Miscellaneous desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

March 22

I amsterdam

Hi all,

All the people going to Amsterdam make a picture of themselves close to those human-size letters reading "I amsterdam" with the "I am" part being red and the rest white. I haven't found any information about this "sculpture" on Wikipedia. Someone would be nice enough to start an article about it? Thx a lot. Wikipedia rocks!

Eric from France, writing from Dubai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.153.133 (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is meant to be read as "I am Amsterdam" ? StuRat (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what Eric is talking about. Richard Avery (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it is between the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum. Does the commons have any images of it? You could probably email either museum for more details on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from VVV, the Dutch tourist board, in Amsterdam, see here. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

What is my political philosophy ?

I'd like to list some of my beliefs, and see if they fit into any existing political philosophy (US citizen here, but the answers need not be limited to US political parties):

1) I seem Libertarian in some aspects, such as believing in the legalization of drugs and prostitution. However, I do think they should be regulated, and kept away from kids. Gambling should be legal, but not state supported, as in state lotteries.

2) I think the legal and religious practices of marriage should be decoupled, so that a legal "domestic partnership" can exist between any group of people, and a religious "marriage" should only be subject to the rules of your religion.

3) I believe that the movement of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich is a serious problem, eventually destablizing a nation, and should be countered with a heavily progressive tax system (up to 90% at the top bracket). Furthermore, I believe the poor should be helped, but not just with cash handouts. Since they are often poor at handling money, they should instead be given benefits like free healthy food (not junk food or alcohol), free child care, free job training, and a negative income tax (a subsidy to their paychecks). When unemployment is high, I believe government works programs should employ them. I also believe free college should be offered to any citizen who can get accepted at a legitimate, accredited institution.

4) I believe in a reciprocal trade policy, not unrestricted free trade. That is, if a nation doesn't accept your exports freely, don't accept theirs freely either. We should also only trade with true democracies. Thus, we should phase out all trade with China, unless they become fully democratic.

5) I believe in disarmament, but not unilaterally.

6) I believe in using military force when attacked (such as in Afghanistan, but not Iraq) or to prevent genocide (as in Rwanda), but not "to protect national interests".

7) I believe that broadcast TV should be regulated more, to prevent kids from seeing violence and obscenity. Advertisements should also be regulated more, to prevent false claims. Cable can continue, unregulated, as long as parents have the ability to block stations they don't want. The Internet should remain as unregulated as it currently is.

8) I believe that global warming is caused by humans, but that any attempt to stop it is futile, and our resources would be better spent in relocating people who live in low-lying coastal areas.

9) I believe that big businesses are basically amoral, and will rip people off at the first opportunity, unless prevented from doing so by government regulation with fines steep enough to impact profits.

10) I believe in environmental protection. However, since the benefit of protecting the environment is shared by all, so should the burden be. That is, it's wrong to tell people they now live in a special environmental area, and are thus prevented from doing as they please, unless they are compensated accordingly.

11) I oppose taking property by eminent domain except in cases where no other option exists (like when building roads). Taking private property to give it to a business or private owner in the belief that they will generate more tax revenue is something I specifically oppose.

12) I oppose tax breaks for large corporations used to lure them into one state or prevent them from leaving.

13) I believe the tax system should be greatly simplified. I'd like to see the money taken as withholdings be the end of it, with no additional need for tax forms filed every year.

14) I believe in the separation of church and state. That is, no state support for religion, and specifically no equal footing for "intelligent design" with evolution in classrooms.

15) I believe that equating spending money with free speech is a fundamental error, and that unlimited donations to support political candidates is dangerous and should be stopped by public funding of candidates.

16) I believe that the "equal time" doctrine should be restored for broadcasters, thus reversing the trend of media to become heavily biased, which is polarizing the nation.

17) I believe in direct democracy, slowly implemented, so as to gradually take power away from "representatives". California's proposal system is a good start (true, it's led to some bad laws, but people will learn from that, given enough time).

18) I believe in stronger consumer protection laws, such as requiring the total amount payed for an item to be listed before, and in equal size, to any info on payment amounts.

19) I believe in free health care, but not coverage for abortions. (They should be legal, just not publicly funded.)

