Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 9

= May 9 =

Why is Pres. Obama so disliked?
I'll admit that I don't pay attention to politics in America as much as I should, but why do people dislike Pres. Obama? I saw a professional looking drawing with Obama's picture and the words "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." printed underneath of it the other day. I also heard on the news how his approval rating has been dropping before the Osama thing. I remember his campaign promise was "change," and from what I have noticed, he has tried to change things like the economy via stimulus packages and health care. The way he went about this may not agree with everyone, but at least he has tried. Are people mad at him because he didn't instantly clear up problems that took years to accumulate like they had hoped? Then there is the whole birth certificate thing. It really seems like people are going out of their way to try and discredit him. I know some of the animosity has to be coming from his race, but not all of it. Can someone please explain the whole deal? Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's several sources of the problem. The first is the bubbling undercurrent of racism, which in America is far worse than anyone admits.  That certainly doesn't account for all of the dislike, but it accounts for more dislike than most people are comfortable in admitting.  The entire "birther" bullshit is essentially racist at its core: He's different than "us", so he must be illegitimate.  The second issue is that there is a concerted effort by the conservative press in America to discredit him.  It isn't necessarily based on his policies; the conservative press starts with the premise that he is wrong, and then secondly finds something for him to be wrong about.  The third issue is that many people who voted for him feel that he's betrayed them.  Many of the people who voted for him were first-time voters, who were previously disillusioned by the political process and saw Obama as a vibrant leader who would fight the establishment with the same vigor that the establishment seemed to want to fuck the populace.  What they got was a milquetoast leader who caves at every sign of opposition.  The people who are Obama's political opponents don't pull any punches, when they want something, the go and do it, public opinion be damned.  That Obama doesn't act the same way is perhaps part of the problem, he's too willing to compromise with an opposition who itself has stated that they will never compromise.  That's a recipe for disaster.  -- Jayron  32  00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things at issue here, but I find it useful to distinguish between the die-hard anti-Obama people (the Tea Partiers, the Birthers, etc.), who would probably not like the guy even if he happened to be Jesus Christ himself (for a variety of reasons related to class, race, and education), and the average, middle of the road Americans. (Tea Partier and Birthers are a small percentage of overall Americans, even if they are a sizeable percentage of the Republican Party — and only 20% or so Americans self-identify as Republicans.) The huge majority of opinion on Obama is tied to perceptions on the economy. The economy isn't doing well. Even when the numbers say it is improving (in some sectors), the average experience has not greatly improved. If the economy swings around, Obama will find himself a very popular President (except amongst those who are going to hate him no matter what). If it doesn't, he's going to have a harder time. This is the case with basically all Presidents in modern times. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many presidents considered to be excellent leaders have been reviled by their opponents. Lincoln and FDR come to mind immediately. And you're right, a president's popularity is driven by how the voters feel about the general situation, particularly their own situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am at the moment (and have been) an Obama supporter, though not a die-hard Obama supporter. I think that the frustrations I have observed with him (other than what seems to be a huge portion of the local population who hate him on principle) are that he doesn't seem to be able to get anything done.  Granted, he has done a lot, but from the ground here in the US, it seems that his every effort is blocked by congress.  To say that his opposition won't compromise is almost an understatement.  They are sticking to their guns (literally and figuratively) to an extreme.  I think it's fair to say that that's more fact than opinion, as I have heard the GOP say many times that they will not compromise.  I think that there has been a lot of disillusionment, and a vague sense that the US cannot and will not recover from the current economic crisis, especially with Obama's "spending policies".  A lot of opponents wish to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes.  Obama wants to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthier portions of the population (or, at least end tax breaks for them).  Even though I don't agree with some of Obama's policies (I will not say which ones), I have never had the sense that he is a malevolent leader.  Yet, many people feel that he is willfully attempting to destroy the country, hates America, and, according to some, is the Antichrist.  Naturally these people will counter his every move.  I personally get a good feeling about his intentions, even though he clearly has made mistakes (name a leader who hasn't...).  I regret to say that in my observations, at least half of the US has been ruled by a cold fear for the past ten years (since 9/11), and I think that this overarching fear may be responsible for a lot of the dislike of Obama. Falconus p  t   c 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, if any people opposed to Obama disagree with something I said, it's fine to say what you think the underlying causes are, but don't expect me to debate you on the Reference Desk. I won't :-).  Falconus p  t   c 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama is not especially disliked. The remarkable thing about Obama's administration so far is that his approval ratings are still higher than what might be reasonably expected. Gas was about $1.80 per gallon when he took office; now it's $4.00. His party pushed a health care plan through Congress that more people opposed than favored. He ran as essentially a peace candidate, but got the US involved in another war. Unemployment is at about 9%. Government spending and debt is going up up up. He often seems emotionally remote, and is less accessible than previous presidents. All of this could have produced low approval ratings. And yet his approval ratings are not as low as the lowest points reached by most presidents in the last 65 years. If we're coming out of recession, his ratings will probably rise. The death of bin Laden and the winding down of old wars should drive up his ratings even more. It's hard to measure vitriol, but the anti-Obama rhetoric seems to be nowhere as near as strong as during Bush II. The race issue, while a part of the equation, is also hard to measure, and has probably been greatly exaggerated. As one columnist aptly put it: "Barack Obama is at least the third consecutive president to be the subject of paranoid conspiracy theories, and it strikes us as odd that anyone who lived through the Clinton and Bush years would automatically assume it must be because he's black."

