Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 7

= March 7 =

Shouldnt UK government order credit card companies to lower their interest rates?
Currently in the UK, the interest rates on credit cards are something like 30 or 40 times the bank base rate. Why isnt the goverment ordering these interest rates to be lowered, so that people with cc debts are able to pay them off more easily and to spend more? And, rather than doing this "quantitative easing" by a circuitus method, wouldnt it be a lot more effective to spend the same amount of money by sending every adult in the UK a cheque for about £2000 and asking us to go and spend it? 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Credit card interest rates are high because they are quite high risk loans - lots of people fail to pay off their credit card debts and the banks lose money, to compensate for this they have to charge lots of interest. If the government set a limit on credit card rates the credit card companies would just not give credit cards to people that they couldn't justify giving such a low rate too, so it would actually decrease the availability of credit, not increase it. The problem with just giving people money is that they may well not spend it - people's jobs are in danger, they're struggling to pay mortgages, they're scared that they much be in serious financial difficulty very soon, so the sensible thing for an individual receiving £2000 to do at the moment is to save it (or use it to pay off debts). Spending it would be great for the economy, but generally a bad idea for the individual. This is a major problem with recessions - the worse it gets, the greater the incentive for individuals to save, not spend, which causes it to get even worse. A carefully targeted government stimulus (perhaps funded by quantitative easing) is supposed to get people spending by putting money into just the right parts of the economy where it will move around lots rather than just sitting in a bank account. I don't know if it will work, but that's the theory. --Tango (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By that logic the best people to give lots of money to, to stimulate the economy, are people who have secure jobs and are already extremely rich. Maybe we've finally found a justification for Republican monetary policies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite an answer, Tango. Hmm... Didn't the US try giving everyone some money? They're still in recession (AFAIK). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They might have given some tax breaks, which effectively boils down to giving people money. I don't think it was a significant portion of their stimulus plans, though. --Tango (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found our article on it: Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. "The study suggests that the rebate payments were an effective stimulus". - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that as Britain moves into recession, the chances of people defaulting on their debts increases, which means credit card companies need to charge higher rates to cover this increased risk of default (especially as, unlike mortgage lenders or car financing, credit card loans are unsecured). You can see a similar phenomenon in mortgage rates, which have fallen significantly less than by the amount central bank rates have been cut.  The British government has tried asking credit card companies to reduce their rates but seems reluctant to impose regulations on bank lending. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that the UK Government has no authority to order anyone (other than serving military personnel) to do anything. Should they wish to do so it would require Parliament to pass legislation which would be contentious, time consuming & hard to word effectively. I don't see much chance of them passing legislation giving the government the right to dictate terms on commercial transactions which they are not a party to. AllanHainey (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What other countries have networks of public footpaths and bridleways apart from the UK?
In Britain there is a dense network of paths through the fields and woods of the countryside where you have a legal entitlement to be able to walk or ride. I imagine that nearly all of them are are hundreds of years old. I enjoy walking through them. In the USA, by contrast, I understand that there are none apart from perhaps long distance paths and the large national parks; which puts me off ever wanting to live in the US. Are there any other countries that have similar networks of public footpaths as the UK does? 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In Norway, Sweden and, according to the article below, also Scotland, Iceland and Finland, you can walk and camp almost everywhere you want as long as it is not someone's garden or cropland, regardless of who actually owns the land. See Allemannsretten. Jørgen (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know (and I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the United States has no legal provision comparable to the preservation of Rights of way in England and Wales—private property is private and may be forbidden to trespassers. But I think you're underestimating the areas that people are permitted (or even encouraged) to walk through. Certainly, "long distance paths and the large national parks" are not the whole story; there are a wide variety of types of U.S. public lands, and there are trails established even through private property that one can traverse. I may be lucky, but I've walked anywhere I wanted to, within reason, without getting a buttload of buckshot. Deor (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I've been surprised to see that in some US states the great majoprity of land is publically owned, am I right in thinking that (even if you live in a small US town) if you want to go walking in the US, this would typrically involve driving a considerable distance to an area where walking is allowed? Whereas in the UK the network of footpaths connects with all towns, cities, villages, so once you have cleared the suburbs you can begin walking along a footpath. Hence in the UK you have the pleasure - except if you live in the middle of an urban area - of being able to walk out of your front door and within minutes being on a footpath through the countryside, without requiring a lot of planning or preperation beforehand. Personally, I would not want to live in any country where something similar could not be done. What about Australia, New Zealand, France or Italy please? 