Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 7

= March 7 =

Canadian copyright?
Hello, The whole deal with Canada's laws in regards to music sharing is confusing. Can anyone clear it up for me? --( Aytakin ) | Talk 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sharing music online or copying CDs is illegal. What's confusing about that? - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the situation in Canada, but there are confusing legal situations out there in the area of music sharing. A recent decision in Spain  held that downloading was legal for personal use (OK, not sharing, but still).  And the situation in Sweden is complicated as well, I believe, which is why torrent sites hosted there like Pirate Bay believe they are operating legally. --Richardrj talkemail 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (after editing conflict) While MGM is certainly correct, I'd specify that sharing music online or copying CDs is usually illegal, but Canada seems to be on the cusp of making it always illegal, even when the artists and labels involved WANT their listeners to be free to remix and share.  This is exceptional, as far as national laws go, but I can see how it would be confusing to try to figure out the nuances.   Here's what I think I know:


 * A given country's laws affect everything from what, specifically, one can do with copyrighted content, to who owns the rights to that content, to what rights specifically exist over content for copyright owners, to enforcement of these laws.  Can you Remix?  Is there Fair use?   Can you copy purchased media for archival purposes, or to play the same song on both of your computers?   Can artists release their OWN music for free on the internet, or make it available for remixing, even with permission of their labels?   It depends on the country...


 * Last I heard, Canada's laws about copyright were on the table, with a move towards extremely conservative laws on the legislative table, and many musicians from Barenaked Ladies to Sarah McLachlan are reportedly unhappy about how the proposed legislation would limit their ability to release music freely to their audiences; BoingBoing has been tracking this issue fairly well, and -- since their more recent articles on the subject include links to past articles, may be a good place to start to learn more.  Other useful information can be found here and here.   Jfarber 11:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an article on this subject at File sharing in Canada. Most of the laws in this area have not yet been tested in court, as the Canadian courts have not allowed music industry lawsuits against file sharers to proceed. The existing laws are ambiguous, and the courts have been somewhat supportive of file sharing. The Liberals attempted to clearly ban the practice, but that bill died when they lost power. The Conservatives are also seemingly in favour of ban. - SimonP 17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a good quote from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic "The Copyright Act contains a special exception for "private copying": it permits the copying of music files "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy", but does not permit copying for the purpose of "distributing" or "communicating to the public by telecommunication" (s.80). It is generally accepted that downloading music for personal use is legal under this section. However, the record industry disputes this on the basis that a computer's hard drive does not constitute an "audio recording medium"." - SimonP 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While, in reality, the record industry (specifically the CRIA) is opposed to the potential loss of income they fear while arise from people paying for Indie music but not for pop. The Jade Knight 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between an Arab and a Muslim?
I hear both terms used pretty much interchangeably regarding clothes, countries, customs, beliefs, and people. Is there a difference? --72.202.150.92 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An Arab is a person from the Arab race, while a Muslim is a person who believes in the Muslim religion. --( Aytakin ) | Talk 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be quite an overlap, but not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. JackofOz 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see Arab and Muslim. Roughly, "Arab" is an ethnic/linguist definition, while "Muslim" is religious. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ * (\ * (&lt; * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, many Algerians are both Arab and Muslim. Iranians on the other hand are mostly Persian and Muslim. In Egypt there exist Arabs who are Christian. --The Dark Side 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, in which the Muslims are mainly Indonesian (or Asian if one wanted to generalise). 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are in no way interchangeable terms. Natgoo 08:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Copts are the largest group of Arab Christians, with around 15 million falling under the designation. --24.147.86.187 13:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Islam originated in Arabia, and Arabic is the language of the Koran, but only a minority of the world's Muslims are Arabs. Wimstead 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked my mother what Jews were before they became Jews and she said Arabs. 71.100.13.184 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything, I'd say it's the other way around. But I think it's even more accurate to say they both emerged from the same original genetic stock.  JackofOz 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, this is a serious question? Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, they were Mesopotamian. Aurora sword 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Herrison Bergeron
My ouestion is what is the difference between equality as a means onto itself and equality of oppurtunity as a basic human right for all.03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)72.65.26.220
 * "Equality" and "equality of opportunity" are already different, to begin with... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ * (\ * (&lt; * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The page you need to refer to is that on Egalitarianism. There is no simple answer to this, as concepts of equality come in various forms, depending if the matter is approached in philosophical, political, religious or economic terms. In essence, egalitarianism is based on the belief that that there should be no formal disbilities of race, class, sex, caste or creed that disallow any given individual from achieving their full potential as a human being; to go as far, in other words, as their natural talents will allow. As a political concept it was launched into the modern world by the French Revolution, with its slogan of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, sweeping away all of the inbuilt disadvantages and disabilities of the Ancien Regime. Against this general backgroud there is really little practical difference between egalitarianism and notions of equality of opportunity, and the two might very well be said to walk hand-in-hand. However, there are certain political interpretations of egalitarianism, arising from Marxism and kindred forms of thought, that have advanced extreme notions of equality, that would not allow advancement beyond a certain lowest common denominator. I am thinking specifically here of China during the Cultural Revolution, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. A futuristic form of extreme utopia is the theme of Vonnegut's novel, Harrison Bergeron. Extreme equality creates not heaven but hell. Equality of opportunity, in contrast, is now the accepted principle in all advanced economic systems, which benefit from the natural release of human potential, free of artifical barriers. Clio the Muse 09:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Egypt
According to a new worldwide poll, every country in the world likes Canada except Egypt. What's wrong with Egypt ? It seems that they have a negative view of Westerners in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.247.71 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I had a quick look at your links and can see no reference to Egypt at all. Seemingly, people in twenty-seven countries were polled, but these countries are not identified.  Was Egypt the only Muslim country in the sample?  I imagine Egyptians have a negative view of western countries in general, Canada notwithstanding, though they may have a more positive view of France.  But I would really need to examine the way in which this survey has been constructed, as well as the results, before giving an informed opinion.  Clio the Muse 08:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If somewhat recent events can provide an explanation then you might consider that a private museum in Canada had on display what was believed to be a true Egyptian mummy that was eventually sold to Emory University which in turn donated it to Egypt. I think there is a NOVA episode about it but I do not recall the name. 71.100.13.184 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Percy Henn
I am trying to extend the article Percy Henn and have not found anything more useful that the AusLit website and the Australian Dictionary of Biographies site. Please reply on my talk page.

Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastille Day
Hey. I have to give a presentation about Bastille Day and its place in building up French national identity, both in a historical, and a contemporary perspective.

I know about the events of Bastille Day, and how it is celebrated by the French Republic. But what I'd really like to know is how it touches normal people? If anyone has any interesting first-, or second-, hand personalised stories about Bastille Day, I'd love to hear them and help get an understanding of how this holiday relates to peoples' feelings of Frenchness (if French), or, how it makes you feel if you have celebrated it without actually being French.

Merci beaucoup, 194.80.32.12 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Picture fireworks and the day off from work. That's how it touches most French people. Stevage 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In French Polynesia, there's a military parade, but the big celebration is Heiva (Autonomy Day - might be July 14th as well). The Jade Knight 07:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I read an interesting treatise on the Bastille, published in the early 90's. It took the view that the Bastille achieved iconic importance largely because most writers or pamphleteers who had been jailed had been incarcerated there (one survey showing 70%).The treatise was to do with humor, killing cats and the French Revolution, but I can't recall the writer/title DDB 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'The Sick Rose' by William Blake and it's connection to the ideas displayed in Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'
After reading 'The Da Vinci Code' a few years ago, I came across the poem 'The Sick Rose':

''O rose, thou art sick! The invisible worm That flies in the night, In the howling storm,

Has found out thy bed Of crimson joy, And his dark secret love Does thy life destroy.''

I immediately thought it was perhaps referring to Mary Magdalene ('rose', 'crimson' - she had red hair), ('invisible' - hidden), ('his dark secret love' - the secret love of Jesus), ('thy life destroy' - the life of the church.) I thought the poem could have been used to display the Church's fear and outrage of Mary Magdalene, as stated in 'The Da Vinci Code'. However, although I have done research and seen it suggested that Blake was a member of 'The Knights Templar', I do not know if this is true, or whether what I have suggested has been previously suggested (and whether it has any background).

Any help or information would be greatfully appreciated as I plan to deliver my thoughts in a presentation to my English Literature class on Friday.

195.194.144.2 13:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than compare it to The Davinci Code, I would compare it To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time and/or To his coy mistress, as I would feel the meanings match better. But if you can provide good reasoning, you should do well with this in English Literature. If I recall, it usually just wants you to demonstrate an ability to think about possible meanings. If you provide more than one possible interpretation, so much the better! I haven't come across this particular idea anywhere else, but that shouldn't matter in English Literature. It shows your ability to search for possible links and meanings, rather than your ability to find other people's views. Skittle 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the rose is a standard example of the theme carpe diem, which is close to what Blake was intending. --Wetman 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blake's beautiful poem has nothing to do with the dreadful tosh of the Da Vinci Code. This, of course, is my personal opinion, but one I had to express. Blake is focusing here on corruption and decay caused by physical love. Crimson joy is not about hair (where did you pick up the idea that Mary Magdalene had red hair?) but the union of pleasure and shame. I would urge you not to look for bogus connections and false meanings. If you want an example of the problems caused by pre-conceived interpretations and mistaken constructs you could do no better than read The Portrait of Mr. W. H., a short story by Oscar Wilde. I'm sorry, I know this is not a great help to you; but even if you do use the interpretation you have alighted on, I would hope you will not lose sight of the greater truths. Clio the Muse 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was going to compare Blake's poem to The Da Vinci code, I merely asked if there could be any truth in the idea that Blake had written the same secret message that Leonardo Da Vinci is supposed to have painted in 'The Last Supper'. There are many references, both in the novel and other sources as to suggest that Mary Magdalene had red hair and the figure next to Jesus in 'The Last Supper' (again supposed to be MM) has red hair. I thank you for your suggestions and ideas, but I must say that your views could just come from those that society has forced on us, ever since the Church began their alledged misconceptions and slander of MM. Who are we to say that the details in The Da Vinci Code are right or wrong? However, once again, I must stress that this is not the topic of my question. Does anyone know, or have reason to believe that William Blake was in any way connected to the Knight's Templar? He does have other poems ('London', etc - sorry I do not know how to add links yet) which speak out against the Church as an institue, which would perhaps that he knew something, and so my theory could perhaps have some substance.88.107.30.11 21:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never seen anything, anywhere, that suggests William Blake was connected to the Knights Templar. He was a christian with an interest in the occult who railed against the church establishment, that doesn't mean he had to be a member of an extinct order, particularly one based on monk soldiers. That just seems out of character. As to "Who are we to say that the details in The Da Vinci Code are right or wrong?". Perhaps people who know enough about what Dan Brown is mentioning to know it makes no sense? And that he is factually incorrect many times? To be honest, once someone gets easy things you know wrong, you tend to distrust the rest of their sermon-disguised-as-a-story. Skittle 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code interesting reading. However, I still feel mentioning this possible interpretation among others could be a positive thing. Skittle 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like a lot of great art, Blake's poem is symbolic but cannot be pinned down to any specific metaphor. The rose and the worm can be interpreted in lots of different ways.  The poem could be about the destruction of life by death, or innocence by experience (or more specifically, the bliss of the Garden of Eden by the knowledge of sin), or it could be about joyful physical love destroyed by jealousy and possessiveness, or dreams destroyed by cold reason, or poetry's beauty ruined by analysis.  An interesting angle, I think, is Dante's use of the rose as a symbol for Paradise.  Of course it could be about a rose wilting in the flower bed. For The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat ("Dr. P"), and his wife, the poem was about disease and dying, especially in the form of Britten's musical setting of it in Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings. There's an Umberto Eco quote about the rose as symbol: "the rose is a symbolic figure so rich in meaning that by now it hardly has any meaning left: Dante's mystic rose, and go lovely rose, the Wars of the Roses, rose thou art sick, too many rings around Rosie, a rose by any other name, a rose is a rose is a rose, the Rosicrucians." Pfly 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism and Modernism
Can existentialism be viewed as a form of modernist philosophy? SolidNatrix 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, Existentialism is indeed a modernist philosophy, insofar as it only took definite shape in the twentieth century. Is there something more specific that you would like to know? Clio the Muse 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the time when they developed, are there common features between a modernist point of view and an existentialist point of view? SolidNatrix 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see if we can focus more specifically on what it is that you are after, SolidNatrix. Modernism is such a catch-all term, that it could conceivably embrace every current of thought, every reaction against tradition, from the late nineteenth century onwards.  Existentialism itself is a branch of Continental philosophy, that embraces phenomenology, at the one extreme, and structuralism, at the other.  It is also a response, like so much of modern thought, to the narrowly conceived rationalism of thinkers like Descartes and Hegel.  Insofar as existentialism is about the creation of meaning, and the confrontation of choices, it might be said to be the very essence of modernism, constructing a world beyond the narrow confines of reason, full of fear and uncertainty.  Have you read Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre?  Not my favourite novel by a long margin; but it captures the main trends of existentialist thought in a reasonably accessible fashion.  Clio the Muse 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read The Nausea and other existentialist novels. It was while reading TS Eliot's poem The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock that I noticed modernist and existentialist aspects of it, and that got me thinking about if the modernist philosophical movement could be linked to existentialism. I'm not looking for specific info, it's just a thought that occurred to me, and that I don't know enough about to actually link together. SolidNatrix 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are seriously interested in the subject I would suggest that you read Being and Nothingness and Existentialism and Humanism, both by Sartre. And if you really want to blow an intellectual fuse try Being and Time by Martin Heidegger! There is now quite a good English translation of this seminal work by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, but it is still incredibly hard going.  Reading it is a little like the Labour of Sisyphus: no sooner does the stone of understanding reach the top of the hill than it rolls back down again.  And, contrary to Camus' assertion, do not imagine that Sisyphus is always happy!  Clio the Muse 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Western imperialism
I have just read this in The Times online about Afghanistan under the Taliban: "Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.” Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism." I am therefore wondering, to what extent can the current economic & political troubles of underdeveloped countries (such as in Africa) still be attributed to Western imperialism, or should the blame now in 2007 be put totally on the leaders/politicians of the countries themselves? --AlexSuricata 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No Afganistan aside, the deep seated troubles that are so rampant over the great continent of Africa are still dure greatly to the harsh oppresion by western brutality and will be for many many years to come. Further more speaking as a white man, white people should get out of africa and go home, or so i was told on many many occasions, and so i did. May God bless Africa. Ikosi Sikilela Africa.

