed) I got from a movie (the original quote might even be from Jefferson): "The citizens who give up their rights and liberties to their goverment for the (empty) promise of security usually end up with neither one." Notice that if you want to keep your rights and liberties you also have to give the same rights to your enemies, and not selectivly withold them when the masses are frightened. Flamarande 14:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even under the Geneva Convention, POW's don't get equal treatment as civilians. For example, they can be imprisoned until the enemy surrenders and agrees to stop fighting, which might very well be never, in the case of al-Queada. StuRat 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is that the USgov is definitly ignoring the Geneva convention and most of the common rules of war. First by designating the prisoners as "ilegal combatants" they deny any rights they would have under POW-status, claiming that Guanatanamo is outside of US jurisdicion and therfore outside the protection of USlaws and UScourts, then by defending that the President as Comander-in-chief can define whatever he wants because "we at war" like creating special military (rigged) courts. And this is ignoring all the reports of torture, kidnappings, and ludricous accusations.


 * There does need to be some fair way to determine who is a terrorist and who isn't, I agree there. However, once someone has been proven to be a terrorist, I don't see any need to grant them any rights beyond those they grant to their victims (no rights, in other words).  They don't follow the Geneva Convention, so have no right to expect protection under it. StuRat 05:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said the only thing that is holding the self-rightous "prophet of Texas" somewhat in check is the Judicial branch (and the only thing the judges are doing is imposing the law and not twisting it like the USgov is keen in doing). Face it Stu, the current USgov is a big bully, with a big stick, on a bloody rampage, trampling rights and laws, shouting out loud: "I am doing all this in the name of American security". Flamarande 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a Bush fan, so I pretty much agree with you here. StuRat 05:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to the original question, how much time did the original poster think it would take to capture Osama bin Laden? I would note that it took the government more than 5 years to capture Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic bomber, from when he was identified as a suspect to when he was arrested, and close to 7 years from when the Olympic bombing took place. And Rudolph was found in North Carolina! I'm sure you can think of multiple reasons why Bin Laden would be harder to locate than Rudolph was (examples: hiding in a foreign country instead of the USA, Bin Laden has more money, Bin Laden has more supporters and sympathizers, etc.). --Metropolitan90 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all true, but the US also devoted far more resources to finding bin Laden. I would guess up to $1 trillion would be paid for his guaranteed capture (say if someone captured him and was willing to sell him to this highest bidder).  Rudolph wouldn't go for more than $1 million. StuRat 06:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, officially only $27 million is being offered for bin Laden (at least, that's all the FBI is willing to mention). --Metropolitan90 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But they are spending far more than that on the military and other efforts to locate him, and would be willing to pay far more, if they thought it would make a diff. The Republicans are likely to lose mid-term Congressional elections in 2006, and the White House in 2008, unless they can get rid of bin Laden, so it's worth quite a bit to them, I imagine. StuRat 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Stu, which Democrat do you see taking the White House in '08? And who do you see her beating in the '08 election? In any case, I think we'd both agree that it'll be a fun election to watch. Go Rudy! :-) Loomis 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see Hillary winning the Democratic primary, but don't know who will win. Perhaps they can even convince Colon Powell to switch parties, after the abuse he received in the Bush administration (forced to lie to the UN about alleged Iraqi WMDs), which caused him to quit after the first 4 years. StuRat 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that Powell's life was in danger if he'd told the truth about their knowledge of WMDs? ("Each person should be held responsible for their own decisions, including whether to follow orders. I would make an exception for cases where disobeying orders would get them killed ...").