89.243.78.197 (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See greenways. In the US, these are often old train right-of-ways, where the tracks have been removed and replaced with a foot and bicycle path. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It will greatly depend on where exactly you live - the U.S. has tens of thousands of miles of trails and if you value that you can easily arrange to live near one. This may mean that you have to travel farther to find employment, though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if I may say so even people living in small towns in the US must really feel trapped if they cannot walk through the adjacent countryside, but can only drive along the road. Isn't it customary to take dogs for walks as it is in the UK? I get the impression from the huge volume of US films and tv programmes we see here that it is not even possible to walk along the side of road without being stopped by the police, or having things thrown at you by drivers. Is that true or just a myth please? 89.240.206.60 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance this is all a snide plot (see conspiracy theory) by the automotive industry of the US of A to reduce the lower extremities to limp dangly tentacles to the greater glory of the Detroit Trinity? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what programs you're watching but I don't know of any anecdotal evidence of anyone having something thrown at them simply for walking on the side of the road. And I do live in a small town in the US.  I know my neighbors (some better than others, of course) and have permission from all of them to walk on their land, even with our dogs.  We have ~10 acres, our neighbors each have at least that.  Not that we really needed to ask.  Most people around here don't mind if you simply go for walks on their property.  We walk our dogs on the side of the road quite a bit, especially during the warmer months.  So, long story short, if you stop assuming that all of the US is just like what you see on CSI or West Wing, I won't assume that Brits aren't all like what I see on Are You Being Served?  Dismas |(talk) 03:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's not really related to hiking but Vermont has a network of trails dedicated to use by snowmobiles. See VAST.  Dismas |(talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read a bit about footpaths in England and, as a citizen of the US, I am jealous. Sure there are various kinds of public trails and walkways in the US, but if I understand the English footpath network right, there is nothing like that in the US. In some places, as pointed out above, it is considered acceptable to walk across your neighbor's private property, but in many many places there are instead signs saying "Private Property, No Trepassing", and lots of fences. This topic always reminds me of the Woodie Guthrie song This Land Is Your Land, which in some versions includes the lines ''As I went walking I saw a sign there, And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." But on the other side it didn't say nothing, That side was made for you and me.'' Apparently when Pete Seeger sang the song at President Obama's inauguration he included those lyrics, to my delight. Pfly (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Small correction: he sang "on the sign it said Private property/ But on the other side it didn't say nothing/ That side was made for you and me" . 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So is the meaning of the Woodie Guthrie song to Americans that it is wrong to have an excessive amount of private property, that there ought to be some land set aside for people to walk on and enjoy? (Some of the villages in england have areas of communally owned land called commons that originally in mediaeval times were used to graze the villagers livestock - hence expressions like the Tragedy of the commons - but which are now used for walking on, playing cricket, and being an attractive grassed area usually in the centre of the village. If I was a philanthropist then after world hunger and world peace had been solved, I would buy up land to donate to common-less villages - including small towns in the US - so that the inhabitants could enjoy the open space.) More recently, is the critique of the song not understood, that it is assumed to celebrate the huge amount of land that America has? 89.243.46.238 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Americans need to do something like the Mass trespass of Kinder Scout that occurred in Britain in the 1930s, that resulted in the law being changed to give people public access to private land (if big enough etc etc). I'm not from that part of England, but I think Kinder Scout is near large cities. Before reading the article, I was not aware that even access to public footpaths had been restricted then. 89.242.111.236 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "right to ramble" is one of the more surprising things about British life to an American. You'd never hear of such a thing in the U.S., where private property is highly regarded. I don't know what the situation was in Britain, but in the U.S., it's not as if a few rich people own all of the property outside of cities; it belongs mostly to farmers and middle-class exurbanites. I can assure you my parents would be none too pleased if the government were to decide that anyone could just ramble through their 3/4 acre property. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know the details, but it does not apply to small areas of land such as 3/4 acre, so your parents would still have their privacy, and get the additional freedom to walk through and enjoy the countryside around them. I've only got a vague notion of this, but one scheme that has become common in recent years is where farmers get paid by the EU for leaving fields fallow, if they agree to allow the public to walk over it. I do not know what the details of the legislation relating to giving public access to large area of moorland, mountain, etc are. There is no right to roam over agricultural fields etc., except through the mostly ancient public footpaths. I'm shocked by the impression I'm getting - that walking more than a few yards in America is regarded as being alien or eccentric, a view reinforced by the invention of the Segway. 