Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

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.

February 24

Animorphs 37 reference

I don't know if anybody knows (or cares) about Animorphs anymore (I still do!), but it's worth a shot...

OK, I remember reading the 37th Animorphs book a while ago, which includes chapters about Jake's old relative who fought in the Civil War alongside the Animorphs chapters. In one of the chapters, a battalion of black troops are being trained for battle by this war captain who teaches them to shoot a gun. I thought that chapter was really cool, until I watched Glory for a university class and saw almost the exact same gun-training scene -- the black soldiers are all excited to learn to shoot, one of the soldiers hits one of the tin cans lined up as targets and is praised by his friends, the captain starts yelling at him to reload, and fires into the air while he's yelling, making the black guy jump, there's a lot of tension in the air, then the captain says something like, "when you're on the battlefield, with shots flying all around you, a good solider can shoot three times in one minute and make every shot count." Glory was made in 1989 and the 37th Animorphs book was made in 2000, so... the movie definitely came first. It's just strange how similar it is :-) Would that be copyright infringement, or does copyright not extend to situations, just to actual quotes? Maybe both the movie and the book got it from the same historical event? I do know that this one was likely ghostwritten, as were most of the books past #20.

Jonathan ^talk 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright does apply to situations, not just to quotes. The question is one of degree, though; a single semi-similar but still fairly generic scene of a much longer work in a different medium, as in this case, is not going to be remotely enough for copyright infringement to be established in the courts. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, probably unless the scene were copied from Glory quite exactly. How "exactly" the scene needs to resemble the Glory scene in order to infringe the Glory copyrights is unfortunately (for the RD) something for the courts to decide. If the scene idea is the same but the scenes do differ, see Idea-expression divide. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AS Glory was based on reality,maybe so was Animorphs based on a historical event so no copyrite problem perhaps.Hotclaws (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

Was Hitler a good man or bad man? --MonkeyEditWow (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both and neither. You have to define "good" and "bad" to answer that question. Neither good or bad is a factual issue by itself. -- kainaw ™ 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If 99% of people define massacring civilians as bad, then Hitler was bad. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequitur. Not that I'm defending what he did for a micro-second, but even in Hitler's case, how do we make the link "bad deeds = bad person"? We can't. All of us have done what we would call "bad deeds", yet none of us likes to think of himself as a bad person. If there's a distinction between actions and their agent in the case of the vast generality of humanity, why is this no longer the case with the Hitlers of the world? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard there are no bad people at all. Personally I would say if someone does more bad than good then they are a "bad person". And if less, then they did "bad deeds". Yes, that does require me to judge the quantity of "bad deeds" vs "good deeds", but I'm OK with that requirement. I couldn't calculate a precise number for that, but it is possible to say which was more in Hitler's case. So yes I can say that Hitler was a "bad man". (But he probably did not think that of himself - not sure if that was part of your question.) Ariel. (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you weight "good" and "bad"? Was Jefferson, the slaveholder, a good or a bad man? He owned slaves every day of his adult live, but he only beat them occasionally. In between, he prepared for the ethnocide of native American culture, offering Indians the choice between assimilation, expulsion, and death. Oh, and he wrote some of the most fundamental words on the Rights of Man and founded one of the first secular universities. Very few people perceive themselves as "bad" - they always find some way of justifying their actions, at least in their own mind. It's usually harder, but more fruitful to find out their actual motivations. I really like what Harry Turtledove did with the American Empire and Settling Accounts series, highlighting how "normal", even sympathetic characters developed to be cogs in a machine that did terrible things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ariel: OK, maybe there are no "bad" people at all, and likewise no "good" people. The US Declaration of Independence was on to the right idea, with "all men are created equal". Not "some men are bad, but everyone else is good", or whatever. Laws punish people for committing bad acts; the act itself can't be punished, so the next best thing is the person responsible; but no law ever says "The perpetrator of X act is a bad person", or "Those who pay their tax in full and on time are good people". No, the whole notion of personal badness or goodness is something we get fed as children, but adults can do better than that. Even Wikipedia has rules about discussing the behaviour of editors, not the editors personally. Editors can get banned or suspended on the basis of their specific behaviours, not because they are "bad" people. Weighing up a person's deeds and deciding that, on balance, they're either "good" or "bad" people, will never have legs. What if someone just scrapes through - are they "marginally good"? No, that approach can't work. And even then, we cannot possibly know all of anyone's deeds, just the most obvious and visible ones; reducing a person down to a handful of public deeds, as if that was all there was to the person, is doing a VAST disservice to the infinite complexity of humans. So, to the OP I say that we can look at the death and suffering Hitler brought about, and wonder how any human could ever do that, and seek to understand so that it can never happen again, and punish those responsible who are still around to be punished. That's more than enough to be getting on with for the next millenium. We don't need to be sidetracked by questions of whether any of the perpetrators were good or bad, because (a) there will never be universal agreement (witness the rise of the neo-Nazis and latter-day Hitler worshippers), but even if there were, (b) it doesn't change anything and is a waste of time. All it does is allow people like us sit back smugly in our comfy chairs in the knowledge that "we're not like that", while watching massacres and earthquakes and famines on TV and doing not a damn thing to help the victims. Sleep well tonight. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work every day to avoid any children I can being fed that notion. It is an amazingly unhelpful notion that screws a lot of people up, and you can watch people imposing it on children everywhere you look. Every child is a good child, although they sometimes do wrong things :) Luckily, I get to convey this to a good number of them. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

