Humanities desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 23

A wine Louis XIV might have had at table

Can anyone tell me some of the wines Louis XIV might have enjoyed? The more expensive the better, please, with the full name that might have been used at the time. Thanks Adambrowne666 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis would have drunk a great variety of classic French wines, particularly those from the Bordeaux and Burgundy regions. However, he is reputed to have started the craze for the wines of Champagne, though these would be quite different in character from those we are familiar with today. In 1703 he received a gift of Tokay, the Hungarian dessert wine, which was, from that date, served at Versailles. Louis was so pleased with it that he is said to have declared that it was Vinum Regum, Rex Vinorum (Wine of kings, king of wines). A decent bottle of Tokay is now among the most expensive of the sweet wines. Clio the Muse 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a typo in the Latin; it should be Vinum Regum with one less n. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Error now amended. Thank you for pointing that out, Lambian. I'm impressed by your grasp of Latin! Clio the Muse 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much. Adambrowne666 03:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling words with phone numbers

Someone created a new page, Phonewords. It's not very good, does anyone know if the topic is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia so the page could be deleted? I had a look in the telephone number article but didn't see it. --Grace 01:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably post this to the help desk. Anchoress 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog advice

I'm going to be starting and updating a blog for the company I work for, and I'm not super familiar with that particular media. I don't need advice about coding, but I want to look at a few blogs to get an idea of the layout I want. Not specifics like pallettes or skins or whatever, but the actual content (sections like links to other blogs, archives, company info etc) and the layout thereof. Can anyone recommend blogs they think are particularly attractive, easy to navigate, appropriate to the content, etc? Or a blog aggregator where I could just look at a whole bunch, one after the other? This isn't going to be a blogspot or whatever, it's going to be built by a developer and hosted on our server. Also if anyone has personal experience with a commercially-focused blog (it's going to be industry related, not a bunch of ads), I am all ears. Sorry to not be more specific about the industry/focus etc, I am being a bit cagey about it for now, so please don't ask for more specifics. I promise I won't kibosh any suggestions or info offered in good faith that isn't applicable. Thanks, Barry 66.183.212.221 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking a look at some of the links from our corporate blog article.--Shantavira 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links that have crossed my desk about corporate blogs (gah, I hate that word...): The Benefits of Corporate Blogging; Does Your Company Belong in the Blogosphere? (the last from the Harvard Business School). Good luck. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What could it mean when home baked bread has a sour taste to it?

A friend of mine just got a bread maker. She baked a loaf, using the regular ingredients (powdered milk, regular flour, bread maker yeast, nothing else special). The bread has a slight sour taste to it. I thought perhaps she used too much yeast, and it was showing in the taste, but I'm not sure. What might cause this? --Silvaran 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a sourdough yeast? The bottom half of this page has several reasons bread can be sour. -THB 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the cause, but I suggest you experiment with a different yeast. Dried is easier than fresh. Also I would never use milk. Warm water is fine.--Shantavira 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Shatavira, I missed the milk part. Likely it was sour because of lactic acid. -THB 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was just the yeast. I've baked a lot of bread at home, and it can be difficult when using any commercial type of yeast to make a bread that isn't "yeasty" and sour. Especially because you might feel you need a lot of yeast in order to make it rise correctly. I might modify the recipe to use less yeast. To get it to rise well with less yeast, make sure to add a bit of sugar or barley malt or something sweet to the yeast, and add warm water to it to make sure it works well. Make sure to let the dough rise in a toasty, moist area. Don't add any salt until after it's risen. You might even crumble in a ground vitamin c tablet to help the yeast work. Also, let it rise longer with less leavener.

This should all help you lose some of the yeast, so it will taste less yeasty, which is i suspect what you mean when you say "sour." Another way to do this, is to use a bread "starter" instead of yeast. This will take time. The idea to making a bread "starter" or "chef" is to save a bit from your last attempt at bread and not bake it. Store it in a warmish moist place until you make bread again (don't wait more than a week or so, or the starter will start to go sourdoughy, then bad.) When you make your next loaf of bread, instead of using yeast, incorporate the starter, which is yeasty and somewhat flavorful, but shouldn't impart that overly-yeasty and sour taste to your bread, into your new flour, water, (no milk - why are you using milk? especially powdered) mixture. That means you don't have to add yeast to your second loaf. Before you put the second loaf in the oven, keep a bit of it as a starter. Rinse and repeat.