89.242.99.255 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But you see, there is no "countryside around them" for them to walk through. There are only thousands of other similarly sized residential lots. Here's a typical American exurban area: . You can see there are mid-sized properties everywhere; no contiguous large properties for paths to run through. The local government could run trails between properties, but that's not what exurban property owners want. They want their property to be inaccessible, private and far from the eyes of ne'er-do-wells. There are plenty of walking trails in the U.S., but they tend to be in parks or other dedicated recreation areas rather than just anywhere. If you live in Chesterland, Ohio and you want to go for a walk, you drive to a park, walk around, then drive back. Of course, if you live in a higher-density area, you can just walk on the sidewalks (which you call "pavements") wherever you want. -- 192.206.151.130 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had a look at the aerial photo. It looks like a suburb to me. The density of housing in that area looks far less than you'd get in britain. I see that there is a lot of what looks like woodland - I assume it is divided up into plots that include a house. In that situation in Britain, the footpaths would typically run along the boundry of the plot, with a fence, footpath, another fence. Sometimes they cut across a large plot - this is more common in the true countryside, where they often cut across or along the side of a field or wood, usually without any fencing. You could imagine them as being like having an additional network of "roads" overlaid upon the existing road network, except that these "roads" are very narrow, have a dirt surface, and can only be used by people on foot. In Britain its middle-class people who mostly use them, but as you suggested in the US people seem to fear that "ne'er-do wells" would use them, which seems rather paranoid. But as in the UK there is less income inequality, hence less crime, then I can see your point of view. It must be frustrating if you have a lake or river or other attractive feature in the area and cannot see it unless you own part of it. 78.146.23.195 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know some cities have trails winding between the subdivisions. One thing: Crime isn't necessarily lower in the UK. See . Many Americans live in areas that actually have very low crime rates, in part because they are so low-density that people don't butt up against one another that often. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The survey misses out the murder rate, which I understand is several times higher in the US than in the UK. It also does not adjust for household size, which may be bigger in the UK than elsewhere, particularly in the areas where more crime occurs. 89.240.200.74 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So is the meaning of the Woodie Guthrie song to Americans that it is wrong to have an excessive amount of private property, that there ought to be some land set aside for people to walk on and enjoy? I only meant that my experience in the US with finding lots of "Private Property, No Trepassing" types of signs and lots of fences in places that would make excellent walking paths reminds me of those Woodie Guthrie lyrics. I don't know what the meaning of the song is exactly. I suspect it is more a protest about private land ownership in general. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalisation
Movements such as the left-libertarian, right-populist and religious-fundamentalist groups, which have been facilitated by globalisation, have been argued to have in common which of the following?

a) They are concered with maintaining traditional values and lifestyles b) They are respones to new risks generated by the new global society c) A repertoire of protest and publicity for their causes d) a and b e) b and cUQ68 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which test is this from? // BL \\ (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a terribly coherent one, I'd say. —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A multiple choice question? That deserves a prize in the "least disguised homework question" stakes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's so obviously a homework (well, test) question I almost think it might not be! --Tango (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think “the left-libertarian, right-populist and religious-fundamentalist groups, which have been facilitated by globalisation,” as opposed to say, the world’s poor in general? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

history of brasil 1955 to  2008
reference book  written in  english  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.21.155 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In Brazil, there is listed A Concise History of Brazil by Boris Fausto (Cambridge: CUP, 1999) under "Further Reading". I cannot speak to its value, bias or accuracy. I'd be surprised if there were histories available yet on the years after the 1990s; we don't have a perspective yet to treat them as other than current events. // BL \\ (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lots of history books that cover the period of the post-1990s. Whether they come up to 2008 just depends on when they were published, but I am sure there are books that move into the 21st century and still consider themselves "history." Recent history is often done with a little more caution but it's hardly eschewed completely... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then, please, out of the "lots", help us out with a few titles. I am sure the OP will be appreciative of your efforts. // BL \\ (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my sub-field, so I don't know anything off the top of my head, but the notion that works of history don't or can't come up to the present is incorrect. Whether something is "history" or not is not defined by its scope or time period. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A Google News search can help with the more recent history. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not "history." Journalism and recent history are not the same thing. They have different audiences and methodologies, and are entirely different genres. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but the thing is that history books take considerable time to produce (and you never know when they are going to be published). If books covering recent events are available, they're more likely to be approach them from a journalistic point of view, so that's the best you'll get. --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, March 8, 2009.