So Obama supporters need not fear. He's doing better with the public than might be expected, and has a good chance of regaining ground in the next two years. —Kevin Myers 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Internationally, Obama is to the right of much of the international political consensus, leading to ideological opposition to Obama. Right wing international consenses often oppose Obama on religious or nationalist issues (consider pan-Islamic right wing political consenses, or Russian nationalism).  Further, internationally, there is a significant generalised anti-Americanism.  In most cases this anti-Americanism can be reduced to the role of the US as an international hegemon and great power.  In cases of anti-Americanism, this sentiment can attach to Obama as head of state or as an exemplifying example of the American. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see figures on Obama's international approval. Before his election, polls outside the US were in his favour in around a 70:30 ratio, very different from within the USA. Can't see why that would have changed all that much. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The polls you refer to were two party preferred, not approval ratings. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess they were, but there was still a much more pro-Obama "vote" outside the USA than within. Again, I cannot see that such views would have changed all that much, but I would like to see figures. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would too; I was trying to explain the reasons people oppose Obama internationally; rather than the prevalence of opposing Obama internationally. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny to see Obama labeled as being "to the right" of anything. He had the most liberal (by American standards) voting record in the Senate during his tenure, or so his opponents always claimed. If the average Europeans are to the left of that, it's no wonder that the dislike of European politicians for American politicians is also vice-versa. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By international standards, most of the Democratic Party (Obama, Hilary, Biden, Lieberman) is right of center, and most of the Republican Party is far right. There are only a few left-wing Democrats, like Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I have to laugh out loud whenever Teabaggers call Obama a socialist; they clearly either have no idea what his politics are, or what socialism is, or both. I've long wanted to get a bumper sticker printed up with the slogan "AN EAGLE CAN'T FLY WITH TWO RIGHT WINGS" (with an appropriate picture, except I can't draw) to protest the absence of any serious left wing in America. But as you can tell from my userboxes, I think the difference between Obama and his predecessor is only skin-color-deep; otherwise they're two peas in a pod. Pais (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in 1968, when comedian Pat Paulsen ran a mock presidential campaign, he was asked whether he was right-wing or left-wing. He remarked that he was "more like middle-of-the-bird; with just a left wing or a right wing, you tend to fly around in circles." Nothing changes. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, when Jim Hightower was asked why he supported Jesse Jackson's for president rather than a more moderate candidate, he said "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos." —Angr (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From this side of the Atlantic it seems that Obama is hated by his Republican opposition with much greater vitriol than Bush was hated by the Democrats. Of course they don't actually say it is because he is black, but instead find other reasons including the frankly ridiculous claims of the birthers.  The same could be said of the previous Democrat president when Ken Starr failed to get Clinton removed after the Lewinsky affair, so tried again with the Whitewater scandal.  We have a brief article on this "vast right-wing conspiracy" that seems interesting on first read.  It does seem to me that the Republicans are much better able to motivate such campaigns than the Democrats are.  Astronaut (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no. Democrats (of which I am one) will strongly argue that we hated George Dubious Bush much more than anyone could possibly hate President Obama. Moreover, we had REASONS. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The vitriol expressed against Obama is nothing new in American society. Just look at what was said about both Adams and Jefferson when they were President... much worse than anything said about Obama (or Bush).  Jackson was vilified for his stance the Second Bank of the US, Lincoln was vilified during the Civil War.  My grand-father refused to even mention the name Roosevelt (he was "that man"... and TR was "that man" to my great-grand-father).  Conspiracy theories are not new... Obama has the birthers, Bush had the truthers.  About the only President to escape vitriol during his term was Washington (and even he was not completely exempt.) Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If Obama had the magic solution to the problems of US economy, everybody in the US would love him, even the racists. As he does not, he can always settle for the next magic solution: blame someone else for the national problems, specially if it's from foreign countries, and then he will be supported against the "foreign threat". From the weakest banana republic to the most powerful superpower, populations are always ready to buy the story of "everything would be perfect, if X wasn't standing in our way..." Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The original question itself is pretty subjective. To my knowledge, there are no polls that ask, "Do you like President Obama? Why or why not?" I think it would be more beneficial to ask why so many people disagree with his policies.  I staunchly disagree with almost all of what he does, but I don't dislike him. I'm sure he's a caring father and a good husband who is doing what he thinks is right for the United States-- I just disagree with what that is.  If he were my next-door neighbor, I'm sure we'd get along just fine.