By that logic, we also have to classify Churchill and FDR as "bad people" (Firebombing of Dresden) not to mention Harry Truman (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It's very hard to draw an objective bright line good/bad distinction which doesn't put some people on the "wrong" side of it, with people saying "well, yes, I did say those acts made you a bad person, but it doesn't count because he did it for a good reason", which basically kicks the definition back to "good people are ones where I like their actions/motivations, and bad people are those where I dislike them." -- 174.24.194.184 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though it has to be noted that the atomic bombs, firebombings, etc., killed maybe a million or so civilians total. That's a lot. But it's a fair number smaller than the death camps. Both of those actions were arguably means to an end (however ineffectual the firebombings may have been in that regard) that would have saved lives in the aggregate, according to their logic. It's very hard to apply that to the Holocaust. Even the Nazis essentially admitted that they were only killing the Jews because transporting them somewhere else was inconvenient for them right at that moment. They had no illusions that killing them all off would somehow win the war or save lives or anything like that. I think I'm willing to go on the record saying that I think Hitler was, on the whole, a "bad man" while Churchill, FDR, and Truman were, at most, "expedient, often inhumane" people. I think there's a pretty significant difference. (I'll bite and put Stalin in the "bad man" category as well, while I'm at it.) I can relate to the kinds of expedient decisions that the Allies made, or even that the Germans made in the context of the actual war (e.g. the V-rockets, Blitz, etc.). I have a hard time relating to the Holocaust, which is just something else entirely. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Hitler? LANTZY ^TALK 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the funny mustache ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, he started his career in silent films. Speaking of films, in the credits of one of the Naked Gun series, there's a credit for "Best Boy", which is a term for a member of the production crew, and then there's a credit for "Worst Boy" which is listed as "Adolf Hitler". Perhaps that will answer the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While ultimately Hitler turned out to not very nice at all, some amazingly positive things happened during the earlier years of his time in charge of Germany. The advances in technology were impressive. Anyone who has seen the recently compiled colour movies of Germany from those times has to be impressed by the technical quality. He implemented very aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Shame about the war. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I hear unanimous sentiment that so-and-so was 'evil' or 'bad' I am inclined to consider the alternate point of view. I find Time magazine's approach to be more respectable -- they named him the Man of the Year in 1938. Vranak (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Him being Time Person of the Year has nothing to do with an "alternate point of view". They choose the person who, "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." Hitler certainly fit that description. If I recall correctly, Osama Bin Laden was on the short list for man of the year in 2001 (beat by Giuliani). Staecker (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Stalin won it twice, (which humorously is one more time then Obama). Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion reminds me of the view a journalist took to sum up Robert McConnell, who was alleged to have committed a series of horrific sectarian killings and bombings in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic: "Robert may have murdered the Reaveys, but to his family he was the man who looked after his sick brother and disabled sister".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan's "A Policeman's Lot" illustrates that this "look for the bright side" concept, toward a seemingly reprehensible individual, is nothing new. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. And "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Adolf Hitler has left to the human race any important writings or recorded speeches, they can be studied by psychoanalysts and by the general public. Some people might find some of the content to be intellectual "garbage".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Hitler commanded the greatest number, in modern history, of gatherings of people to hear him speak? {Sorry, cannot find a positive reference among the article pages of Adolf Hitler). MacOfJesus (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a bad man. Here are 61,500 references, most of them supporting my claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He got to power democratically with, I think one vote. He was popular. So if he is seen as bad, is what brought him to power also suspect? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way Germany was treated by the British and the French following WWI created the environment in which it was possible or a Hitler to come to power and to be "popular". If the USA had been as strong and influential in 1918 as it was to become in 1945, maybe there would not have been a "need" for a Hitler. Interestingly, he was such an out-there demagogue that he's easy to demonize, and the Germans have had a tendency, I think, to scapegoat him. He didn't do all his stuff by himself; he had lots and lots of help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! I believe that his "monster meetings" in Berlin were the largest of any in modern times, although I cannot find a reference anywhere of this! I think also, we should be sceptical of democracy too, for this was the system that gave him leverage. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we should consider whether his grandmothers and grandfathers were evil, because, you know, they caused him to exist, and each of them ended up supplying about 25% of Hitler's DNA. We should also consider whether sauerkraut and schnitzel are evil, because in the end, proteins and carbohydrates from these dubiously foreign foodstuffs composed a significant portion of Hitler's mass. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody else think we've been successfully baited by a troll? --140.180.5.122 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the OP has precisely that one entry, very possibly. But it's an interesting question, not especially a troll-like question as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every human person is capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil. This is not necessarly taken from religion but philosophy and psychology. Any action can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the actors involved. Hence, democracy can be used for evil intention. We should begin by defining evil and bad. Who was the philosopher who defined dirt as "matter out of place"? Who said: "There is no such thing as a bad boy"? All of this, I have said, is taken from my study of Philosophy. You will find my answers in Socrates, Aristotle and the pre-Christian Philosophers. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for coming in again. The Scholastic Philosophers defined it in as: "privatio boni". This is a fundamental principle. I am sure if you put in privatio boni you will get the evidence. There are a lot of other article pages where this principle was challenged and referred to by great thinkers, but defined it differently. (I have written on one). MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me the second time, for coming in on this. I think it important for the record! I think it was Socrates who said: "It is better to be robbed, than to rob!" "It is better to be killed than to kill!". Socrates did not write his words down but his hearers did. (Thanks to all for the opportunity of airing this important point). MacOfJesus (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuon

Reading about Cambodia, especially in relation to the period of the Pol Pot's regime, I often encountered the word "yuon", used as noun, or adjective. I could find little or no explanation about it on the internet. I think it denotes some group of people considered enemies by the regime. But I'm not sure if it refers to ethnic (khmer of Sino-Vietnamese origin?), cultural, or ideologic distinction; nor if it is a pejorative form (maybe). It is sometimes found in the expression "youn mind in khmer body" -quite a dreadful accuse to be addressed, in khmer rouge's times. I do not know if it is connected with the dissident, former KR, Hou Yuon, too.

Can anybody explain this term? Thanks a lot. --pm a 08:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Vietnamese", sometimes perjoratively. Google finds this in the first few hits. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-structural economic model

What is a "semi-structural" model in economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might it have something to do with Structuralist economics? --Jayron32 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might also have something to do with applying the Freudian Structural model of psychology to economics... --Jayron32 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, finally, it could be a data-analysis tool based on Semi-structured models. If you gave some context, it might be easier to nail down what you are asking. --Jayron32 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP must mean the data analysis one. First you need to understand what structural equation modelling is. I think it is statistical modelling that uses only independent variables that could plausibly have a causal effect on the dependent variable. Then allow some of the constraints on variables to be relaxed, and you have a semi-structural model. You might get a better explanation from the maths reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct pronounciation of "ICE"

What is the correct way (that is, the way the agency itself pronounces it) to pronounce "ICE", the abbreviation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? As one word "ice", as in frozen water? Or like "FBI", "DEA", "CIA", etc., as three spelled-out letters, "I-C-E" / "I see ee"? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a long funeral monologue by the director of the ICE on their web site: eventually, as I expected, he uses the name of the organization. Eventually he says "ice", like frozen water, at which point I stopped listening to the video. You can listen to the whole thing, it's under "videos" on the front page, it's the first video right now: [1]. You could listen to the whole thing to see if he ever says it the other way as well (i.e. that there are two competing pronunciations, even in the same speaker. This is is possible). At the start of the speech he uses the name of the organization in full. 217.136.146.233 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced ICE, as-in-frozen-water. Seems like their recruitment videos agree. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:38, 21 Adar I 5771 / 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please answer

I posted a previous thread about Dieter Dengler. If he was captured and held as a prisoner by Pathet Lao, why he was "greeted as a celebrity by the Pathet Lao" after his rescue? No one answered the previous thread, please answer, it will be a great help. Thanks! --Jortonmol (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone there? --Jortonmol (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are no one knows. Sorry. Schyler! (one language) 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) There are plenty of people here, but apparently none that know for sure the answer to your question. I will however suggest a possiblity.

When two countries are in military conflict they may dislike each other as countries, but they, and in particular their military personnel, may retain respect for individuals in the opponent's military forces who display bravery, fortitude and other admirable qualities - military people often feel they have more in common with their military opponents than with their own civilian population, since they share the same situations and hardships (ObOR: a sentiment which my career-soldier father has repeatedly mentioned to me). As a single example out of many possibilities, RAF and Luftwaffe pilots shot down in WW2 were not infrequently entertained to a civilized dinner in the Officers' Mess of their vanquishers before being interrogated and sent to POW Camp.

