Humanities desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

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.

August 2

newspaper souvenirs

I'm currently trying to find some Chicago Sun-Times souvenirs. All I got was other items for sale when I checked the newspaper's website. Where else can I look?24.90.202.42 (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean old copies of the newspaper, or do you mean souvenirs like T-shirts, mugs, baseball caps, etc? If the former, you can buy them through dealers in old newspapers. If the latter, the reason you're not finding them is that the paper doesn't make them. You can go to cafepress dot com (link is blacklisted) and create your own. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the latter. In addition, I can't create anything from a copyrighted newspaper. I don't want to get in trouble.24.90.202.42 (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it overmuch, there are millions of copyrighted images being used without permission on T-shirts all over the world. The Chicago Sun Times has got better things to do than chase down someone wearing an unlicensed T-shirt with their logo on. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? The Chicago Sun-Times did make souvenirs at one point or another. I don't want to spark any soapboxes or debates to that matter.24.90.202.42 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of visiting the newspaper in person. I am pretty sure its still there, near Michigan Avenue, overlooking the Chicago River as always. They may have a gift shop at the paper's headquarters itself, or maybe a company store where you can buy Sun-Times logoed items. --Jayron32 01:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the Chicago Sun-Times in person. This was back in March 1999. They did have a gift store. But now, the paper's headquarters are inside a new building. Their original building was demolished in 2004.24.90.202.42 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Have you visited the new building? (For the record, I only lived in Chicago from 1998-2000, so I was unaware of the recent history of their offices). --Jayron32 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the old Sun-Times site is where Trump built his Chicago tower. I have no clue about souvenirs, though a call to the company would seem the most obvious approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I don't live in Chicago. So therefore, I haven't visited the new building.24.90.202.42 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forts

I was recently driving through Fort Ann, New York when I drove by an old log fort. It occurred to me that they often have a similar design, or at least the forts from the colonial days do. The design is such that the first/bottom floor has a smaller footprint than the second/upper floor. The upper floor is usually about 18-24" wider and longer than the bottom floor with trusses holding up the edges. Why is this? Dismas|^(talk) 10:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've been going through Commons images of forts trying to find an example and haven't been successful, so maybe these aren't forts that I'm seeing but some other colonial structure... Sorry. Dismas|^(talk) 10:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this (see image) the type of fort you're talking about? If so, the overhang was to provide a protected field of fire against attackers along the walls or at the base of the towers. When this sort of thing was temporarily added to a castle, it was called hoarding. —Kevin Myers 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In stone, it looks even more impressive. See Machicolation --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, like the pic but without the walls. These things I've seen are simply the house type structure without the walls coming out from the sides. Dismas|^(talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is known as a blockhouse - follow the link for more details. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the Sioux Uprising in Minnesota in 1862, the German immigrants built impromptu forts of logs based on their recall of castles in Europe. Some were like the illustration, others looked like a product of Mad King Ludwig, and others varied widely. The square blockhouse allowed murder holes whereby the defenders could shoot straight down at anyone trying to break in the door or scale the structure. One improvised fort, at St. Cloud, was a single tall circular tower with an elevated "monitor" style wooden structure with loopholes every five feet so 12 men could shoot at once, in all directions, one covering each 30 degree sector. It was called "Fort Holes." [1]. Edison (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who am I?

Not anything we can really answer here. Try seeking psychological counseling from an actual professional, or take some courses in philosophy & sociology. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When I was 22 years old, I wanted nothing more than to alleviate the callous disregard of man for man, for animals, for the environment. I was a vegan, and I had never owned a car. I lived in hippie bastions like san francisco in small communes with tattooed people who were totally cool. I had a lot of respect for women. I recently found a plan I wrote for myself from that time. The most important point on that plan was not to own anything, since things hold you hostage; own nothing = freedom.
and now, a mere five years out, I'm wearing a watch that cost in excess of a thousand dollars, I eat meat, wear leather, lust after objects such as expensive designer leather goods and a Mercedes car that has literally the worst emissions and gas consumption of any car in its class or any class, and think of women, for example my wife, as not to be trusted, but to be ridden to success like a horse. So what the fuck happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.179.184 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions". --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion, I'm asking literally what the fuck happened. It's true that you can't give medical analysis, but that's not true of existential enelysis. Or is Philosophy a fraud, and not a science, social or otherwise? 84.153.179.184 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to philosophise about you, without giving our opinions? --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you what happened, not for advice or philosophizing. If you need more information to be able to tell me what happened, then ask for it. If you can't determine what happened (no matter what clarification you might ask for), does that suggest to you that a human being is a magical and mystical spiritual entity that, hardly confined to three cubic feet as his physical presence would trick us into believing, and thus hardly comparable with any other item of three cubic feet, such as a computer server, instead is an entirely unworldly thing that does not answer to any science, but only to philosophy, religion, mysticism, and subjective reactions? Because if you do think that, it would explain your contribution. 84.153.179.184 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk. I doubt there are any references we could find that will explain your life story. --Tango (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