 * I also disagree with the syllogism that has become fashionable, that since critics of the president are racist, and since I disagree with the president, I must be a racist. There are a thousand minute variations to this fallacy, but Jayron's assertion that "the entire "birther" b***s*** is essentially racist at its core" is a good illustration. Why is it racist to want proof that the president is eligible for his office? It might for some, but to me, it has nothing to do with race. It has simply to do with the Constitution. I think that every candidate should provide his long-form (or equivalent) birth certificate from the get-go.
 * But as far as a specific answer to the question-- reading a few articles by Victor Davis Hanson or Thomas Sowell would probably be a good start.  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While you are perhaps right to say every candidate should provide evidence th::at he/she is eligible for the job, how come this was never an issue until Obama was elected. I don't recall any other president being asked to provide evidence of their eligibility for the job after they were elected.  It seems like Obama is the first african-american to be elected president and he is also the first president for whom doubts have been expressed about his eligibility for the job.  Astronaut (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed (or have forgotten about) the extensive questions raised about McCain's eligibility for the office, which predated (and presumably inspired) the Obama birther controversy. See, for example, "McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out", from the New York Times, February 28, 2008. There were fringe legal challenges to McCain's eligibility; had he won the election, there would have presumably been more. (And no one would have cried "racism!") Because the legal definition of a "natural-born citizen" is somewhat hazy, as the Times article makes clear, there were "birther" controversies before Obama. (See Citizenship requirements for President of the United States). Since Obama's father was not a US citizen, his case is at least as problematic as some of those previous controversies. The irrational birther conspiracy theories, and the knee-jerk (and almost equally irrational) accusations of racism, are both red herrings that obscure the offbeat history of presidential citizenship controversies. The earliest president to have a fringe birther charge against him, by the way, is Andrew Jackson. —Kevin Myers 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't notice that each of the presidential candidates -- from both parties -- answered the question of whether Sen. McCain was eligible to be president in the affirmative. The same cannot be said about actual 2008, current, or obvious candidates for the 2012 election. And, with the sole exception of diplomats, there isn't really any question of a person born in one of the 50 states (which is where Andy Jackson's issue arose) being eligible for the presidency. The senior Mr Obama's citizenship is an irrelevant distraction. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't quite parse your first two sentences, so I'm not sure if you're addressing me or someone else, but I think it's safe to say that all of the citizenship "coverup" theories, from Jackson to Arthur to Obama, have been irrelevant distractions. This is a history of fringe ideas. Perhaps the most recent precedent for the dubious "father not a citizen" angle dates to the election of 1916. Democratic lawyer Breckinridge Long questioned the eligibility of Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes, arguing that although Hughes was born in the US, his father's British citizenship meant that Hughes had a dual nationality at birth, and therefore didn't fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen". —Kevin Myers 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most marriages
Which man and woman have most marriages (in serial monogamy system)? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I googled [most marriages by one person] and the first item that came up was a 2009 entry about a women who had been married 23 times and was considering number 24. Among notables, folks like Elizabeth Taylor and Tommy Manville come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Artie Shaw, who can't compete with the above woman though! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So the record holder among women has 23 marriages, who is the record holder among men? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked in Google? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

French colonial empire and others
I notice that a lot of Indians went to places that were ruled by the British because they were ruled by the British. So, I am interested in whether Lebanese, Syrians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians ever went to places that were ruled by the French because they were ruled by the French like French Africa? Also, how many Indonesians went to Suriname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Demographics of Suriname for more info. - Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNajdek (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were definitely such movements. But no mass migration of Indochinese to West Africa, though. Also, Lebanese immigration to West Africa was not 100% colonial import, the Lebanese also settled in the British colonies as well. --Soman (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the French authorities helped a few of their Hmong allies leave Vietnam (and possibly other parts of their Indochinese Empire) to settle in French Guiana in South America. There is a 2004 BBC article and a 2005 academic paper. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see Arab diaspora, and, if you have the patience, drill down into "Category:Ethnic groups by country". BrainyBabe (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, 15% Javanese in Suriname. I didn't know the percentage was that high. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the OP asked that because Nabih Berri, leader of Amal Movement of Lebanon was born in Africa and Maria Hourani, Bloc Quebecois MP was born in Cote d'Ivoire. That is why he wanted to know that.

