Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 10

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.

January 10

Purpose of the British monarchy

Why does Britain keep the monarchy? It costs millions a year in tax money and its very limited governmental role could be replaced by a President elected by Parliament. --75.28.54.224 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might find Republicanism in the United Kingdom#Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy of interest. Deor (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, to approach things from the other side, our article on the monarchy of the United Kingdom. We note that "recent polls show that a large majority of the British public support the continuation of the monarchy" (references therein). Note also that, while the British monarch is head of state, he or she is not the head of government, a role traditionally encompassed by the office termed "President". Also, consider the tax burden of supporting the office of President. — Lomn 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some advantages of the monarchy:

Pardons: The removes the conflict of interest inherent in the Presidential system, where a President can preferentially pardon members of his own party, like Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon. The monarch isn't a member of a political party.

Ceremony: The president and others in the executive branch in the US must attend state funerals, hand out medals, etc., whereas the monarch can do that and leave the prime minister free to run the nation, in the UK. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If a Monarch is such a good idea, why don't Republics have them? - as a distant relative of Elizabeth II *, I'll volunteer.

(* everyone is a distant relative of Elizabeth II. I'm also a distant relative of Paul the Octopus). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but do you know your exact genealogical connection to her? I know my relationship to her (4th from the bottom), except for one link. It is indeed a very distant connection, and will never get me invited to a garden party. Her loss. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be noted that the cost of some £110m a year spent on the monarchy (at least according to the estimates of this anti-monarchical website) makes up a very, very small percentage (~.02%) of the overall United Kingdom budget, and a really insignificant amount of the UK GDP. I'm not justifying it — I hardly have an opinion of it, though I do see it as a bit anachronistic to be doling out money to a few families on the basis that they are descended from people who used to have real power — but if that's all it takes for, say, a significant uptick in patriotism or what not, the cost is not so high for a nation like the modern UK. The tourism generated by having quaint queens and kings probably makes up for it handily.--Mr.98 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If presidents are such a good idea, why don't monarchies have them? Anyway, we tried not having a monarch before, and it didn't work. DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)That time we didn't have an elected president either. If we'd done that it might have worked.Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about not having either? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We've tried that already. See the Hoover administration, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, more relevantly, see the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a monarchy and did not establish an executive, a judiciary, or a system of national taxes to fund the government. It is not widely acclaimed as a success. — Lomn 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the Monarchy also attracts tourists to London, which is said to pay for the cost, given that each tourist leaves qquite a bit of money to hotels and restaurants. --Lgriot (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Guillotine City attracts twice as many tourists as London. (Or very nearly: 27 million vs 15 million.) Palaces can be open to the public 24-7 when their would-be inhabitants have been conveniently relocated to Monaco and St. Moritz. When I was a tourist in London, I recall spending most of my time finding the places where Monty Python sketches had been filmed. If it hadn't been for the money, I wouldn't have given any thought to the queen at all. LANTZY^TALK 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Millions a year is a tiny amount compared to a more bizarrely wasteful institution like, say, the National Health Service. I tend to think of the queen as residing in a little red box marked "Break glass in case of Cromwell". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.11.15 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a bite at the bicameral apple

Added sub-heading. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A similar question: What's the purpose of two separate elected houses (Senate and House of Representatives in the US as opposed to the House of Commons and House of Lords in the UK) if the are voted in by the same electorate? Shouldn't one of the two houses to suffice? I realize that they are meant to review and balance each other, but again: same electorate, so what difference does it make? Aaronite (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the House of Lords was elected, that question might make sense in the UK context. As for the US, I think it has more to do with conflicting concepts of rights of States to Govern, and of People to Govern at the time of the creation of the constitution, though I may well be wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see some figures on the benefits of the British Monarchy deriving from influx of tourism dollars. Regarding the US House and Senate, the short answer is that the House represents the people, somewhat proportionate to population, while the Senate represents the states on an equal basis, 2 Senators per state regardless of size of state. If that compromise had not been reached, there would have been no USA, or at least not as we know it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

These days, tourism dollars aren't worth that much, Bugs ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How does the annual expenditure on the Royals compare with the added income from tourism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you measure it? Actually, I'm not sure that a Republic exhibiting the heads of former Royals on poles lining Tower Bridge wouldn't attract more tourists (hypothetically speaking of course). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be onto something there. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota, he proposed merging the state's two legislative chambers into one, as Nebraska did in the '30s. The idea didn't gain that much support, as a lot of people said it's good for legislation to have to pass two legislative hurdles before becoming law. In the old days, it was common for state senates to be extremely malapportioned, with rural districts often having far fewer people than urban ones. This may have led to very different characters in the upper and lower houses. Court cases in the '60s made that illegal. However, there are still often differences between upper and lower chambers because Senate elections may be staggered, with not all senators up for re-election each cycle. Even in Maryland, where both lower-house delegates and senators serve four-year terms and are elected at the same time, you sometimes get differences between the chambers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the US House is supposed to represent the current will of the people, so they are elected every 2 years, to get in a fresh batch (of lying leeches). The US Senate, on the other hand, is the more deliberative body, being only elected every 6 years, so contains politicians with more experience (in taking bribes, sex scandals, earmarks, etc.). The hope is that, by combining this experience with the will of the people, we arrive at a legislature with abilities that neither, alone, would have (like blaming the other chamber for deadlock and bad laws). StuRat (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One-third of the US Senate gets re-elected every two years, and states don't normally have both Senators up for election at the same time. Until about a hundred years ago, Senators were elected by the state legislatures rather than the people at large, and more truly did represent the states. Direct election has blurred that distinction a bit. But basically you're onto it - the Senate is supposed to be the more experienced and deliberative body, as kind of a check against the presumably more aggressive and frequently-changing House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples come to mind. One is the impeachment against Clinton, which was pushed through by the Republican-controlled House, and the Senate, while also Republican majority, said, "Not so fast, folks", and the President was acquitted. Treaties and appointments are strictly the Senate's work, as each state gets an equal voice in those discussions. However, tax bills have to originate in the House, because if "the people" don't want the tax, then it stops there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The original reason for two chambers House and Senate was called the Great Compromise. As a condition for ratifying the Constitution, the small states demanded it. Incidentally, states are not rational beings like humans, and as such are not deserving of representation or any other rights for that matter. Rights inhere in individuals, not corporate groups. Certainly small states are not deserving of equal representation as large states in any way -- there are no people there. The whole thing was a bad idea. I say abolish the Senate. Greg Bard (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it was a good idea - otherwise, the big states would get their way all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to deny the value of the extra checks and balances in a bicameral system, but why would it be bad for the big states to also have roughly proportional representation in the second house? One man, one vote and all that. What privileges the people in smaller states to have proportionally more influence than people in bigger states? The German Bundesrat is organised like that, and the split there is rarely small states vs. large states and much more often along the lines of political parties and coalitions. Yes, I'm well aware that the Great Compromise may have been a historical necessity back in the time. That does not mean its the best possible solution in principle or for all eternity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still necessary for states to have an equal voice. If the change you propose were to magically occur overnight, the red states would immediately secede, and there would be no more USA. You might think that's a good idea, but it wouldn't do us Americans much good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they try that in 1861? Seriously, why would that be a red vs. blue issue? Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii are "blue", Texas is "red", and Florida flip-flops. Moreover, the recent few presidential elections have been fairly close, so with proportional representation, red states would probably be slightly better off than now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that (originally) the two houses weren't elected by the same electorate; senators were elected by their state legislatures for most of the US' existence. — Lomn 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I say abolish government. Or rather, abolish the conditions where it appears to be necessary... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The conditions where it appears to be necessary, are where people are involved. Abolish the human race, and you won't need government. Besides, we tried anarchy once. It was called Articles of Confederation. Didn't work too well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Please, OP, tell me exactly how the monarchy costs us millions a year in tax money. I think I might be waiting a while for your answer. (Clue: the Queen is not paid out of tax money.) Marnanel (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about where the money from the Civil List comes from? My understanding is that the Civil List funds come from Parliament... which gets them from... where? Presumably taxes? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On little thing is the security of the Monarch and her family. It does cost quite a lot and is definitely coming from the taxpayers. But presumably the security of the President in the US costs just as much or much more. I guess the difference is that personal security in Britain has to be paid for the Prime Minister also. --Lgriot (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the Queen more expensive to provide security for than say, the Washington Monument? Every state maintains important national symbols for reason of pride and culture. That one of Britain's national symbols walks around and wears funny hats doesn't make it all that different, in some regards, than those built of marble. --Jayron32 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit off the topic track, no? The reason for two is (let's take House of Representatives and the Senate) that:

• House of Representatives = proportional representation to the population (remember the census)?, i.e., representation equal to the people
  • There's districting done by the majority party which inevitably favors them at the state/commonwealth level, that's another issue.
• Senate = proportional representation to the sovereign states and commonwealths which make up the U.S., i.e., representation equal to the states, independent of their population
  • There's all the usual bru ha ha over Puerto Rico, the other possessions, etc, that's another issue

Didn't think there was any controversy here. As for state legislatures, having read through the New York state constitution on the apportionment of senate and assembly members, it's more of a hodgepodge, but again, there are provisions for at least one chamber to have limits (no more than/no less than) regarding representation of state counties to insure democracy doesn't become a tyranny of the majority as the Republicans seem to think it should be when they are in power (euphemism = "mandate", "will of the people"), but rail against it when they are in the minority ("sorry we couldn't have obstructed more"), oops, that's another issue as well. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The controversy that arises is twofold. First, the distribution in the Senate means that a state like Vermont (625,000 people) has as much representation as a state like California (37,250,000 people). That means that each person in Vermont's vote counts 60 times MORE than a person's vote in California in terms of senatorial representation, each person in Vermont has 60 times the access to his/her senator than a person in California does, etc. Secondly, because of the way that the President is elected, and the Electoral College is composed, Vermonters also have a greater say, per capita, than Californians in Presidential elections. Ideally, in a democratic society, the accident of one's residency should not make one more powerful, politically speaking, than anyone else in that society. And definately not SIXTY TIMES more powerful. The contrary arguement; that the State of Vermont needs representation equivalent to the State of California, is nonsensical in that the interests of the State of Vermont cannot be somehow distinct from the interests of the People of Vermont. The reason for the nature of Senatorial elections is that in the 18th century each State thought of itself as more sovereign than they do today. Each state was much more like an independent country in the 1780's, and therefore each wanted to assure its own "interests" would be protected. The nature of Senatorial elections was a product of the "horse trading" that went on to create the Constitution. The reason for the Senate's existance has evaporated (U.S. states have a much different relationship with each other and with the Federal government than they did 230 years ago), but it is still composed the same way. It should also be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, under the Equal Protection Clause required that the 49 various state senates MUST have equal proportional representation; in other words that it is illegal for state senates to be organized and elected the same way that the national Senate is. See Reynolds v. Sims and One_man,_one_vote#Warren_Court_decisions. --Jayron32 19:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK venerates the monarch as a national symbol The monarchy is also useful in generating tourism revenue. In the US, the flag is venerated, as is the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and other patriotic symbols. Why did the US spend millions rebuilding the Statue of Liberty? Why are the Declaration of Independence and Constitution enshrined in a high tech (for the 1940's) archive setting? Edison (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In no way do the overwhelming majority of people in the UK "venerate" the monarchy. They tolerate it as less bad than most alternatives, they moan about its cost and the family's eccentricities, they sometimes have a good laugh about it, but "venerate".... you must be joking! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any studies comparing the cost of having a Monarchy to revenues gained from having a Monarchy (such as tourism)?

Excellent analysis Jayron :"The contrary arguement; that the State of Vermont needs representation equivalent to the State of California, is nonsensical in that the interests of the State of Vermont cannot be somehow distinct from the interests of the People of Vermont." This is my point exactly. Vermont doesn't deserve any extra representation --there are no people there. A state is just another special interest group.Greg Bard (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

hindu pork

Where does it say regarding hindus eating pork? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.203 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it says nothing about Hindus eating pork in our article on the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. Perhaps you are thinking of one of the other religions that is mentioned in that article...? WikiDao ☯ 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Practicing Hindus tend to be vegetarian, although the working class is apt to consume some meats such as chicken and fish. Beef they wouldn't do. I don't know that there's any proscription against pork as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion lies in the fact that a significant proportion of Indians are Muslim, but some older accounts (British Colonial, mainly) tended to use Hindu as an ethnic designation, regardless of religion. It's pretty much the same reason why (even today) the wide variety of faiths and cults in the Indian sub-continent are all treated as a single religion. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Certainly practicing Jews and Muslims who try to obey their respective dietary laws don't consume pork and other meats from "unclean" animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article on Hindu dietary laws, which does mention pork:

The great majority of Hindus avoid beef. Most also avoid the meat of water buffalo and yak as being too cow-like as well as pork, crabs, reptiles, amphibians, snails, insects and worms. Animals that have died of natural causes are considered highly polluting. Eating them makes a person untouchable.

The highest castes (Brahmins and sometimes also Kshatriya) may also avoid chicken. Goat or mutton is often the only acceptable meat but many are completely vegetarian. Eggs may be completely unacceptable or acceptable only if unfertilized. Some avoid onions and garlic.

(...which really probably ought to cite a source or two). WikiDao ☯ 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The way my Indian colleagues have explained it, the higher castes are able to be vegetarians because they don't do much physical labor. The lower castes need animal protein in order to do their jobs. Hence, being a vegetarian is a sign that you're in a higher caste and/or that you do white-collar work. That was the theory. In practice, some are strict vegetarians, while others (while in the US, at least) are omnivores. And you can usually tell at a glance which ones are vegetarians: They're the skinny ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. Why is being vegetarian seen as being 'higher caste'? If you have the time, read Purity and Danger by Mary Douglas. This won't give the answer, but it might help you understand the question. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Because they don't have to eat meat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't actually an answer. What is the significance of not eating meat? There are lots of things that people don't have to do, but not doing them isn't necessarily of any great social consequence.

