Humanities desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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.

September 29

Moscow's former mayor

How does the President of Russia have the authority to dismiss the mayor of the city? Is this similar to the U.S. House of Representative's control over Washington, D.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional princples in Russia are a little more "fluid" than they are in the U.S. Russian politicians look at such constitutional princples as a rough guidelines, but ultimately not a big impedance to doing whatever they want whenever they want. For example, when Vladimir Putin had to leave the office of President because of constitutionally mandated term limits, he simply had his successor appoint him Prime Minister, and simultaneously had all of the interesting powers of the President shuffled to the office of Prime Minister. Aside from half-assed attempts to legitimize such moves, Russian leaders operate on the Rule of Law: He who rules makes all the laws. So, whether or not Medvedyev had the formal power to remove the Mayor, he did it, and everyone there kinda accepts that how Russian politics works, so it's sort of a fait accompli. The tradition of Nomenklatura dates to the Soviet Union days, but it appears alive and well under post-Communismn Russia. --Jayron32 03:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Moscow is technically a governor. The Russian President not only nominates but also has the last word in appointing governors. In 2005, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that this did not violate "the principles of division of power and federalism [...] in the current historical circumstances". (Richard Sakwa, Russian Politics and Society, Routledge, 2008, p 277). This is very briefly brushed in our article on governor. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go then. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are a bit more complicated than what I wrote, but it boils down to that. For more context, I quote from the same page in Sakwa's book: "This decision has been seen to indicate the spinelessness of the Constitutional Court vis-à-vis the authorities, and thus its inability to act as a bulwark against authoritarianism." ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so I wasn't completely wrong in my assessment of Russian politics. --Jayron32 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(My point :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no States' rights in the present Russian government system? Is there any sense of home rule or the right of people in a local area to choose their own leadership? Obama has no power to sack the Mayor of Washington, D.C. in the US, by comparison. The Queen or the Prime Minister of the UK cannot (to my knowledge) sack the Mayor of London. Does the Emperor of Japan have the authority to sack the Mayor of Tokyo? Why should some pipsqueak head of state in Russia be able to remove a Mayor of a Russian city from office? Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "states". The Subdivisions of Russia are a very complex melange of relationships, while Russia is technically a federation like the U.S., it would be better to say it is a federation very unlike the U.S. This melange is reflective of Russia's history, especially of its expansion eastward from its Eastern European core. Some subunits of Russia do have a level of autonomy akin to U.S. states, however these are mostly places that aren't "Russian", strictly speaking. These are generally the Republics of Russia, which are mostly places that are populated by non-Russian ethnic groups. Of the Federal subjects of Russia (Federal Subject is the administrative division roughly equivalent to a U.S. State), the parts of Russia which are essentially Russian (that is, historically and ethnically Russian) are the Oblasts of Russia. Oblasts may technically have a certain degree of autonomy, but practically they are no more autonomous than, say, English Counties. This is more realpolitik than anything. Those places that are most ethnically Russian get the least autonomy because they generally don't revolt against the government, being Russian themselves. Those places more likely to stir up trouble because of ethnic differences are given more power over their own business. Moscow is technically a Federal City, but functionally this is probably equivalent to an Oblast in all but name. --Jayron32 05:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India is considered the largest democratic country in the world. Yet the Governors of states of India have always been appointed by the President. The situation in Russia has been similar to India after Putin's reform of regional administration in 2004. Moscow is one of the federal subjects, just like Saint Petersburg or Yakutia or Belgorod Oblast or Tuva. The regional leaders are appointed and sacked by the President. (Like the First Minister of Scotland, they are nominated by the regional legislature and appointed by the President). They used to be elected until 2004. In all Russian cities apart from Moscow and Petersburg, mayors are elected (although they may be sacked by the regional governor, according to a recently adopted law). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to the question is that Russia's constitution gives its president the authority to dismiss governors, including the mayor of Moscow, who counts as governor of the Moscow region. The Russian president is able to do this, whereas the U.S. president is not able to dismiss mayors, because the United States and Russia have different constitutions. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, this is vaguely like the situation with the District of Columbia: in both, the relevant constitution grants the national government some control over the local government. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

Re: Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

I would like to know how many Visas were issued in 2009 to Foreign Nationals for the purpose of receiving medical treatment in the United States.

