Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 28

= June 28 =

Sigmund Freud
Not sure if this question belongs to science or humanities ref desk, but as psychology is considered to be a social science, I'm asking it here. I've hard a lot of people say Freud's works are pseudoscience or pseudopsychology. I've read the book Pseudoscience and the paranormal by Terence Hines. In this book Hines claims "psychoanalysis is based in large part on pseudoscintific formulations that are inherently unfalsifiable" (Chapter 5, Pseudopsuchology, p. 151). Is Freudian psychology really pseudoscience? --Confused wannabe psychologist (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was not based on empirical research, and it has not subsequently been confirmed by empirical research either. When it was developed, the term "psuedoscience" did not exist, and despite the lack of empiricism it was ground-breaking in introducing ideas like the subconcious, but now it is outdated. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It really depends on who you ask. There are some who argue quite strongly that it is unfalsifiable under any conditions—that there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of, say, the ego, superego, or id, that these are concepts that are without any possible empirical basis. In fact, a large impetus for the creation of Behaviorism—with all of its own flaws—was to try and "ground" psychology in hard empiricism, throwing out everything that did not have an obvious testable basis.
 * The defenders of psychoanalysis—often the practicing analysts—argue something a little more subtle. They argue that the truth of psychoanalysis is evident in its ability to serve as a useful therapy. The proof is in the pudding, in other words. They point to lots of people who have been helped by it, and argue that even if psychoanalysis is not a literal empirical description of how the brain works, as a therapeutic set of concepts it has been borne out again and again as useful and thus must hold some degree of truth.
 * This is, as you can quite quickly see, not a very satisfying explanation for those who feel that empiricism is really the primary goal, or those who think that psychoanalysis is just quackery in another form. Many of such critics would argue in response to the above that there is a definite lack of metrics for determining what even "successful therapy" is in this case, and that other therapeutic models (say, pharmacology) provide far less ambiguous results.
 * All of the above is muddled of course by the fact that nobody can really agree even what "psychoanalysis" is even supposed to be. Is it what Freud laid out in the 19th century, or is it an evolving set of practices and theories since then? Are we Freudian or Jungian or all of the above? Is it the method or the underlying theory? Some of this ambiguity, I think, underscores the critics' charges that "there is no there there."
 * Personally, I think both of these arguments are not actually contradictory. I think the practices could be entirely non-scientific in their nature, but at the same time could be therapeutically useful. The main point of psychoanalytic therapy seems to me to be based in discussing one's self and trying to be introspective about it, and to use these strange theoretical concepts as means of interrogating one's issues from a wide variety of points of view. The Oedipal complex doesn't have to be an actual physical structure of the brain to be a useful way of thinking about one's problematic relationship with one's parents. All the same, to pretend that these concepts have some sort of universal or literal truth to them seems entirely unjustified to me. And obviously one cannot argue very seriously about the chemical/physical nature of mental activity at this point, though one can argue whether in many cases this is the most effective treatment paradigm at this stage in our understanding.
 * Anyway, the above is all just my take on it, having done bit of reading on both sides of it over the years, and as someone without much of a stake in the outcome. I can't for the life of me remember which relevant texts would be most useful in going about looking into this for yourself, though—it's the kind of thing that pops up again and again, even in places like the science pages (and its subsequent letters to the editors) in the New York Times and places like that. Psychoanalysis is not a bad overview of the critics' side of things, but does not give much of a sense of how the analysts' reply. My general feel on the latter is that most analysts' don't feel the need to make a strong case for it except ever so rarely, as a response to particularly trenchant criticism in a mainstream periodical (again, the New York Times), and in such a case, they usually just fall back on the "hey, it works for me" answer, which is obviously not terribly satisfying if you aren't already sold on the idea (or have doubts as to what "works" means in this instance). Sorry for writing an essay...! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The defenders of psychoanalysis—often the practicing analysts—argue something a little more subtle. They argue that the truth of psychoanalysis is evident in its ability to serve as a useful therapy...." As far as I recall emprical studies have shown that you get the same amount of help from spending the time with non-therapists, and perhaps even with just letting time pass. 92.24.183.139 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to actually reference said studies if you'd like to enter them into the conversation... no doubt there are many such studies that find many such things. Without actually having them in front of us it's a little hard to say if they are worth anything. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto for Freudian therapy. 92.28.244.45 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add that you have to be careful with the word 'pseudoscience', which many people misunderstand and abuse for entirely non-scientific reasons. the term should really only be used to point to theories that fly in the face of science.  For instance, you'll occasionally find people trying to advocate for odd ideas (UFOs, psychic powers, etc) using 'science-like' explanations that are completely senseless from a scientific point of view (i.e., they would violate known scientific principles and have no credible evidentiary basis).  when people do that, it's pseudoscience ('fake science').  however, a discipline is not fully developed or completely explanatory is not pseudoscience ('fake science'), but just a field in development.  Freudian psychology has a lot of inherent problems, but Freudian psychology is just the first generation of psychology, and it still has both clinical and theoretical value.