Sashafklein 17:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bread maker, apparently one of these "add all the ingredients and press a button" doohickeys. The recipe included with the maker included a call for powdered milk. I'll try using less yeast (or a different kind, maybe the quick rise stuff instead of the bread maker stuff--quick rise is what it called for anyways) and see what happens. I'll experiment a bit--nobody will get hurt if a few loaves don't turn out well :). Thanks. --Silvaran 21:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is History the study of progress

I need help in proving the above topic as false....i have compiled a bit of information myself.....however i would appreciate any input on opposing this topic.

> 'one must learn the lessons of history' this phrase tells me that learning lessons means that some fault was observed from which we must learn the 'lesson'. History records our past. Though progress may be achieved as it being done so....but is history the study of this progress.....in my point of veiw history has gathered so many records of past events that progress i s ultimately going to be one of the results.......

That is a breif summary of my stance.....and i would appreciate and feedback or points backing my opposing stance to the topic thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.55 (talk • contribs)

The idea that "history the study of progress" is, roughly speaking, the Whig view of history but it is only one of many Category:Theories of history and the study of the study of history is historiography. HTH meltBanana 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must study history so that we are not forced to repeat the errors of earlier generations, but can instead commit our own entirely fresh set of errors. History can teach us that the idea of the progress of time implying progress in some deeper, beneficial sense, is a baseless meme, often invoked by the powers that be as an argument against resisting harmful change. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, history student! This is an interesting and fairly demanding question. To begin with, the most important point is that there are two senses in which 'history' can be understood. The first you seem to have touched on in your outline response-that history is an examination of the past based on evidence, given shape by a particular mode of interpretation. There is however a second, more comprehensive and philosophical interpretation of the term, which is, I suspect, the sense in which your examiner wishes it to be explored. In the past people have conceived of 'history' not just as a series of events but almost as a kind of physical entity, a godess, even, standing in judgement over human endevours. This view of history became particularly popular in the eighteenth and, above all, the nineteenth centuries, when people in western industrial countries took it for granted that history was the story of human progress, moving towards even higher levels of achievment. It's a view that united people from quite different political backgrounds, from Karl Marx, on the one extreme, and Herbert Spencer, on the other. In the twentieth century this view began to unravel, as economic, social and political problems accumulated, and humanity no longer seemed to be moving along a pre-ordained path. In our own time, against a background of global turmoil and dramatic changes in our climate and environment, those who take the old progressive view of history are, I imagine, in a clear minority. What I'm saying, in short, is that history has no divine attributes, that it does not measure and guide progress, and that the view that we have of the past is almost always conditioned by the life we have at present. This is not really that new or radical a view. Almost two hundred years ago G. W. F. Hegel, a German philosopher, wrote-What experience and history teach us is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. I can think of no better summary than that. Clio the Muse 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Hegel did believe that history should be the study of progress. ;-) --24.147.86.187 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he too was a child of his time, though sometimes displaying forms of wisdom he may not have intended. The negative spin on this quotation is, of course, my own. Clio the Muse 01:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his Philosophy of History? He's considered one of the greatest espousers of the idea that history should be the study of progress. It's not just him being a "child of his time" (whatever that means), it was part of his overall metaphysical plan. (Ironically, Ranke, who is now and was then seen as the anti-Hegel in this respect, was also pretty teleological in his views of history as well). --140.247.240.219 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, and much more besides. Please read what I have written above about attitudes to history in the nineteenth century, then you should be able to deduce what I mean by 'child of his time'. I thought the point was transparent: clearly not. Clio the Muse 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have a stable definition of "progress" before you can talk about even a study of progress, much less if that is history. What is progress? Any definition of it assumes a fixed set of definitions as to what is "good" or "better", but as time changes we not only have different ideas about what that means (cultural definitions of "good" and "bad" change over time, especially in respect to social arrangements and politics), but our very standards for determining whether we are doing "good" or "bad" things change (that is, the very means by which we try to decide whether things are "good" or "bad" change). If you don't have any stable of "good" that transcends time itself, then any history of "progress" will simply mean, "a history of things currently leading to what we like the most today," which is not only a very limited understanding of the past, but a fairly useless one (this is the Whig understanding of history mentioned above). --24.147.86.187 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the question seems to presume a single universal History, a History for the whole world. The Western version of History indeed dominates the world, however it cannot exist without opposing minority histories giving it its identity. The modern Western take on history would usually talk about progress with science and democracy as its main propellers. However, like I said, this is not the only view of history. Jean Baudrillard for example, saw that Western history has no place to go but into hyperreality, thus ending history's progressive march. The word "progress" itself is Western and so has Western connotations. It is arguable if the destruction of one society's history and culture by colonialism, for example, can be aptly termed "progress" (I remember one Arab leader denouncing Bush's "exportation of democracy"). Modernists and high modernists would like to think that the advent of postmodernism is but another event in the linear progress of history (that could culminate in a future communal society for Marxists). Postmodern philosophers on the other hand think that there are multiple histories, although this view is criticized as the disillusionment of scholars as the Marxist analysis of history loses its potency. As always, I would like to end with Nietzsche who seemed to have been the first to one to see the end of History, of Being, of Truth:

"We have abolished the true world: what world has remained? the apparent one perhaps? ... But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one!

(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)" -Moonwalkerwiz 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too love Nietzsche, who had his own view of what history would produce out of her labour-Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman-a rope over the abyss. Also sprach Zarathustra. Or, on a slightly lighter note, we could finish with 1066 and all that --America was thus clearly top nation and history came to a. Clio the Muse 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America is the top nation, I agree. It's the home of Disneyland [1] -Moonwalkerwiz 02:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence that Operation Storm came almost exactly fifty years after Operation August Storm??

Hello,

this might be pure coincidence but I just found out that Operation August Storm started on August 8 1945, while Operation Storm started on August 4 1995 and was ended on August 7 1995. That's almost exactly fifty years later. With the names being quite similar as well...I was wondering whether or not this is coincidence? Thank you Evilbu 14:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it really shows is that codenames are chosen for PR reasons rather then military reasons. Are not the names meant to disguise what is happening rather then advertise it? Instead of Operation Pencil or Operation Mousemat or whatever else is on the desk of the planner it is named after something cool and destructive. Aside from the slaughter, etc, one of the worst things about Operation Enduring Freedom was its name. meltBanana 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that name? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather loaded term, isn't it? It assumes that there is only one definition of freedom, which there clearly isn't. Not to mention that the operation itself may not have actually brought about any actual freedom. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many other problems with it that it is difficult to know where to start. It is simply newspeak as there is a lot more razor-sharp hot metal being dished out than freedom and it see to be based on sympathetic magic, call something a pleasant name and it will be pleasant. Also does enduring mean the freedom will carry on or does it mean that freedom is something you will have to put up with. Try pronouncing it injuring… meltBanana 17:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as Operation Infinite Justice was announced, I googled it. There were many usages, all of them referring to an aspect of the Almighty Creator. Pretty fishy stuff. Wareh 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MeltBanana is quite right. Properly-chosen codenames should be nondescript and have nothing to do with the operation itself. A set of good examples is "Sword," "Juno," "Gold," "Omaha," and "Utah" which are merely random nouns. The use of pompous "inspirational" names indicates that someone is trying to "sell" the validity of the operation to the public, because its worth is questionable, and also displays a massive lack of good taste. "The Manhattan District" showed the use of good sense; "Infinite Justice" and "Enduring Freedom" reveal small minds at work. B00P 21:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold, Juno etc. were not, in fact, operational terms, but merely code names for individual beach landing areas. The operational name for the whole of the D-Day landings was, of course, 'Overlord', clearly much more dramatic! Anyway, to go back to the original question, the answer is yes, the choice of operational code names in the examples given is one of pure coincidence, in the very broadest sense. However, there is a possibility of overlap between quite different actions, because a word like 'Storm' is suitably inspiring; and in general military code names are indeed chosen for serious or inspiring reasons, and are not intended to be neutral or bland. I remember reading a memorandum issued by the British War Office to all branches of the armed forces on this very point. The instruction was that code names should be serious in nature, as befited the task at hand, and not trivial or jovial-no 'Operation Bunny Hug' or 'Ballyhoo', to take but two examples from memory. There are good reasons for this. How much better to tell Mrs Smith that her only daughter or son died in Operation Crusader-or Operation Storm-than Operation Tickle. Clio the Muse 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some operations use neutral names when they are trying to disguise their intent ("Tube Alloys", "Manhattan Project", "Operation Paperclip"). Some operation names are PR spin and blatantly obvious PR spin at that: Operation Just Cause, as an example of what the US called its invasion of Panama, was almost universally derided in the media as Orwellian newspeak. Did it frame it for people in a good light? Personally I doubt it. --24.147.86.187 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right when the task described is not for public consumption. Open operations are, of course, quite different. Whether the code name works or not is another question altogether. A name like 'Operation Just Cause' lacks any kind of subtlety or restraint, merely announcing itself as a form of shallow, and cynical manipulation Clio the Muse 01:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that point of view it might better have been called "Operation Just because". If you want to express that your cause is just without becoming pompous, what about "Operation Us Good, Them Evil ". --Lambiam ^Talk 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or make it descriptive and barbarously blunt. The German code name for the attack on Yugoslavia in April 1941 was Operation Punishment. Clio the Muse 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so basically... it seems that you people think it's not coincidence or a refernece either, but just trying to have a cool name?Evilbu 00:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A name, rather, fitting to the task; a name with drama and purpose. Clio the Muse 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate

How to file a Les Pen dance and where do I get the forms?

Place: California, County Of Alameda.

Situation: I am 23 years old age. I had met a non-license person who explained how I could acquire real estate property. He led me through the procedures and had me sign a quick claim deed to him for the properties. He never paid the mortgages and I am threaten with foreclosures. My credit is bad and I am still in school. I would like to get this matter into court in hopes that it will help to bring some Justus in my situation. Will a les pen dance help or what should I do? I have explained my situation to the mortgage companies, but they say I am liable. He retained all the documents and forged my name on some of the loan packages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.189.27 (talk • contribs)

We can't provide legal assistance here; best to call a lawyer and discuss it directly with the professional. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Les Pen dance"? Is that a mishearing of some other word? 惑乱分からん 18:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try lis pendens. And you absolutely need a lawyer with real estate experience. Also, it is quit claim deed.-THB 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, may Justus prevail. JackofOz 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day unjust laws, institutions, or corporations in the United States?

I am interested, what would be conisdered modern day unjust laws or corporations in the United States? Is there something similar or comparable to segregation laws against african americans, and limited rights to women? What would be modern day issues that mirror such topics? It would be helpful if it were specific laws or corporations, not a public opinion.

Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.200.47 (talk • contribs)

No, everything is absolutely perfect in the United States. The same is true for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Western Europe.