 * No, but Powell didn't know they were lies, at the time. He even took the step of personally talking with CIA analysts to be sure he had the facts right.  Dick Cheney visited some of those analysts and put pressure on them to support the Bush admin's spin, however, so Powell got the same BS from the CIA, believed it, and then presented it to the UN.  In comparison with the Nazis, I suppose local police officials who helped in what they thought was "resettling Jews to the East", would not be guilty of genocide, although forcible relocation does qualify as "ethnic cleansing" (I feel this rule should have some exceptions, however, to move groups that hate each other away from one other).  StuRat 07:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:RD header
Who else thinks we should edit the humanities description to remove the word 'politics'? It seems like whenever anyone tries to ask a political question it always just degenerates into a flame war--71.247.125.144 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the point of asking this question (which in any case should be on the Talk page) if you just decide to go ahead and remove the offending word anyway? If someone has a genuine question about politics, this is clearly the place to put it.--Shantavira 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not like you can't just change it back--71.247.125.144 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it should be on the talk page, but sometimes questions that spark emotion lead more deeply into the question, the reference page is really just a talk page anyway based around q&a


 * I think that would be a terrible idea! I've said it several times. The RefDesk is very poorly defined by Wikipedia. If all you want is a stale, sterile answer for practically any question, all you have to do is find the right article. The RefDesk is to Wikipedia something like what the editorial and op-ed pages are to newspapers. Every decent newspaper requires an editorial and an op-ed page. For example, if you want a stale, sterile examination of the recent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, all you have to do is click on the link I just provided or just punch in the words Israel or Lebanon or Hezbollah in the search box and you'll eventually get to that article. If all you want are the bare facts, then I suppose you'll find them there. On the other hand, if you're interested in a variety of viewpoints to flesh out the bare facts, a nice, friendly, exchange of views here on the RefDesk can be quite useful to round out one's understanding of the issue. I agree with you that all too often, the debate can descend into a childish shouting match, which is a shame. Still, I strongly feel that despite this tendency, to eliminate political discussion from the RefDesk would be a terrible disservice to all who seek a fuller, more rounded understanding of any political issue. Loomis 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Searching for a book called "Plucked Shaved and Braided"
Hello,

I have been searching since 2003 for a book called "Plucked Shaved and Braided". I read an article here in Wikipedia that puts this book into the notes section. The article I found this from is about the Mona Lisa and in the notes it is #9. I have searched the internet, local and non-local libraries. I have tried to locate the publishing house, and I have even attempted to find out a contact for the author.

Turudich, D. & Welch, L. (2003). Plucked, shaved and braided: Medieval and renaissance beauty and grooming practices 1000-1600. Leicester, England: Streamline Press. ISBN 193006408X

I have discovered that the e-mail address for Daniela Turudich that is listed on a webpage stating that she is available for lecture is not any good as my e-mails are returned. I have further discovered that there is a link to a Streamline Press website, but it seems to be another company all together. Part of my research puts Streamline Press in Long Beach, CA but when I searched for that, I also came up with Rancho Cucomunga, CA. I am sending off letters to these addresses, but have a friend who said that Streamline Press has gone out of business so I am not sure I will get any reply to my questions.

I teach classes about Medieval hairstyles and the brief discriptions I have read about this book would make it an invaluable resource to me, and I would even be happy to obtain the Bibliographic resources if I am unable to buy or borrow the book. I have a couple of online bookstores where I have listed that I would take a copy of the book in any condition and at a much higher price than the original, but have had no luck. 2 years ago I gave up my search when I was advised by a friend also trying to obtain a copy that the book had not been published after all. This is why this article on Mona Lisa is so important to me. Why reference the book if it was not at some point published? If it was published, and has an ISBN # why am I having so much trouble finding a copy at any library?

Thank you so much for your time!

Best Regards, Michelle
 * Looks like it was definitely published; see here. Not much else you can do except keep trying the online bookstores; a couple of good ones (but they don't list this title at present, I already checked) are here and here. --Richardrj 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest posting to e-groups (yahoo, google etc) and BBSs dedicated to historic re-creation. Seems to me that people who are interested in that sort of thing might have such a book. Also, there might be organisations of mediaeval educators (meaning educators who teach topics related to mediaeval times); they might be a resource as well. Anchoress 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh also, you could look thru the history of the Mona Lisa article to see who added the reference, and send them an email or leave a note on their talk page. Anchoress 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, also also... if you google Daniela Turudich, several booksellers show up (different from the ones Richardrj listed). At least one of those sites has an 'add to wishlist' feature that will (presumably) notify you if/when a copy of the book comes available. It is also possible that the sites will include contact info for Ms Turudich. Furthermore, have you considered trying to contact her through her publisher(s)? That is the traditional way for people to contact authors, IIRC. Anchoress 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Legend?
Hi, I need help finding an article about the Roman legend of a daughter who visits her father in jail and breastfeeds him (the act was apparently so touching that Roman guards immediately freed the father). The strange this is I've read about it before on wikipedia, but now I can't find it. I'm sorry that I don't have specific names, but I know there have been several famous paintings of the event. Thanks.