don't pretend that you only give references here. If I asked about the change in any other item of under three cubic feet, you would not doubt that any references could possibly explain the change in workings of that item. So do I exist on some irrational plane that makes me inherently, irreconcilably different from any other item in the world? 84.153.179.184 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not an appropriate Ref Desk question. If you are looking for introspective analysis, you'd probably do better off talking with a professional along these lines, or at least a good friend, or at least a good book. We don't know you, and we don't really want to know you. We don't know if your lifestyle change is due to your own internal drives, your own hypocrisy, or the failure of the first model you approached. But we can't help you much on here. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that 98% of you might not know what has happened. Three of you have already come forward with that statement. I would like to hear from the 2% who would have an answer since they know the workings of H. Sapiens Sapiens as well as an Intel chip designer knows the Intel chips. I kindly ask more people to refrain from repeating this sentiment. If you don't have an answer, then let the question languish. Either it will be answered, or it will remain open. Surely we can do without 10 people repeating the sentiment that it is an unanswerable question. That sentiment is plainly unscientific. 84.153.179.184 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't had three people come forward saying they don't know the answer (we wouldn't waste our time saying that). You've had three people come forward to say that it isn't possible for anyone to know the answer. We do not have sufficient information to answer your question and could only get that information by holding a detailed interview, which we are not in the business of doing. Nobody knows human beings as well as a chip designer knows their chips. Human beings are far more complicated than computer chips and our (that is, the human race's) knowledge of how the mind works is extremely limited. Mr.98 has given you a few possible explanations for why somebody's priorities would change, but there is no way we can possibly know which, if any, of those possibilities is the case for you. --Tango (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is so wrong and unscientific. For starters, human beings are not "far more complicated" than computer chips: on the contrary, they are FAR simpler. The entire human being is coded in 650 Megabytes of information. How many megabytes do you think Intel has, in total, among all its employees working on chip design? Obviously the human being is far less complicated. Now, you argue that your, excuse me, you make the laughable argument that you speak for the human race when you say your knowledge of how the mind works is extremely limited. Just listen to yourself: "I think I speak for the entire human race when I say I don't understand the mind". That's what it boils down to. Mr. 98 has given some suggestions, sure. I welcome the suggestions from someone who does understand how the human mind works (maybe they will need to pose some questions of me), so they can give their definitive take. Anything less is simply unscientific. 84.153.179.184 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the data size of a baby. (I might add something or other about complexity not being the same as data size, but I think it would be distracting.) People (at least grown-up ones) are all awkwardly different, and we would need to ask you a lot of questions, and make a lot of guesses, and charge you a lot of money ... oh wait. I am puzzled and suspicious about your motives in asking the reference desk to perform what promises to be a lengthy job of psychoanalysis on you when you can apparently afford a proper shrink. Wurstgeist (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you comparing the human genome to the designers of the chip? You should compare the human genome to the blueprints of the chip (compressed as much as possible). I have researched the current state of scientific understanding of the human mind in quite some detail. While I am far from understanding it all, I don't need to understand it all to know that there are still a very large number of unanswered questions (because I've read the work of lots of experts saying so). --Tango (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably met your future wife, got some regular sex, and the most primitive instinctual part of your brain overruled all the idealistic (and, honestly, unrealistic) expectations that you had created for yourself with the perhaps more advanced but certainly less powerful rational parts of your brain. You're a human male, you will do anything for a woman. Civilization is a thin veneer. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well my guess is that whatever motivated the veganism and the communes was the same kind of contempt for other people that underlies the OP's new Patrick Bateman persona (the whole story sounds made-up, or severely exaggerated, but I must assume good faith), and that the change is not such a radical one after all, except externally. The claimed desire to alleviate the callous disregard of man for man could in fact be a way of looking down on people and thinking of them as evil automatons, which makes joining in with this percieved way of the world a faily small leap. Wurstgeist (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, worldly life happened. See personal identity. This does not need to be an opinion question. Your mind probably decided it wanted to abandon non-material ethics in favour of...let me guess...hedonism? Anyway, I would disagree that humans are far more simplistic than computers. The possible interconnections between neurons, synapses, etc. approaches infinity, and a computer would require the ability to learn to come anywhere close. Can a robot decide what it wants to do in life? ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy between a human mind and a computer chip is fundamentally flawed. Computers operate in binary mode. Switches are on, or off. A circuit is open, or it is not. Human brains are made up of a vast number of neurons, with each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons, resulting in an interconnectedness measured on the order of 10^12 - 10^15. Because brains and computers operate in fundamentally different manners (indeed humans are not even really all that sure exactly how many of the finer operations of the brain work), comparing a computer chip to a human brain is like trying to compare a solar panel with a tunafish sandwich. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being human happened. That's all any of us can accurately say. Aaronite (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh...> It seems you went from Kohlberg stage 3 to Kohlberg stage 4, fixating on a certain subset of conventional mores as authoritative. basically you gave up on the stage 3 idealism where one believes that by 'being good' one gets rewards from the social realm, and moved on to a viewpoint where you expect to get rewards for fulfilling society's apparent expectations (as expressed by the authority figures you encounter), without regard to the consequences of those expectations. Few people remain in stage 3 past their early 20s, but many people remain in stage 4 for the entirety of their lives. Nothing wrong with that, really; people who get stuck in stage 4 end up being successful asses (Donald Trump and Bill Gates are excellent examples). Those who move on to stage 5 and 6 are usually less successful (because personal success is less meaningful to them), though I'd argue they are more pleasant to be around and generally live lives that are a bit more serene. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's question is simple: He abandoned his principles. Why he abandoned them is something only he and maybe his therapist can know for sure. As far as computers being more complex than humans, that's a red herring. They used to tell us that humans are slow, inaccurate, and intelligent; and that computers are fast, accurate and stupid. It's still true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For further reading, I recommend Scott Adams' book The Way of the Weasel, in which he talks about the different ways people act like weasels to each other, and especially to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs is basically right though perhaps not terribly accurate. From a psychological perspective, what happened to you is that your opinions changed, or your life perspective changed, or your belief system changed, or, or, or. There are so many ways to express it and none of them will give you the reason why it happened. There are so many different reasons why whatever happened might have happened. They range from the mundane physical (like a change in your digestion)to the deeply spiritual (like a change in your level of consciousness). However, what it all eventually comes back to is the first set of sensible answers given to you by experienced editors - namely that you can either have opinions or professional analysis and neither of those are the business of the reference desk. Gurumaister (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball bugs is not right; he is expressing a conventional lay opinion on the matter. Most psychologists would either approach this question from a developmental perspective, or from a trauma perspective - identity is nowhere near as fluid as most people presuppose, and one does not "abandon one's principles" casually (in fact, abandoning principles is a moral judgement about behavior, not a psychological assessment of mental state). --Ludwigs2 14:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No argument, Ludwig - I was responding to the 'meat' of what Baseball Bugs was attempting to convey (I did say that it wasn't accurate :) Gurumaister (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, assuming you're talking about yourself, character failure. Sharing and giving when you have nothing takes nothing and means nothing. Sharing and giving when you do have something takes commitment and gives meaning to your life. From the Hobbesian perspective, a Rolex on your wrist doesn't make life any longer or less brutish. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zhang Yi

