Humanities desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

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.

April 15

Tax status for legislators' incomes?

Are Senators and congressmen required to pay income taxes and FICA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.12.177 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon this: Yes and yes. Congressional salaries were never exempt from federal income tax, and since 1984 members of Congress have paid the FICA tax. See here (House Democratic Caucus); Question 5 here (Social Security Administration), here (Snopes), and here (FactCheck.org from the Annenberg Public Policy Center). However, note that members of Congress are treated as nonresidents of their state for the purposes of state and local income taxes under 4 U.S.C. § 113. For an example, see here (Virginia Department of Taxation). Neutrality^talk 04:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Virginia may be an exception when it comes to the residency status of members of Congress who represent that state. For example, Massachusetts does not offer an exemption from state income tax to members of Congress domiciled in Massachusetts. (And all members of Congress representing Massachusetts must be domiciled in Massachusetts.) Marco polo (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are state tax issues. They have no bearing in this case on federal tax status. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonsils

i have 3 huge indents in one of my tonsils. I am pretty sure that they arent tonsil stones, though, because they never form white stuff or get food stuck in them. They also make my voice weirded than it used to be because their so large. What are they and what should i do about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavilier0359555 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at the top: The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinion. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: "what should I do about them?" ... "discuss them with your doctor". Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Minjok Leadership Academy

I've heard a lot about the impossible difficulty of getting into this prestigious high school, but I've been unable to find reliable information on what is required for admission to this academy. The school's official website speaks of interviews and tests, but doesn't specify. Could someone please tell me what exactly the school requires for admission? Thank you, 61.72.131.105 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources related to a bible documentary

I caught a part of a documentary on National Geographic about King David of Israel. They describe an incident where David "crucified nine of Saul's grandsons", indicating that this was done to exterminate King Saul's bloodline to prevent a challenge to David's legitimacy as king. I'd never heard of this. The only close mention on Wikipedia that I can find comes from Gibeonites#Other_references:

After David became king of the United Monarchy, he handed over Armoni and Mephibosheth, two of the sons of Saul and the five sons of Merab (Saul's daughter) to the Gibeonites, who hanged them. (2 Samuel 21:8–9)

There seems to be no mention of this in David or Saul. The biblical record doesn't seem to mention anything about purposely eliminating Saul's descendants and as far as I know, crucifixion was invented by the Persians some 500 years later. So I guess what I'm looking for here are scholarly papers or books that discuss this event in greater detail; and they don't necessarily have to be online-accessible, though that's always a plus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, we have to be careful with Mephibosheth, since there were two different men of this name in the family of Saul; they were uncle and nephew. David showed the nephew great favor, who quite understandably feared for his life (2 Sam. 9:6–8) when David called him into his presence. The incident of the Gibeonites is the only situation in which we see David participating in the deaths of any of Saul's family members, and that's for a reason totally unrelated to dynastic issues. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought, it doesn't seem like David was at all interested in killing Saul's family, given his friendship with Jonathan. So I'm trying to figure out where this documentary was basing these ideas. Sorry, I'm still in the process of tracking down the documentary and don't have the title. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the background here: According to II Samuel, Chapter 21, Saul had killed some Gentiles called Gibeonites in violation of an oath the Israelites had made not to kill them. After David came to power, there was a famine in Israel, and the Lord told David that it was because of Saul's actions. So David asked the Gibeonites how he could make it up to them, and they asked David to hand over seven of Saul's grandsons so they could hang them. David agreed and did just that. Perhaps David had an ulterior motive, who knows. Anyway, there were seven grandsons who were killed (David spared an eighth); they were hanged, not crucified; and it was the Gibeonites who did the hanging, not David. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been impaled, as Haman was, even though it was called "hanging". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood

Why capitalists are portrayed in negative light in Hollywood movies? Why from science fiction films like They Live, Resident Evil or Moon to politico-economic thriller like Wall Street depict corporations as villains? Why Hollywood is so pro-communist? --D and Elephant (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me mention in passing that one can be anti-corporate and not anti-property. —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood is run by capitalists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they make good villains. A good villain in a movie should be believable, so they need to have believable motivations for doing bad things. Greed and money are two pretty believable motivations. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 05:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union bosses can also make good villains, trying to misguide employees for personal gain. A socialist state leader imposing large amount of taxes/forcefully nationalizing private property can also make good villain. Why these issues are blackouted by Hollywood? --D and Elephant (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt unions and union leaders are villains in lots of films, e.g. On the Waterfront, Hoffa. They're just not as glamorous as corporate bosses. As for a socialist leader imposing taxes or nationalizing property, that's not quite so dramatic or interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Watch the second season of The Wire. (If you haven't seen it, you really should. Great series.) A corrupt union boss is at the cruxt of the story line. Also, check out Paul Reiser's character in the Alien (film) franchise for a perfect example of why capitalism is "sexier" as a motivation for evil. I think the difference is that capitalism allows for the "anything can happen" approach to the story line. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 05:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an addendum. Take for example the old James Bond movies, where, more often than not, a secret Communist organization plotted together on how best to take control of the world. Were they doing it for the money/power? Sure. But they generally thought they were right. But, capitalist villains, on the other hand, don't care about right vs. wrong. They just want the money, and are willing to kill you me and your grandma to get it. Somehow that is more evil than a dictator who, right or wrong, wants to rule the world. At least they believe what they are doing is right. Most times, capitalist based villains know that what they are doing is wrong...and do it anyway. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 06:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the James Bond stories. The villains in James Bond movies are SPECTRE, which is an independent (and capitalist in outlook, after all they want to make money!) terrorist organization. In the novels and short stories, the villain organization in many of them is SMERSH. SMERSH makes only a few appearences in the movies, and never as the enemy. (Rosa Klebb is described as an ex-SMERSH agent, but she is clearly working for SPECTRE in the film From Russia With Love.) --Jayron32 12:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power in general makes for a good villain. So big corporations, big unions, big dictatorships, big government, big whatever show up all over the place. It's completely false to say that only big corporations or industrialists are the only (or even disproportionately) the villains. They are, sometimes. The real question is whether they are ever heros — that's quite unusual, I think, whereas you do occasionally have the unionizing hero. In any case, this has nothing to do with being "pro-Communist," which is an idiotic category to use most of the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several problems with the premises posed by the OP. First of all the claim that capitalists are portrayed in a negative light in Hollywood. If that is supposed to be a claim that all capitalists appearing in Hollywood movies are portrayed in a negative light, then that is clearly wrong. It would be more correct to say that some are, and as such following human behaviour, are actually portrayed in a nuanced way. Secondly the claim that criticism of capitalism automatically makes the message pro-communist seems awfully skewed. The concept of criticism is actually fundamental to modern Western type societies, and criticism does in no way imply political partisanship. To point out flaws or errors in parts of a system or in general is actually very normal behaviour in democratic societies, and people from all over the political spectrum participates in it, including people that in general is in favour of capitalism (the majority of the population in the Western world). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire capitalists make much better movie villains in America than would communists, simply because most Americans work for a living and can relate to feeling oppressed by fat cats. Commies have no significant presence or power in America, so we really can't relate to them in conventional dramas... in short, such movies wouldn't draw flies to the box office, and as I said, the folks who run Hollywood are capitalists. Action/adventure, especially involving a foreign enemy, sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong Bugs. According to this article, conservatives are the largest political group in the US. And American conservatism is characterized by opposition to big government, socialism, taxation and support for free market capitalism and entrepreneurship. Even many people who identify as Democrats, are opposed to many aspects of socialism like social security, universal healthcare etc. And American conservative generally see no distinction between communism and socialism. So the Hollywood film studios can easily target the largest political group in America. Isn't it? If they produce films depicting an honest capitalist fighting a repressive socialist government, or a lone employee fighting a big union, or an underground resistance against unfair taxes, those films are not going to be box office bombs. So the claim that films portraying capitalists as protagonists don't have market is wrong, as there is clearly a large market for this. For example, Atlas Shrugged: Part I is a highly publicized film and will be watched by both the right and the left, I believe. In fact the movies depicting capitalists as villains are also watched by conservatives (but they don't like what they watched, and don't watch the film for a second time or keep a DVD copy). Because people watch films for entertainment, not for political enlightenment. So we can conclude films depicting socialists as villains will be also watched by the left. Am I right? Then why such films are not made more often?