In Dengler's case, he was captured and escaped in 1966, and was "greeted as a celebrity" on returning to Laos in 1977, eleven years later when (to greatly simplify a complex process) the military (though not political) conflict between the USA and Laos had ended and the Pathet Lao had achieved most of their political aims within Laos. Having in emotional terms 'defeated' his country, the USA, they may no longer have seen him as representing any threat, and felt free to acknowledge his personal achievement in escaping and surviving.

The above may be totally off beam, but perhaps someone with more direct information, and/or access to a relevant reference such as this recent book, will now come along and improve on it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite probable to me. 11 years is a long time. Enemies become curious. Robert Oppenheimer was greeted as a celebrity when he visited Japan in the 1960s, as an example. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems probably to me too. Eventually, many US combatants went back to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and were welcomed there. That had hardly begun in 1977, in fact I think US citizens weren't meant to visit Laos. So his visit may have been regarded as a publicity coup by the government there. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Fund vs Index Fund

I know almost nothing about finance, but I'm getting to the age where I should start putting my money in something other than a savings account. Most of the advice I can find (eg | example), says that managed funds are a fool's game, and simple index funds are the way to go. Is this true? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well some managed funds are quite costly in their fees to you such that you are fighting an uphill battle to get great returns if that is what you mean. Googlemeister (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And comparing mutual funds to index funds leads to the conclusion that the former are not outperforming the market, normally. Although some, like Madoff's fund could outperform the market for a certain time, ... Quest09 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you have written is indeed pretty common advice; here's a typical article on the subject from The Motley Fool. However, I would caution you that it's not ever clear on any given day (or in any given month...) that stock investing is "the way to go" at all; you would have lost money if you had invested in index funds immediately before the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in March of 2000, or immediately before the financial crisis (2007–present) of the last few years; and no doubt many of the investment advice blogs and websites and magazines out there would have still been beating the drum of the bulls, egging you on to buy stock index funds. Warren Buffett always recommends the book The Intelligent Investor for beginners, as do I. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely consult a financial planner (and not one paid on commissions from products he or she sells). If you are middle-age or older, it is quite likely that the majority of your investments should not be in stocks (the classic allocation is to put 100% - your age in equities and the rest in non-equities (bonds and such)). In the long run (25+ years) equities (stocks) have always outperformed bonds. However, in the short run (which here can be up to 10 years) they have lost money, and in the very short run (3 - 5 years) they have lost a LOT of money. The closer you are to retirement, the less volatility you want in your portfolio, because you don't have another decade for your assets to regain the 50% of value they just lost in one bad day of trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APY

I'm confused by the numbers I see for insured investment options: | Example Rate Sheet. Wherever I look, things like CDs get at best 1.5%-2% APY, more likely something like 0.2%. Isn't that guaranteed to lose about 1-3% per year to inflation? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not sure of your location, but at least according to the US government, inflation is very low on the order of 1%. Granted they seem to take out all of the items like food and fuel costs, so their estimate is relatively useless to us consumers. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Carrot linked to a US bank, so we're going to assume he or she is in the US. As Googlemeister claimed, the latest inflation figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a week ago, say that prices (specifically, using the "all items index") over the last 12 months have increased 1.6%. A CD returning 1.6% breaks even for you, and the return is guaranteed, because of the FDIC insurance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line-item vetoes and what?

What do we call the legislative tactic that the line-item veto is meant to combat? The article doesn't specify, and rider doesn't quite sound right. In general, I want something similar to the rider — a provision unrelated to the primary subject of the bill that's thrown in to allow it to be passed because the overall bill can't not be passed. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line-item veto is specifically meant to eliminate riders. There are specific types of riders that it is supposed to stop - commonly the ones referred to as "pork". For example, a bill is passed and sent to the President to save the children (or some other thing that he has to accept or look evil for a veto). A rider is attached to give everyone in Congress a raise. Another rider is added to give free childcare to everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to throw a big party for everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to include free plastic surgery to the many free medical benefits for everyone in Congress. All that pork can get a veto while accepting the main bill. -- kainaw ™ 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to substitute "Governor" for "President". A number of state constitutions allow the Governor to do line-item vetoes. There is no such provision at the federal level. The President either accepts the entire bill, or none of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the questioner was asking about an area where line-item veto does not exist - otherwise it wouldn't be in debate. There's a continual debate that the President should have a line-item veto, but it cannot happen in the current U.S. government. -- kainaw ™ 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the OP was asking what the purpose of line-item veto is, and you answered it well. I was just pointing out that it's only certain state governors that can do this. The U.S. President is not allowed to. I can't speak to non-U.S. governments' rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Presidential use of the line-item veto is not an open and shut case. While the common consensus is that the President can not use a line-item veto, the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it. Thus there are a few scholars who believe that the President could use it if he wanted to. It has never been tested, and thus never ruled on by the court. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been ruled by the Supreme Court and District Courts. Most recently in 1998. It violates the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Constitution must be amended for the President to have line-item veto. -- kainaw ™ 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton v. City of New York covers the Supreme Court's ruling against line-item vetos in 1998. -- kainaw ™ 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was not aware of Clinton v NYC. Thanks for the link. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple social classes?