Could you direct me to sources that would provide this specific information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseTemple (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be hard to find. United States visas are divided into a dizzying array of classes, while the government keeps stats on how many visas of each class are issued, none of the classes is expressly for "Medical treatment", so it is likely that such people are admitted under another class, such as B1 or B2 visa, which covers non-immigrant visas for business or tourism, I guess that if you are getting medical treatment, that may technically be "business". There are also W-class visas which appear to be technically "visa waivers", which may be a sort of "catch-all" for people who don't fit into other categories well. --Jayron32 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Kiernan

Would anybody happen to know the exact birthdate of Michael Collins' fiancee Kitty Kiernan? Her Wikipedia article just gives the year. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone knows. Her gravestone doesn't say. No source I can find says anything, and a blanket of lack of knowledge is more likely that just one or two sources that I've missed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography/Travel question

Am looking for a "tourist destination" known for its large closet (could be one of its variants like cupboard or cabinet) It was built in the 19th century by a dedicated woman.

Its annual festival in August attracts fervent crowd

i did search on wikipedia / other sources

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult questions we can answer immediately, impossible ones take just a little longer, so please bare with us. Are you thinking of L'Armari de les Set Claus. The parish hosts a festival there each August.--Aspro (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

grammar
Nudist? Otherwise, you mean "please bear with us". 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia share in the puzzle's prize money?--Wetman (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is it, then the answer is Andorra and I've found the cupboard gets mentioned in this destination guide where (surprise, surprise) its gets described as the “interesting cupboard with seven keys.” Top Attractions, Also mentioned in Wikipedia's Casa de la Vall article and else where but not (as the OP states) the English versions. Casa de la Vall A festival begins there on the first Saturday in August and lasts for three days.--Aspro (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Wetman points out, this question relates to a regular prize trivia competition - the current question is here. We often get people posting today's question here in the hope that refdesk volunteers will do the legwork for them, and I've never yet seen anyone admit upfront that there was cash available for the right answer. I've no idea whether anyone has actually claimed the prize thanks to the refdesk, or if so, whether gratitude has led to a donation to the WMF, but if $100 would come in useful to you, you see a question of this type and you know the answer, it's always worth checking the website before you respond here. Ka renjc 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the quiz itself is a sad, sad joke. We'd had questions from it here before, with people giving serious applicable answers (answering to hints like: this amazing structure is known worldwide and the like with places that really were known worldwide) only to later find out the answer was some ridiculous roadside attraction housed at the gas station in Middle-o-nowhere, Forsakington county, Central US. As has happened again with this very question, btw. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some so-called "attractions" really deserve to be called "repulsions". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'Indian' to refer not only to natives of the Americas, but other indigenes

In The Fatal Shore, I see the word 'Indian' used more than once to refer to the Aborigines in accounts by the first colonists. I was amazed. Of course, Cooke et al didn't think they'd hit upon the East Indies. So did the term, after Columbus's mistake, become a sort of colloquialism to refer to 'natives'? Is anyone else aware of this?

Thanks - sorry for the clumsy prose - am tired. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists the word indian being used for the natives of the Philippines as early as 1697, so yes it appears indian frequently meant just about any native. The word Indies was loosely used to mean any place far away and foreign so it wasn't much of a stretch to call the peoples there Indians when you didn't know they were Maori. meltBanana 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many references state that "Indie" is short for "Independent" and was used to refer to any land that was independent of the colonial governments of Europe. If that were true, referring to all "indie" people as "indians" would make sense. However, it is absolutely false. "Indie" is derived from Indus, a landmark in a specific area of the world. The land around Indus was known as East Indie and West Indie. I'm sure there are also references to North Indie and South Indie as well - though South Indie would be nothing but water. -- kainaw ™ 14:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement may be true of "India" or "the Indies", but "Indie" doesn't exist in English other than as a modern abbreviation for "independent". --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but water, Kainaw? Well, depending where in India you're south of, it could mean Sri Lanka (when Sir Arthur C Clarke died, there were various reports that he'd died in India, on the ignorant journalistic assumption that Sri Lanka is part of India and not a separate sovereign nation).

