Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 1

= November 1 =

information on law
i m 24,n planning to open an educational society.for which i need a detailed information about the law in india in respect 2 an educational society.I have been through the article given on this site,the information in the article was very brief n not enough to satisfie my requirementRahulseth (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probably best to contact a legal representative in the jurisdiction where you intend to open this society. If you contact established societies in that local area, they may be able to put you in contact with the proper authorities who can answer your question more specifically than can a volunteer-written encyclopedia.  Cheers!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on murder?
I was in a conversation recently where the claim was made that our enjoyment of our lifestyles as Americans (this conversation was in the US) depends on the killing of others in other parts of the world. Someone called BS on this point (which seems fair), and the person making the point said they'd have to do some research to get specifics. I'm wondering, is this true? Can a reasonable argument be made that, by enjoying the standard of living we know in the first world, we've got blood on our hands? Thanks in advance for any reasonable opinions on this admittedly controversial point. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its absolutely bogus that our lifestyle is impossible without getting blood on our hands. I don't see any reason why everyone can't live this way. Prosperity does not equal murder. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a warped view of the notion of economics as a zero-sum game. There is a common notion, especially among certain political viewpoints, that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that wealth gained by one person is by necessity lost by another.  Such an idea is patently and demonstratably false.  The program This American Life did an EXCELLENT program on the issues of the current economic problems here:, and one point they say that the global supply of money, which sits at about 70 trillion dollars, was only 36 trillion dollars in 2000.  That increase in cash is not a result of inflation, there has been a net increase in worldwide wealth over the past 8 years or so.  We don't have to steal/kill/murder whatever less advantaged people in order to get our own wealth.  The data doesn't bear that out.  Sure, many of our practices, in some roundabout ways, do negatively impact the developing world, but there is no reason why this must be so.  Indeed, most of the increase in wealth comes from places like China and India which are, on the balance, becoming rapidly wealthier, and such growth is generally positively affecting ALL of their citizens... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question is whether is must be so. The question is whether it is currently so. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say, though, that our lifestyle "depends on the killing of others in other parts of the world", then you are necessarily saying that it must be so. You are saying that if we no longer killed people, then we would lose our wealth, aren't you? Wrad (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Caution: GTBacchus is not saying that; GTBacchus is saying someone else is saying (something like) that, and asking for advice on whether to adopt that view. —Tamfang (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tamfang; you're right. I'm not making any particular claim here. That said, I would disagree with Wrad's analysis. Consider: what if I go out and mug someone each day in order to get money to buy lunch? Now, I might be qualified for a job in which I could earn enough money without mugging others. In that case, it would be true that my lifestyle depends on victimizing other people, but it would be false that it must be that way. I'm wondering whether (or to what extent) the wealth of the first world is currently a result of the victimization of people outside of the first world. Do first-world nations beat up third-world nations and take their lunch money? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I reckon it would be nearer true to say that poverty depends on violence. Most of the poor countries are that way because commerce is actively stifled by the state, which by definition functions through the threat of violence. —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not in the US, I'm in Australia but I think the lifestyles are pretty much the same. I live in a large house, have access to good medical care, cheap goods, plenty of food etc. I also know that plenty of other people overseas don't have access to these things. Therefore I am taking a disproportionate amount. Those people without access to good medical care/food may die as a result. So I think it could be argued that I, in taking my disproportional amount, have blood on my hands. 124.182.99.22 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because people in other countries have less access to the things we take for granted, does not mean we're taking a dispoportionate amount. If you chose to reduce your consumption of goods and services, people in other countries would still have less access to them.  There's more than enough food etc for everyone in the world; it's the distribution system that's imperfect. --  JackofOz (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * During the colonial period, European empires 'stole' raw materials from their colonies and used them to become wealthy. Some would argue that that still continues to some extent today, and I would agree that to some extent they do. There is plenty of corruption to go around. Wrad (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's corruption resulting in poor countries being stripped of resources without benefit to its people then that corruption is in the poor country, not the rich country buying the resources. The rich country may be supporting that corruption, but the real problem is with the poor country, not the rich one. --Tango (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always. Ever heard of the Opium War? Britain's superior military crushes China into submission in order to force them to buy opium. A similar thing, as I recall, happened in America with tea... until Americans paid a heavy price in their own blood. Wrad (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The original question does not ask to place blame. It asks if our lifestyle depends on it, regardless of who does it. We could depend on something, but not cause it in the same way that we depend on, but not cause, sunlight.   