From this analysis the only reason behind this Hollywood culture, as I can see, is that Hollywood is trying to implement a social engineering formula to turn the public opinion against capitalism and big business. It may be also possible that the directors are left-leaning, and are interested in expressing their personal opinion through their work, i.e. films. In any case, it is hard to believe films showing capitalism is positive light do not have market. --D and Elephant (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What statement, exactly, of Bugs's is wrong? I disagree that American conservatives — at least, the ones that have gotten elected — are actually against big government. That is lip service. More importantly, I also disagree with your implication that American liberals are anti-capitalist, and therefore that films with a businessman as the villain have a liberal agenda. Advocating universal health care and social safety nets does not mean that American liberals believe "everyone must work for the government", or "corporations are inherently evil", despite what Rush Limbaugh may have you believing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people who buy movie tickets are not in office; it may well be true that a large fraction of those who vote conservative (whatever that word really means) are sincerely "against big government". —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming fairly obvious that your purpose here is to foment an argument or a debate (as hinted by your user ID), and that's not what the ref desk is for. You need to find an internet forum someplace, where arguments are welcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @D and Elephant: Um, I call ^{[citation needed]} on the "will be watched" fact for the Atlas Shrugged film. Its being screened on 300 screens nationwide in the U.S, which is an insignificant portion of the movie viewing public. People who are Ayn Rand fans are a highly motivated and vocal group, so support of the film is likely to be loud if not widespread. Most of the American public is apolitical and is mostly interested in a good action film; the nuanced political philosophy of the enemy doesn't really play into the appeal of a film. Look, I've voted Libertarian my whole life, and I have read a lot of Rand's work. I know there's a lot of Rand disciples looking at the Atlas Shrugged film, grinning giddly and saying "This is the year when we win! Everyone is going to watch this film and finally get it, and the Truth about objectivism is finally going to be widely known and accepted." No, it isn't. Strongly ideological films have little appeal, both critically and popularly, and films based on works by fringe authors with a fanatical and dedicated following similarly tank and the box office. (see Battlefield Earth for a parallel example). I find a lot of appeal in much of Rand's philosophy personally, but I am also a pragmatist and recognize that the past half century of Libertarian/Objectivist thinking hasn't made much headway among the general population as a widespread political philosophy, and this film isn't going cause a major paradigm shift among the population. I'm not saying its not a good film. I'm not saying that I personally disagree with what it has to say. It's just that you aren't going to see the American movie going public all that excited about rooting for Dagny Taggart and John Galt to take down the mean old collectivists... --Jayron32 15:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're making a movie about Atlas Shrugged? First I've heard of it. (And yes, Jayron, you are right about the James Bond films. That was a bad example on my part.) Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They made it. It was released today. Didn't you notice all the trailors and commercials? The product placement? The merchandising deal with McDonalds and Hasbro Toys? No? Neither did I... --Jayron32 15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you know that McDonald's is a commie-front organization? Serving only prepared drinks and bottled water that are probably loaded with flouride, to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids??? While at the same time fattening and softening up Americans whose budgets are limited, having been laid off by corporations that are also commie-front organizations and only appear to be capitalistic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the OP has been sucked into this so-called "conservative" idealism. In practical terms, people are all in favor of cutting government spending as long as the cuts don't affect them personally. Also, the GOP had their chance when they had a monolithic government for 6 years... during which time government spending and the public debt went stratospheric, a point the current complainants seem to have conveniently forgotten. The fact is that so-called "conservatives" in America aren't conservative at all - they just disagree with liberals on who to give the tax money to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the movie is being shown almost exclusively in "red states" (an ironic term if ever there was one). Surprise, surprise. Can you say "Preaching to the Choir?" I'm waiting for the critics to summarize it in two words: "America Shrugged". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of this morning, rottentomatos.com was reporting that the movie got a 6% approval rating from professional critics (some of them notably conservative) and an 86% rating from the public. The movie had not been shown in public at the time. Can you say "preaching to the choir", or "selection bias"? PhGustaf (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If even conservative critics don't like it, that does not bode well for Part 2. Hopefully for them they already have it in the can, else it might never see the light of day, so to speak. I suspect it's fair to surmise that the Harry Potter finale Part 2 is being anticipated more eagerly than Atlas Shrugged Part 2. It's too boring a title. They need to call it Atlas Shrugged: The Revenge, or Son of Atlas Shrugged, or Atlas: The Spy Who Shrugged Me, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building on the answer of Mr.98, who I think gets it right: a villain is pretty much by definition a person, because there's no dramatic tension in fighting a committee. Movies where Reds are the villains tend to be war movies (and there are plenty of them), because once you have a singular, distinctive socialist villain, it almost always becomes much less about the socialism and much more about the personal quest for power (which spans ideologies and renders them meaningless). The most horrifying communist villains in all of fiction still needed to have a queen grafted on in order to make them any more than a scary but ultimately boring mindless horde. How many true villains are there in a zombie movie? ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hollywood" itself is built on capitalism. Movie production is an excellent example of capital investment, so I certainly wouldn't call Hollywood pro-communist. The content of movies however is a reflection of culture. Friedrich Nietzsche made some interesting points about Western morality in Beyond Good and Evil. I recall that he discusses the concept of a hero in Western in the context of morality, saying that a hero cannot be all three of the following: intelligent, powerful and ambitious. I would struggle to find an example of a Hollywood movie which has a hero who is all three. Hollywood villains typically have all three of these qualities. Objectivism extols these as virtues, but is not the dominate cultural framework. Nietzsche would blame this on Christianity. --Daniel 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question only about this year, or the past decade, or all of Hollywood's history as a center for movies and TV? Just around the corner a 1938 Shirley Temple musical had the lovable curmudgeon capitalist Samuel Henshaw as a millionaire whose enterprises will restore prosperity, especially for Shirley's formerly rich but temporarily broke architect father. Sam Henshaw is conflated with "Uncle Sam." The rich banker=the government. (Get out of the capitalist's way and everyone will have a job again. Sound familiar?) Union Pacific (film) (1939) glorified capitalists who got government backing to build a railroad. The Story of Alexander Graham Bell (1939) and Edison the Man (1940) portrayed major capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th century in a favorable light, teaching movie goers that some rich men got that way because they were smart and worked hard, with any shady dealings swept under the rug. These "innovative productive" men as portrayed in the movie, might have been models for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I Led Three Lives aired from 1953-1956 and the Commies were the enemies in every one of the 117 episodes, to the best of my recollection. Desk Set was a 1957 film set in a fictional US broadcasting network. The network boss, Mr. Azae (likely modelled after NBC head Sarnoff and CBS head Paley) is portrayed in a very favorable light. The F.B.I. (TV series) ran from 1965-1974, based in part on the 1959 movie The FBI Story. Today's F.B.I. aired 1981-1982. They chased Commies far more often than they chased "capitalists." The biggest fictional capitalist was Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks, featured as a good guy in the 1982 movie Annie (film). More recently Donald Trump has been glorified on TV as a supposed multimillionaire capitalist on The Apprentice (2004-present). Edison (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To address Jayron32's point: You said, "Strongly ideological films have little appeal, both critically and popularly, and films based on works by fringe authors with a fanatical and dedicated following similarly tank and the box office."