In school, I distinctly remember being taught a poem that made reference to "Austral Indians", which was a poetic way of referring to Australian aborigines. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you head south of the Indus River, you will see water, water, water, and more water. The Arabian Sea is not known for a plethora of islands. -- kainaw ™ 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - I really like it - doesn't seem to be reflected in fiction set in those times. Shouldn't we amend the 'Indian' article to reflect this? Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cook wrote in his diary of 1769: "Seeing some of the natives on the other side of the river ... I order'd the yaul in ... In the mean time the Indians made off " (he was referring to the Maoris). By 1872, Millet wrote: "The ‘aborigines’, as they are now styled ... Captain Cook would in his older time have called ‘Indians’". Apparently, Cook thought that they all looked alike! I've never heard "Indian" (on its own) used to refer to anyone outside the Indian sub-continent in modern UK usage, except for "Cowboys & Indians". Dbfirs 08:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a 1950s standard of living

If everyone in a western country decided to only work part-time and only spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living, what would happen to the economy? 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what that means -- in the U.S. at least, the 1950's were pretty prosperous, and the main "lifestyle" difference between then and now is the ever-increasing proliferation and sophistication of technological gadgets. Also, in the 1950's, there were a lot of semi-skilled labor jobs that paid reasonably well, so that a man without much education could still often support a family. And a man in a professional or middle-management position usually could support his family at a middle-class level of comfort on just his one income... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how answerable this is regardless, but you'll need to define what you mean. Does "1950s standard of living" mean that I spend only what would have been spent in 50s dollars (discounting 60 years of inflation)? Does it mean that I only spend money on things that I could have spent money on in the 50s? Do I just try to project a budget forward, but can divide it how I like? What standard defines the "50s standard of living"? If everyone is doing this, does this mean that those below the poverty line magically get enough money to meet this new standard? And backing off a bit, is the point "what would be the impact of a 50s SoL?" or "what would be the impact of no full-time work?", because those are two very different questions that probably shouldn't be conflated. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question already said "spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living". You have asked several extra questions which the OP is not responsible for. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're responsible for removing ambiguities listed if you want a hard answer. Fluff is easy, as is demonstrated below. It's also not useful. — Lomn 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is easy to understand and the meaning clear. This is not a kindergarten. I feel as if I've asked "What is two plus two" and then you come back saying "Can you define what two means? Do you want us to multiply them or divide them? It's your fault I don't understand" and so on. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing short-form answers: a net drop in consumer spending (the probable result of the "50s SoL" thing) hurts a consumer-services-based economy. Check out the last few years in the US. However, if all work becomes part-time, companies can cut costs and offer jobs to more people. You'll have to redefine "unemployment", since that usually means full-time work, but some new balance point will be found. The supply/demand curve will adjust to new practical realities. Economies are complex systems, and would that we have a Glooper that could perfectly model the whole thing. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a U.S. perspective, the question doesn't make much sense. In the 1950s, my grandfather, who had less education than me but a job with a roughly similar skill level, was able to afford a much larger house than I can afford, even with my partner working and contributing to pay our mortgage. He was able to afford a car for himself and another for his wife, and he was able to support his wife and three children, none of whom worked; whereas my partner and I share a car and both have to work just to meet our own basic needs. While we have computers and a router, which my grandparents did not have, in other ways our "standard of living" is no higher than theirs. So, I would have to increase, not decrease, the hours that I work in order to afford my grandparents' standard of living in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting to be told that the standard of living has declined in the US since the 50's - that's shocking. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you probably have a longer expected lifespan than your grandfather, and access to better medical care. You can probably afford to get a greater variety of goods from all over the world. Standard of living is a very complex idea, and there is considerable disagreement on how to measure it. Buddy431 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised people have problems understanding the question. See this http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that your graph shows is that workers are more productive now than in the 1950s. I'm sure that I generate more value for my company from a week of work than my grandfather did. However, I see a smaller proportion of that value than he did, because profit levels today are at record highs, as are levels of executive compensation, so most of the value that I create accrues to the compensation of executives and shareholders, whereas my grandfather would have seen a much higher share of the value that he produced reflected in his salary. This explains why an American with a given skill level would have to work more hours today than in the 1950s to achieve the same standard of living. The main exception would be the minority of Americans who are senior managers or who live from investment income. They enjoy a much higher standard of living today for the same number hours of work as in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in America is shockingly different from what I had assumed, if what Marco Polo says is general experience. I was not expecting US standards of living to have fallen since the 50's. But here in the UK you could go without buying all the things that have become commonplace since the 1950s such as central heating, tvs, fridges, computers, gadgets, large quantities of clothes, fancy foods, various types of entertainment, foriegn holidays, and many other things, and thus spend only a fraction of your income to get a 1950s standard of living. The cost of houses may have risen in real terms, but as people still buy houses I still think you'd still have a lot of surplus income. The cost of food is now a small fraction of what it was in the 50s. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Many people in the UK spend half their income on housing and fuel, and only a small amount on tvs, computers etc. I think that many families would not be able to survive on a single income even without these things. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to forget that the quality of housing has risen in the UK since the 1950s, despite the tiny room sizes. A lot of people lived in slums, which were bulldozed in the 1960s or at least modernised and upgraded. Strangers would share rooms, where now they would live in flats. The flat lived in by the well-paid Michael Caine character in The Ipcress File was slumy and seedy, even in the 60s. Other 60s literature depicts similar seedy conditions - eg Saturday Night And Sunday Morning and so on. Only the better housing from the past survives, the slums have gone. 92.15.7.179 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. In the 1950s there was almost no central heating and not many people had cars, nobody jetted abroad for their holidays, so you would have used little fuel. In the 50s food at a guess may have cost a third of the household budget, now the cost of food is very much less especially for 1950s style meals. This more than offsets a rise in the cost of housing. In the 1950s I think most people rented, and rents are cheaper than buying, particularly in council houses. There is very much more 'disposable income' now than there was in the 50s. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an example of how standards of living have changed since the 1950s: In 1950, U.S. households spent 20.6% of their income on food, according to the USDA. In 2008, it was 5.8%. Spending on clothing has dropped from 10% to about 2% -- thanks, Vietnamese sweatshop workers. That's 23% of income that can go to other things, such as electronics, vacations, or whatever. In the 50s, so I've been told, American families almost never ate out and rarely took fancy trips. New Yorkers had their honeymoon in Niagara Falls, not in St. Lucia. Houses often lacked air conditioning. Families usually had one car -- or even no car, imagine that. TVs were super-expensive -- as much as $4,000 in today's money. Forget about having four or five TVs like families may have now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ramifications of the circular flow of income you would expect GDP per capita to drop to 1950s levels. If you ignored the export market you would expect that unemployment would remain more or less constant if everyone decreased their willingness to work by the same amount. People would make less stuff, but receive less income with which to buy it. You would expect a shift in employment away from complex and luxury goods towards foods and essentials.124.171.93.13 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA of the 1950s it was rare to see a woman work outside the home, and you never saw females over the age of 30 looking like Sharon Stone and Madonna (both of whom are 52 years old); however, cars, tvs, fridges, etc. lasted much longer than they do now, the crime rate was drastically lower, the schools better (yet students never questioned what their teachers said), people trusted their government, and were more insular in that they didn't care what went on outside the United States; this was probably because, as one editor pointed out, relatively few people travelled abroad. In my opinion, the 1960s offered a more stimulating lifestyle than the staid 1950s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Schools were better" and "students never questioned what their teachers said"? ^{[citation needed]} Cars, TVs (2 channels, none of them 24/7, or even 24/anything, I suspect) and fridges may have lasted longer, but also had much less functionality and used much more energy. Jim Crow laws were in full effect, and I would expect that much of the romanticized upper middle class suburban lifestyle did not apply to minorities. I just hit upon another interesting factoid from the latest US census: Today, there are 14.5 times more people in the lower 20% income bracket than in the upper 20% (and the upper 20% now earn more than half of the overall income). 