Rahner and Man as Transcendant Being
I am trying to find out how exactly Karl Rahner, the German theologian, connects his ideas on man's knowledge of God with man's transcendence. I usually do not read much about Catholic theology, but Rahner interests me. I am working with his Foundations of the Christian Faith. Any ideas/suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNajdek (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Canada
What was the purpose of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's visit to Canada? [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The visit occured in 1976. It is mentioned in Pakistan-Canada relations, 1947-1982: a brief survey and http://books.google.com/books?id=5H9CAAAAYAAJ, but I can't access preview of these works at google books. --Soman (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau Bangladesh 1971
What did Pierre Trudeau say about the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * see http://books.google.com/books?id=reImvhYQ200C&pg=PA226 --Soman (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Monarchs of Portugal
Does historian number the Monarchs of Portugal? Not regnal numbers but their positions in the line of monarchs. Do the Portuguese number their monarchs in history like Pedro V is the 31st or 32nd King of Portugal or is it something that a wikipedia editor just mention for the fun of it?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that its a surprising thing to be able to "count forward" from the first King of Portugal. -- Jayron  32  05:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising but I think this is invented for Wikipedia. It's not just the Portuguese, I think this user (if it's the same user) is adding that info to all monarch articles. It's already happened on the Roman/Byzantine emperor articles, where it is far more dubious (along with a number of other dubious things that editor added). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian central office for book revision
I read in about a Hungarian "central office for book revision", but can't find anything beside this single google book snippet. For how long did such an office publicly exist?Smallman12q (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seceding from the Union
Have there been any opinion polls conducted in individual states asking Americans if they would be happy for their state to secede from the union. I'm thinking in particular of some of the southern states and whether there remains a strong State self identity where many of them may still feel a stronger affinity with their State, or southern states as a whole, than with their country. Carson101 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recall, Alaska had/has a political party with that on their agenda and it got more support then most 3rd parties in the US tend to get. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a Texas Secession Movement, but I don't think many people take it seriously. Pais (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that States can secede from the Union was settled by the Civil War... most people accept this. Yes, there are fringe secession movements from time to time, but they never gain enough support to be taken seriously. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in the Alaskan political party. If the unlikely were to happen and they won what would be the consequences? If I understand you right Blueboar, no matter if a secession party won a state election their aims would be dismissed due to the constitution. Would that be right? Carson101 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently so; see Texas v. White, a case where the U.S. Supreme Court "held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null'." Pais (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also want to read Secession in the United States if you haven't yet. Pais (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in Texas v. White, the court seemed to leave the option of secession by (successful) revolution or by consent of (all) the states open, so maybe if Alaska had a successful War of Independence, or if the other 49 states decided they were glad to see the back of Alaska too, then it could secede. I'm imagining the other states saying, "Don't let the door hit you on the Panhandle on the way out!" Pais (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Alaskan Independence Party has actually won a gubernatorial election, though their candidate was AIP in name only, and he rejoined the Republican party late in his term. The AIP's central point is that Alaskans were offered a false choice - remain a territory, or become a state. They want a referendum with four options, similar to Puerto Rico's votes: Remain a territory, become a state, become a commonwealth, or become independent. However, right now, I would say any support for any state seceding is well below 5%. (However, depending on when the poll is conducted, up to 20% of Quebecois have stated they would like their province to join the United States, though when offered the chance, only 0.11% voted that way) --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Legally speaking, the most a state could do would be to petition the Congress for permission to secede (or otherwise change their status, as Golbez notes). In the unlikely event that Congress granted their request, the citizens might feel good for a day or two, and then a whole host of problems would likely arise for that state - starting with the fact that the citizens who didn't want to secede would probably leave. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hawaiian sovereignty movement. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see the recent secession movement in the Northwest Angle. It is, both population-wise and area-wise, a rather insignificant slice of the U.S., but its efforts at secession, which have been supported by their Congressman, are significant if only as a precedent.  Alas, the issue likely will never be resolved since Congress probably has better things to do than to deal with what amounts to the fishing rights of 150-odd people.  But its a real example from very recent history, and it bears mentioning.  -- Jayron  32  16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the same issue, but there is a secessionist movement in Southern Arizona to break from Arizona and become a new state (they don't intend to secede from the USA, just from the state of Arizona). Staecker (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Carson, there have indeed been recent public opinion polls on the subject, showing various results. See April 2010 survey (Pew); April 2009 (Texas - Rasmussen); July 2008 (Middlebury Institute/Zogby); April 2009 (Texas - Daily Kos/Research 2000); and 2006 (University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies). Neutralitytalk 03:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seccession from the Union, isn't possible. The people can leave, but they can't take the land with'em. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the replies guys. That's just about answered everything I wanted to know, although I'm not sure about the last reply. People seceding from the union without their land!? Carson101 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is still paying attention to this question, there is also the Second Vermont Republic and Killington, Vermont secession movement. Dismas |(talk) 03:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anything matter in the big picture?