Afghanistan may never have been "colonized" (I guess Alexander and the Arabs don't count) but it was a pawn in The Great Game between the UK and Russia for a long time. See 207.38.222.155 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because a country was not formally colonized by a Western country does not mean that that country never experienced Western imperialism. For example, Iran and most of China were never formally colonized, but they were divided up into "spheres of influence" by Western powers that controlled their economic life and heavily influenced their politics.


 * Afghanistan's encirclement by the British and Russian empires and an Iran (then Persia) under the thumb of Britain and Russia cut it off from the overland trade routes that had brought it wealth before the modern era. It remains cut off from global trade routes today.  This goes some way toward explaining its continuing poverty.  Today, a case can be made that Afghanistan is a major target of Western imperialism, given the ongoing operations of NATO troops there.  That said, the deep traditionalism and conservatism of Afghanistan's cultures also impede its economic development.


 * Nearly all of Africa, however, was formally colonized by Western countries. Its traditional political and economic systems were destroyed or disrupted, it was carved into territorial units without regard to traditional ethnic and economic links, and its political development was thwarted by colonial administrators.  When African nations gained independence, they were crippled by the effects of colonialism and forced to continue to rely on Western states and economic institutions (World Bank, multinational firms) for their development.  Western states and economic institutions therefore continue to shape Africa's economy in particular, and many have argued that these institutions drain Africa of resources and income and help to perpetuate its poverty.  The disruption of Africa's own economic and political institutions has left a vacuum that has been filled by rapacious and sometimes brutal autocrats and oligarchs, and certainly Africa's ruling elite shares a fair part of the blame for the continent's ongoing problems.  But Western imperialism created the conditions that helped them come to power.  Marco polo 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is far too easy to overstate the importance of historic events on the shape of current politics. The onus is on current administrations because they have the power to make the difference. By providing history as a convinient excuse for current-problems people allow governments to sit by and claim no responsibility for circumstances. Former Russian states are showing that a good government can turn around a nation and bring about positive change. I risk simplyfying the situation, but actions of many generations ago cannot be used as explanation (or excuse) for the continued mis-management of current generations. History has a role in public sentiment, relations and diplomacy but it remains no excuse for not correcting the mistakes of the past. ny156uk 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that those who have the interest in correcting those mistakes have often been killed off - or scared off into other countries. Western governments had a great scam going on there for a while - they sent massive amounts of money to corrupt (but anti-Communist) leaders while telling their own taxpayers that the money was really for "aid", even though both the Western governments and the locals knew that little or none of it would ever see the average person. Then when it turns out that the money was "embezzled", it becomes the fault of the locals, not and never the West. Anyone who thinks that aid money given in the 60s and 70s was honestly meant as aid and not as bribes is living in a dream world. -- Charlene 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My Politics lecturer introduced me to an interesting argument the other day. That the West's attempts to combat corruption in Africa were actually incredibly destructive. The argument being that the patronage networks that are interpreted as being 'corrupt' in the West were actually continuations of older, tribalesque methods of government. And that by destroying these networks huge chunks of the African tribal structure had been disenfranchised, leading to an increase in overall interethnic strife.