 * I should also note that this whole issue arises because Karl Popper was trying to defend and extrapolate a particular perspective in the philosophy of science (the falsification paradigm), which is no longer all that highly regarded in the philosophy of science. I mean, people use it still as a model, but everyone recognizes that it has little connection to the way science actually functions in research settings.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a second point on falsifiability: people use it exclusively when they are interested in something they don't like. They don't often spend much time seeing if applies well to things they do like, or even asking how it would actually work in practice when you aren't using it against Creationism. It's a philosophically problematic approach to the demarcation problem and has been recognized as such since it was basically proposed. It's probably as close as the "lay man" gets to real philosophy of science, and is useful in teaching people the tiniest bit of information about how one might construct a reliable system of knowledge, but it's not on the whole much more successful than that. Distinguishing between "what is science" and "what is not science" is incredibly hard in part because what we call "science" really means a lot of different types of investigations. Some of which are decidedly useless, to be sure, but in most cases that's hard to say with much really justifiable certainty. (I personally consider "Scientific Creationism" to be a "shooting fish in a barrel" sort of situation, the sort of controversy that would not exist at all if not for the peculiar structure of American educational politics.) All that said, Popper himself recognized that it's hard to say whether an entire theoretical superstructure is falsifiable or not. He himself concluded at one point that natural selection was itself not falsifiable, but that it was a framework which could produce falsifiable theories and hypotheses. (He later recanted some of this after the scientists got mad.) One could probably say the same thing about psychoanalysis if one is generous. Personally I find it hard to separate the theories of psychoanalysis from the historical figures that created it—it has "19th century Austrian bourgeosie" written all over it—which makes it a little hard to see as something that really gets at "truth", though again, it might be useful therapy (as might be acupuncture, even if it doesn't work at all for the reasons the acupuncturist thinks it does). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing about going to see a lawyer. That does not mean that lawyers should be abolished. 92.29.125.172 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, riiight. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I Am Not A Lawyer (yet) but my law books tell me to a high degree of accuracy what the law is. A lawyer can (hopefully) tell one to a high degree of accuracy what the law is. The same cannot necessarily be said about Freudian psychology and the human mind. --JoeTalkWork 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How Sigmund Freud gained acceptance, as in Philosophical Circles, is that others of his Peer-group accept that he has taken the study/ Science that bit further. Hence, to understand him and Jung, you need to know what happened in his world before and after.  We usually refer to this as the extra sense of Epistomology.   The human subject cannot easily be subjected to test-tube situations.  You will find in most Universities there is a time when inter-diciplinary talks take place, which is meant to correct this situation.    MacOfJesus (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BCG study on millionaire households across the world
 The metric is just about any asset except for the home residence. Is it me or do the numbers seem quite off especially for the US? There are about 100 million households in the US so that would mean the top 5% of American households are millionaire households. I find this hard to believe. Are there statistics that would support or refute the BCG study?