A look at the outside of our planet shows how trivial our planet is (and we human beings are), and a look at the galaxy shows how trivial our solar system is. A further look at the universe shows our galaxy itself is so trivial. Earth, along with its living being that includes humans, will be destroyed within 5 billion years. So at last nothing will be left as we see the world today. If destruction and complete annihilation is our ultimate faith, then why do we create concepts such as Good and evil, Truth, Morality etc. Why we define something supposed productive (such as scientists, artists, industrialization, technology) as good and something supposed destructive (environmental degradation, war) as bad if our ultimate fate is destruction? Is not the truth we perceive is different from the truth how things happen in the universe? --Peacolkoldzx (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethics and morality may be insignificant to the heat death of the universe in 50 billion years, but highly relevant to the question of how you should interact with your fellow-dwellers on planet earth right now. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent answer. The eventual possible extinction of the universe is irrelevant. The here and now is what's relevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) That is exactly my question. "how you should interact with your fellow-dwellers" - you are suggesting there should be pre-determined way to define this "how". And that pre-determined way is called morality. But if it is pre-determined there is nothing productive in the universe (as well as nothing destructive), what is the purpose for creating that pre-determined way? --Peacolkoldzx (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering your question is the primary purpose of religion, giving people a sense of purpose so that they behave in ways that aren't harmful to themselves or others. Your particular sense of tension (if there is no religion, and we're all going to die anyways, and the entire universe isn't going to exist at some specific time in the future, so why bother with anything) is the core of the philosophy known as Nihilism.  You may find such readings interesting.  -- Jayron  32  15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Religion, good/evil, morality, etc... are concepts formed long before humans had any good conceptual model of the universe. So, it is rather silly to assume that our current models of the universe could somehow shove backwards a few thousand years and change all of studies in humanities. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I have renamed this question "Does anything matter in the big picture?" since the instructions say not to call your question "Question". If anyone objects that the title doesn't correspond to the actual question, blame me, not the OP! Pais (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have added an "anchor" statement so as not to break links. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pondering concepts like ethics and morality may help humanity reach a state of cooperation that will allow our species to survive the inevitable destruction of the earth. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the job of all intelligence to escape the cycle. The sun, absent manipulation, will be dead in 5 billion years, the Earth with it, had we not towed it to a safe distance millennia earlier, or managed the sun to extend its life even further. The universe will die, one way or another, within 15 billion years, but that is of no concern to an intelligence that had escaped its shackles billions of years earlier. So do not concern you with some far-off future; it is far different than anything you can imagine. --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And, of course, for those who believe in a life after death (be it in a heaven/hell form or through reincarnation), questions of ethics and morality are often seen as being determinants in what will happen to you in that afterlife. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP's questions about something being "predetermined" perhaps unwittingly suggests "intelligent design" on some level. Considering that written human history is maybe 5 thousand years old, which seems like a very long time, there's no point worrying about something that might happen after a million more of those 5 thousand year spans. Nature is not inherently "predetermined". It evolves to whatever it happens to evolve too... and generally lives for the here and now. The exception is humankind. I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said, "Man is the only animal that worries about the future; so we invented God, to take care of the future for us." And since we can think about things beyond where the next meal is coming from, nothing need be "predetermined"... we can believe that there is a benevolent being of some kind watching over us... and we can also affect the course of our species to an extent that other animals cannot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As vast as the universe is, human beings cannot imagine life going on when they no longer exist. Each individual is, as far as their mind can fathom, the centre of the universe until his or her eventual demise. When we look at the moon and stars we really think they are shining for us, and the sun is up there to give us warmth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the blessing/curse of having a big brain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. We are egocentric. Can you honestly picture your everyday world without it being viewed from your own eyes?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Outer Space, has always been & always shall be, as it's a vast nothingness. The human experience is random, life has no meaning. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass me that bottle of Jack Daniels. I feel the need to get verrrry drunk--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Life has whatever meaning you decide to make of it. That's "free will", don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Science asks "how?" ... Religion asks "why?". Different questions result in different answers.  No incongruity.

This dialogue may address some of the questions raised here. This is from Play It Again, Sam. Allan (Woody Allen) is observing a painting along with a cute but unsmiling woman:
 * Allan: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?
 * Woman: Yes, it is.
 * Allan: What does it say to you?
 * Woman: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless, bleak straitjacket in a black, absurd cosmos.
 * Allan: What are you doing Saturday night?
 * Woman: Committing suicide.