If, hypothetically, our 'lifestyle' depended, in part, on the Chinese people being kept in poverty through sometimes violent means, wouldn't that mean that GTBacchus's friend was correct? Regardless of who was responsible for the oppression? APL (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't taking the medical care from poorer countries. Your country has a good education system and has trained good doctors and scientists, those scientists have produced good medicines for the doctors to use, etc., etc.. None of that has been taken from the third world. (There is a possible exception where doctors from a poorer country go to a richer one because of better pay, they do often send money home, though, so their home country does benefit to some extent.) --Tango (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if the people making our goods were paid as much as us in the 'first world', then we wouldn't be able to afford nearly as much stuff. If "Buying lots of stuff" isn't our "lifestyle" then I don't know what is.  Killing people is a harder link. Perhaps it's easier to say the lifestyle depends on poverty. That's probably enough to make the shocking point that GTBacchus's friend was going for.  APL (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tea in America = Opium in China. Strange ideas the maoist propaganda has produced. Is the Opium war "fact" not much more than a p. c. thought crime? Marxists used to be sure the industrial revolution was paid by the slave trade. This has been shown by all real economists not have been so. Also the Arab slavetrade, about a third of Western slavery in size, did not produce much industrial revolution--80.137.201.157 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the discussion on this question. You've all given me food for thought. Sweatshop labor is probably the closest to an example of what I was asking about. I don't think one could make a very strong case, for example, that bombs over Baghdad lead to lower prices at the pumps, which would put blood more directly on the hands of gasoline consumers. One could perhaps argue that, in any democracy, the electorate are complicit in any crimes committed by the government (in the sense of unjust military actions), but that's straying a bit further from the present topic. Thanks again for the considered opinions. I'll point my friend to this thread. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This question is actually a lot like the one above that asked whether any American soldiers had killed any Soviet soldiers in the Cold War. Since the answer there is very few or none, there's a temptation to say that it therefore wasn't a very serious matter; I don't have a reference handy, but I'd bet that American soldiers killed more American soldiers than Soviet (training mishaps, friendly fire, etc.), so why call it a war at all? That's the superficial answer, just as it's a superficial answer to state that very few or no people in the Third World were literally murdered so the First World nations could maintain their standard of living. Multinational companies have a huge financial gain to make by keeping the workers they use as poor and dependent on them as possible. That leads to poverty and that demonstrably leads to crime, reduced access to health care, and shorter lives. We are complicit to that misery by our continued support for the companies behind it by buying their products. See Fair Trade. Matt Deres (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of foresight in government?
I'm trying to make the argument (it's non-partisan) that there's a serious lack of foresight in government, or rather there's foresight but we only act on problems when it's too late. The US economy is a great example. But, are there times in the past when we did have foresight? Like when we proactively improved our infrastructure, invested in future alternative fuels,etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any example would be controversial, I imagine. What one sees as necessary investment in infrastructure, another may see as a criminal encouragement to pollution and waste. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Point taken. But, I mean there's no arguing that there weren't any warning sign for the recession. We just didn't listen to them though. In the same way though, as controversial as they might be, are there example of trying to avoid them in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When the Constitution was made. When Washington only went two terms in order to avoid dying in office and setting a precedent. Wrad (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice! Any more recent ones (the last few decades)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm! In another thread above, Jayron32 mentions that Washington wanted to avoid letting the Presidency look like a lifetime office; Wrad's nuance escaped me then! On the other hand, to illustrate what I said before, I'll mention the view that the Constitution of 1787 was a bad thing: that the "failures" of the Confederation were mainly in the eyes of the power-hungry, and that (in hindsight) the form adopted has important structural flaws (as measured by the framers' expressed ideals). —Tamfang (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seward's purchase of Alaska and Jefferson's Lousiana purchase. It's going to be difficult to get anything in the last few decades that isn't very controversial. Wrad (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Iraq War? Somehow, they didn't foresee the country still existing afterwards. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's asking for good examples of foresight. There are plenty of examples of lack of foresight. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to read questions before answering them, sorry! --Tango (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that in successful cases you are asking a very problematic hypothetical about what might have happened otherwise. It's easy to ask when things went wrong but a lot harder to ask when things go right. One might call the Manhattan Project a great gift of foresight—Roosevelt dedicated almost unlimited resources to producing something that may or may not have even worked, but ended up being immensely important in the postwar/Cold War period. Of course, weighing whether that was a good idea or a bad idea requires creating an imaginary world in which something else happened, and depending on ones inclinations you can either see it as a happy place or a horrible place. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could a government that lacks foresight be called "politically circumcised"? :)  (sorry)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example: dropping atomic bombs on Japan prevented the necessity of invading the home islands. Say what you will about the (lack of) humanity of using those weapons, but it certainly showed foresight. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Foresight" is credited only in hindsight, just like prophecy. Mis-called "prophecies" disappear without a ripple, and only historians can explain why many things that "seemed like a good idea at the time" didn't pan out: the rest of us link "foresight" only to projects that were successful, especially those that can be shown to have "paved the way" to us, the paragons.--Wetman (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Balignant episode
According to several translations of The Song Of Roland, the Balignant episode starts at 2609. None of these translations, however, inform the reader which line ends this interpolation. Anyone know what line ends it? DahiJynnuByzzuf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

minor parties
Game theory suggests that plurality election encourages a two-party system. In the USA we've certainly seen this; yet in Britain the minor parties have clung to a handful of seats for generations. What institutional differences account for that? Is it simply that British constituencies are smaller (half again as many seats for, what, a quarter as many people) and so some of them are not contested by one of the major parties? And what's the story in other top-tier legislatures elected by plurality from single-member districts? (How many are there?) —Tamfang (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll stick to just one of your questions. In the British model - forget Northern Ireland - you need to distinguish regional parties, that is Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, and the Liberal Party, a third party on a British level. In the late 40s and early 50s, the UK Liberal Party came close to extinction. It really survived only because the Conservative Party preferred not to contest those handful of seats where the Liberals were better placed to defeat Labour than they were. This is no longer the case, and Labour and the Conservatives now contest every [?] seat in Britain. But by the time this de facto electoral truce entirely broke down, the charismatic Jo Grimond had entrenched himself as an immovable object in the Northern Isles. Thanks to Grimond, and his complete lack of interest in joining Labour or the Tories, the Liberals remained on the national stage. The examples of Gwilym Lloyd George and Megan Lloyd George, one of whom left for the Tories and one for Labour, show what was otherwise in store for the Liberals. The narrow margin by which the Liberals survived is discussed in Iain Dale (ed), Prime Minister Portillo & Other Things That Never Happened. The "Near Extinction" and "Liberal Revival" sections of History of the Liberal Party (UK) are worth a look, and this programme for a conference at the LSE might be of interest. Mark Bonham-Carter's win at the Torrington by-election, 1958 was the first sign of the Liberal revival, which really got underway at the Orpington by-election, 1962. There could very easily have been no British "national" third party and it would have been a brave commentator who'd have predicted the later revival in the early 50s. Plaid and the SNP are clearly very different, there being no "national" party which shares their principle aim, the end of Ukania, which might compete for their activists' support. Given the weak party structures in the United States, I don't think analogies with the UK will be meaningful. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the exceptions noted above, the UK is no-less a two-party system than America is. The United States Senate currently has two members, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who aren't members of either party.  The Liberman case is unique, because he was a long-time Democrat, but he left the party largely because he lost a primary election, and thought he could still contest the seat as an Independent.  He did, he won, and for all intents and purposes he still caucuses with the Dems.  Sanders is the only true independent in the government.  He belonged to the extremely minor Liberty Union Party in the 1970's, and contested a few elections as a member of that party before becoming a true independent.  Since his first office, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont through positions as a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Sanders has not been a member of any political party.  As a leftist and self-described democratic(little d)-socialist, he tends to vote with the Democrats, and gets counted as such for the purposes of committee assignments and such... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What? The UK is far less of a two party system that the US. There are no 3rd parties in the US that have any significant influence in national politics whereas the Lib Dems hold a significant number of seats in the UK parliament and there is a very real chance they could be kingmaker after the next general election (I haven't looked at the polls, it could be quite a low chance, but there definitely is a chance), and I'm talking about a significant kingmaker not just a single independent that gets to choose who nominally has the majority but has little influence beyond that (US Senate votes often don't follow party lines, so having one more person nominally on your side makes little difference). --Tango (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada has plurality voting but has four or five major parties. One of the differences with the US, I think, is the system of primary elections. If you think one of the two main parties is too centrist or too radical, you can run in the primary election. In Canada, you need to have approval from the party brass to run, so if you don't like how things are going, you have to start a new party. Thus while people on the US center left blame Ralph Nader for George Bush's election in 2000, no one in Canada begrudges its Green Party's moral right to run candidates for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the big factors is the regional distribution of voters. The Bloc Quebecois is the obvious example in Canada - if its supporters were evenly distributed over the country (an exceptionally unlikely event for obvious reasons) its number of seats would be tiny. The effect works, with slighly less effect, in other places. Urban voters tend to be more left wing than rural, so urban constituencies are contested between the Liberals and NDP (Labour and Liberal in the UK) while rurals between the Liberals and Conservatives. So while each constituency encourages 2-party races, the demographics means that 3 or 4 can survive. The US is unusual because only 2 parties have any traction nationwide - and I suspect that is because the presidential system means that a third party will never get any significant power, even if they can get a senator or congressman elected. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Corridors
When/where is the first confirmed man-made dwelling building to have corridors to connect rooms rather than just rooms which interconnect. At first sight, a corridor is an inefficient waste of space. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Hall suggests halls (like corridors) and their variations date from the Iron Age – sometimes to separate rooms, or buildings, or as rooms themselves. Inefficiency depends on what you think space is – doesn't seem so inefficient if it prevents a fire in say, the kitchen from spreading to the main dwelling (originally), or as a traffic way for people, to create privacy, circulate warm or cool air, or hatch plots etc. You'll start to think they're damn essential and why did we ever fall for open plan design? (Another type is the "breezeway".) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course that sort of hall was a large living space and wasn't an access corridor... -- SGBailey (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Corridors seem to have evolved in a number of different ways.
 * Many houses and other types of buildings, such as those of Ancient Rome, were centred around a courtyard which had a covered arcade or passage that ran around it, giving access to all the rooms. In warm climates, rooms all opened onto the arcade, rather than opening into each other. The upper stories of the arcade could be glazed.
 * In colder climates, such as England, large houses continued to be built with courtyards. However, the arcades were dispensed with, and the rooms opened into each other. see medieval Haddon Hall.
 * Arcades functioned as passageways in other types of ancient buildings as well. In a Roman basilica and a medieval cathedral, the aisles on either side of the main space (Nave) formed passageways.
 * The type of building known in England as a "Hall" is a large open room, which generally formed the core of a dwelling. This is why many of England's older homes are known as "The Hall". This single room was at first occupied by the entire family, and retainers. They were then extended with sleeping quarters, kitchens and larders, leaving the Hall as the main living and eating space. These must date from the 11th and 12th century.
 * When this happened, an end part of the Hall where the entrance door was, was often sectioned off with a wooden screen that had two openings or doors in it. This meant that the draught didn't come into the main space. The partition effectively formed a passageway. Penshurst Place is a classic example of this "breezway" hall.
 * The large Halls could themselves become "hallways". This often happened when the Hall formed the main building where a lot of people were living in community, for example, of an alms house. A row of wooden partitions would be erected to form cells on each side of the large hall, turning the inner space into a wide passageway. Browne's Hospital at Stamford seems to have this arrangement.
 * Castles that have very thick walls, the Tower of London for example, often have passageways in their walls. This allows people who come up by the circular stairs to walk around the building without entering the central spaces.
 * The use of wooden screens in the Hall, seems to have led directly to the partitioning of other large rooms in order to form a defined passageway that was separate from the living space. At Oxburgh Hall the screen in the hall itself has gone, but it seems that two other rooms were partitioned to form a passage. I don't have a photo, only a plan, and have no idea of the date of the partitions. The building is from the 1480s.
 * Compton Wynyates dating from the 1500s, has quite a few of these partitions.
 * The next development seems to have been the "Long Gallery". This gave the inhabitants a space to walk on rainy days, with a view of the estate, a place to hang their portraits, and access to all the rooms that led off it on the upper floor. It was altogether a great invention. See Hardwick Hall.
 * English Renaissance palaces went for the Classical arcade idea, but often glazed them, effectively forming corridors around the interior court.
 * Kedleston Hall was planned with a number of corridors, in the interior of several of the sections of the building, so they were real sevice ways, and didn't impede the view from the rooms.
 * Meanwhile, in smaller houses, the hall that formed the entrance and was central to the house, gradually became smaller and narrower, until it finally became a space to hang your hat and beyond it was a stairwell and corridor. The sort of arramgement we are familiar with.
 * This doesn't answer the question. But it was interesting to look up. Corridors in England seem to be earlier than those in France.

Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City
Why is Kansas City so-called when more of it is in Missouri? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More of "it" isn't in Missouri. It is two separate cities; the larger one is in Missouri. Rmhermen (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the state of Virginia exists, and yet the city of Virginia City is in Nevada. This sort of thing happens quite a lot... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the specific history of the two Kansas Cities, see History of Kansas City. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What the article doesn't explicitly mention is when the "Town of Kansas Company" (that's the name that the city's name derives from) was formed, the Kansas Territory (which became the state) did not yet exist. (In fact, the article refers to people traveling into Kansas Territory before it existed.  Looks like that bit needs cleaning up.)  The obvious explanation would be that the town was named after the nearby Kansas River, and later the territory and state were also named after the river. --Anonymous, 02:58 UTC, November 2, 2008.


 * Growing up in Kansas City, this was the basis of a joke that implied Kansas City and St. Louis both made a run for the border, but didn't find anything better on the other side. The size of Kansas City, MO is rather large - but it wasn't always that way.  It incorporated many of the smaller cities around it until they all became Kansas City.  On the Kansas side, the same thing could happen.  There has been an insane amount of development around Kansas City, KS.  The city may decide it would be nice to annex neighboring towns to get just as fat as its sister. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

War profiteers and banking families
Dear Informative Community, I’ve been watching a lot of documentaries throughout the internet which could easily be classified as “conspiracy theory”. Mainly in the domain of Federal income tax, war profiteering and the involvement of banking families such as the Rothschild (see “Zeitgeist, Addendum and America: Freedom to Fascism). Below I have devised a series of questions these “conspiracy documentaries” have brought to my attention and that of the growing number of politically aware internauts. What is the true legality on the Federal income tax in America? Is the Federal income tax really constitutional? Does the money from the income tax come back to “The People” in any sort of way? And if so where? Is there really an elite of bankers in America trying to control and profit from the economy? Such as the Warburgs? (see “Federal Reserve act” and the secret meetings held on “Jekyll Island”). Was Andrew Jackson right about removing any form of central banking? Was Woodrow Wilson wrong in passing the Federal Reserve Act? Was the Glass-Steagall Act a good act to put in place? Is there any sort of link between Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the economic crisis of today? Considering the new freedoms bankers and brokers have had ever since Bill Clinton signed the Act in 1999. Who are the American Bankers who profited from WW2 before America got involved? Are they the same banking families who sit on the board of the Federal Reserve today? Is there truly a conspiring elite or are these documentaries just entangling history for profit? I beg of anyone who could offer answers in part or in totality, because these are serious accusations which I as anyone cannot take lightly. Cordially —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgracious23 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there are clear private economic motivations for military actions (see War is a Racket and United Fruit Company) which have nothing in particular to do with alleged centuries-long secret conspiracies.  However, if there are any secret conpiracies, I bet that the Bohemian Grove is somehow involved... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the constitutionality of the income tax, see Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pretty explicitly constitutional—the entire reason they added the amendment was to make sure that it was.
 * As for the money on income tax coming back to "the people" in "any sort of way"—yes. The income tax money finances government projects which are ostensibly done in the name of the people. So at the moment our income taxes in the US are financing our war in Iraq, for example. Oh, that's not what you wanted it to be used for? Then throw out the people who used the money in that way. That's basically how it is supposed to work. Actual results may very.
 * Are there elite bankers trying to control and profit from the economy? Control, definitely. The US economy is explicitly managed from on high—take a look at the headlines of any respectable paper lately and you'll see that the Federal Reserve Bank is trying its best to manage the economy, in the sense of keeping it from totally collapsing, by all sorts of measures ("bailout" plans, adjusting the interest rate, etc.). And one could argue that it is indeed being managed towards the idea of maximum profit—but not necessarily of those who manage it (I'm sure Alan Greenspan is pretty well off, but it's not like he spent his years manipulating the economy for his own personal benefit). The question of whether it has been managed correctly, or whether it has been managed it a way which benefits the country more than, say, bankers and brokers, is one which is currently being discussed quite openly—it's no conspiracy theory that the economic policies of Reagan and Bush were designed to aid certain sectors of the economy more than others with the goal of a "trickle-down" effect.