Midmath (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd think one in seven people was a millionaire in the U.S., not including their house. That's 14.2%.  My reasoning is that since the [|Household income in the United States] article includes the line "The 2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000", we can reason as follows.  Top two quintiles are 40% (a quintile is one fifth, ie 20%).  So, we start off with 40% of households having a household income of $60,000.  Now that means in twenty years, they have earned $1.2 million.  Now, I know if you were given 1.2 million dollars over twenty years, you'd have nothing to show for it.  No offense, but that's why you're not in the top quintile.  People in the top quintile get there by being shrewd investors, in their education, career, and so on.  Usually they are richer than their parents were.  So when you give 20% of American households 1.2 million over the course of just half of their career (assuming they retire after 40 years - usually people actually work more years before retiring), why are you surprised if 14% of them are able to make $1 million out of it?  In fact, since your study is about 5% being millionaires, you can just imagine: one percentage of the 20% has ALREADY been working almost a full career?  Maybe, due to the greying of America, you are already talking about 5% right their.  Maybe that 5% is exactly the ones from among the 20% who make $60,000 or more who just so happened to have 35 years of career savings behind them.  These are investors you're talking about - the basic difference between being rich and poor.  While a rich person buys something expensive and uses it for ten years, you buy something not exactly cheap, but replace it five times in the same period of time as them, altogether spending twice as much as the rich people do.  Same goes for renting an apartment versus buying, living in while renovating, then flipping.  Same goes for career investments, like education.  You probably entered the workplace earlier, because you needed the money, while they took a more long-term view.  Seriously no offense, but these are the reasons that these people are rich and you are poor: for me, it is not surprising if 5-7, or as much as 14% of Americans are millionaires.  If you need more advice on how to be a millionaire yourself in twenty years, just extrapolate from what I've already told you: I don't sell anything, in fact I've already given you more than you need to know to get rich yourself. 84.153.206.127 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Households and people are different: a household is likely to be two or perhaps four or more with grown-up children and other relatives. This halves or quarters the per-person wealth required to be a millionaire household. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the study the questioner asks about refers to households. Look at Table B-1 of this study, dated 2005. It shows a net worth (excluding home equity) at the 95th percentile of $903,000.  Your study is dated 4 years later, in 2009.  It seems reasonable that households at the 95th percentile or above (the top 5% of households) could have earned an average 2.584% annual return (assuming no net savings) over 4 years to reach a net worth of $1 million. Anecdotally, living in a relatively wealthy part of the United States (eastern Massachusetts), I find it entirely plausible that more than 5% of households in my region are worth more than $1 million.   Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Household income in the United States and Income inequality in the United States and The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you added the value of the main residence for the US, then you'd probably get similar figures for the UK, since real-estate is much more expensive on average here. 92.29.119.46 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of a politician's death
Has anyone ever looked into the problems associated with politicians dying in office and the kerfuffles that come with having to find a replacement? I'm speaking of US politicians here. Pretty much because that's all I'm familiar with but feel free to expand on it.

The reason I bring this up is that it seems like politicians seem averse to retiring and having someone else replace them. It seems that many would rather die in office. Whether they're a Supreme Court justice, Senator, or Congressman, they seem to eschew the idea of working until some age and then retiring like most of the rest of American society. And then this causes a lot of trouble for those left behind to "clean up the mess" so to speak by voting in a replacement or whatever the process is. If they had just announced their retirement and bowed out of the next race, it seems like things would be less disrupted. Is this all just my observation bias? Or has someone else looked into this before?

PS I just looked through the list of Supreme Court justices and 49 of the 111 justices (including those still sitting) died in office. Does nearly 50 percent of the rest of the population die while still working their full time jobs? Dismas |(talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court Justices are a bad example because they have life tenure, that is they normally cannot be removed from office. If I gave you a job where you got to make important decisions when you felt like it (remember judges can just turn up and then agree with a collegue)get paid heaps and wear funky clothes, wouldn't you just sit there until you die?Jabberwalkee (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there is and has long been a discussion about term limits, but I'm not sure anyone has proposed mandatory retirement for politicians (of whom I would also not include justices, who are different in many respects from elected politicians). The main argument against term limits and mandatory retiring ages is that you are arbitrarily removing experienced people from an important job, and one really doesn't know exactly when someone is going to keel over dead with any reliability whatsoever when you are talking about individuals. There are obviously those on the far end of the bell curve—Robert Byrd, to just specify the one who has probably prompted this question—but for the vast majority it's less clear. The question of whether a given candidate is fit to serve (or likely to die in office) is certainly one discussed around primary time or election time. It was well-known that Roosevelt, for example, was unlikely to serve out his final term, and that whomever was picked for Vice President was surely to succeed if he was reelected (which is why Truman was put in, rather than Wallace, who had been serving longer and was better liked by FDR). In other words, the argument against things like mandatory retirement is that these kinds of calculations are surely made on a case by case basis, whether by the party delegates or by the voters themselves (remember that age was a big factor in the 2008 Presidential election as well). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quibble: The ostensible main argument against term limits in the US is that you're removing someone with experience.  This is always cited by opponents, and another argument is that it increases the percentage of time across Congress that lame ducks hold office, and lame ducks don't have much reason to obey the wishes of the electorate.  But I think the real main argument is that more senior Senators and Representatives hold more powerful committee positions and are more able to direct pork barrel spending to their home district; and term limits upset all of this.  This "Term limits and pork barrel politics" paper discusses the interaction between term limits and "voter welfare" that results from pork; "Voters want to throw the bums out &mdash; except for their bum, whose provision of pork serves them well."  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, one man's "pork" is another man's "community support". I think labeling it "pork" from the beginning is begging the question. People like their own "lions" because they generally know how to get things done, are recognizable names, and have the experience and seniority necessary to actually make things "work" for their home state most of the time. That's just the same thing as saying "experience," in a way, though without the negative associations. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet
In the famous balcony scene of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says to Romeo:

Three words, dear Romeo, and good night indeed. If that thy bent of love be honourable, Thy purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow, By one that I'll procure to come to thee, Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite; And all my fortunes at thy foot I'll lay And follow thee my lord throughout the world.


 * — Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 142–148

I do not understand what the initial phrase "three words" means. To what "three words" is Juliet referring? Or is this simply a (generic) phrase that means something else? Can anyone offer any insight? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I love you? Oda Mari (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Fare thee well"? Kingsfold (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * She goes on to say to him, "But if thou mean'st not well/I do beseech thee/To cease thy suit, and leave me to my grief: To-morrow will I send," between interruptions from her nurse. She's trying to speak to him as quickly as possible before she really really really has to call it a night.  Seems as though she didn't get a chance to say her third thing (the first being "if you're serious, and we're talking marriage, tell the person I'll send when and where, and we're on," the second being, " but if you're just jerking me around, knock it off, and leave me alone").  When she sneaks back to the window, she says "I have forgot why I did call thee back."  Whatever her "third word" was, it's slipped her mind by the end of the scene.   Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, that's what I thought. By "three words" ... she really meant "three statements I want to make" or "three thoughts I want to share" as opposed to "three specific individual words".  Is that what you are saying, Some jerk on the Internet?  That was my theory, also ... as the "three specific individual words" did not seem to make any sense in the context of the entire speech.  Thanks.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes, that was the idea I was driving at. Three thoughts rather than three individual words, two of the thoughts being expressed, and third not.  Whether Juliet really had one thing more to say, or they're just playing "you hang up, no you hang up" I don't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some jerk on the Internet (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We will never know what Shakespeare meant.  Either Juliet just wanted Romeo to stick around for a few moments longer, so she procrastinated his leaving with her third comment.  Or she was so overwhelmed and flabbergasted by her first intense love that she really did forget something important that she wanted to say.  I'd vote for the latter.  Remember, the context of her conversation was "I am 13 years old, and I want to elope with you immediately, even though my family would rather have you dead".  She would indeed be overwhelmed and flabbergasted at how quickly things were spinning out of control.  This all mixed in with her strong emotions of first love.  Thanks.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC))


 * If someone takes you aside, saying "a word in your ear..." it's not literally one word...--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. But people don't usually use a specific number like three or seven or whatever.  They are not that specific (as was Juliet).  People today might say, "I'd like a word with you".  But they would not say, "I'd like three words with you", if they were seeking to make three distinct points.  Hence, the confusion that prompted my original question ... Julia's specific reference to "three words".  Thanks.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Or "now a word from our sponsor." Perhaps "three words" was a fairly common idiom in Shake-speare's day? Meaning more than just "a word", but not very much more. Maybe vaguely similar to current expressions like, "Give me a second..." as opposed to "Give me two seconds..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be the answer. In Much Ado about Nothing, when Benedick doesn't want to talk to Beatrice, he says he'd rather go anywhere than "hold three words' conference" with her. —Kevin Myers 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the helpful input. I appreciate the replies. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC))