P.S. I'm (a) vegetarian (or an ovo-lacto-vegetarian to be specific), and (b) overweight. WP:OR, but rather disproving your earlier point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The significance is that the higher classes don't have to eat meat because they don't do any work that would require the protein etc. you'd get from meat. Manual labour, presumably. Vimescarrot (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the same non-answer that Bugs gave earlier. What is 'higher class/caste' about not eating meat? Why shouldn't they show their elite status by not driving around in flash cars, or not wearing expensive clothes? In a society where meat would be a rare luxury, why do the elite forgo it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. In theory, all Hindus would like to be vegetarian. But those who do manual labor have to eat meat because they need more animal protein. Being vegetarian is a sign that you don't have to do manual labor for a living. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The opposite is true, for two reasons: (1) Meat provides a quick, spurious burst of energy which deserts the body as quickly as it arrives, whereas a cereal-based diet is more useful for sustained manual labor. This is why runners eat pasta rather than steak or cotton candy. (2) Manual laborers, traditionally, are also are the least likely to be able to afford meat, because meat is inherently more expensive than vegetable food. Beans, grains, tubers, etc. are the most efficient and inexpensive means of converting labor into calories. With the exception of seafood, meat was for people who hunted, i.e. kings and princes. The industrial production of meat is a modern luxury made possible by industrialized agriculture. LANTZY^TALK 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Acording to our India article, only 13.4% of Indian citizens are Moslem, as opposed to 80.5% Hindu, 2.3% Christian, 1.9% Sikh etc. I suspect that the combination of Hindu vegetarianism (as an ideal) and the Moslem dietary laws (which presumably have the same middle-eastern roots as those for Judaism) have meant that keeping pigs has never made economic sense, regardless of issues of faith. It is worth noting that the Judeo/Islamic rejection of pork is based on the perception of it being 'unclean' whereas the Hindu rejection of the eating of Beef is based on the Cow being seen as sacred. There usually is a logic of sorts to these things, but you need to understand the broader cultural context to see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"according to"... "I suspect"... "presumably"... Perish the thought that anyone answering questions here might actually know something about the broader cultural context, eh? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, ideally (in my view) almost all RD responses would be preceded by "According to {relevant WP article or relevant RS}...". But WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and just plain idle speculation are freely and frequently practiced here at the RD, and consensus seems to be that that's just fine. But any further discussion of your concerns on this point should properly take place on the talk page, should you feel strongly enough about it to pursue it there. WikiDao ☯ 01:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To return to more or less the original question, a Hindu friend of mine from India (a non-vegetarian, non-skinny Brahmin) told me that although nothing in Hinduism prohibits eating pork, centuries of living side by side with Muslims has led to the situation that Indian Hindus simply don't eat pork, and likewise Indian Muslims simply don't eat beef, because doing so is prohibited in Hinduism. So de facto, both groups avoid both meats. I wonder whether the same is true of Indian Christians too. Pais (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mosques in Jacksonville, Florida and other southern cities

Is there any mosques in Jacksonville, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, Miami, Florida, Orlando, Florida, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Dallas, Texas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.203 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are at least 6 and possibly 9 according to Google Maps (I'm not sure where Jacksonville ends, exactly). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a website directory which lists the mosques in these cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.203 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just google [jacksonville florida mosque]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's the Yellow Pages and its online equivalent [1]. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any schools? Are they teach grammar and punctuation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Google indicates there are some Muslim private schools, just as there are Catholic private schools, etc. Such schools presumably would still have to meet state standards for curricula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article that may be helpful. Bielle (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found four mosques within 2.6 miles of me by typing in my address and "mosque" at yelp.com. Two of them even had reviews. This might be a good approach for the OP. PhGustaf (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A review of a mosque? So, how many stars, out of 4? Or was it a bomb? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would that be surprising? If I move into an area and want to find a good Catholic church, I'll ask around in various churches and look for comments online: I've found that sort of thing very helpful, as it tells me where to find churches with a certain sort of ethos, a certain demographic (I'd rather more young people), and a certain style of worship. Obviously, it's not enough by itself, but very useful. I see no reason why Muslims wouldn't do the same with mosques. And if that small comment was meant to be a crass 'Muslims = terrorists lol', grow up. 86.163.214.50 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Crass" is Bugs's middle name. Both mosques got four stars out of five. But each had only a single (and the same) reviewer. PhGustaf (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mosques in Buffalo, New York

Is there any mosques in Buffalo, New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.203 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just go to google and specific the city name along with "mosque", and you should be able to get an answer for any city that interests you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

LACKAWANNA ISLAMIC MOSQUE 154 Wilkesbarre St, Lackawanna, NY 14218, 6.2MI from Buffalo, (716) 825-9490

ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER OF NIAGARA 1801 Pierce Ave, Niagara Falls, NY 14301, 15.8MI from Buffalo, (716) 285-8733

JAFFARYA CENTER (716) 200-4326

All from Yellow USA. And no doubt other websites have other listings too. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to find the others ?

Upon watching the movie Beyond the Sea for the second time the other night, I recalled seeing that Bobby Darin grew up believing his real mother was his sister, then I recalled the same thing happened to Jack Nicholson. This got me curious as to whether there are others who grew up in the same way - thinking that the one who really was their mother was their sister, due to the stigma in past days connected to teenage pregnancy and babies born out of wedlock. I make it clear I believe people should wait til they are married before having children, but we know a lot do not, and the innocent children of these should not have to suffer due to that, as they did in those days. So is there a kind of list of well known people who were misled as to whom their mother really was ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lina Medina's son comes to mind; she was 5 when she had her son. He grew up thinking Lina was his sister until he was 13; not sure what his reaction was when he found out the truth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Eric Clapton. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not mother, but Eddie Vedder grew up believing that his stepdad was his real father. See Alive (Pearl Jam song). --Jayron32 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are three books with "illegitimacy" in the title, cited as references to our article Legitimacy (law). They might provide more examples. My impression is that both situations were very common: that a girl would become pregnant, and her family not throw her out, but raise the baby as the youngest of the siblings; and also that a woman with a child would marry, and the new husband take on full responsibility for that child, including giving it his name. Smoothing over the rumples of life was seen to be the best way. Sometimes it took generations for the truth to come to light, if it ever did. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, Trig Palin. Staecker (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes has a nice long list of fictional examples, plus a few real ones, most of which have been covered already. the wub "?!" 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: "I'm My Own Grandpa" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merle Oberon is another case. Her parentage is amazingly confused, and it looks like she knew her mother as her sister. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You all for those examples - it is interesting how the world goes in ways like this, where things are not always as straightforward as they seem. I knew Ted Bundy was adopted ( as was David Berkowitz ), but fancy that. I have also heard some strange stuff about the Palin family, but indeed, a lot of some conspiracies can be as much politically motivated as anything else. The scary thing is, this could happen to any of us, and who could ever know ? I know I truly believe and have no reason to doubt that my mother is my mother and my late father was who he always claimed to be, but then the others like Jack and Bobby and such would have honestly believe the same thing. Another concern with this kind of thing is the overall idea of people getting together for say one night stands, out of which comes a child, who grows up to unknowingly meet and perhaps fall in love with their own sibling, and this shows the concerns about free love and what can result. But again, I guess this is, rightly or wrongly, how the world is, and what makes it interesting - although certainly not knowing who is really who then finding out some thing you believed to have been wrong all along must be very stressful and earth shaking - I find it hard enough to realise I have misinterpreted common expressions that mean soemthing totally different to what I thought they did for years, but this sort of thing - and for these well known people at that. Also, I recall that Liv Tyler believed her step father was really her father and had no idea til she was a teenager that her dad was really Steve Tyler. How many more are out there we do not know about - whether they know themselves and are keeping it private, or even if they themselves have no idea. The Russian Christopher Lilly 03:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one: "In June 1862 the Bizet family's maid, Marie Reiter, gave birth to a son, Jean Bizet. The boy was brought up to believe that his father was Adolphe Bizet, and that he was Georges's half-brother, but his mother later revealed that his true father was Georges Bizet". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal education

I appears to me that the purpose of liberal education is not to learn things for which there is a pre-identified need, but to learn things that one might be able to use creatively at some later date. Thus one undertakes to study things that have long been found to play a role in the intellectual life of the community, before one finds out why they are considered important.