Its an interesting argument to say the least. 194.80.32.12 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose colonies should be divided into three groups:

1) Those where the ethnic group(s) that colonized the nation is still in charge today, although they have now gained independence from their country of origin. This would include most countries in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others.  Those countries seem to have done fairly well.

2) Those where the original ethnic group regained control from the colonizing ethnic group upon independence. This would include most of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the former Soviet Union.  Some of these are doing fairly well, others are not.

3) Those countries where the colonizing ethnic group brought in another ethnic group as slaves or workers, and that new ethnic group in now in charge. Haiti might be an example of this.  Those countries tend to be badly messed up. StuRat 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As for not wanting to lump different religious, ethnic, and cultural groups into the same country, I'm not sure this would work, as an Afghanistan broken into a different country for each tribe wouldn't be viable. I see the problem as this extreme local tribal loyalty, and a lack of loyalty to the nation. This is a form of modern-day feudalism, which is certain to result in constant warfare as tribes and warlords fight each other. I think breaking Iraq up into three units, Kurdistan, Shiitistan, and Sunnistan, say, might work, however, although Shiitistan might end up absorbed into Iran, and Sunnistan into Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Jordan. StuRat 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the position in Afghanistan with regard to the British is not quite so simple as The Times quote would suggest, Alex. There was never any serious attempt to colonise the country. Rather the decision was taken fairly early on to turn it into a buffer zone, intended to protect British India from the southern expansion of the Russian Empire, a strategic policy that formed part of the so-called The Great Game. Fear of growing Russian influence in Kabul led to the outbreak of the Second Afghan War, in which the British achieved all of their military aims, including a major victory at the Battle of Kandahar. However, the government of the day took the sensible view that it would be futile to remain in the country in the face of local tribal hostility. Instead the British withdrew in 1880, though they retained control of Afghan foreign policy. And so it remained until after the First World War, when Afghanistan regained full national sovereignty, at a time when the Great Game had effectively been played and won. Before the withdrawal of 1880 the British placed Abdur Rahman Khan on the throne, a particularly good choice, both for them and, more important, for the Afghans. It was certainly not in the British interest that Afghanistan remain in a state of barbarism and anarchy, and Abduhl Kahn did much to modernise both the Afghan economy and state in the face of intense tribal opposition, it has to be said. Barbarism and backwardness, if these terms can be used, were not foreign imports. On the wider point, I completely agree with Ny156: far, far too much is made of the deleterious effects of imperialism in explaining the failure of many modern African states. India, Malaysia, and Singapore were all under British control, but this has not hampered the development of modern economies and mature political structures. In Africa imperialism has become a crutch, intended to explain and excuse failure. In many countries corruption has become the dominant mode of political exchange. Imperialism did not destroy Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe did. Clio the Muse 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My response acknowledged that there is some local responsibility for economic and political disaster in African nations. I agree that Robert Mugabe bears most of  the responsibility for the disaster in Zimbabwe.  Still, Mugabe's disaster would not have been possible without the history of unjust land expropriations by British colonists.  It was this injustice that brought Mugabe to power and that he exploited to build his political power.  In many African countries, the responsibility of Western institutions (both dating to the colonial era and more recent postcolonial institutions) is much clearer.  Think of the devastation brought to Angola and Mozambique by proxy wars funded by the United States, the Soviet Union, and other outside parties.  Think of the consequences to Congo-Kinshasa of decades of Western support for Mobutu. Think of the consequences of Belgian favoritism toward the  Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi.  The list goes on.


 * India, Malaysia, and Singapore are interesting cases. They have some features that African countries lack.  In the case of India, the British promoted the development of an indigenous civil service on a scale unparalleled in Africa.  India was also a coherent civilization, most of which had already been united by the Mughal Empire.  The only post-colonial states in sub-Saharan Africa that built on pre-existing indigenous polities were Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda.  As for Singapore and Malaysia, their success has much to do with a location ideal for benefitting from long-distance trade, which no sub-Saharan African country except perhaps South Africa enjoys.  Also, Singapore and Malaysia benefitted from the importation of Indian civil servants and entrepreneurial Chinese.