40 years ago, that ratio was 7.7:1 [1](sorry, German source). That redistribution certainly affects the middle and lower classes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several tv programmes which perfectly illustrate the average US middle-class lifestyles and mentality such as Father Knows Best and I Love Lucy. Then there are two excellent 1950s films where one can see the difference between the standard of living and social mores in the USA. These are Sunset Boulevard where an actress was deemed old and unworkable at 50; and the brilliant A Place in the Sun. Just compare Elizabeth Taylor's family's tastefully rich lifestyle as depicted in the 1952 film to the vulgar, Baccalian display of wealth in the 80s soap opera Dynasty!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should step back from my earlier statement and concede that the standard of living per hour of work in the United States has risen not only for senior managers and the rich, but also for people who are not white and for single women of all colors. Their opportunities for gainful employment have certainly increased since the 1950s. However, I would still argue that for white males and white married couples in the United States who work for a living and are not senior managers, an hour of work buys less "standard of living" today than it did in the 1950s. The median white American family household may have a slightly higher standard of living than in the 1950s, but I think that this can be more than accounted for by the additional hours worked by wives. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. homicide rate per 100,000 people, 1950: 4.6. In 2007: 5.9. So the crime rate was lower back then, but perhaps not drastically so. Incidentally, the murder rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1950's, a school janitor would very often have made significantly more than a school nurse, etc. -- perhaps due to unquestioned implicit assumptions about who would be supporting a family just as much as any blatant overt sexism. Lessening such pay disparities in the 50 years since has had many positive features, but it also contributed to the situation where nowadays there are very few such school-janitor type jobs where someone without much education can support a family at a fairly comfortable (though working-class) standard of living on his single income... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if its true that you would have a better-than-1950s standard of living in the UK even when unemployed and recieving the dole/welfare. 92.28.242.150 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whose 1950's standard of living? Better than the poorest? Almost certainly, although (especially if you're trying to live a 1950's life) you will miss out on much of the social support and interaction that are an intangible (but measurably important) part of the standard of living. But at least the housing will be much improved, if you have it, which greatly reduced child mortality. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the average? Median, if you like. I disagree about losing social support - it does require a positive decision to move away from your parent's and friends neighbourhood. If we are talking about the UK, you could arrive at parties on a bicycle (or tandem bicycle if you're feeling lucky) rather than a car. They wrote letters in the 50s, a few people had telephones. You could use computers in your local library for free, although that would not be strictly 1950s, but more like freeriding. I understand that there is at least one couple in England somewhere who live entirely as if they were in the 1930s in every detail, although 1930s electrics would be illegal now. 92.28.254.154 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a very 50s way by choice (or poverty); no TV, no car,no microwave,no landline phone ,no washing machine or dishwasher.The only modern device I have is a computer and the net access is from an independent supplier and costs a pound a week.I repair clothes instead of throwing them away and have no bank account,mortgage or credit cards.I actually enjoy it and don't miss the stress of debt or longing for the latest consumer goods.Hotclaws (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting a 1950s lifestyle would mean no TV (for the majority of Americans); no computer; no healthcare insurance; no friends of a different race or nationality (and few of a different religion); an average $1.72/hour pay for an average 40.3 hours of work per week (manufacturing wages), or $69.16 a week. Just 2% inflation and an average 3.3% prime rate. One car per family; no air-conditioning; oh, and be sure to invalidate your polio vaccine (widely available only in the 1960s) and a whole host of others. Open heart surgery? Forget it. Figure on an average of only about six years education per adult. The household budget would be spent on food (20.6%, vs. 7.6% in the past decade), utilities (20.9%, vs. 18% in the high oil price 2000s) as well as clothing, footwear and furnishings (14.2% vs. 6.5%, [thank you, China]). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, healthcare distribution was less problematic in the U.S. in the 1950s -- doctors made housecalls, and people with solid union or middle-class jobs often had relatively little difficulty paying for most needs... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India visa