Hi, I've been trying to expand the article, and the article is at 5x now, only there's a couple of citation neededs that I put up as I cannot find those facts in any source in vernacular, traditional Chinese. If you read simplified Chinese and find a ref for that, or if you read classical Chinese and found the info in the Records of the Grand Historian or the Zhanguo Ce, please let me know. Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 14:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very beginning of his biography in Shiji states that he was born in Wei. It makes no reference of any kind for a time period. -- kainaw ™ 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was really helpful. Now I just have to find a ref for the death date and I'm off to DYK! Again, thanks! Kayau Voting IS evil 14:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I just found the death date on chiculture.net. Now I'm ready for DYK! Kayau Voting IS evil 15:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - his date of death is BC310 (from Liu Guo Biao) or BC309 (from Shiji). -- kainaw ™ 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's the Liu Guo Biao? I'd like a WS link. If his date of death is disputed, that's great because I'll never spare and extra character... Kayau Voting IS evil

Liu Guo Biao is a basic history book. Literally, it is Six Country History. I don't have an English (or even a Chinese) link to it. Searching... -- kainaw ™ 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomander

The article says A modern form of pomander is made by studding an orange or other fruit with whole dried cloves and letting it cure dry, after which it may last indefinitely. Typically how long would it take for this drying process, which I suspect would vary depending on the fruit involved?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it once, very badly, and it took about four months. That's not very scientific. It was autumn time in the UK, if that makes a difference. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what you are saying is that in the summer time in Paris or Rome, it may go a little quicker? How does it smell then?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My one was ... not ideal. Yes, I thought in a hot, dry climate it may go faster. --Dweller (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forty days and forty nights perhaps? AND it does have a nice pleasant (orange) smell?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website I just found Curing time varies anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 months. On average it's about 3 1/2 weeks. - but of course that would depend on temperatures and humidity. My guess of "forty days and forty nights" wasn't that far off apparently, as 6 weeks is 42 days. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit sceptical about the "indefinitely"-part. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, didn't sound right to me either. Removed and added "many years" which I was able to find a reference to.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people take their etrog and stud it in this manner after Sukkot -- I didn't even know it had an official name. My neighbor has a bunch of them from years ago and they all look as dessicated as a pine cone. I'd say that could last indefinitely. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have (or did they have) a citrus fragrant? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early on. But once the citron dries up, it's just the spicy, clovy smell, until those dry up as well. Then it just looks cool. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley_Manning's access to information

If Manning was a private deployed in Iraq, why did he have access to critical information relating to Afghanistan? Wouldn't it have been much more sensible to let a senior member analyze the information in Washington? --Quest09 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which is about the Pentagon rethinking who should have access to "Secret" information, states:

A low-ranking Army soldier suspected of leaking thousands of classified documents had access to the documents because U.S. officials have pressed to make sure secret information is available to combat units ... "One of the lessons learned from the first Gulf War in 1991 was how little useful intelligence information was being received by battalion and company commanders in the field," Gates recalled, "and so there has been an effort over the last 15 or so years . . . to push as much information as far forward as possible, which means putting it in a secret channel that almost everybody has access to.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky trade-off. On the one hand, if you let lots of low-level people know lots of important things, then the chance of any one leaking them goes up to such a level that classifications like "secret" become certainly weakened (they end up, in practice, more like "restricted" or "confidential" classifications). On the other hand, if you concentrate useful information too high in the hierarchy, then it doesn't get used effectively. This has been a major post-Cold War debate within the American national security establishment. There are some who say, "get the information out there, because the advantages of having it widely disseminated outweigh the risks of it being compromised," and there are those who say, "if it is really sensitive, you should guard it really carefully, even if that means you are sometimes sending people out half-blind." Most security wonks seem to think the former approach makes more sense — these "secrets" have a very short half-life for the most part, and the apparatus needed to try and determine what should and shouldn't be given to folks on the ground is too ineffective and slow for the kind of "war" we are in now. (The 9/11 Commission, for example, pointed very directly to lack of intelligence sharing as a major reason that the attacks were not prevented.) But these kinds of leaks are a real possibility in such a situation, which can lead to massive political re-entrenchments of the old, Cold War-style security model. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both answers above solve part of the problem (why did he had access to important information). The second part is why did he -being in Iraq- have access to information regarding the Afghan war?Quest09 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, good point. This LA Times article from 6 days ago claims:

As an intelligence analyst with high-level security clearances, Manning was not restricted to looking only at classified information about Iraq, though his unit, a brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, was deployed there. The design of the military's classified computer system allows analysts to examine a wide range of secret information stored on servers maintained by U.S. Central Command, which oversees forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how many American troops are still..