A person on my rented property
I have a question. I have a roommate, and for a long time we've had a mutual best friend. However, this best friend recently fooled around (sort of, as much as possible) with a girl I had a major thing for, which was definitely my last straw in the relationship (he knew this, I introduced them).

As a result, I don't want him to ever to step foot in my house again. However, he is still best friend's with my roommate. Do I have the legal ability to tell this man to leave my property if my roommate disagrees? I do know that renters do have many of the legal rights as a normal property owner would have. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So which country do you live in? 89.243.78.197 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * USA, Pennsylvania. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, look! What's that at the top of the page? "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead." Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not legal advice. Please refrain from patronizing me. I'm asking what's legal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are asking for legal advice. You have a problem, and you're asking what your legal rights are.
 * On a non-legal note, however, if your "best friend" -- which I would take to mean, at the very least, that he's a good friend -- "sort of" fools around with someone you have a crush on, you might want to consider that the other party was a willing participant. Grown-ups really don't get to call dibs on people, and you don't get to tell people who they're allowed to fool around with. And now you want to sic the law on your friend?
 * Dude.
 * If he's being a dick about it, that's one thing, and you can (and should) call him on that, but if your response to someone hitting on someone you have a crush on -- not even your girlfriend of wife, mind you, someone who is under no obligation to you -- is to look for a legal solution to a personal problem, that's probably not going to improve things any. (Or, to look at this differently: if you really, honestly can't get along with someone, and your roommate still insists on bringing that person over all the time, your most immediate problem probably isn't with the guy you have the beef with.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you must know, there was a mutual masturbation session. That's not just hitting on. And really, no dibs, but seriously some respect? After being told I couldn't even see his potential gf's for jealousy? And you're right it was mutual, and I'm pissed at both. But I'm not arguing that part. I want to know if I can tell my roommate that I don't want him around, and I can say "I can enforce this" without him saying "tough cookies it's my apartment too." Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, he's got a double standard. That makes him a kind of a dick, but personally, I'd avoid going down that road myself. As for your roommate, well... it is his apartment, too, right? I mean, he lives there with you and presumably pays his share of the rent. If you live with someone, in the end, you have to put up with them or move out (or ask them to move out, if you're the one holding the lease). Seriously, if you go all legal on his ass here, there's no way for you to do this without coming off as petty... at best. It sets an ugly precedent, too, because if you establish that this is how you do things, you'd better be prepared to be dealt with like that yourself. All this will do is drive a wedge between you and your friends without actually resolving the issues that make you want to do this. It's great if you want some extra drama in your life, but it sounds to me like you've had your fill as it is. Up to you, of course, but I really wouldn't do this. (And I'm not putting down how you feel, because obviously you're hurting. That sucks, I know. But that's life for you, and you can't throw down ultimatums like this without doing even more damage to your friendships and your reputation among your friends.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * a) This is a request for legal advice, so we can't help you and b) you haven't given us enough information to help even if we could - what is the legal status of your roommate? Are you subletting to him, him to you, is he on equal terms with you, is he the owner? It will make a big difference. I think if you can't agree on something like this, you would probably be best just not living together. If you really want to take legal action to deal with it, you'll need to talk to a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a harsh truth: it doesn't matter what the law says. You're not going to use the law to solve this problem; even if the law did allow you do, you'd be entirely mad to go down that avenue. Say, hypothetically, that you could forbid this person in law; you tell your roommate, and he ignores this. So what are you going to do about it? If you try to remove the person yourself, by force, you're taking an enormous legal (and physical) risk, to little net benefit to yourself.  The landlord absolutely doesn't care, and the cops are very unlikely to help either.  You could get a court order, which makes the cops care, but even if you have grounds (which you very probably don't) that'll cost you thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to find out.  And, bluntly, you never want on-duty cops inside your home unless you absolutely have no choice - can you be entirely confident that someone at that party you had last month didn't leave a reefer under someone's bed?  Lots of things might well be enforceable in law, but the cost of finding out is so high that most people don't bother - that is everyone except lawyers (who get their own services for free) and crazy people (who care more about "the principle" than their own best interests). You need to either solve this problem by negotiation, live with it, or find somewhere else to live. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Having faced similar roommate problems, let me explain that it is not true that a legal right and justice are the same things. Sometimes they are but most times there is no correlation. The reality to is even if you a legal right, a judge will be so annoyed with you for wasting valuable resources that you will never ever win. Time solves these problems as in you are extremely unlikely to be in your current living arrangements in the near future. Young people tend to be transient.Jhussock (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * I don't know if such things exist in your jurisdiction, but you may want to seek out tenant's associations or other such community-based or government-supported support groups for help in resolving your dispute. As has been mentioned many times above, start by talking to your flatmate! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't tenants' associations more about helping with relations between tenants and landlords, or maybe tenants and neighbours, not tenants and their roommate? It's up to you to deal with what goes on inside your own home. --Tango (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the jurisdiction and the particular body. A tenant and a sub-tenant is a variant on a landlord-tenant relationship; it is not a domestic relationship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antananarivo_Street.JPG
This is a picture of a town in Madagascar. It wonderful in having a lot of detail to pore over. What is the name of the blue tree at the top right please? What are the names of the fruits at the bottom right and left? I can see oranges and probably mangoes, but there are others I do not recognise. In the lower middle of the photo there is someone wearing what looks like a gold suit and white hat, with hands in their pockets standing on the kerb of the road. Is there any significance in wearing gold? Thanks. 89.243.78.197 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The tree in the background looks a lot like a jacaranda. Richard Avery (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear 89.243, thank you for bringing this photo to my attention, and for asking your questions. They seem to me to exhibit exactly the sort of curiosity and thirst for knowledge that Wikipedia was set up for. I don't know about the gold suit, but hope I can help on the fruit. The stall on the left is harder to interpret, but the one on the right appears to be selling ripe yellow-orange mangoes, unripe yellow-green mangoes, and (in the foreground) round orange fruits that could be citrus (even plain old oranges), or could be something more interesting such as persimmons.  One way to check your guesses, after looking at our articles, is to go to Google Images and type in the word you think it might be, e.g. jacaranda. That should help you confirm or eliminate candidates.  Good luck in cultivating your enthusiasm for learning!  If you want any help, feel free to put a note on my talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a jacaranda, too, but our article on jacaranda doesn't mention it growing in east Africa. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was wrong, the article mentions Zimbabwe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Madagascar, as a sort of island-continent, has its own highly distinctive flora and fauna, so the presence or absence of jacaranda elsewhere in the geopolitical entity of Africa has little bearing on what might be expected to pop up in Antananarivo. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seal of American Samoa
I've been doing some research for an article, but there is one thing I have been unable to find on Wikipedia, Google, or its official website, so I come here! I'm trying to find the date the motto of American Samoa, Samoa, Muamua Le Atua, was adopted, which would be the same date the Seal of American Samoa was adopted, but I can't find that year anywhere. When would it be? Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  16:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The seal was adopted by the legislature on March 5, 1973, approved by the territory's governor on March 26 and dedicated on April 17 of that year. I couldn't find specific information about the motto's adoption. --Cam (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Reywas92 Talk  21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The motto was adopted officially in 1975 through A.S. Code tit. 1, § 1102. Shearer, B. F., & Shearer, B. S. (1987). State Names, Seals, Flags, and Symbols: A historical guide. pp. 34, 37 fn #78. &mdash;eric 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign-language paredolia and mondegreens
Do speakers(deaf or hearing) of sign languages ever find themselves noticing "signs" in meaningless gestures or random motions, just as hearing people sometimes hear words of their language in meaningless noise(such as the "Satanic messages" in music played backwards)? Can there be mondegreens in sign language as well? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal spending
How much money does the federal government spent under the Clinton adiministration, and how much under the [George Walker] Bush administration (+ comparing to the income from taxes)? Gridge (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The article United States federal budget may be of use to you in answering this question. MarquisCostello (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WJ Clinton (1993-2000): $4.34 billion a day, and a deficit of $109.6 billion a day. GW Bush* (2001-08): $6.56 billion a day (+51%), and a deficit of $685.6 billion a day (+525.2%). Ya gotta love those fiscal conservatives! * does not include clean-up costs.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain those daily deficit figures ? What I don't understand is (1) how can the deficit per day be greater than the spending per day and (2) how you reach daily deficit figures of $100 billion or more, when the annual US federal budget deficit is of the order of $500 billion (from United States federal budget; "From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average"). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)