 * This brings up another set of advantages enjoyed by Asian countries versus African countries that is really independent of colonialism or the period since colonialism. This is that most of Asia was relatively highly developed before Europeans arrived on the scene.  India and China were the two largest economies in the world in 1700.  Each was an advanced civilization with advanced economies and sophisticated, large-scale polities.  For all kinds of reasons, some of which Jared Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs, and Steel, Africa lacked these advantages.  This left it with fewer cultural resources with which to recover from colonialism.  So I would argue that it is unfair to compare former sub-Saharan African colonies with those in more advanced and advantaged parts of the world.  Marco polo 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is basically that the state of a nation prior to colonization was more important than the colonization itself in determining if a nation is now a success or failure. If so, we can't very well blame the failures on colonialism. StuRat 21:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel you are falling into the same trap: Seeking to use history as an excuse for poor governance in the current day. There is nothing to stop African nations from developing into being successful countries beyond poor government. Collectively they have an abundance of land, of people and a wide variety of natural resources. It is poor government that is keeping African nations poor, not actions from 50/100 years ago. The blame is firmly in the hands of current administrations. ny156uk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Imperialism" is a very poor excuse for the plight of Third World countries today. Take Ethiopia, one of only "Black African" countries to resist neo-imperialism in the late 19th century (the other, Liberia, was more or less a colonial state with African-American emigrants as the rulers). The country is today one of the world's poorest. On the other hand, Hong Kong was ruled by the British until 1997, and now it's one of the wealthiest places on Earth. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Marco, thank you for your response to my contribution on this debate. As always, you write in a persuasive and informed manner, and I respect much of what you have said here. Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge place, and there are indeed tragic examples where colonial history has had the direst of consequences, economically and politically: Mozambique and Angola spring to mind, countries all but destroyed by war and civil war. However, Africa is also a great continent, with a great and energetic people, badly served by its politicians. How long are we to forward the excuse of colonialism as a justification-and it has become a justification-for backwardness and the sheer failure of potential? Take the example, if you will, of the Republic of Ireland, which had an experience of colonialism far older and of land expropriation far more severe than the least fortunate of the African colonies. Although free for almost a hundred years now it was dominated for decades after independence by a reactionary Church hierarchy. Despite this, its transformation over the past twenty years or so into one of the most dynamic of European economies and societies is especially worthy of note, particularly when the country possesses little in the way of natural resources. I wish I could see similar signs of renaissance and resurgence in Africa; but I can not. There is a word in Swahili which explains the plight of Africa far better than outdated notions of imperialism: it is WaBenzi, meaning boss or, better still, big shot. The WaBenzi, the undeclared tribe which crosses all borders, is, in my estimation, by far the greatest of Africa's misfortunes. Take the example of Malawi. In 2000, following the death of Hastings Banda, the former dictatorial president, the British government increased aid to the country by some £20 million. The WaBenzi promptly celebrated by spending almost £2 million, yes, £2 million, on a fleet of 39 S-class Mercedes, in a country where the roads are hadly fit for carts. Take one more example. In 2002 Mwai Kibaki came to power in Kenya on an anti-corruption platform, announcing that Corruption will now cease as a way of life in Kenya. The very fist law passed by the new Parliament was to increase politicians' salaries by over 170%, to about £65,000pa ($125,000). Beyond this, each MP was awarded a package of allowances, including a grant of £23,600 to buy a duty free car, all in a country where the average per capita income is £210 ($406) per annum. I could go on like this, but it's really too depressing. You will find all of the details of these examples and more in How African leaders spend our money, an article by Aidan Hartley, published in the London edition of The Spectator in June 2005. I have visited several African countries, and I love the people and the place. But we have to stop making excuses for failure, to stop draping history around the necks of Africans as a catch-all explanation for their perceived shortcomngs. If Africa is to move forward we need to understand the real causes of failure; and these are far closer to home. Clio the Muse 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for solutions, removing the politicians by force is usually not politically viable, so a better option is to bypass them. That is, provide aide directly to those who need it, and don't give any to the politicians.  For example, any money given to the Palestinian Authority is just as likely to end up lining a politician's pocket, or, even worse, paying for suicide bomb vests.  One project I particularly like in Africa is the merry-go-rounds which pump water into water towers (from safe wells) for African villagers, as children play on them.  This provides clean water and entertainment for the kids, and the politicians can't easily steal and sell the equipment, so it's likely to remain. StuRat 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio is quite right that Africa's political elite bear a considerable share of the blame for the continent's plight. I never denied that.  I still maintain that Western imperialism, during the colonial period and since, bears a share of the blame as well.  However, I completely agree with Clio that it should not be used as an excuse for the failures of the current leadership.  Responding to StuRat, yes, I do think that a country's precolonial status also bears on its present-day situation.  My point was that it is a bit unfair to compare a country that had sophisticated political and economic structures before colonialism with a country that did not.  From the claim that precolonial history matters it does not follow that imperialism does not matter.  Just as to concede that postcolonial leadership matters is not necessarily to agree that imperialism is no longer relevant.  Marco polo 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The original questioner might want to read the relevant works by Niall Ferguson, who provocatively argues that developing countries are poor because of too little, rather than too much, Western imperialism. He writes, "You could conclude that if the British had really wanted to impoverish people in developing countries, they would have given them their independence long before, because nothing has impoverished people in sub-Saharan Africa quite like political independence." Whether or not you agree with him, it's an interesting debate, as the responses above demonstrate. The Wikipedia article on him is not very good, but it will get you started. —Kevin 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for the information provided. --AlexSuricata 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Western imperialism is the cause for all the poverty. The british policy of divide and rule is one evident manifestations of the same poverty in India. And now education has become the emphasis for people from third world countries. The way the lifestyle is being imposed the root cause for all terror being perpetrated in modern age. American dreams is a fools paradise. And the recent racism row in the UK over Big brother is also a manifestation of the evil sub-conscious mind. 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about modern Jewish hierarchy
Is modern day Jewish hierarchy modeled after the master/slave relationship under which the Jewish people lived in Egypt during the period of pyramid construction? 71.100.13.184 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is modern French society based on Merovingian court etiquette? --Wetman 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (Making a virtue of the question) Passover, one of the year's most important festivals is a celebration of freedom from the Egyptian slavery. The Bible decries slavery and even servitude. The Jew who is forced into bonded servitude (The "Eved Ivri" is my (probably mangled) transliteration) is severely punished if he decides to stay on at the end of his service. At any rate, even that aspect of slavery (which is sorely misunderstood if you consider it slavery) is not an aspect of "modern day Jewish hierarchy". Hope that helps. --Dweller 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. And that leaves aside the curious question of what you mean by "modern day Jewish Hierarchy", because even in the most Orthodox communities I know, there is no parallel between a rabbi and a slavemaster, nor a community member and a slave.   I've been Jewish all my life, and no one's ever forced me to make a pyramid...or serve any other member of the Jewish community in any way, come to think of it.  Jfarber 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To explain the question better Jewish hierarchy has been characterized as irrelevant in more recent times by use of the term 'race' and in even more recent times by labeling Jews as 'ants'. Race seems to suggest a disorganized group associated by some similar but distinctive physical characteristic while 'ant' suggests both a queen/colony relation (or perhaps not) and I won't even allude to the idea of insect or 'non-human' species. My own experience suggests a parent/child relation in many but not all cases or a coach/player relation in others. Major league sports support an owner/player relation with a player/player relation which accompanies this. The master/slave relation might therefore suggest a slave/slave relation while dropping the master/slave context might suggest a Jew/Jew relation in its place. Can’t think of anything else to suggest as a model for an answer to the question other than conventional secular hierarchies. Hope this helps. 71.100.13.184 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't help much -- I still don't understand what assumptions you are making, let alone what question you are actually asking. I don't understand how a religious group could be seen as ants, and I don't understand who might be the "parent" or the "coach" and who might be the "child" or "player", and in what context.   Are you asking about how modern Jews characterize their relationship with GOD?   Because if so, I think you'll find that this relationship is fluid for each individual to some extent, VASTLY different depending on which sect of Judaism someone belongs to, and almost impossible to characterize for all or even most Jews universally.