We really don't need a Noam Chomsky political debate here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...in Vietnam? Does the U.S. Military have any bases there? How many troops are there in total (if any)? 85.181.49.186 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US troop withdrawal started in 1973 and the last military personnel left on 29 April 1975. See Vietnam War#Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975, Paris Peace Accords, Fall of Saigon and Operation Frequent Wind. Gabbe (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if no American troop has been there for 35 years, why are Chomsky and them still goin on about that shit as though they still are? 85.181.49.186 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we have quite comprehensive articles on Noam Chomsky's political views and a list of his political bibliography too. Please refer us to which recent "goin on about" Vietnam you mean where he claims, implies, or pretends that American troops are still there. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never read Chomsky, but I'm curious — is it a reference to the fact that the bodies of some American soldiers were never recovered and taken back to North America? Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean they going on about it, like makin all kinds of mentions of it constantly. 85.181.49.186 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose theoretically there could still be some living unreleased POWs or defectors still there, but I would have to see evidence to believe it myself. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is kind of insane, that's pretty much the only reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you tell me how you know he's insane? what kinds of insane things does he say? 85.181.49.186 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies no matter where you are in Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check the previously-linked Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Surely, Chomsky is an influential scientist and intellectual; he's also a nonsensical blowhard, and that adds up to an influential blowhard, which is the worst kind. And this is not limited to his politics. Why does anyone take universal grammar seriously? Because Chomsky believes in it. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky's political writings are very unpopular among those who believe that America can do no wrong, but "nonsensical" is a deeply ignorant statement. I'm going to say you've never read one of his essays. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky's critical commentary often is about patterns of behavior that the US government has engaged in for decades. One favorite topic, the "threat of a good example", is about how the US has repeatedly used military force or economic force to attack or bully countries that defy US hegemony. If the US can destroy these efforts, then other countries won't be able to use these efforts as a "good example" to model when they, in turn, aspire to defy US hegemony. (Here is an article section about the criticism of his criticism in this area, if you're interested.) He discusses the US posture toward Vietnam because it's an excellent, concrete example of this, as are the US posture toward Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, US support of the slaughter of about half a million people in Indonesia, etc. This is why he is "going on about it". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some marine guards protecting the U.S. embassy in Hanoi, depending on what Vietnam and the U.S. agreed to when they restored diplomatic relations... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if the original questioner gave us some hint as to what it is they're referring. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the original poster has confused Vietnam with South Korea, which has some 28,000 US troops there still, almost 60 years after the war there ended. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The war never ended. It's been in remission for 60 years, which is why there are still lots of troops there. There has never been a formal cessation of hostilities, only an agreement to stop shooting at one another. There have been flare ups now and then (see USS Pueblo (AGER-2)) but the war has never been closed by a formal peace treaty. --Jayron32 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what was all that kerfuffle about how Moscow should not have been able to stage the 1980 Olympics because they were at war in Afghanistan? Why wasn't the same principle applied to 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a kerfuffle over holding olympics while at war in general. See 1980 Summer Olympics boycott. It was about the specific war, and in this case it was about the ability to use the boycott to make a political statement regarding that war (a position that was not universally popular, even in the U.S. It has been cited as a contributing factor towards Carter losing the 1980 election to Reagan, for example). Furthermore, the fact that the nations have remained in an semi-official state of war doesn't seem to get in the way of of having periodic progress made towards ending the conflict once and for all. Both participate in the six-party talks. There was the historic June 15th North–South Joint Declaration. It does happen. --Jayron32 02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the question is why does Vietnam come up so much in U.S. political discourse 35 years after the conflict ended. I think it's because it's the last conflict to kill so many U.S. troops; it provides so many good examples of U.S. government coverups and misdeeds; it was the only war the U.S. has out-and-out lost; and it happened when the Baby Boombers, who make up so much of the U.S. electorate, were of military age. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam war certainly was a major traumatizing event in US history. Consider its role in popular culture. Essentially, its one of the major themes to explain friendships and military background. See Magnum, P.I., The A Team, Airwolf, even Baywatch. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what percent of the area of Earth be Europe?

If you take the area of the whole Earth, what percent of it be the area of Europe? (you're supposed to count water for the world but not oceans for Europe, lakes yes). This is not hw85.181.49.186 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to our article on Europe notes both the percentage of total surface area and the percentage of land surface area. — Lomn 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true...

..that common people living under US occupation in Iraq are allowed to keep an AK-47, at most one in every house -- Jon Ascton (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? Do you mean that there is a tacit acceptance among the occupying force that everyone is armed, and the U.S. doesn't bother trying to disarm people, or do you mean that there is a written law or formal regulation which specifically states that every family gets an AK-47. I suspect it is more of the former; people may state something like "Everyone in Iraq is required to carry an AK-47" as something of a bit of sarcasm or black humor. --Jayron32 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site (which seems to have fairly well-sourced figures, there are approximately 34.2 privately owned firearms in Iraq for every 100 people, which is pretty high (it puts them 8th in the world, percentage-wise, and 13th in the world number-wise). I've found an LA Times article from 2003 that says the US was planning to try to reign in some of the firearm ownership in Iraq under the Bush administration, but I don't know how that actually ended up. Googling "Iraq gun ownership" deluges you with unrelated articles, unfortunately. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]