How does this fit, or fail to fit, into conventional ways of thinking about what liberale education is? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to tackle your question, but for the sake of clarity I would offer that a liberal arts education is really about learning how to learn. Vranak (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that some other fields might also fit this description, like theoretical physics and advanced mathematics. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that 'the purpose of education is to learn things for which there is a pre-identified need' then you clearly haven't had enough. 'Things that one might be able to use creatively at some later date' is perhaps getting there, but I'd say there are actually two more significant objectives to a proper education, 'liberal' or otherwise: firstly, to demonstrate how little you know, and secondly, what to do about it. The purpose of education is to teach you how to learn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"AndyTheGrump", you may want to work on your reading comprehension. You missed the word not. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are conflicting forces where education is concerned: The needs of business vs. the needs of the individuals. However, I'm also reminded of what Professor Kingsfield said in The Paper Chase: "You teach yourselves the law. I train your minds. You come in here with a skull full of mush, and if you survive, you'll leave thinking like a lawyer." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If I ever find myself thinking like a lawyer, I'll have to reconsider my position on the merits of education. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably he meant thinking in an organized way. And keep in mind that was for Contract Law 101, and the kids were intending to pursue law careers, so thinking like a lawyer would likely be a requirement at some point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some rather practical fields for which they do teach specific skills, and not so much deep theory. An auto mechanic, for example, probably gets far more info on how to adjust an engine than on the underlying thermodynamic principles. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, a person properly trained in certain basic priciples can probably teach themselves how to fix a car. While people can usually be trained to perform certain procedures, and nothing else, someone properly educated can always learn those procedures on their own. --Jayron32 12:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the individual. There are many people who could never figure out how to adjust an engine based on thermodynamics theory, but who can do it perfectly well if somebody shows them the concrete steps. And, I would argue, those who could figure it out on their own would be better suited to be an engineer than an auto mechanic. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

John Dewey wrote persuasively that vocational education was a necessary component of liberal education. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Dewey's position seems to be that learning to do certain basic tasks which are applicable to job performance is a major part of one's education. I'm not sure Dewey himself had much respect for the "classical liberal" education; he was much more focused on problem based learning, for example. --Jayron32 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to start with our article on Liberal education, which overlaps somewhat with Liberal arts. What's it all for? The debate goes back centuries, at least to Joseph Priestley's essay "Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life". The American Academy for Liberal Education and the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education might have some views on this too. Between all of these articles, you have dozens of references to peruse. There's a ten-minute BBC Radio 4 "Point of View" by Alain de Botton on the use of the humanities here. And ultimately you'll have to make up your own mind!— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainyBabe (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 January 2011

John Locke wrote the very influential Some Thoughts Concerning Education in 1693. It could be retitled "How To Be A Gentleman". "Liberal education" is I suppose the opposite of a vocational education. 92.15.21.144 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed definitions (to which I am not committed, but I propose to discuss them):

Vocational education: Learning things for which there is a pre-identified use.

Liberal education: Learning things traditionally considered by educated people to be important in intellectual life, often before one knows whether one will use it. If 50 years later one serendipitously finds some creative use for some of it, then it has succeeded in its purpose.

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

These definitions sum up quite well the current usage. But advocates of vocational education don't see it quite so neatly. Dewey's writings are still worth reading if you are interested in education. See for example Richard Pring's recent book about him. You may intend to learn something very practical and directed towards a narrow goal, but in the learning process you inevitably end up acquiring broader skills and knowledge, that may, like things learnt in liberal education, come in useful at some later stage. You can't stop people using their knowledge and skill creatively. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your use of the word 'use' is misleading. really, the difference is between education that tries to instruct people in the details of a particular career or occupation, and education that tries to broaden people's intellectual understanding of the world. One of the critiques of both vocational and professional training is that they produce highly knowledgable people who are largely ignorant of material outside their specialties. In a liberal society, this is damaging - people need to have basic information about the broad range of issues that might come up in civil discourse, otherwise they are likely to have crudely formed, narrow-minded viewpoints in public debate. You can still see this issue play out, in fact, in some religious contexts: much of the evolution v. creationism debate, in fact, focused on Christian groups that did not want their children to receive liberal educations which might call their religious beliefs into question. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that with liberal education, one does not have in mind a particular use for the understanding that one will acquire. But nonetheless, there is a sense in which the ultimate utility of that kind of education is its justification, as when you say people need to have information about issues that might come up. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between what advances an individual and what advances a society. The fact that an individual is a skilled warrior, for instance, does not mean that he should run off starting wars wherever he can. entry into war requires the consideration of a broad number of factors involving the broad range of people in the society. being a skilled warrior requires a vocational education; being able to weight the factors that lead to warfare requires a broader liberal education. --Ludwigs2 16:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First Dog fan mail

Does Bo (dog) receive fan mail from children across the USA, like Socks (cat) and Buddy (dog) did? Did Spot Fetcher, Barney (dog), India (cat) and Miss Beazley (dog) receive fan mail and/or write a book?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If so, it has probably come in handy for paper-training. You might want to start with the White House blog on the subject,[2] and see if there is any followup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What'll it take to enter the Korean Air Force?

Since I'm on medication (celexa), have to disprove asthma with a lung pulmonary test, and somehow get a doctor to take me off of meds for one full year, I don't stand much hope of joining the US Air Force before their age deadline.

I am half-Korean, so the process to become a permanent resident/naturalized dual citizen ought to be more expedient than a normal foreigner's, and I can learn Korean to fluency if I put enough commitment into it.