 * I think you'll also find that, in ANY of these cases, that relationship is ultimately not at all like an ant/queen, parent/child, or coach/player relationship in ANY sect or individual I've ever encountered. But I also think you're going to offend people by asking them to consider themselves ants, while not citing where such characterizations come from.   We can respond to SPECIFIC allegations, in other words, but weasel words like "has been characterized in recent times" just make things uncomfortable, sticky, and unanswerable.


 * How about this: if this is a real, legitimate question, and not an opinion in disguise, can you think of a better, simpler, less offensive way to ask the question?   And can you cite specific examples of WHO made such characterizations? Jfarber 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting in any way that these characterization are legitimate or anything other than opinion. However, that said teachers are often the recipients of such opinions or questions from students which if left unanswered do the exact opposite of good. I do not know exactly where the 'ant' characterization came from but rather assume from perhaps a group of boys playing with a magnifying glass and a mount of ants (fire) and one of them making an association with Jews. How about this, and it would apply to all Human religious groups as well, that the relationships between people who are 'devoted' to a belief or cause can form sub-groups and organizations similar to what molecules in chemistry do - the basis of the religion serving as the glue or bonding agent, if you will? Any 'hierarchy' is possible then depending upon the 'molecule' that is formed (versus the chemical bond ants share which is provided by their queen.) And please do not take my question as offensive because it is certainly not meant to be. 71.100.13.184 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Slaves aren't paid for their work. The slavekeeper only maintains upkeep. I'm struggling to find a Golden Calf here. Is the questioner aware that it is counter to modern tradition of inquiry to fall into the logical fallacy of assuming generic praxis of race? It wouldn't be true, for example, to suggest Islamic peoples are succeptible to master slave relationships, although islamofascists (whom I believe to not be Islamic) seem to fall into the similar category of abusive relationships. DDB 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture that comes to mind of Egyptians and Jews is indeed horrific with Eqyption soldiers carrying whips and walking between the pits where Jews were making bricks. I don't understand your reference to the 'Golden Calf' unless its refers to either slavery of the people to the ideology of the Golden Calf or more in line with what I am thinking retaining a certain dependent relation on Moses and other Jewish priests who were their leaders whether this could be considered involuntary servitude or not. I guess some felt they had the right to leave and that some in fact did. 'Race' is not an assumption but rather a characterization by perhaps Islam fascists which seems to suggest a 'group' that although a majority may share certain physical characteristics most likely applies to their common devotion to a particular task. Abusive relations appear to exist in officer/enlisted relations and in husband/wife relations, etc. but I was not trying to make this point only to determine what 'glue' might be which would solicit Islam fascists to characterize Jews as belonging to a common 'race' or if their is an alternate, more apt, description of bonding. In Catholicism for example there is the priest/parishioner relation where the priest serves as intermediary to God versus the preacher/member relationship of a Protestant church where the preacher serves more as teacher and less as intermediary to God. But now that I review my own question and think a little more hopefully the answer that will come to me is a common subscription to what has been written in the Jewish Holy Book. 71.100.13.184 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not REALLY sure what you're asking, but I would nonetheless suggest that using the Torah to determine anything about the MODERN Jewish hierarchy would be only slightly more effective than trying to understand the modern US legal system by exploring the Code of Hammurabi.  Jewish identity -- including how Jews relate to each other, and to their leaders -- in most sects of Judaism have changed significantly since even Talmudic law.   If you want to understand MODERN "hierarchies", you need to use modern texts about modern times.  Jfarber 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppose I say I am a carpenter because I fasten together pieces of wood and my brother says he is a carpenter because he forms wood into pieces that can be fastened together. Fastening and forming pieces of wood are characteristics of being a carpenter. But what is the hierarchy? Can my brother say how the wood is to be fastened or can I say how the wood is to be formed? Yes. So 'hierarchy' then (in this example) is the order of action which is actually done, i.e., the wood being formed according to how it is fastened or the wood being fastened according how it is formed. As time goes by more and more 'types' of charpenters may come to exist or existing types may change such that many more different hierarchies may come to exist. What I am asking is 1.) what are the different 'types' of carpenters now in modern times, and 2.) what different hierarchies do they make up? 71.100.13.184 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to understand how this has any relation to your question, but this last bit is illuminating. Perhaps you need to visit the entry for Hierarchy before someone has quote Inigo Montoya ("I don't think that word means...")?   When you're there, plase pay special attention to the idea of ranking and subordination, and how it differs from your use of the word to explore the relationships between sequence, function, form and action.


 * Because, as I understand it, a hierarchy of carpenters would include (in descending order) a boss, a foreman, a carpenter, and maybe an apprentice...or, depending on where they're working, maybe a contractor, a subcontractor, and a laborer...but would also note that many carpenters work without a hierarcy.   I would also suggest that in your example above, your brother may actually be a woodworker, and you may actually be a cabinetmaker or joiner.   Are these "types" of Carpentry?   Yes, according to our article.  But there is no true heirarchy involved there, because some types overlap, and some carpentry is general or inclusive.