Is there a "multiple social classes" sociology model? Dividing the society in two or three social classes, according to income, seems not to catch the diversity of modern societies. A more accurate view would have to include dichotomies like educated-uneducated, national-foreigner, race, and many other factors. Quest09 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't three "multiple"? Have you had a look at social class for the various models? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, three is not multiple. Multiple means many for me. The article does not talk about multiple social classes. It is focuses on the traditional 2-3 class model, with subdivisions. Today, people interact in a more complex way, change from one society to the other (and come back) and have multiple identities in different situations. Quest09 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple" means "more than one". Even two is multiple. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geodemographic segmentation is based on the more complex classification you describe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that. Quest09 (talk)

There are a number of different models. Marx' theory, for instance, posits multiple classes of people interacting dynamically (in fact, the modern 'upper/lower' economic split is an overly-simplified derivative of his more sophisticated system). sociologists and anthropologists often theorize complex structures in which economic, racial, geographical, cultural, and religious 'classes' interact in very complex ways. The simple economic dichotomy, however, is easier to understand, and often used for low-level academic instruction and journalistic purposes. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding stagflation despite oil price increases

1) Is stagflation worse than inflation? 2) Is it possible for economists and central bankers to stimulate the economy so that unemployment decreases despite eg increases in oil prices? How would they do it? Thanks 92.15.14.192 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes, stagnation plus inflation is worse than inflation alone, at least if the rate of inflation is given. (2) Yes, but there may be a price to pay in terms of inflation. The basic way for central bankers to stimulate the economy is by increasing the amount of money in circulation, either by lending it at low interest rates or by having the government buy stuff -- but increasing the amount of money in circulation is intrinsically inflationary. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only known solution to stagflation is the monetarist one as used by Paul Volcker in the US in the late 70s/early 80s and by Margaret Thatcher's government in the UK. This involves raising interest rates and optionally cutting government spending, thus restricting the money supply, and lowering inflation at the cost of unemployment and reduced economic growth. Getting rid of stagflation in a painless way seems very difficult. It is uncertain if Keynesian deficit spending can really end a period of stagflation (it failed in the UK and USA in the late 70s): governments will find it hard to borrow money and therefore may be forced to raise interest rates anyway. The current British government is using the monetarist approach of slashing state spending with increased pressure to raise interest rates as well; Obama seems caught in a position where he's unable to do anything.[2][3][4][5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If stagflaton is worse than inflation, then wouldnt more quantitative easing be the way to go? Particularly since the big debts from propping up the banks would be automatically reduced by inflation. The number of people who really live off their cash savings in a bank must be tiny, so most people would welcome having the real value of their debts reduced. Perhaps the arguement for maintaining almost zero inflation is that it encourages real production rather than speculation, but it seems so easy to slip across the line into deflation, recession, and depression. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal lineage of Alimi's royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State

The following is a repost from Wikipedia Help Desk:

Am a young man of 36 years old, am sure to be a Nigerian but not sure of my state. I lost my dad two years ago but the unfortunate thing was that he did not complete the story be he died but from the little I know General Yakubu Gowon can be of great help. MY STORY : According to my Dad, my grand father was from a royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State to be specific from Alimi's Family then there was an issue of royal title concerning who will the next Emir of Ilorin then which my father claimed should be the turn of his dad but was turned down by then head of state General Yakubu Gowon as a result of this my Dad decided to disclaim Ilorin. Am only using this medium to plead with Yakubu Gowon to please assit me to locate my family from Alimi's family from Ilorin since my dad did not allow any of his children to associate with Ilorin though have been to Ilorin but that was before he told me the story. -- Bolarge (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal family connections usually have a place in Wikipedia. Yakubu Gowon was the Head of State of Nigeria 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975 and User:Bolarge's grandfather, who was part of the Alimi royal family from Ilorin, Nigeria, was in line to be a next Emir of Ilorin some time during 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975. In 1974, the 9th Emir of Ilorin was Alhaji (Dr) Zulkarnaini Gambari. So, the grandfather was in line to be perhaps the 7th, 8th, or 9th Emir of Ilorin. Any help you can offer in figuring out the royal family connection between Alimi's family from Ilorin and the grandchildren of the above noted grandfather would be most appreciated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed train in the US (or lack thereof)