 * Sorry for coming in so late. However, in reading the play and Juliet's words, I do think that Juliet is saying three things that are discernable from Juliet's speech.   Juliet here is giving a terse, clear, message that will determine the path of her future life; hence, she itemizes her message.  MacOfJesus (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1/ "Thy purpose Marriage, send me word tomorrow".
 * 2/ "..where and what time thou wilt perform the rite.."
 * 3/ "..all my fortunes at thy foot -- and follow thee my lord--..."
 * The three words are clear.  MacOfJesus (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of executors for an English will
I am sorry, but Wikipedia cannot provide legal advice per Legal_disclaimer. I would recommend seeking this advice from a lawyer. Falconus p t   c 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also removed the question. If you would like to discuss it, you may do so in the talk section. Falconus p  t   c 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate why you removed the question but it was not a request for legal advice - it was a plain request for a fact of English law; no advice was sought in any part of my question. I think you may have been a little hasty in removing the question based on an invalid assumption. However, it is not worth making a fight over. :) Gurumaister (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth checking out the discussion on the talk page. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How did Robert Byrd keep getting re-elected
he having held a leadership role in the ku klux klan, when many other senators lose elections for much less serious blemishes on their records?20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He changed with the times, a change which was perceived as genuine and not merely recanting earlier conduct.
 * He was a student of the Senate, of the government, of its traditions and basis in the Constitution and was respected for his leadership from both sides of the aisle.
 * First and foremost he looked after his constituency. Some call it pork, others call it getting your piece of the federal pie. There are a number of jobs-providing federal facilities in West Virginia, including the Coast Guard—notable in that W. Va. is a land-locked state.
 * Hope this helps. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Americans, more than any group of people I've known, believe in redemption. The seem very willing to forgive someone who they believe has changed their ways, and what Byrd said, and latterly did, supported that. Whether his conversion was opportunism or heartfelt isn't for me to say.  Politicians really can't win: if they stick to the same line we say they're stubborn and closed-minded; if they change their minds we say they're fickle and unprincipled. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * a priori, your final assertion sounds plausible enough; but a postiori, you might consider the possibility that it is our informed judgment drawn from experience, that politicians are either stubborn, closed-minded, bigots or fickle and unprincipled flip-floppers.
 * A priori, politicians could be decent people whose personality impels them to hold steady to beliefs, or be moved to change them. In fact, experience shows politicians have no such personality.  The most interesting study would be to do a man-in-the-middle attack on politicians and advisers, and randomly have some of them advised that some core policy they had on a neutral subject was "ethically wrong".  My prediction is that the politicians will seem to have a "change of heart", even though the subjects will be chosen to be neutral so that a change of heart is preposterous.  Nevertheless, if advised that is "unethical", my prediction is that they would react with all the signs of an ethical epiphany.  (even when the whole idea is ridiculous, for example when it comes to paleontology funding or something.  I want to see the look in their faces when they have been advised that 12% as an arbitrary line item somewhere is "very unethical" but 16% is "morally enlightened".  I bet you will see that very morality plain as day.)  However, all of this final bit is speculation.  I really would love to see it tested empirically.  84.153.206.127 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Byrd was originally elected just prior to the civil rights movement, in a place where being a former KKK member would not have been seen as much of a blemish. Once in office, he was a consummate politician, and the general rule about the senate is that (excluding term limits, and barring severe mistakes or problems that generate a public outcry in the home state) incumbents never lose office.  For the most part, senators retire when and if they feel like it, or they die in office.   -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bit oversimplified. For example, there is Byrd's acclaimed four-volume history of the history of the Senate as well as his history of the Roman Senate—which postulates that Rome fell in part because of the loss of balance of power, something Byrd was passionate about with regard to the current state of executive directives (let alone complete rewritings of legislation passed by both houses via executive interpretations). P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant no offense to Byrd - as senators go he was a good sort (even if I disagree with some of his views). I'm just saying that one doesn't need to be a good senator to keep getting reelected; one just needs, you know... to not get caught tapping some guy's foot in a public bathroom.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Expanding on Ludwigs2's comment, Byrd was elected from West Virginia, which has an overwhelmingly white, socially conservative population, who would not generally see Klan membership in the 1950s or earlier as a serious blemish. No opponent would have gained much advantage by running against him on the basis of his distant past. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted earlier, Byrd changed with the times, which is something that colleagues like Thurmond and Helms did not do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's hardly an argument for why Byrd kept getting reelected, since Thurmond and Helms did as well. —Kevin Myers 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he is a fine example of (apparently genuine, as far as I can tell) redemption in a forgiving climate, and it bears repeating that he brought home the goods: the two WV counties closest to Washington, Jefferson and Berkeley, have facilities supporting the Coast Guard (the Coast Guard Operations Systems Center and the Coast Guard National Maritime Center,), Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, National Park Service (the Harpers Ferry Interpretive Center), Fish and Wildlife and the Internal Revenue Service, all lavishly funded, as well as a well-equipped Air National Guard base and a Veteran's Administration hospital, employing a major proportion of the Eastern Panhandle's population. There's also a large federal prison across the Potomac in Cumberland, Maryland which employs a lot of West Virginians. In the West Virginia interior, road projects (Interstate 68, for instance), dams, navigation on the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, training centers, airports, parks, bridges (New River Gorge Bridge) all had his support.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel
How well would this work to keep Israel honest?