 * If you can then find the right word for what you mean, maybe we can readdress the question of relationships between/among/in something and something else in a particular religion, eh? Jfarber 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of hierarchy I'm trying to relate in the above example does indeed relate to form and function rather than to organization in the traditional sense. The idea being that some hierarchies are self-organizing which in the case of this example would mean that the hierarchy is and would be organized according to circumstances at hand. In other words referring to the example and somewhat repeating myself if I have a task to be accomplished which requires craftsmanship of say fitting a cabinet into an odd shaped space then I may have the option of forming the pieces of wood to fit the space or reshaping the space to fit "standard" shaped pieces of wood. The "hierarchy" I am referring to is this choice between the two and which is to be used. To determine which is to be used I must consult various criteria which make up the "hierarchy" that will determine the action I take. This "hierarchy" may have only one variable such as whether I have tools to form the wood or reshape the space or it may have lots which would include what the owner of the space prefers, difference in cost, etc. Not only am I seeking a list of the characteristics or variables of the hierarchy but the order in which they most properly exist. For instance, in the example cost might be the overwhelming factor so cost would most properly go first. In regard to the question then I would assume that first variable or characteristic would be whether or not one believed in God but the answer might have to be qualified by other variables and characteristics since there may exist persons who are Jews, whether calling themselves such or called this by someone else, who do not believe in God. In other words there may very well be persons who are therefore Jews but who do not believe in God. Its really quite simple. I just need a list of the characteristics of all Jews and the order they most properly fit. 71.100.166.228 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Words exist for a reason.  If you mean heirarchy to mean other than what the word actually means, this will confound people.   This MAY explain why no one but me is still trying to have this conversation with you, and I'm giving up here.


 * This is why words have the attribute of senses. My question is not intended to confound but rather to get thoughtful rather than kneejerk answers. 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. But one last thing I will bother with, since it will explain why everyone is likely avoiding blanket questions abot Jews...and about other groups herein, too.   The only characteristic of all Jews that I can think of is that they are Jewish.   This means a whole BUNCH of things, but it does NOT mean that one of those things is MORE or LESS "Jewish" than another.


 * In logic (and therefore classification) this is called a Tautology which is considered to be a way of dodging rather than answering a question. I do not wish to reach a classification based on only the characteristics I currently know and will therefore allocate this as a dynamic classification to overcome the objection you have made. This I think will be fair for the majority of Jewish people. 71.100.166.228 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have NO idea what you mean by "there may be persons who are...Jews but don't believe in God."  That would mean someone has Jewish ancestry but does not identify as a Jew for religious purposes?   If so, say so.    Is ancestry or religious belief what makes someone Jewish?   Is one MORE Jewish-determining than another?   This question is NOT answerable.  Because such a question depends on what YOU mean by Jewish, and that meaning will depend on WHY you need to know -- in other words, "heirarchy" only has meaning if you tell us WHY you want to have a heirarchy.  Do you want to know if a carpenter is more IMPORTANT (status heirarchy), or do you want to know if a carpenter is BETTER (skill heirarchy), or do you want to know where someone falls in the sequence of production of a particular object, like a house?  (Sequence heirarchy, I suppose, although this is not a HEIRARCHY)?   The qquestion "what are the characteristics of carpenters" is equally meaningless and unanswerable unless we know WHY you want to know -- are you asking about status, or skill, or in-community valuing, or what, exactly?


 * Forgive me for using this insertion technique to respond to your comments. Certainly if this were 1934 you might be rightfully concerned about Jews being rounded up based on a classification. However, this is not my motive. My motive is so that 1.) I may determine whether I am Jewish or at least to what degree and 2.) to be able to respond to others who have so many wide and varying ideas of what Jews really are despite the excellent Wikipedia articles that provides many answers to most questions in great detail. BTW the people who rounded up the Jews predeeding and during WW2 used only one characteristic to determine whether someone was a Jew and some lives at least may have actually been saved had one been able to argue that so and so was actually not the kind of Jew which these people wanted to round up. This beneficial possibility is, however, not possible without a classification which includes more than a single characteristic. Even I am not that selfish. 71.100.166.228 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As such, as far as I can tell, your core question is totally unanswerable, because you seem to be being deliberately fuzzy about your use of language (see #1 above), and won't tell us what sort of question about people you are trying to ask. Sorry.   Perhaps in the future you can find your way to putting your biases and assumptions at the front of your questioning, so we can better understand the question, and help figure out how -- and whether -- there is an answer at all.  Jfarber 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doing my best to ask such questions in a way to avoid either being considered anti-Jew or to obtain a kneejerk answer. My efforts are apparently insufficient so I will work on it some more. Thanks for your patients with your answers so far and consider that my true goal is to fully comprehend and understand the Jews not because I am against them but because one of them gave up his life a long time ago specifically to save them all. 71.100.166.228 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Noone here gave you a kneejerk answer or called you anti-Jew. They just complained that your questions were cryptic.--Urthogie 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous questions. 71.100.13.184 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Girl Scouting/Girl Guides in your area
Can you tell me about Girl Scouting/Girl Guides in your area. I am researching Girl Scouting/Girl Guides throughout the World for our Troop 387 here in Weaverville, California USA