Why are high-speed trains much more common in Europe than in the US? It is clear to me that linking LA to NYC would be an engineering tour-de-force. However, the area NYC-Boston-Chicago-Toronto is densely populated, with a high income per capita, wouldn't they want to avoid the sexual harassment of the airport security controls and push for high-speed trains? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How often people do people travel from LA to NYC? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

310,856 per month fly between New York JFK airport and Los Angeles, per World's busiest passenger air routes or about 10,200 per day, in 60 flights per day. The flight time is about 5 hours, per [6]. Early checkin for TSA groping and travel times to airports far from downtowns make actual door to door times quite a bit longer. Rail terminals are often in downtown areas. If a small percentage chose high speed rail, it could fill a daily train or trains. Google maps says the 2800 mile trip could be driven in 44 hours, implying an average speed of 63.4 mph (good luck with that). A 300 mph train would take 9.3 hours excepting scheduled stops. A 90 mph train would take 31 hours. Edison (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the US Train network is less extensive than Europe's. It is also much more a Freight transportation network than a public transport network, whereas (again) in Europe there is Freight but also a hell of a lot of passengers. (will try find something to back these claims up!!) ny156uk (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans don't run their trains on their traditional train network, but they've built a new high-speed network, so it's not an issue if the US train network is less extensive. The question remains: why didn't the US build a high-speed train network and put high-speed trains on it? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Acela Express, which goes from Boston to DC. The problem there is that the service is expensive and the demand is fairly low. It's not a lot cheaper than taking a plane, and not a lot faster than taking a bus or a car. It is not exactly the most assuring story for enthusiasts of high speed US rail. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acela is high speed for the US, but as high speed goes compared to Europe, it is about as fast as molasses. I think it has an average speed of around 65 mph (105 kph). Of course that is fast compared to the rest of passenger city-city rail. My last Amtrak trip was 700 miles and took 36 hours. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, an article on everything -- High-speed rail in the United States.

Our article doesn't answer some of the questions. There are two main reasons why we don't have much in the way of high-speed rail in the United States, and several lesser reasons. First, European high-speed rail stations connect high-speed trains with dense local transit networks that cover virtually all urbanized areas in western Europe, allowing a traveler to use high-speed rail to reach virtually any destination in urbanized western Europe conveniently without driving. This convenience boosts demand for high-speed trains, and the increased volume of travel on the high-speed infrastructure minimizes overhead costs per ticket, keeping the cost of high-speed rail travel in Europe down. By contrast, even in the highly urbanized Northeast of the United States, large areas are virtually inaccessible by public transportation, or served only by infrequent and inconvenient bus routes. Only the urban cores of a few cities, such as Boston, New York, and Washington in the Northeast, San Francisco on the West Coast, and Chicago in the Midwest, have public transportation infrastructures that would allow high-speed rail travelers to reach a reasonable range of destinations without driving. Even in the New York urban area, because of sprawl and dispersed location patterns, a majority of residents and businesses are in suburban locations without convenient and frequent public transit connections. As a result, most potential high-speed rail travelers in the northeastern United States will have to drive to and/or from the high-speed rail station, which, however, is inevitably located in a congested urban core without convenient or inexpensive parking. Then, there is the problem of arranging car transportation when the traveler arrives at the remote high-speed terminal. As a result, even in the Northeast, most travelers either drive, since this allows them to have needed car transportation at both ends of their trip, or fly and rent a car at the remote airport. The second main reason follows from the first. Because there is such a small constituency for high-speed rail travel even in the most urbanized and densely populated parts of the United States, its cost per passenger is high, and there is limited political support even in these regions for the subsidies that would be required to make high-speed rail price-competitive with car, bus, or air travel. The complete unviability of high-speed rail in most parts of the United States means that there is a lack of political support for such subsidies at the national level. Lesser reasons why high-speed rail hardly exists in the United States include popular and political cultures that prioritize individual car and air travel and an aversion to taxation for the construction of infrastructure such as the high-speed networks that governments in Europe have built. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major reason has to do with simple political decision-making. In the 1950s, the U.S., largely for defense reasons, made highway-building a major national priority. No similar prioritization was made for passenger rail, and passenger-rail subsidies have remained low in the U.S., both compared to other countries and compared to spending on road and air travel. Obama has made a big push for high-speed rail but has run into objections from right-wing state administrations that have rejected the money allocated for their states. Conservatives seem to argue that viable passenger rail is some kind of airy-fairy pipe dream. Another argument is that passenger rail is a "19th-century technology," which kind of ignores the fact that the internal-combustion engine is as well. Europeans have maintained passenger rail as a priority and also heavily taxed gasoline, making auto travel a less-attractive alternative. One can argue, as Macro polo has, that passenger rail is not viable in the U.S. for geographic reasons, and I don't mean to start a debate, but it is largely a chicken-and-egg thing. U.S. cities have developed in an auto-centric manner largely because of highway-building and land-use policies that have encouraged such development. If cities were linked with appropriate forms of rail transport, accompanied by land-use policies encouraging dense development around stations, a larger market for rail travel would develop. Even without those widespread changes, it's hard to argue that high-speed rail, if funded at the kind of levels road and air travel are, wouldn't be popular for heavily traveled medium-distance routes like Chicago-to-Detroit or Tampa-to-Miami that are annoying to drive but not worth the hassle and expense of flying. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If rail travel were to become a primary mode of transportation, it's a good bet that security clearance lines would be set up just as they are for airplanes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to object that comment. I recently rode THSR, (Taiwan, no terror) and there was not the slightest bit of security. Japan has frequent suicides on train tracks–the Toei Shinjuku Line was temporarily shut down for that. Shinkansen trains rarely have that kind of indecent. I'm tempted to put in^{[citation needed]}for that comment because I'm not entirely sure But since the US is now a "target" for terrorism, it just might happen. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually rather difficult to drive a hijacked train anywhere other than the intended destination, so I suspect security concerns would be a little lower. As Mwalcoff says, this is a chicken-and-egg situation, and the US seems to have had a brief period when the railroads united the country, followed by decades of neglect. I suspect that rising fuel prices may again make rail travel more attractive. Also, if one takes into account the overall journey time, rather than just the time 'in the air', a system that gets you from A to B a little slower than one that gets you from 10 miles outside A to 15 miles outside B may actually be quicker overall - and a darned sight less stressful. Time for a rethink? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Germany I go through full security at the airport, but I just turn up at the train station with an open ticket (only because I'm not poor enough and/or too stupid to plan my travel times to get one of the heavily discounted train-bound tickets), walk to the platform, and into the train to find a seat. No lines (though there may be clumps or queues (yeah, sure, as if we were British ;-) at the doors in times of heavy occupancy). Some neighboring countries like Belgium or France require seat reservations for high speed trains, but those are anonymous and again checked during the ride, not when boarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Eurostar, which I imagine has tougher security checks than most trains because (1) it is an international train line, (2) is high profile and (2) uses a key piece of international infrastructure the disabling of which would have a potentially large impact -- there is security in the form of bag x-rays and airport security doors. However, the security is only to check for explosives and firearms, and not for knives, forks, nail clippers or bottled water.