 * As for wrong, right, etc. — these are legitimate historical questions. Lots of policies are seen as better or worse ideas in retrospect. They aren't shady secrets. It's unlikely that most of them were done to purposefully profit a select group or some sort of conspiracy theory. As for the documentaries—most of those sorts of things are very poor history to say the least. If you are interested in economic history, there is a lot of good work out there. In my experience people who are untrained in the methods of history and have specific political agendas to push make for poor historians. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the opposite or rival of the Phoenix?
what is the opposite or rival of the Phoenix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.101.87 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lately the Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Mavericks, San Antonio Spurs, Sacramento Kings, and Utah Jazz have all been as competitive as Phoenix in the Western Conference, so I suppose any one of them could be considered a rival... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 18:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He said, THE phoenix, so he's obviously not talking about the sports team, he's talking about the mythical creature. ScienceApe (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC).


 * I know. I was being facetious.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It may help to specify which Phoenix you mean,. The sports team? (And which sports team? - there are about 10 listed on the disambiguation page.) The mythical bird? The character from the Illiad? The city? The NASA lander? Any of the dozen or more military vessels? The Marvel Comic "entity"? Any of the other numerous literary and TV/movie characters named Phoenix? -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Phoenix Clan are the traditional enemies of the Dragon Clan. Algebraist 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything that would be a direct rival, in the sense of an opponent, from any of the myths I'm familiar with; most of the myths deal simply with the phoenix's ability to regenerate itself. An opposite would have to be something that died, but even that isn't completely true since the phoenix dies (bur rises again). I don't think there's a meaningful answer to your question. Matt Deres (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can think of something that rises (but dies again). But I doubt it's what Friend 96 is after.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Answering this abstract question seems rather more fun than whatever the boring question was the OP wanted an answer to. Two thoughts of mine are:
 * A basilisk (because a pheonix helps Harry defeat one in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)
 * A centaur (because Antipholus goes to a courtesan at the Centaur when his wife locks him out of his home at the Phoenix in The Comedy of Errors). AndyJones (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the opposite of brown? What is the opposite of kiwifruit? What is the underlying false assumption?--Wetman (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tocharian Religion pre-Buddhism
Heya. Is there anyway of finding out what the pre-Buddhist beliefs of the Tocharians (as in the now-extinct Indo-European inhabitants of the Tarim Basin) were, or if any details (archaeological or otherwise) exist about it?

144.32.126.12 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tricky, without a consensus about who the "Tocharians" were. As I understand it, a bunch of Buddhist writings in an unknown IE language were found, and the name "Tocharian" was given to the language somewhat arbitrarily, without any certainty as to which of the various peoples of that region used the language.  —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that most of what we have in terms of written texts for the people who wrote in Tocharian is Buddhist religious text, it's difficult to know. My supposition is that they would have followed an offshoot of Indo-European religion before that, but based only on the notion that they are Indo-European. Steewi (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Assumptions of cultural similarities based on hypothetical linguistic family groups are not ever secure, and that is the basis of the quest here. The particular aspects of the style of Buddhism reflected in the "Tocharian" texts is hard enough to gauge in itself.--Wetman (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me back my tail - hunter tormented by thing in forest
There's a (traumatising) story that I was told when I was young but I can't remember it exactly (only some of the scenes that I envisioned). What happens, more or less, is that a hunter, living alone in a forest, catches a creature and for some reason or other, only makes off with its tail which he eats. For some reason, the hunter is motivated to release his pack of hounds to kill the creature but only half of them come back. The same happens again each night until he has run out of dogs. Finally, the thing is at the bottom of his bed, asking for its tail back and I think it rips open his stomach. Still haunts me to this day... I think it actually might ask for its tail back on earlier occasions, perhaps prompting the repeated release of the dogs... Totally unsuitable for children, IMO... Seans Potato Business 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I remember this story. It was read to me when I was in the fourth grade, I think.  I believe it was in one of the Scary_stories_to_tell_in_the_dark books. 208.1.253.163 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A similar campfire scary story has long been told which ends with the entity saying "I want my golden arm... and I'm gonna GET IT!!!!" ending with a shout and grab at the listener. Hilarity and shrieks ensue. Edison (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tracked it down: Tailypo. Not a suitable story for children (or anyone, really...) at all. >:( Seans Potato Business 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The version I was told involved "I want my liver...", some extremely questionable decisions on the part of the protagonist and being leapt on while lying in a quiet room listening to the story. Shrieking indeed. And nightmares. 79.66.37.142 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds similar to legends about vengeful wolverines. --91.32.105.90 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Scary Stories books don't have the exact story (iirc), but had one about a corpse looking for her lost toe. Matt Deres (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And similar in creepiness and body parts, to Guy de Maupassant's short story, The Hand.
 * Your link doesn't work. 203.188.92.71 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)