Thank you! Kelly Braz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.82.222.90 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm sure you'll find this website http://www.wagggs.org/en/home very helpful. --Dweller 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And our article, at World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts --Dweller 17:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. I was a long time member of both the Brownies and the Girl Guides in England. Is there something in particular you would like to know? Clio the Muse 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said...
It was something along the lines of "If you owe the bank $100, you have a problem, but if you owe $100 million, the bank has the problem." Clarityfiend 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "John Maynard Keynes is reported to have observed once that if you owe a bank $1, the bank owns you, but if you owe a bank $1 million, you own the bank.""The old Keynes line—'If you owe the bank 100, the bank owns you; if you owe the bank 100 million, you own the bank'""Lord Keynes is reported to have observed that, 'If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you are in trouble. If you owe the bank 1,000 pounds, the bank is in trouble.'"there are though sources calling it: "that old saw...".&mdash;eric 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mick Young has been widely credited with it in Australia. But he may have borrowed it from somewhere else without attribution.  JackofOz 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Asset Price Bubbles: The Implications for Monetary, Regulatory and International Policies by William Curt Hunter, George G. Kaufman, Michael Pomerleano says it is in Keynes's The Consequences to the Banks of the Collapse in Money Values in Essays in Persuasion (1931) but I could not find it on amazon's search inside. This has a different source but the same wording. Maynard Keynes: An Economists' Biography by Donald Edward Moggridge has the initial sentence "The old saying holds".  meltBanana  00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. Now, how do I get a bank to lend me $100 million? Clarityfiend 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that business books are notoriously bad about repeating quotes with bad attributions and not even trying to get it right. --24.147.86.187 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Benchley did a piece on this as well as Stephen Leacockhotclaws**== 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's military experience...
Does anyone know what Bill Clinton's military experience was? I thought I recall that he was in the national guard but can find very little at all about him having any experience in the military. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.224.39.98 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I believe Bill Clinton's only military experience was in Vietnam War protests. StuRat 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm intended?  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You got it. StuRat 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The US is doing so much better with a president with military "experience". Hmmm...how many presidents served in the military? Never mind. I found List of United States Presidents by military service. Clarityfiend 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Our current beloved President used his family connections to serve in the National Guard just long enough to avoid any actual combat. He also was largely AWOL from that.  BTW, that list above doesn't list trickle-down Ron as having any wartime experience, but didn't he make propaganda movies for the military during WW2 ?  Perhaps they meant combat experience. StuRat 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Trickle-down Ron was 4-F. I'm not certain why, but I have a vague memory that he might have been legally blind without glasses or contacts. -- Charlene 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Contacts in WW2 ? Perhaps the war propaganda movies I'm thinking of were made by the studios with him as a civilian. StuRat 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He was in the Army Reserve from the late 30s; mobilised in 1941, but was found medically unfit for service overseas due to sight issues. He got given a desk job for a few months before being shifted into a film-propaganda unit, though he remained commissioned in the Army throughout. Wartime military service, yes, but not in a combat zone; the article there seems a bit confused on its terminology. Shimgray | talk | 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill Clinton served as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, which is a military position. Presumably the same could be said of his position as the CINC of the Arkansas National Guard.  As a matter of interest, the other presidents who had no previous military experience were Franklin D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, James K. Polk, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.  --TotoBaggins 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although these presidents lack personal military (combat) experience they may derive such experience by proxy thus allowing them to uphold the 'cause' no matter how much blood is let or in Clinton's case try to find alternate diplomatic solutions - though not necessarily moral or genuinely supportive and in some cases even deceptively against the home turf. 71.100.13.184 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some first-rate president's in that list, while some with extensive military experience, like Grant, were rather poor president's. I conclude that military experience isn't important to being a good President. StuRat 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all fine, Stu, but why on earth are you apostrophising your plural presidents? Whatever they did wrong, they never deserved that.  :)  JackofOz 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Either I'm once again out of the loop with regards to some lame pun between the two of you, or you're just being a nit-picking arse, Jack. :--)


 * Aahh, recognition at last. (Btw, there is no loop. I'm just sometimes a bit loopy ... or should that be sometime's?  :)  JackofOz 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now let me nit-pick your nit-picking; you failed to notice my inconsistent capitalization of "president". I try to use caps for the title of a particular president, but lower case when describing the position in general. StuRat 13:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's called an "own goal", Stu.  But well done.  My time here has obviously not been wasted.  :)  JackofOz 08:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I congratulate you both, Jack and Stu, for a a truly fascinating exchange, one that has no doubt made the most profound of contributions to Wikipedia. It would only seem appropriate to conclude it now with a complete non-sequitur of a poem. The following work of magnificent artistry was penned by the inimitable genius that was the great Ogden Nash: Portrait of the Artist as a Prematurely Old Man:


 * It is common knowledge to every schoolboy and even every Bachelor of Arts,
 * That all sin is divided into two parts.
 * One kind of sin is called a sin of commission, and that is very important,
 * And it is what you are doing when you are doing something you ortant...
 * You didn't get a wicked forbidden thrill
 * Every time you let a policy lapse or forget to pay a bill;
 * You didn't slap the lads in the tavern on the back and loudly cry Whee,
 * Let's all fail to write just one more letter before we go home, and this round of unwritten letters is on me.
 * No, you never get any fun
 * Out of things you haven't done...


 * In the spirit of Nash's irreverence, I apologize for the above sin of commission, I just couldn't resist the "wicked forbidden thrill" I would derive out of it. :--) Loomis 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, Commander in Chief is not a military position. Rather, the President, as Commander in Chief of the US Armed forces, serves in that capacity as a civilian. So trying my best not to take sides, I think it's fair to say that neither GWB nor Clinton had the most stellar of military careers (yet at least one, despite allegedly going AWOL, actually did serve). And just as a token of my goodwill, while one claims to have "not inhaled", at least the other had sense to fully enjoy his paticular poison, be it in liquid or white powder form. Who's the moron now! :--) Loomis 08:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Me thinks you have not actually read Commander_in_Chief Which quoted states: “Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the kingship of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President's civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd. The American presidency thus departs from the civilian basis of virtually all other republics.”


 * ...or Commander_in_Chief and considered the distinction between civilian and military position grows ever more unclear as time proceeds according to Commander_in_Chief, i.e., doing things which are in general reserved only for direct military command. 71.100.13.184 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I had understood Commander in Chief to be a military title, because in 2003 when the President rode out to an aircraft carrier on a jet to announce 'Mission Accomplished' and "major combat operations were over" in the Iraq war, they stencilled "George W. Bush Commander in Chief" on the outside of the airplane, just as they would "Joe Jones, Lt. Commander" for any other pilot. They then immediately retired the plane to a museum . Edison 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)