Now, what are the Korean Air Force's age & health requirements? I would also like to know about their college benefits (GI Bills, etc.) because I hope to still get a package to study in college free of charge even if I'm in another country's air force. Thanks. --70.179.178.5 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it North or South you are planning to join? I assume the smaller but better-equipped one, and would guess that they approximately follow US practice, but perhaps an expert can confirm this? Dbfirs 12:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Korean-American half-race. Whaddya think? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You still need to choose which ideology and part of Korea you prefer. The answers will be very different. Dbfirs 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The South, of course. --70.179.178.5 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did assume that, but assumptions can sometimes be wrong. Dbfirs 11:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You should email them with your questions. Can you visit Korea to attend an open day or recruiting day? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe Korea would be a nicer place to live than the USA, there's no anchor holding you back here. However, you might want to look into how their culture treats foreigners and "half-breeds". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the US Air force rejected you for a fair reason, I believe you could accept that as "the army is not the best place for you." Have you already thought about that? It might sound discouraging at the first glance, but it can also be the beginning of a new path. Quest09 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have served in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. From what I understand, the Korean military is very tough. If you have so many medical problems, I highly doubt you will be certified fit for Korean service. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's really that hard to stand by a line and stare at someone. This is what thousands of people there have to do with their lives every day; you'd think they'd have something better to do. And yes, I'm well aware of the ongoing issues, before anyone tries to lecture me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OP was asking about the Korean Air Force though, so less standing still and more ... flying.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(→ ko:위키백과토론:대사관#Please answer a question about your Air Force on our Reference Desk.) I want to help, but I don't understand the purpose of this question. What is the point of your question? --Idh0854 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Grudges?

I am nearly at the end of my rope for having to put up with long grudges and peers ending friendships at the drop of a trucking hat. I have heard that some Americans even hold grudges for 40 years for something as trivial as yelling at a barking dog that happened to be the grudgeholder's pet, and sometimes, grudges are carried all the way to the grave.

Therefore, what country/ies have the least incidences of long grudges and ending friendships at the drop of a hat? How come? What else will I love about that country? What might I not love about it? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Find the country with the shortest life expectancy, and that should cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never encountered any research into this issue, but if I were to offer an opinion, I would say that Canadians are broadly inclined towards reconciliation rather than recrimination. Jail sentences in Canada tend to be lower here (from what I have read), which could indicate a disposition towards forgiveness. For instance, Vince Li, the Greyhound Bus cannibal and decapitator, was found not guilty for reasons of mental health. And the public accepted that, despite his extraordinarily heinous crime. Vranak (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who his next meal will be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I will hasten to add that he has been remanded to a mental health facility. Vranak (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good thing. I was afraid he was going to go on the "Lecter Circuit". Regarding grudges, I would think that's more of an individual than a cultural thing, although sometimes it has do with who you've had wars against. England and France still don't particularly trust each other, thanks to long memories about wars against each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest a small thing. In my experience, when people are constantly losing friends "at the drop of a ... hat", it is less a quality of their national character, and more a question of how they are interacting with said friends. If the causes of your difficulty are due to something you are doing (without realizing it or meaning to, to be sure, or perhaps in just the way you choose the company you keep), changing countries will probably not affect that very positively. I might suggest finding a way to make sure you have ruled out that possibility before packing your bags. I might recommend talking to someone independent who is trained in such things — a counselor or something like that — to give you a diagnosis of whether the problem is you, them, both, or, perhaps, the country. I very much doubt it is the latter. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98-Not cool-you don't know the requester's experiences or life history. They didn't come here for headshrinkery. It is a valid question-some groups and regions are more hot-blooded and/or hold grudges longer. You should be ashamed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, 98 raises a good and tough-love kind of question. Because if the OP is in fact at least part of the problem, moving somewhere else is only going to make things worse for him - because in addition to being possibly difficult to get along with, he would have the extra baggage of being a "foreigner". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I made an extra effort to make it clear that I didn't know their history and wasn't responding to them personally. But it is in my experience, again, that people who constantly have trouble with friends, work, love, whatever, are usually, in some way, responsible for it. I'm not blaming said people — I think they're often unaware of what they're doing that sours everything, and probably not doing it intentionally. But I would seriously pursue the "perhaps it's me" option before deciding to move to a different country on the vain hope that everyone there will be more friendly. It strikes me as terribly unlikely that some sort of national character involving holding long grudges is behind the phenomena the poster is describing. If it were just that, it seems to me that nobody would have any friends in said country, which seems unlikely. I don't suggest any of this as a way to accuse or blame or offend the original poster, about whom I know nothing. But if someone says, "nobody in this country wants to be friends with me," experience leads me to suspect that the me rather than the country is the thing to examine closely, there. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, a word of advice. Telling others what they should feel, such as "You should be ashamed", is the uncoolest thing imagineable. Please confine your remarks to the content of editors' posts, and leave aisde the personal remarks. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vendetta and feud describe longterm grudges. This is the Reference Desk, not a bulletin board.--Wetman (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be new here. Vranak (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Here's his first recorded edit:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In case some of you haven't noticed, this is the same IP that has given some more info as to what his preferences, likes and dislikes country-wise might be in a previous question: here. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. If he's worried about grudges, I expect that Korea, China, Japan, India, and any kind of Islamic Republic would be off the list. All things considered, Canada might indeed be a good option. They have plenty of Asian women, as I recall. And the fare is much lower to get there. And as left-leaning as they are, there would be plenty of souls to save, Kansas-style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for Japan - living there I didn't get the impression that people would hold eternal grudges, but on the other hand, it's difficult to form real friendships, because as a Caucasian, I was the eternal ridiculously-easy-to-spot foreigner. I did have dear friends there, but after a while having to go through the "I shall be careful around you since you are obviously a bumbling gaijin" thing every single time you meet someone or buy something from a store or ask for information at an info point gets tiresome. But that's just my personal observation. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP has neglected to consider how immigrants are treated. He might discover that the USA overall is a lot more broad-minded than he thinks it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that may all depend. If I can be allowed some more OR, as I said, I did have very close friends in Japan, even if the society as a whole is in an almost omnipresent state of soft nationalism (i.e., you wont get shouted at on the street to get out of the country, you filthy foreigner, but you do get treated differently for being a foreigner). Making the first contact is the biggest obstacle. I did some extensive hitchhiking with an American friend, who happened to be of Taiwanese origin and looked vaguely Japanese - people would stop for us readily, because they assumed he was Japanese, and there would be no problem communicating - the ironic bit being that between the two of us, it was he who had only a basic grasp of Japanese, whereas I could speak the language pretty fluently. Despite this, I could never hope to get any rides if I hitchhiked alone - most people would take one look at my face, think to themselves: "Uhoh, my English is so bad, giving this guy a ride would be awkward" and drive on. My point being the OP might fit in alright and find it easier to break through, depending on what he looks like. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, "holding a grudge" is not a national characteristic, but a human one. Even Canadians can hold grudges (mention the words "Phoenix Coyotes" to someone from Winnipeg and you will see what I mean). Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the "friendly rivalry" between Quebec and the rest of Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean, of course this friendly rivalry? --Jayron32 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oui, that would be the one. I think the OP is probably in a "grass is greener on the other side" mindset, for whatever reason. He may feel at home and welcomed when he goes to places like Korea, but he has to keep in mind he's going there as a tourist. Generally, countries love tourists: They come, they spend money, they leave. When a tourist wants to move there, that's a whole different story. The OP has to be prepared for a "what are you doing here?" mentality, probably almost anywhere in the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We can also hold grudges against Americans, for, well, anything really. We beat you in the War of 1812 and we will bring this up at every opportunity. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you try. And we deny. Status quo ante bellum. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If "we" includes the British, see Battle of New Orleans. However, the USA burned Toronto, and then the British burned D.C., and all was square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And if not for the War of 1812, we wouldn't have a national anthem. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Adam, you can try! The way our grade-school history books are written, most people over here think that the British instigated and then badly lost the war of 1812! APL (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We like to think the war was originally a tie, and we won it in overtime. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't agree with APL — I think the central lessons taught to schoolchildren in America about the War of 1812 are that the British Navy was continuously impressing American sailors into service for the British Navy, which ended up starting the war, and the Brits burned most of Washington, DC to the ground, and then the war ended for some reason. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When I was in school, they told us all that but they failed to tell us that the burning of D.C. was in retaliation for the burning of Toronto. Must have slipped their minds. They also didn't come right and say it, but the war was poorly received in the ratings, perhaps because they couldn't come up with a catchy title. "War of 1812" just doesn't grab you. Plus it went all the way to 1815. Very poor marketing there. Kind of like when they finally released "Window 95" in 1997 or whenever it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