 * Allan: What about Friday night? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Those Who Know About These Things always say it's not about the destination, but about the journey. So temporarily put aside the heat death of the universe in 50 billion years time, and just enjoy the ride and admire the passing scenery and have interesting experiences with random strangers you encounter along the way. If you're focussing on those things, they matter. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a colleague of mine used to say, "The purpose of life is to live." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's something to that &mdash; the past aeon of evolution has made sure that suicide isn't selected for in the gene pool, so, indeed, at some level, most living things have to live as a central motive. Anyway, yes, the nihilism article will be of interest to the original poster, as will the fact that the eventual heat death of the universe isn't proven.  It would be sort of sad to live out the next eighty years in a nihilistic funk over this, only to read on the front page of the newspaper, "Heat Death of the Universe Disproven!"  (For most people throughout history, plain old death has been enough to be the motive for an existential funk.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Prank calls in Germany
Since one - and only one - Hitler is listed at telefonbuch.de (German phone guide), I imagine that every German teenager would have already called him and said: "hey, Hitler." How can he put up with that? Quest09 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Nazi salute is illegal in Germany, so no, not many will do that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Nazi salute is Heil Hitler, not "Hey, Hitler", and while it's illegal to use in most contexts, I don't think a prank caller would be concerned with a question of legality (and most probably no public prosecutor would go after individual prank callers, anyways). So this is not a good explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Quest09 would care to explain (a) why s/he thinks that "every German teenager would have already called him" and (b) how anybody here could possibly know how the people at that phone number can put up with that. And please do not call them and ask them. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible Hitler is not even the person's real name and he/she just put it there for a joke or to seek attention via prank calls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that many non-Germans traveling to Germany think that it's funny to do the Nazi salute (see here: . But, Germans would try to avoid anything that could be associated with the Nazi regime. So, it would be more probable that some British teenager called this Hitler. Wikiweek (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they call him and ask, "Ist deine refrigerator running?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that pun work in German?   Googlemeister (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure it works in English. DuncanHill (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Is your refrigerator running?" "Yes." "Well, you'd better go catch it!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god... DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it ran all the way to Holland, would it be a Fridge Too Far? --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping maybe a German-speaker might pop up here. I should take this to the language desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The user Angr says a good translation would be, "Läuft Ihr Kühlschrank gerade?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or does anyone else feel that the OP has quite possibly set up an innocent person in Germany for potential harassment by this rhetorical question? What's more, it's a question that cannot be answered. I think an administrator should close this as soon as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Spirituality for non-religious people
Can you have spirituality if you are atheist/agnostic/materialist or something in this direction? Quest09 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Spirituality: Secular spirituality denotes various attempts to recognize aspects of life and human experience which are not captured by a purely materialist or mechanistic view of the world, but without accepting belief in the supernatural. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's even a church that welcomes such people: Unitarian Universalism.--TammyMoet (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You often hear people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious". Our article on Justin Timberlake says he's said that of himself. Personally, I often feel like reversing that and saying, "I'm religious, but not spiritual". —Angr (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comedian Daniel Tosh has an interesting take on this... He says something to the effect "When a girl says to me "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual", I reply "I'm not honest, but you're interesting". -- Jayron  32  20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seek Author, title(s) english children's book(s) circa 1940's
Books were about the adventures of a group of english children usually during vacations sometimes involving small boats by an author other than arthur ransomeFrankpasadena (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Minnow on the Say by Philippa Pearce.BrainyBabe (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many by Enid Blyton, but try Five on a Treasure Island (1942). Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response.

Phillippa pearce did not exist until 1955 Enid blyton in my memory wrote for the six to ten year old children and younger Readers of Biggles and possibly just william might recollect the authur/books i am seeking (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So six- to ten-year-old children aren't children? Perhaps if you were a bit more precise we might be able to help you. As the question stands, Blyton fits the bill perfectly. Ericoides (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Inauguration of presidents