Now, tell us about all the injustices where you come from. B00P 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is perfect. See Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and extraordinary rendition. Gandalf61 21:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think gay people are human and one day we'll recognise that universally, but not yet: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage in Australia. I believe our kids, or maybe theirs, will look at our generation just like we look at the slave owners of our past and wonder similarly: how could people be so backward? Vespine 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wonder why marriage is given so much weight in modern society. It's not like not being married should prevent one from doing anything married people do, anymore? 惑乱分からん 23:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is a complicated economic, social, and cultural institution. It impacts how one makes money and pays taxes, it impacts whether one can share certain types of employment benefits (i.e. health care), it impacts how others view you, it impacts how you view yourself. I don't think it can be dismissed in a flip way. --24.147.86.187 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unjust" is in the eye of the beholder. Many people thought segregation was "just" — many people think that anti-gay marriage laws are "just" and "unjust". There is no simple standard for justice. Is it "just" or "unjust" that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than the poor? Is it "just" or "unjust" that felons don't have the right to vote in some states? Is it "just" or "unjust" that affirmative action is legal in some places, or illegal in others? Is it "just" or "unjust" that illegal immigrants are used in exploitive labor, pay taxes, and either can or can't get citizenship? I've tried to include a lot of questions from very different political opinions here, just to give an example that different stances will cause you to feel certain things are "just" and "unjust". I'm not trying to be a relativist, but I do want to point out that the question itself assumes a static sense of "justice". It is usually only easy to apply a static sense of justice to things in the past which everyone now agrees were "wrong"; even then, if one looks at something in a non-superficial way, you can find that things were and are complicated. "Justice" usually reflects individual or social values, and these are slippery, especially so on issues which are currently on-going. Asking "what is unjust?" is almost like asking "what is beautiful?" It's not a simple answer. --24.147.86.187 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriot Act is absolutely evil and the very name of it shows the contempt that the people who created and backed it have for the American people. It is absolutely appalling. -THB 03:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion on keeping reference desk comments factual moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. -- SCZenz 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Answering this question requires knowing what Justice is - and that's a longstanding and difficult philosophical question. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as for throwing around terms like 'absolutely evil', that really does take 'courage'. I did not die, nor yet remain alive: think for yourself, if you have a trace of intellect, how I was, in that condition. Clio the Muse 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the injustices of places like Guantanamo Bay in themselves, how about how's it's apparently acceptable to hold foreigners (but not those from countries which are friendly with Bush) there but rarely Americans? Also, many would argue the social situation in the US, a developed country, where the poor are arguably left to fend for themselves most of the time with very little government support is injust. Compared to other developed countries, with better social welfare, medical care etc. Hurrican Katrina may be seen as an example of this. You could go in to America's controversial support for Israel. None of these are explictly laws per say of course. Nil Einne 14:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On laws, things like the DMCA, stem cell research, restrictions on federal funding if there is any support for family planning services that have any connection with abortion (even though abortion is allowed in the US) etc. On companies, other then the obvious ones (oil companies and Halliburton), there are ones like Monsanto, Microsoft, etc Nil Einne 14:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just following the herd and telling us how "unjust" Guantanamo is, can anyone please give me any evidence of Gitmo being anything more than a POW camp? My apologies if that would force some undue original thought on anyone's part. Oh, and please, before mentioning the word "torture", at least have SOME sort of non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.Loomis 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo is 'unjust' because it is detention wihout trial. That over methods of detention without trial exist, or have existed in the past, is not justification for their continued existance. One should not hold individuals for a prolonged period of time without due process through the legal system. Their continued detention is unreasonable if there is not sufficient evidence to send them to trial. If there is sufficient evidence then the trial should be undertaken. I have no idea about the legal framework/requirements, and wouldn't like to speculate on torture allegations, but. If these individuals are deemed a safety threat to the US then they must have some form of evidence to suggest this. Yes, time should be granted to assess/collate this evidence but unless they can prove a threat, then I believe they should be freed. We cannot justify the continued detention of individuals without evidence, and if we have evidence then that should be judged in a court of law, irregardless of whether they are essentially POWs. ny156uk 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point several days ago, but I'll try again one last time. During a war, POW camps are set up to detain enemy combatants. For example, in WWII, the Allies captured thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, and held onto them until the war was over. What you're suggesting is that this was wrong; Thousands of judges and hundreds of thousands of civilian jury members would have had to be flown in to Europe to conduct fair trials, each enemy soldier would be presumed innocent until proven guilty of a pre-existing law beyond a reasonable doubt, and should the prosecution not meet this burden, the enemy combatant would have been required to have been set free with all due haste, no doubt to rejoin his former platoon just to have another go at the Allies. Nevermind the fact that the whole process would have been so overwhelmingly costly that the Allies would have had absolutely no resources left to conduct the war and prevent Hitler from surely conquering Europe and beyond, still, is this how the Allies should have conducted the war effort? Loomis 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis - interesting comparison with POW camps. The US government has consistently argued against classifying the detainees in Camp X-Ray as POWs, because if it admitted that they were POWs, then they would be entitled to the protection of the Third Geneva Convention, which states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." In other words, the detainees would have better treatment and protection from abuse if Camp X-Ray was a POW camp. Gandalf61 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Gandal. Yet what you seem to be suggesting is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that the US Government has so much respect for the "Third Geneva Convention" that it would never treat "true" POWs in contravention of it, yet, on the other hand, rather than covertly ship them off to some undisclosed Top Secret location for torture without the world having a clue what's going on, it rather openly and conspicuously ships them off to Camp X-Ray, insists that they aren't POWs, and "legalizes" their torture and inhumane treatment by stating rather simply: "They aren't POWs, so the Geneva Conventions don't apply".