August 24, 1995? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we don't really learn anything about 1812 either; the way we kind of learn it, the Americans crossed the border assuming that the Canadians would rise up against the tyrannical British, but it didn't work out like that, so the Americans started attacking. There were some battles in the Niagara Peninsula, which we won, perhaps with the help of Laura Secord who may or may not have had a cow. Toronto was burned but it was only a little fort at the time, and then some Canadian militia burned down Washington. We won because the Americans failed in their original goal of liberating the Canadian colonies from British repression, or whatever it is they thought they were doing. (Well, I did learn more, actual facts about it, but not until university, and who takes Canadian history in university? Hardly anyone! So most people know what they learned in elementary school and maybe high school.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting way off-topic, but the deal with the War of 1812 was this -- officially, the American objective in the War of 1812 was not to conquer Canada, just like officially the Iraq War was not about oil. James Madison's war message does not mention Canada. Officially, the U.S. declared war on Britain to stop them from interfering with American shipping and helping hostile Indian tribes through trade and armaments. Unofficially, a lot of people were chomping at the bit for war because they thought it would lead to the conquest of Canada (meaning today's Ontario and Quebec). The U.S. achieved its stated goals in the war (largely because the exile of Napoleon eliminated the need for messing with American shipping). The failure to capture Canada was undoubtedly a disappointment to many Americans, but that doesn't equal losing the war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Baroque music

How can I write Baroque-style music? (what keys, intervals, rhythms, instruments, etc.) --J4\/4 <talk> 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Baroque connects to Baroque music, which seems to have a number of technical terms that might help answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And note in particular that the fugue is therein called "a defining baroque form". Deor (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In terms of keys, anything's fair game but be very sparing in your use of any key that has more than 4 sharps or flats. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading in a mathematical-puzzle book, perhaps one of those by Gardener, about a game of centuries ago that would generate baroque-style music easily. Have not been able to find any more details. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When I think baroque, I think minuet as its archetypical form. Those are easy, formulaic in rhythm, time, and measure, and not especially variant in melodic style. As for the key, just stick with something easy for a harpsichord, like C major or G major, use any intervals you like, and use early concerto instruments, especially harpsichord, flutes, violin family, harp, and/or simple woodwinds (i.e. an oboe), horns, and percussion. Don't tie or slur notes in the main melody too much, because a harpsichord can't. Don't be afraid to use more rests than you ordinarily would for contemporary music. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mississippian Language

Do we know what language the Mississippian culture spoke? The article is a little unclear on whether what we term Mississippian culture was a group of relatively homogeneous chiefdoms or if it was more a constellation of related cultures that started farming corn around the same time. 24.106.180.134 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized my question is a little imprecise. I understand from the article that we have no written language from the Mississippians. But based on cultural practices/historical migration do we have any ideas on 1) whether or not the culture spoke one language (meaning, their dialects were mutually intelligible supposing everyone spoke slowly), 2) the family their language(s) belong to, or 3) descendents of their language(s)? 24.106.180.134 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mississippian culture region, broadly defined, covered a large part of eastern North America. Both the linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that many or most of the languages spoken in that area at the time of European contact (1500-1700) had been spoken in or near their historical regions for centuries. Therefore, it is almost certain that within the Mississippian culture region, broadly defined, many different, unrelated languages were spoken. So the region contained, as you say, a constellation of related cultures. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

However, just as there is a (speculative) language like the Proto-Indo-European language, presumably the (as-to-yet unproven and undiscovered mother language) for all members of the Indo-European languages, there would likely be some sort of proto-Mississipian language which, at some point in the past, gave birth to the later languages. Whether or not ALL of the people groups who were part of the Mississipian culture spoke a descedant of this tongue is a different issue entirely. This map can be overlayed with this map to draw some broad conclusions. --Jayron32 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Material culture directly reflects cultural practices, but linguistic ties leave little trace, save in writing and placenames.--Wetman (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Traits of ancient, unwritten and no-longer-spoken languages can be reconstructed (to a point) using the tools of the field of Comparative linguistics. --Jayron32 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't necessarily give any information at all about where said no-longer-spoken languages were spoken. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In Eric Flint's time travel novel "Time Spike," some Cherokee from 1830 who encountered ancient Mississippians thought their speech sounded like Choctaw. Edison (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the same maps as Jayron before he posted them and decided not to speculate, but now I will do so. I also did a little research on the peoples who occupied the area of Cahokia at the time of European contact, the Algonquian-speaking people of the Illinois Confederation. Linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that the Illinois people originated further east, in the Ohio-Michigan area, and that there was a westward displacement of peoples in the Mississippi valley in late precontact times. This is speculative, but I think that the evidence suggests that the people of Cahokia and the Middle Mississippian culture spoke one or more Siouan languages, one of which might have been an ancestor of the Omaha-Ponca language. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's really hard to know whether the Mississippian culture was linguistically unified or not. Mississippian culture#Related modern nations gives an unsourced list of modern nations claimed to be descended from the Mississippian culture; most of the tribes listed there speak either Muskogean languages or Siouan languages. It seems plausible to speculate (but impossible to prove) that the speakers of Proto-Muskogean were part of the Mississippian culture (especially the part labeled "South Appalachian Mississippian" on the map, though that doesn't mean there weren't also speakers of other language families included in the culture too. Pais (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the southern Mississippian groups probably spoke Muskogean languages, perhaps among others. My point was that the archetypal Middle Mississippian culture of the central Mississippi valley, centered on Cahokia, was likely to have been carried by Siouan-speaking peoples whose descendants now live farther west. Pages 24–26 of this source support my hypothesis. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pricing of world oil

If California is opened up for oil drilling and oil is extracted for $4 a barrel, does the oil stay inside the US and be sold cheaper than international oil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.129.221 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is WAY more complicated than that. The price of oil is set by a number of factors; the company or organization responsible for extracting the oil has the ultimate say on how much the oil sells for; also the cartel OPEC sets prices for all of its member countries. I can't think of a single oil company which is so patriotic that it would choose to reduce its own profits merely to sell oil cheaper to the U.S. In fact, that's kinda "robbing Peter to pay Paul", since that would mean that said company would also pay less in taxes, which ends up hurting the U.S. Ultimately, the price for crude oil is set on the open market, and it is set at "whatever the market will bear"; or exactly like just about every other commodity. The article Price of petroleum covers this is some detail. --Jayron32 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As to what would happen with the actual oil, I suppose that, being drilled in Cal and there being a large local demand, it might well be used in Cal to avoid the shipping costs. But, this requires having a sufficient refinery capacity to convert that grade of oil into usable products. I'm not sure if Cal does. If not, that might require shipping to a remote refinery. There are lots of refineries on the Gulf Coast of the US, but getting the oil there cheaply could be problematic. A pipeline would be ideal, if one with excess capacity exists between Cal and there. Trucking it or sending it by train wouldn't be efficient at all. Sending it by ship would require a transit of the Panama Canal. It may well be cheaper to ship it to a refinery abroad than to do that, considering that labor and regulation costs are likely lower there, too.