Hi,

not being from Ghent, I am still proud to be a student there. And I am quite certain you are actually talking about the "Mammelokker" legend : Belfry_of_Ghent Tell me if it isn't correct! Evilbu 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that Swedish, like Mameluker? --Lambiam Talk 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I live close to Ghent, but it's not like I speak Dutch with a Ghent accent, and these are old Dutch words too. But apparently "mamme" meant "breast", "lokken" meant "to suck".  That makes sense.  Today, "lokken" is still a Dutch word, meaning "to lure".

Evilbu 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could old Dutch lokken be a cognate of English to lick, German lecken?
 * Was that you Lambiam? (why is my indentation not working for my signature?) That is very likely.  Because "to lick" is "likken" in Dutch now.  Mamme could still be in use somewhere in Flanders for "breast", but I was raised in pretty standard "tame" Dutch.Evilbu 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute Lambiam, are you from Belgium yourself?? You definitely claim to be powered by Brussels sprouts (which-then again-I am not). Do you speak Dutch then?Evilbu 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My love for Ghent seems to have made me careless. The person who asked is correct, it is a Roman legend, the people of Ghent just decided to commemorate it. Roman_Charity will tell you all about it, and has pictures of those paintings you mention! I enjoy this question! Evilbu 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris' Birth Name
Another question which seems harder to answer. On the page about Chuck Norris or Carlos Ray Norris it says "Norris was born to an alcoholic father, Ruud Draak, half Irish and half Cherokee, who later changed his name to Norris." Does this mean when he was born his father's name was Draak? And also does this mean he was born as Carlos Ray Draak? I have tried looking at several sites, even his official site, but failed to find if this was the answer. I suppose if you do not know then the only way to find out the answer is to contact Mr. Norris himself. As much a fan or him as I am I find that would be somewhat inappropriate. Thanks!
 * It seems like Norris' father changed his name to "Norris" before little Chuck was born. That would mean Chuck Norris was born as "Carlos Ray Draak".  Also happened with Hitler. AdamBiswanger1 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, if his father changed his name before Chuck was born, then wouldn't Chuck have been born Norris? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Was Hitler also born as "Carlos Ray Draak"? That's amazing! --Lambiam Talk 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange but true AdamBiswanger1 05:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've come to the conclusion that this was a vandalous edit, as a search for "Chuck Norris" + "Ruud Draak" only comes up with Wikipedia stuff. Compare also this vandalous edit. --Lambiam Talk 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is amazing! --Proficient 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Lambiam just coined a new word - "vandalous". I like it - well done!  --Bmk 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Syd Barrett: Sybarite?
I came across the word sybaritic (and sybarite) recently, and couldn't help but notice the similarity to the name Syd Barrett. I noticed that Syd was not his given name, I wondered if anyone knew whether he derived his pseudonym from sybarite, or no? -ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not according to our article, which states: Barrett acquired the nickname "Syd" at the age of 15, a reference to an old local Cambridge drummer, Sid Barrett. Syd Barrett changed the spelling in order to differentiate himself from his namesake. --Lambiam Talk 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis stands still, but who could be found to have known that Sid guy ? See also : Burt Cocain. -- DLL .. T 18:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

KFA
Why is the KFA blined to the realities of the misery in North Korea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs) 23:50, August 18, 2006 (UTC).


 * Why are you asking soo many unrelated questions and always neglecting to sign your questions? Flamarande 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you ever find out, put it in a letter to Jo Swinson. That might impress her more than an American accent. --Lambiam Talk 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * American accent and American intelligence (or lack of it :). Flamarande 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) One of these days I am going to be banned for this. That's the problem of a PC world, it doesn't have a sense of humour, sarcasm, or irony.
 * Yeah, PC World sucks. Try Macworld. --Lambiam Talk 07:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)