C'mon...I have absolutely no experience in the intelligence gathering business, nor the political PR business, yet even I wouldn't go about it in such an utterly moronic manner. Even if there is any torture going on, it most definitely is not going on in Cuba, with the worlds eyes watching (or at least speculating). If there is, this has got to be one of the biggest PR blunders the US has ever engaged itself in.

But you're right. It is rather odd that the Americans are so conspicuously and so unnecessarily opening themselves up to allegations of "crimes" that could so easily be hidden. It's so simple. If there is indeed torture going on, ship those specific detainees to some Top Secret location, like Guam, or Alaska, or some barn in Nebraska, and do it there. In the meantime, clean up Gitmo, turn it into a virtual "Club Fed" and invite the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, and every other possible goody-goody organization to check out the place and confirm that the detainees there are being treated like princes. Loomis 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "how's it's apparently acceptable to hold foreigners (but not those from countries which are friendly with Bush)" (my bolding) - please see David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. JackofOz 00:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERRATUM. I just realized that I made a remark that could possibly be misunderstood if taken out of context: "[I]f there is any torture going on, it most definitely is not going on in Cuba". What I meant to say is that I don't believe it to be going on at Guantanamo Bay, not Cuba as a whole. There most definitely is torture going on elsewhere in Cuba. Loomis 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in a homosexual relationship. Its just a state of mind. One cant imagine america being supportive a homosexual relationship involving two races like the Asian and the American. It sounds absurd per se like the Six feet under themeline involving a black man and an american. There is no moral control . It starts in the US therafter australia & south Africa follow suit. One individuals state of mind cant be imposed around the world. The lines of moral decency has reached limits.19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~

Anonymous user, I'm having a little bit of trouble making sense of what you are trying to say here. However, one point is perfectly clear-it is indeed wrong to attempt to dictate 'one state of mind around the world'. But then that would seem to be precisely what you are trying to do. Clio the Muse 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pet issue, if you will, is sexism, so naturally that would get my vote. Sexual discrimination is rampant in society, including all levels of government (most governments, not just America's). An obvious example in America is Selective Service, with which females are not required to register. Any form of discrimination against homosexuals is by definition also sexism (since it is not actually the behaviour but rather the sex of the person doing the behaving that people take issue with), so that of course includes the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, as well as any law that prohibits marriage or adoption by same-sex couples.

One that it seems like nobody ever really thinks about is segregation by sex. We supposedly decided a long time ago that segregation based on accidents of birth is a deeply offensive notion ('separate is never equal'), but that hasn't stopped supposedly civilised society from keeping males and females separate in bath rooms, locker rooms, schools, sports, the military, you name it. In the case of bath rooms and locker rooms, specifically, it's often held that these two groups need to be keep apart because otherwise there'll be mass lawlessness, lewd conduct, &c. It's the modern-day equivalent of keeping blacks out of our neighbourhood for fear they'll 'rape our women'.

That's how i see it anyway! ~ lav-chan @ 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music genre of HerbieHancock??

What music genres or subgenres most accurately describe the song Rockit?--Sonjaaa 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funk. 71.252.11.5 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just 80s. I think it's time the era became a genre name. 71.252.11.5 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't call 80's a genre. The music released was as varied as music from the 90's or 00's. @_@ Aerosmith, Prince and Pet Shop Boys have very little in common... 惑乱分からん 12:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic.com calls it jazz funk/electro. 71.252.11.5 02:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, according to the description in the article... 惑乱分からん 12:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although his earlier stuff (Maiden Voyage, Empyrean Isles) is straight-up jazz piano and a couple cds (Head Hunters, Thrust, etc) are some of the earliest funk. 71.252.11.5 02:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]