We would say the "wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer" rather than "the wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Diana, Princess of Wales", on the principle that he wasn't marrying a princess. So is it correct to say, eg, the "inauguration of Barack Obama" or the "inauguration of President Barack Obama" for the swearing-in ceremony? Ericoides (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the former, but not strongly enough to create an edit war over it. -- Jayron  32  19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Inauguration of President-elect Obama" comes to mind also. However, the word "inauguration" means "installation". He doesn't need to be installed as President-elect, because he already is President-elect. He also doesn't need to be installed as Barack Obama, because he already is Barack Obama. He's going to be installed as President. So "inauguration of President Obama" works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "the inauguration of Barack Obama as President" is best. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But he already is President. He becomes President at precisely noon, because the Constitution says so.  The inauguration ceremony, which takes place a little time after noon, is to allow him to execute the duties of President.  If in some bizarre scenario he refused to attend the swearing-in, he wouldn't be able to do anything in terms of running the country, but he would still be President.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I am not so sure about that. The Presidency is not like the English Monarchy (where the second Queen Eleizabeth II dies, Prince Charles will instantly become King Charles III).  The 20th Amendment says the out going President's term ends at noon... but it does not say that the new President's term starts at noon... Article 2 section 1 can be interpreted as saying that the new President's term starts when he takes the oath.  If the President Elect refuses or is unable to be sworn in, but the Vice President Elect is sworn in...  it could be argued that the (now sworn) Vice President should act as President (pending his taking the Presidential Oath... at which point he becomes President). Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may interject a question at this point - did that situation obtain this time round? Inauguration of Barack Obama doesn't cover it, but was Biden actually (or, at least, de jure) President between 12 noon on the 20th and Obama taking the oath properly on the 21st? 80.254.147.84 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a picky point: Charles will indeed become King at that point, but can choose what name he wants to take. I doubt somehow that he will take the regnal name "Charles", because neither of his predecessors by that name covered themselves in glory exactly - my money's on George VII. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he required to use one of his given names as his regnal name? Does he have to be King Charles or King Philip or King Arthur or King George? Or could he take some other name if he wants, such as King Victor in honor of his illustrious ancestress? Pais (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look back at each monarch from Henry VIII and can't find one that hasn't taken one of their given names, which doesn't answer the question but tends to suggest he has to take one of his given names. I'm off to work shortly so maybe someone else can have a look at this. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Regnal name for more information. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which says the same thing: everyone has taken one of their baptismal names, but no indication of whether they're required to. Perhaps they're bound by tradition rather than law. Sort of like the Pope, only in reverse: there was no law preventing him from being Pope Joseph or Pope Aloisius, it's just traditional for the Pope to take a regnal name that's different from his baptismal name. Pais (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It sort of says so. Our article Oath of office of the President of the United States touches on the uncertainties, which cannot be resolved definitively because the problem has never come up, and so no ruling has ever been made by a federal judge.  I'd add that the problem will never come up in the future, either, so the uncertainties are unlikely to ever be resolved definitively unless the 20th Amendment is superseded by a new amendment.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory, the President-elect could take the oath the day after the election. It just wouldn't take effect until Jan 20. That's essentially what they do with the VP, as he takes the oath prior to noon, so that the presidency is covered just in case the new president croaks after the clock strikes noon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Steve Baker's first post at Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 22. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to give some context to the question, it relates to a DYK hook I wrote (... that Jacqueline Kennedy wore her pink Chanel suit (pictured) at the inauguration of President Lyndon B. Johnson despite it being stained with her husband's blood?) that is now in the DYK queue. I looked at it yesterday and worried that it was incorrect and was worth trying to get amended by an admin. My sense from the discussion here is that it might well be, but that it is not embarrassingly wrong... Ericoides (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "despite it s being stained"? Pais (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, and that is how I wrote it but someone changed it. I'll try and get it changed back to its. Ericoides (talk)
 * Again... My suggestion would be: "... at the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson as President ..."  But I don't think it is really important enough to make an issue of it. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The inauguration of Barack Obama" is best. President is a title, not a name. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Police procedure
Please note: this is not a question about television shows in themselves, but uses them as a reference point for asking a question about the real world, which is, I feel, appropriate to this desk.

I've always noticed on tv cop shows, especially City Homicide, detectives will question a suspect and try to imply guilt as quickly as possible. Is it anything like this in real life? Do detectives make conclusions based on circumstantial evidence and just state to the accused what they believe they have done, as if it were established, hoping for a quick confession? If not, do they have other ways of implying guilt more subtly and seeking a confession? It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what they are supposed to do, but the North Carolina SBI got into a heap of trouble because they tried a little too hard to prove guilt, using procedures that were known to be flawed (something to do with comparing bullet [fragments?] to the barrel of the gun to try to match them). Their handbook reportedly covered submitting stuff to aid the prosecution, but did not mention the defense.  One of the worst things they did was allow a man with an IQ of 50 to be charged with murder when the confession he "dictated" involved things that he was not capable of, based on his intelligence, according to personal and clinical notes of people who knew/worked with him.  The sentences were too advanced for him, and he made a reference to stealing a $20 bill, when normally he would not be able to differentiate between one denomination and another.  I think with our SBI, they had the mindset that they were supposed to prove guilt, and they somehow failed if they didn't.  Nice fair legal system for you.  Falconus p  t   c 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't exactly answer your question. But it's closely related and an interested read. : The Straight Dope : What Can the Police Lie About While Conducting an Interrogation?