Travelling by rail rather than air also has the added advantage that you are not subject to moronic luggage piece restrictions. I once had to put three small bags into a huge canvas bag to go through Heathrow airport just because the powers that be decided one large bag is less likely to contain a bomb than three small ones. On the same trip I had to dismantle my carry on bag and rearrange the contents into a standardised rectangular prism because the powers that be decided that a rectangular prism was less likely to contain a bomb than a backpack shaped like, um, a backpack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for Eurostar, we had a lot of people who would make bookings and then ask how big a car they could bring. I always told them that so long as it they could lift it unaided they shouldn't have any problems. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid traveling by air might be more efficient... put a bird on it. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always suspected that the fragmented ownership of the tracks in the USA was an impediment to investment in high speed trains. In most European countries the trck has been owned by a single body for a considerable time, making investment in the sort of track and signalling upgrades needed for HST easier than when tracks are owned by a multitude of competing companies. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, fragmented ownership, aka free markets... is a super pain in the ass for government run ventures. Shadowjams (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)`[reply]

The "single body" in most European countries is the government. I believe the people who pay for it should have the money riding on it. I'm not so sure that's the case in the areas you're talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think high-speed rail is wonderful, and I wish that the United States had it. However, I don't think that you can reject my argument by saying it's a chicken-egg issue. It might have been a chicken-egg issue about 100 years ago, when US urbanization patterns began to diverge from European urbanization patterns with the introduction of mass automobile ownership in the US and development policies based on auto transport. (Mass auto ownership didn't reach Europe until 40 years later, but even then European development policies favored rail and compact, clustered development patterns.) However, given the very different urban geography of the United States and western Europe and the complete dependence of US urban development on private auto transport, there is no way that high-speed rail can be as economical or successful as it is in Europe. The only way to make high-speed rail work in the United States as it does in Europe would be to bulldoze much of the US suburban environment, build a much denser urban landscape clustered around nodes supplied with an extensive transit infrastructure feeding the high-speed train stations, and force people to relocate. This would cost literally trillions of dollars that the United States doesn't have and would require a degree of coercion that is impossible under our present political system. I wish that high-speed rail made sense in the United States today, but I'm afraid that it doesn't. A much greater priority would be to first build a much more extensive local and regional transit infrastructure and enact policies favoring denser, transit-centered development. After such policies have been allowed to work for 30 or 40 years, then the United States might be ready for high-speed rail that would make economic and transportation sense. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: Acela really doesn't get to stay at high speeds. It even has to slow down to 60 miles an hour at times. The US train infrastructure isn't really developed–and like other countries, we've "adapted" to our cars, like the Brits are use their buses a lot. I recently checked my news ticker: high-speed rail rejected in Florida. Low ridership is an established concern in the U.S., after all, Acela's daily boardings total to only 8,000. Taiwan High Speed Rail is successful because it's needed as there's no quick way to travel around the ~~country~~ state (I am forced to change "country" to state: see political status of Taiwan. Before that, there was only the Taiwan Railway Administration, a bunch of slow trains. I recently rode the THSR from Hsinchu to Kaohsiung–a trip of 270 miles, took and hour, cost about $US30 per person. Acela is expensive, yet it's one of Amtrak's only profitable services. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air travel: Air travel is more expensive, but quicker that HSR. However, HSR is slower than air travel. THSR beat out all the major intercity routes in Taiwan. In Japan, the E5 Series Shinkansen train tickets were booked out in 10 seconds, which is something you don't see in the U.S. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the security checks et al, isn't the usual idea that air travel is only quicker if the time for the trip by HSR is over 3-4 hours? Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken several long distance Amtrak trips, and noted that there were frequent slowdowns since they use track maintained by numerous railroads for freight traffic. The passenger trains sometimes had to wait on a siding for a freight train, which had higher priority. US passenger trains in the 1930's and 1940s could go much faster than today, with 70 or 90 mph speed limits back then. I am horrified by discussion of grade level "Emerging High-Speed Rail" with highway traffic crossing tracks at grade crossings. No "advanced crossing gate" can remove a truck stopped in the crossing. Crossings are too close together and speeds (110 mph proposed) are too fast to allow a train to stop in time, unless the engineer has video of the crossings ahead and the crossings are cleared in time to allow a stopping of the train when there is an obstacle present. I have seen an Amtrak come to a screeching halt from 60 mph or so when they spotted a truck loaded with steel which was stopped in the crossing. At proposed US "high speed," the train would have inevitably hit the truck and likely killed everyone on the train. Only elevated tracks, with level separation from cars and trucks, makes the least sense for truly high speed rail. Similarly, a saboteur or terrorist could easily disturb the ground level tracks approaching a railroad bridge, with readily available devices, without being observed and kill everyone on a 110 or 150 mph high speed train, far more easily than he could bring down a jet. It would be easier to monitor an elevated train structure for intruders. Edison (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, THSR is almost always elevated or underground. It avoids all roads, tunnels through mountains and goes on 10-mile bridges, but never at-grade. The idea of at-grade crossings into highways is horrid. Next-Gen High-Speed Rail, (PDF can be found at [7]) is reasonable to use a route where trains on that route don't run. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being European I find strange the associations Americans make regarding high-speed train - only 100 mph, at-grade crossing, hijacking... Maybe these are the reasons why Americans don't have high-speed. Quest09 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to have a strange idea of the lack of survivability of a high-speed train crash. Last Wednesday was the 4th anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment when a Pendolino train came off the track at 96 mph - despite the train being a write-off, only one person was killed out of the 105 people on the train. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the bible would Inazo Nitobe likely have used?

I'm doing some work on Nitobe's Bushido, and there is a section (on disembowelment, whodathunkit?) where he quotes a string of passages from the bible where the word "bowel" or "bowels" are used in the sense of the spiritual center of man, like "the offspring of your bowels" and similar examples. I found that modern versions of the bible have amended the use of "bowel" in this sense and none of the examples use the word anymore. Nitobe is using too few words for me to figure out exactly which translation of the bible he was using (he's just quoting phrases, essentially), but in the interest of exactness (granted, bordering on nitpicking) I'd like to know exactly what bible translation he was using. Does anyone know? It could possibly be figured out from the strain of Christianity he would have followed (he was apparently converted by a Methodist Episcopal missionary from the US), but I can make no head or tails of the myriad offshoots of Christianity in the US or of their taste in holy book translations. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the King James Version, as Nitobe predates most "modern" translations. For the use of "bowels" therein, see these search results. The American Standard Version is also a possibility, as it retains "bowels" in most, if not all, of those uses; but it was much less widely used. Deor (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I imagined it would probably be KJV, knowing little else about the US offshoots of Christianity other than they seem to have a heavy KJV fetish. I just wanted to make sure, and as I said, it's really not that important for the project I'm doing, I'm borderline nitpicking anyway. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square

Behind Lenin's tomb in Red Square, and behind the line of very famous Soviet leaders, is a line of plaques that mark the cremations (I believe) of important Soviet-era people. They do, however, appear to stop when the death date is 1975 or 1976. Was there a particular reason? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin Wall Necropolis, they didn't end then but that is when it became a protected monument and there were only a few after. meltBanana 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]