Usually Israel makes a big military strike in the gaza strip, and usually there is "intenational outcry" (the wall street journal just ran an article on this outcry: the picture showed all the countries of the world pointing a finger at Israel). Now Israel usually mentions a few rockets fromthe other side for their much strong response. Now we come to my question.

My question is, would Israel think twice about mentioning a few rockets from the other side in explanation of their strong reaction if every time they did so, someone published a study about a few bad things Jews might have done (e.g. 10 of them off handedly mentioning their prices, when they are all in the same business: something that can almost fit a definition of collusion) just before Hitler's holocaust, I'd actual real reasons (however minor) that Hitler could possibly hav genuine real annoyance at. I'm talking about very minor things, not major.

I am not asking for debate, Just actual physical consequences. What would happen? Would they continue? 85.181.51.78 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At best your idea seems stupid and counter-productive. I can't even begin to see why you think it would be at all helpful. You're seriously advocating that reminding Israel that there are naughty jews somewhere or other, will forestall their rationale for a Gaza incursion, and so curtail such incursions. Hatstand. Like you, I'm not soliciting a debate; please take any of my questions as being rhetorical and not calling for an answer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nono, the important part is that Israel knows it's predictable like clockwork. They do their military program anyway (and have the right to invade any nation or non-nation, just as all sovereign countries do).   But when it comes time to justify it, there is one more step: now it doesn't have 0 cost to mention a few rocket attacks as the reason because if they succeed in the justification (due to the above proposed threat of a counter study) they will lose their total victim status over the holocaust.  So, seeing that analysis, they don't do it.  Now do u see what I propose?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.51.78 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a question, like one succinct question? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * yes : "what would happen? Would they continue". ie would Israels actions hange in any way under the outlined like-clockwork environment? 85.181.51.78 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To the extent that the reference desk consults crystal balls, your scheme would not make a jot of difference to the conflict. None whatsoever. Israel does not have anything like total victim status. The country has had very many years of very contentious foreign policy, and been criticised for it. Israel gives a very real impression of not giving a damn what other countries think of it, at least, not to the extent of not doing stuff which other countries would not do. So, no, I still don't see how a promise of bad press when they try to justify their next incursion will affect their thinking at all. Can we leave it at that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uncollapsed. "It's a stupid question" isn't really a valid reason for collapsing. (and if it weren't collapsed I could have easily skipped over it rather than feeling the need to click and read) --Psud (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Psud; reasons for collapse are discussed on the Project Talk Page. Collapse restored.

Facing Qiblah in hotels
It's a bit hard to be sure but is this sticker in a drawer? Is this akin to, and as ubiquitous as, finding a Gideon Bible in American hotels? Instead you find a sticker pointing the way to Qiblah in Muslim hotels? Dismas |(talk) 21:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it suggested as a means of Dawah. So, yes on most counts, though perhaps without having an equivalent of Gideons International. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very common in Muslim countries to mark qiblah in hotel rooms. The strange thing in this case is that it is put inside a piece of furntire (which could be moved, and then the direction would be incorrect). It is more common to have a sticker posted at walls, or in some cases I've seen it in the ceiling. I think its a bit different than the Gideonish approach. This is not evangelism, no-one expects non-Muslims to pray. Rather it's a service the hotel does to pious Muslim guests. It also relieves the hotel staff from having to answer the question "where is Qiblah?" 5-10 times a day. Moreover, it can be a way to transmit a message to guests and prospective guests that the hotel is off-bounds for 'immoral behaviour'. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they moved the furniture (which is unlikely once it's been set up), they would hopefully think to re-orient the sticker also... especially once they start getting questioned about it from astute guests who might observe that it's obviously pointing in the wrong direction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This photograph might be of a desk drawer set within a piece of wall mounted furniture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)