 * Hope this helps. APL (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just an observation: in the UK, the we-know-this-guy-did-it method is something I associate with the 1970s/early 80s policing, as in The Sweeney and Ashes to Ashes (TV series). Basically anything was OK so long as you got the right man. From all accounts, the sort of wholesale fabrication of evidence, completely unfair lineups, etc. are in the past. Proper procedure is the name of the game. Of course, that doesn't prevent the sort of thing you're talking about, but it is certainly indicative of a change in mentality. Not sure on the specifics here, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Small, so as not to drag off-topic. This is what made me so cross with the American remake of Life on Mars (TV series) that I stopped watching after the first episode (spoilers). In the British version, Sam is absolutely convinced that Colin Raimes did it, but that he is shackled by following proper procedure which prevents him from just getting the guy his gut is telling him did it. If only he didn't have to include a lawyer and social worker in the interview, who stopped him browbeating the vulnerable (and creepy) suspect into confessing. But, by the end of the first episode, we find that Colin Raimes is innocent. Completely and utterly innocent: he didn't do it. Sam had the wrong guy, and proper procedure prevented a miscarriage of justice. This is important, because Gene's version of policing can look appealing without that sort of reality check. In the American remake, turns out Colin Raimes did it. Yeah, identical twin brother or whatever. I am not interested in a show with Gene Hunt where Colin Raimes was guilty. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The most interesting bit of data I've seen on police procedure is the "reality" show The First 48. It's on Netflix, if you have it. The few episodes I saw really made me feel that I was seeing things the way the cops did, and saw how they went about trying to figure out what happened, the blind alleys they went down, the eventual successes, etc. I'm sure the genre itself imposes a lot of bias on it, but it seems far more plausible than anything else I've seen, certainly anything explicitly fictional. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From watching film of real US police interviews, it seems to me that they generally follow this method:


 * 1) Start off very softly, not even calling them a suspect. They may ask the person in just for some "routine information".  At this point they are trying to get info without having the suspect clam up and ask for a lawyer.  One common form seems to be to ask "if somebody had killed her, where do you think he might have disposed of the body ?".  The suspect thinks they will be given credit for helping if they "guess correctly", while, in reality, they are revealing info only the murderer would know.  The cops might also get permission from the suspect to do warrantless searches, if the suspect thinks they have cleaned up the murder scene thoroughly.


 * 2) The police do eventually perform an arrest and hence name them as a suspect. At this point they start revealing evidence against the suspect.  Still they try to soft-sell it, by saying things like "maybe you didn't mean to kill her, you just pushed her and she hit her head ?" (even though the forensics tell them the victim was beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat).  The object here is to get a partial confession, which they will later parley into a full confession.


 * 3) Then it's time to play hardball. They call the suspect a liar, threaten the maximum, maybe the death penalty, and thus get them to agree to a plea bargain.  Showing gruesome pics of the murder victim is also sometimes used here. StuRat (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ...which is, of course, why you should always ask for a lawyer as soon you are being questioned, especially if you are innocent. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Top quality answer, folks - glad I asked. Stu - that's really interesting - how did you get access to that kind of info? Too much late night cable? Or some devious means like having a friend on the inside? I'm curious because if I can get access to this myself I would like to check it out. Thanks It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a documentary TV show I like to watch called Cold Case Files (not to be confused with the fictional TV show Cold Case) which does an excellent job of giving you inside info on how police solved particular cases, including recorded interrogations.


 * Something else I should mention is that interrogations are often customized based on the psychological analysis of the suspect. Are they feeling guilty ?  Then make them relive it with gruesome pics and repeating the details of the murder over and over until they confess.  Are they proud they committed the murder ?  Then get them to brag about it, often in a way that they can claim they aren't, like "whoever did do the murder, was probably smart enough to use gloves and dispose of them in the sewer".  If the suspect is easily intimidated, then do that.  If not, maybe pretend to be the suspect's best friend ("I really want to help you out here, but you need to give me something I can use to help you".).  And, overall, just keeping the suspect talking is important, as they are sure to eventually reveal info only the murderer would know or else contradict earlier versions of their story.


 * One thing that worries me, though, is that some of these techniques are so effective they might get an innocent person to confess. The level of deception the police use is also shocking at times. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Confessions (PBS video): Eight men charged. Five confessions. But only one DNA match. Why would four innocent men confess to a brutal crime they didn't commit? ... high-pressure police interrogation techniques -- the threat of the death penalty, sleep deprivation, intimidation -- that led each of the men to confess, despite the lack of any evidence linking them to the crime. Royor (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

An excess of apostles
According to General authority, the term of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is "Typically life; may be removed from Quorum to join First Presidency; on rare occasions may be removed from the Quorum due to an excess of Apostles". How would an excess of apostles occur? The article on the Quorum doesn't explain. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) lists some instances when there was an excess of apostles. For example, Orson Pratt was excommunicated, then later made nice with the Church and was re-admitted, and then there was an excess of apostles, so some other poor guy got kicked out.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm LDS. Comet Tuttle has it about right.  It's important, when considering the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to understand that there's a difference between being ordained as an apostle and being a member of that quorum.  While all members of the quorum are apostles, (most, but) not all apostles are members of the quorum.  (The last apostle that was not a member of the quorum was Alvin R. Dyer.)  Additionally, as you already seem to understand, there are almost never exactly twelve living LDS apostles, as members of the First Presidency are also ordained apostles.  However, in spite of early turbulence and elasticity in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the succession process has remained pretty consistent in past decades.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm God. Making wise quacks is what I do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)