But, remember that none of this really matters, as we have a global petroleum market, so prices go up and down just about the same everywhere, no matter whether one batch of oil stays on Cal or not. An exception would be if, during a severe crisis, nations started hoarding oil, meaning they passed laws making it illegal to export oil. In such a scenario, those which produce less oil than they need would be in big trouble. If we think this is a possibility, then timing of the wells is critical. You want the wells to be already drilled, but not exhausted, when the crisis hits. Alternatively, we can drill wells now, and cap them, saving them for future emergencies. (Making a producing well from a capped one still takes some time, but not nearly as much as drilling does, and the US does have a "strategic reserve" of gasoline it could use to fill the gap.) Since private companies won't see much short-term profit from this behavior, laws requiring, and paying for, capped wells, would be needed to ensure emergency preparedness. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory, large new supplies would tend to lower the price per barrel of oil worldwide. In reality, if a whole bunch of new, non-OPEC oil found its way on the market then OPEC would lower its production accordingly, so as to drive the price back up again. The whole "dependence on foreign oil" thing regarding U.S. oil reserves is completely political rhetoric. Its better to think of all of the oil in the world ending up in a giant pool, and then countries withdraw from it. The only practical result of increasing oil productions from U.S. sources is in increasing the profits of companies which are involved in exploring, extracting, and transporting that oil, but will have almost no effect on reducing costs for U.S. gasoline consumers, and likely very little effect on "petrodollars" going overseas. The market is just too globalized. The only practical means to reduce "dependence on foreign oil" is not to increase U.S. production, but reduce U.S. demand. Good luck with that. --Jayron32 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I think Jayron's position is pretty solid and realistic; but I will point out that there are numerous points of view from various schools of economics. This issue is pretty complicated. The website The Oil Drum hosts many different well-researched articles and opinion pieces from various industry experts (though many articles are arguably a bit alarmist with regard to the perspectives on peak oil, they are almost always very well researched). The OP might want to read a few articles over there. Here are some very interesting perspectives on American domestic production and demand: A quick review of some current numbers on domestic crude oil stocks and the like (from 2007, with many production and price charts for crude and refined product); How Realistic is EIA's US Domestic Oil Supply and Demand Forecast? (from 2008, a commentary from a president of Chevron regarding whether we will reduce net imports in the next two decades); and while we're at it, here is This Week In Petroleum from the United States Energy Information Agency - a complete rundown of the current situation with respect to domestic production, consumption, and pricing for crude and refined product. The hard numbers are right there - imports are way down (for seasonal reasons, mostly). Regional crude stocks are pretty stationary - almost all regions are operating at capacity, with the exception of the Gulf Coast, which is about the only region that has enough capacity to fluctuate refining throughput as demand changes. So new crude extracted in California would almost certainly have to be sent elsewhere for refining (really meaning a net reduction in imported crude to California). That would mean that a higher percentage of energy brought in to the state would be in the form of refined product; which is less economical. As Jayron pointed out, I think it's safe to say that most petro-economists believe that the best way to reduce price is to reduce demand, not to increase supply. Nimur (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In particular since increased supply (and hence increased consumption) has negative side effects and is unsustainable in the long run. Peak oil may be subject to a lot of debate, but is, at the very least, based on the sound assumption that recoverable supplies are finite. And the longer we increase production, the harder we hit the wall when production declines for lack of resources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above but would add two comments to the questioner: 1) There is no way that an offshore well in California could produce oil at a cost of $4 per barrel. Offshore production costs are always higher than that, and probably closer to a minimum of $40. 2) Even if that well could produce oil at a cost of $40, no oil company would sell it at that price if the global price for oil is higher than $40. The reason is that doing so would cut profits. Companies do not choose to take the maximum possible profit, the market practically forces them to take the maximum possible profit. If they don't, investors will sell the company's stock and buy the stock of companies that maximize their profits. The fall in the company's stock market valuation would make the company's debt larger relative to its valuation and would make it hard for the company to attract the credit that it would need to expand, causing the company to shrink as its oil wells deplete. Incidentally, managers would probably have to take a cut in pay in this context. Finally, a company whose stock valuation falls below the value of its hard assets, as would happen in this case, would attract buyout offers from companies that maximize profits. The remaining shareholders of a company with depressed stock prices would find such offers (almost always at a premium to the listed stock price because the purchaser expects to increase profits) very attractive, and the company would be acquired by a firm that maximizes profits. Because a company's managers have every reason to avoid this scenario, they will maximize profits. Taking this in a different direction, let's say that the United States passes a law saying that U.S.-based companies have to sell oil domestically at a fixed or reduced price. All that this would do would be to disadvantage U.S.-based companies on the global market. It would also be a huge disincentive to developing new facilities in the United States, with the result that the domestic supply of oil would surely drop. Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just to provide some more support to Marco Polo -- the cost of electricity alone at pre-existing on-land oil wells in California is $2-3/barrel.[4] Add in construction, labor, machinery, maintenance, environmental protection, pipelines, etc., and there's probably only a couple million barrels that are viable at today's oil prices. There is untapped oil on the California coast, but it's expensive to get to. --M@rēino 16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of American households without guns?

What percentage of American households have no guns at all? Thanks 92.15.3.168 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States has a cited number of 25% of adults owning a gun; no idea how that breaks down by household rather than by person. --Jayron32 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just individuals, though, correct? It doesn't take into account how many of those individuals own multiple weapons? Corvus cornix_talk 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither does the OP's question. All the OP wants to know is, essentially, how many of American households have any guns in them at all (they asked it the other way around, but its the same question). According to our article, the closest I could find was that 25% of adults were gun owners. A gun owner doesn't become less or more of a gun owner if they own more or less weapons. Your statement, Corvus, makes absolutely no sense. --Jayron32 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict; It's true, multiple guns per owner isn't the issue, multiple gun owners per household is the issue. There are roughly 115 million households in America, and roughly 230 million adults. A quarter of those would be almost exactly half of households with a gun, but many gun owners would live together, so in reality it is difficult to know except that we can be fairly confident it is below 50%. 91.85.169.69 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this Pew survey data, the fraction of households saying they possessed a firearm at home was 33% in 2009 -- down from 45% in 1993. So the fraction not having guns would be 67%. Looie496 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC this evening said there are 90% as many guns as people in the US. I expect that most of the civilian guns in the world are in the US. They said that 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year (suicides, homicides, and accidents). This is like the 9/11 attack times ten every year, or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki every 8 years. . Edison (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Or one years worth of deaths caused by driving every 1.5 years. Or one years worth of deaths caused by obesity every 6 years. Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So Americans are more likely to die by being shot than in a car accident? Wow! 92.24.190.219 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. If Edison is correct, they are 1.5 times more likely to die in an accident caused by driving (a category that includes vehicles uother than cars, by the way). --Anonymous, 01:16 UTC, January 12, 2010.