When trying to apply for a visa to India online, I keep getting redirected to what it refers to as "Third Party Companies" with a big warning that I have to agree to let the third party company submit my visa to the Indian government. I do not trust the Internet, so I begin with the assumption that these companies are just scams. Do you have to submit the visa application through a third party company or can you submit it directly to the government? -- kainaw ™ 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian government outsourced most of it's Visa operations (except for Diplomatic and Official Visas) to third parties in 2001. The majority of countries are covered by VFS Global. For citizens of the USA, Travisa Outsourcing are the company that handles all requests. Nanonic (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cars industry maps

I notice for the articles PSA Peugeot Citroen, Fiat S.p.A., and Renault S.A. have maps which shows the locations of their factories around the world. So what about Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Opel, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Bentley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.61 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Please feel free to join us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cuban history

where can I go to read fidel castros' inaugrual address? 75.209.201.175 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some speeches here but nothing that's obviously what you're seeking. There are a couple from January 1959, but none from February when he was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, and none from 1976 when he became the president. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clock in tower bongs 13 times

I live near a one hundred year old County Court House. The tower clock on top of the building was installed in 1906. When it "bongs' on the hour, it sounds just like many grandfather clocks I have heard. It "bongs" two times for 2 o'c;ock, 3 "bongs" for 3 o'clock, etc etc until it "bongs" 11 times for 11 o'clock and 12 "bongs" for 12 o'clock - 24 hours. However lately I have noticed it "bongs" 13 times for 1 o'clock, A.M. or P.M. I have verified this over this last week. Now the question is: Is this normal? Logic tells me 1 o'clock should give me one "bong" just like a grandfather clock does. Perhaps I missed this in the past and it has ALWAYS "bonged" 13 times for 1 o'clock. Do some "grandfather" clocks give 13 "bongs" for 1 o'clock? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bright, cold day in April by any chance, is it? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A grandfather clock in my house bongs once for 12 and 1. Grsz¹¹ 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking clock says that gonging once for 1 o'clock and twelve times for 12 o'clock is "most common". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the mechanism is a hundred years old, then it is probably suffering from wear on the cogs and triggers, so some adjustment or replacement of worn parts might be overdue. I once mis-adjusted a chiming clock so that it chimed continuously every hour (until the clockwork ran down). Dbfirs 07:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs's point is a good one. Our 1930s mantel clock frequently gives an incorrect number of bongs (most often around 12 and 1 o'clock), with a record of 27 bongs (at five o'clock in the afternoon, I think). We think it adds character, which is handy given that a clocksmith said that the cost of getting replacement parts fitted (in our case) would probably exceed the value of the clock. Brammers (talk/c) 08:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just recorded the thirteen bongs at 1 o'clock today - half hour ago. Count them - the first bong is at 2 seconds and the thirteenth is at 39 seconds of this video. What's up? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, most likely this is a fault - I can easily imagine some piece wearing down so that at 1:00 it gives the chimes for both 12 and 1 (for a total of 13). However, the only way you are going to find out for sure is to get off your couch, go to the court house, and ask. It's highly doubtful they are unaware of the problem, and are most likely (1) waiting for replacement parts, (2) waiting for an expert in old-fashioned clock towers, (3) waiting for the funds they need to request one or both of the previous, or (4) waiting (in classic bureaucrat style) until someone complains loudly enough to overcome their innate inertia. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea! Got off my office chair and went over and talked to them about it. They didn't have a clue, since they can not hear it inside the building. Now they have something to work on.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some clocks in stableyards strike 13 for one o'clock because it was easy to miss one bong and so not get back on time after the lunch hour. Unfortunately I can't remember where I heard this.86.135.17.199 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]