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was ranked fifteenth-highest-grossing documentary film ever made (at the time when it was released). Although I don't support the message of this film because I accept evolution as a fact and opposed to creationist nonsense, it proves films presenting what you call "fringe" view can be a blockbuster too. --D and Elephant (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I would brag about a film that made less than 8 million dollars. Overall, Plan 9 from Outer Space has probably earned more than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of literature, Ayn Rand's books are certainly continually successful. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what percentage of the annual sales are from kids compelled to read it at some point in high school and/or college English classes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, communists just aren't much of a threat. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and most of it's former members are now capitalist. China remains communist in word only, being more of a capitalist dictatorship these days. Cuban communism is probably on it's last legs, and isn't a threat in any case. North Korea is about the only remaining communist threat. So, the search for villains will likely move on to more current threats, like Islamic fundamentalists or capitalists who, through reckless behavior and outright fraud (Bernie Madoff, Enron, etc.) seem to be the major threat these days. Of course, period movies could still target communists, but it's less exciting if you already know the outcome (that the commies lose in the end). StuRat (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original Back to the Future might be on the cutting edge of that genre, having specifically referred to "Libyan terrorists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batman and Iron Man are billionaire industrialists and superheroes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me the interesting thing about those guys (and super heroes in general) is that they almost never use their powers for personal gain, that is the job for the villain. Batman and Iron Man got their wealth outside of their hero status. --Daniel 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was their wealth that gave them the chance to be superheroes. That's pretty much the hallmark of American superheroes: they do what they do for the betterment of society. Kind of a mix of Hercules and the Rockefellers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that there are many, many films with government bad guys, such as E.T., The X-Files, Star Wars, Enemy of the State and, arguably, Animal House. More are listed here. From the movies, one would get the sense that the government is just out to get you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using partisan blog sources you can just as easily make a case that Hollywood is pro-establishment. I am sorry, but I just don't buy the anti-capitalism or anti-government Hollywood based on a few examples mentioned. You can possibly establish some trends based on a thourough investigation of a representative number of movies, but I doubt that anti-capitalism or anti-government is going to be the major themes. Although this is of course, like the rest of the examples here, just a guess, most likely based on personal opinion rather than fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to have disappeared, but it occurs to me that when watching It's a Wonderful Life, folks with his point of view would probably be rooting for Mr. Potter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Bailey is a small businsess owner, so probably a lot of conservatives/libertarians/Republicans/Objectivists root for him. Progressive Democrats, to be ideologically consistent, must of course root for the bank examiner. ;-) —Kevin Myers 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would so-called conservatives root for Walmart, or for the small businesses that they defeated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart of course, which began as a small business. Sam Wainwright, George Bailey's friend, is the Sam Walton character in It's a Wonderful Life. —Kevin Myers 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potter equates to Walmart: Raking in big bucks, and overseeing the lowering of the general public's standard of living. Sounds very familiar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who doubt that common people have the wisdom to make rational free market decisions would certainly agree with you. Walmart thrives because customers like the prices and selection; mom & pop stores suffer as a result, and the overall economic effect is mixed. Potter thrives because the government does his bidding. ("Tell the congressman to wait!") Potter is not Walmart; he's Goldman Sachs. That's why progressives must root for the bank examiner: give him more power and independence, and he can use government regulation to keep Potter in check. —Kevin Myers 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in the movies corresponds to how Walmart and other formerly-small businesses take advantage of, for example, eminent domain? —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent domain#In popular culture has some examples. We could probably think of more. —Kevin Myers 22:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those examples is for a road (or airport), not what I was looking for: seizures to transfer to a private developer (as ratified in Kelo v. New London). —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not disappeared as suggested by Bugs, it is just I have nothing new to say in this mess. Anyway, I found some interesting information and will recommend others to read these:

Jay Richards, Hollywood’s Prejudice Against Business, The American
10 Best Business Movies, The American, "Hollywood tends to take a jaundiced or actively antagonistic view of business. In fact, business is one of Hollywood's favorite villains."
Why Does Hollywood Love Fidel Castro?, American Thinker
Why is Hollywood Rehabilitating Totalitarianism?, Townhall.com
And the book Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left --D and Elephant (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorbick?

A character in Digimon is called a "Dorbick" (ドルビック). His comrades are designed after various mythological or legendary figures; for example, one is a "Zamiel", after the demon in "Der Freischutz", and another is an "Oleg", after a legendary Viking. This guy is some kind of red dragon - can you point me toward his mythological basis?12.53.10.226 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a myth, but "Dorbrick" (with an added R) was apparently a concentrating camp during the Second Boer War: [1]. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling was also originally part of the song the Whos sang in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas": [2]. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]