The article List of countries by gun ownership confirms that number; that is there are 90 guns for every 100 people in the U.S. That doesn't mean that 90% of the people own guns or anything. --Jayron32 03:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the 90% statistic should not be understood to mean that 90% of households have a gun. Gun households would be a far lower percentage, since collectors, hunters, hobbyists and the deranged have may have numerous guns. Also, many of the guns may be antiques or not in condition for firing. Edison (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a graph of % gun ownership against per-capita gun-homicides as given in List of countries by firearm-related death rate - the gun-homicide per-capita rate in the US is about 100 times that of England, where guns are heavily controlled, according to those figures. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

this source says 38% of households have at least one firearm in the house (2004), this study reports a 35% household rate for households including members under 18 (2000). One would expect the rate to be a bit higher for overall households. I'd expect that these numbers vary dramatically depending on the state. In many areas I'd expect the percentage to exceed 60%. You might also be interested in similar literature that's attempted to find correlations between gun ownership and crime. For example, differences in burglary patterns depending on gun ownership.

As an aside, there's been an editor on this page from the same domain as this IP that's had some very strong opinions about gun ownership in the past... let's try to keep this as neutral as possible, eh? We don't need another soap box thread. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The domain of the OP has millions of users who share ISP addresses, and that's rather an unnecessary slur too. 92.24.181.78 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you the OP talking in third person? Your definition of a slur is quite interesting. The previous discussion is here and it involved an IP making an actual slur ("In my country, only the nutters have guns or have any interest in having one. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)"... "Anyone interested in having a gun ought to be thereby regarded as being unfit to have one, a Catch 22. 92.28.242.164 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)"). I also actually answered your (?) question, with cites. You're welcome. Shadowjams (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, more mud throwing - is this necessary? Neither of the above are slurs, as I'm sure you know; unless you regard criticising guns as heretical or that other opinions are not allowed. "Your definition of a slur" - nobodies made any definition; another straw man arguement I think. Please do not side-track into personalities. Keep to the topic. Digging up extracts from other questions just to attack people is not good. 92.24.190.219 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is harm in expressing our personal opinions here... as long as we remember to respect those who disagree with our opinions. (Who was it who said, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?) Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lofty quotes not needed. This isn't an internet forum though. Just trying to remind people of the RD's purpose. Shadowjams (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Voltaire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal ownership figures for the UK are in this BBC report. Since there are about 25 million households in the UK (which includes Northern Ireland) that equates to just under 1 gun per 1,000 households. There were 39 fatal injuries in the UK from crimes involving firearms in 2008-2009; the lowest level recorded in 20 years. That doesn't include suicides and accidents. There's no point in trying to compare the fatality per owning household rates in the USA and UK because the cultures are so different. You could compare them across European countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how different the cultures may or may not be, if you havnt got a gun then you cannot shoot anyone. How do you calculate 1 in 1000 please? I make it 1 in 180 households (compared with US 1 in 3), which is more or less consistent with the 100-fold decrease in the per-capita gun-homicide rate of England compared with the US. 92.24.190.219 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I did it on a spreadsheet, but must have added a zero to the number of households. 200,000 people licensed to own guns in England, Wales and Scotland, assume they all do have one or more guns, assume one owner per household. 25,000,000 households in UK. So I was a whole order of magnitude out, sorry. About 1 in 100 households. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While about 33% of U.S. households have one or more guns, the corresponding figure for Canada is 22% of households, per our Gun politics in Canada. So, proportionally, the United States has a 50% higher rate of households with guns. The U.S. homicide rate is 5.4 per 100,000. The corresponding figure for Canada is 1.9 per 100,000, a rate only slightly higher than that of the UK, per our Crime in the United States. If household gun ownership were the only factor explaining the difference in homicide rates, then we would expect Canada to have a rate roughly two thirds of the U.S. rate, or about 3.6 per 100,000. However, Canada's homicide rate is only one third that of the United States. Clearly, gun ownership rates do not completely explain high homicide rates in the United States. Other cultural factors must be at play. Marco polo (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not true to say that the per capita homicide rate is only slightly higher in Canada than the UK - in fact its about 50% higher, according to List of countries by intentional homicide rate. (And note the decrease in the UK homicide rate with the introduction of tougher gun laws). 'Cultural factors' are only minor when explaining the different killing rates: its having a gun that is by far the very most powerful influence. 92.24.190.219 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That is only true if you assume a linear relationship without offset. Note that this is an argument on the principle - I'm fairly certain there are other effects at work. But the fact that X and Y are not always at the same proportion does not mean that Y does not wholly depend on X. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When comparing US and Canada the rates of ownership in urban and in rural households would be interesting to see. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparing our article List of countries by intentional homicide rate with the data on this site, a number of interesting comparisons can be made that tend to disprove the idea of a direct correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. For example, Norway, Saudi Arabia, and (believe it or not) Lebanon all apparently have significantly lower homicide rates than the United Kingdom despite having rates of private gun ownership comparable with Canada. On the other hand, El Salvador has the world's highest homicide rate despite having a rate of gun ownership much lower than Canada. Now, I happen to believe that gun laws in the United States (where I live) are much too lax and that it is too easy for guns to end up in criminal hands here. However, I also think that there are other cultural factors that create a tendency to try to solve problems through violence and that limiting gun ownership does nothing to address those factors and would probably have a disappointingly small impact on the U.S. homicide rate. Marco polo (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Got the figures please? 92.24.181.36 (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They are available on the linked sites. Our job here is primarily to provide references. If questioners want detailed information, they are welcome to click the links to those references and collect it themselves. Marco polo (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The figues I got from the above links for per capita gun ownership and per capita gun-homicides are United States 88.8 7.07, Canada 30.8 0.76, Australia 15.0 0.44, and England and Wales 6.2 0.07. Even without doing the calculations that is a very clear correlation. Your selective picking out a few outliers and ignoring the rest is less than unconvincing. 92.15.23.20 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Selectively picking out just the major English-speaking countries is unconvincing. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the world. Why is its relatively low gun-ownership rate irrelevant? Marco polo (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it again. 92.15.23.20 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of gun-ownership in the United Kingdom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

They also have the highest baseball bat ownership. 86.164.67.42 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN report on politics vs sports

I remember that CNN did a report about a team would win a championship comparing to a politician winning an election like for example when cincinnati reds won a world series they said that a politician from ohio won an election or something like that. I wanted to read that report. Do they have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.166 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an item from snopes.com on the Washington Redskins/presidential election phenomenon, which has worked for every election since 1936 except 2004: [5]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, WP:WHAAOE - we have an article on the Redskins Rule. Nimur (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)