20) I believe traffic fines should be proportional to income, so rich people would be as affected by them as the poor.

21) I oppose absurd penalties for media piracy (like the quarter million dollar fine and 5 years in prison for one not-for-profit offense). The penalty should be no more than for shoplifting an item of identical value.

22) I oppose the concept that a police officer is a more reliable witness than the accused. A policeman's statement should not be taken as fact, unless backed up with evidence like video.

23) I oppose the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity". I support "guilty and insane", instead, meaning that they should be treated for their insanity, but, if ever found to be sane, should then serve out their time in prison.

24) I oppose the Exclusionary Rule. If evidence was obtained improperly, then the court should have the power to punish those who did so, but not to exclude the evidence. That is, determining who is, and is not, guilty, is more important.

25) I believe gun ownership should be tightly regulated.

Everything I listed above as free is, of course, really tax-supported. I realize that many of my ideas are considered quite radical, and don't want to debate the merits of each idea, just where it falls on the political spectrum. StuRat (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would technically classify your philosophy as "eclectic", which is a fancy word for "all over the map". Looked at closely, it has a number of self-contradictions. But that's probably true for all of us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd fit in quite well in the UK, Stu, but as to which party... Maybe New Labour (i.e. the parliamentary labour party in its present incarnation). There's a site somewhere which will locate your views on a chart, blowed if I could remember where it is, but surely someone will come up with it! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few now. Just Google "political test".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in anything you come up with. I'm in the UK, and I share most (but not all - eg, funded abortion, global warming prevention) of the above views, and I'm currently wondering how best to act in pursuit of these views. I describe myself as a statist, and a believer in a mixed economy. But all three parties seem to be in favour of state capitalism (companies providing services to and for the state in an environment of managed competition) rather than a mixed economy as I understand it (vital services provided by state monopoly, other services left to the free market). The two coalition parties also seem committed to a US-Republican-style 'small state', even when that's against their other interests. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see elements of nationalism, protectionism, social conservatism, both economic conservatism and elements of socialism (which is perplexing). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: which elements do you perceive as nationalist? I agree that all the other elements are present, and I don't find them perplexing. (I'd characterise my main points of dissent from this list as tending to characterise me as socially liberal rather than conservative.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not granular enough to reflect all the nuances of your views, but you could try taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz which is here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to "group" the various random points into the most likely philosophies and see whether there are any trends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it now be my turn to share with all who will read it my opinions on myriad issues or could that possibly be construed as being in violation of WP:SOAP? Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take your name and add -ism or -arian. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRationalizationism! —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your beliefs are "moderate liberal" by U.S. standards, and would fit in well with the U.S. Democratic party. You do have a few quirky opinions, but that tends to be common for any American who's not a professional politician, and therefore fears losing their job for saying something too bold (lately, for instance, American politicians have been rather reluctant to talk about big changes to the criminal justice system like the ones you advocate). --M @r ē ino 14:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 is libertarian position. Mainstream American liberals (Democrats) don't support legalization of drugs and prostitution, but libertarians do support.
3 is socialist position. Even Democrats don't believe wealth is "moved" from poor to riches.
4 is moderate nationalist position (I may be wrong)
7 is a moderate social conservative position (because a lot of conservative organizations also support this type of regulation)
9 is a moderate Marxist position. Marxists view capitalism as inherently amoral, You believe big business to be "basically amoral".
14 and 19 are liberal positions in American sense.
17 is moderate anarchist position.
22 is libertarian position.
23 is conservative position (I may be wrong)

Verdict Overall, your beliefs fit the definition of a left-leaning American liberal. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested above there are plenty of online ideological tests available. Those are written by professionals. Those tests will help you better understanding yourself, rather than waiting for the opinions of ref desk volunteers, as most of us are not experts. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more points:

26) I'm opposed to "protected classes". Thus, minorities shouldn't be given any extra consideration when applying to college or for a job (indeed, any institution which does so should be sued for discrimination). However, if they are discriminated against, they should have the same right to sue as anyone else. Note there also shouldn't be special laws for police officers, allowing them to carry guns where private citizens can't, allowing them to use highway turn-arounds where others can't (anyone should be able to, but in an emergency only), or prescribing more severe penalties for assaulting or killing a police officer. Handicapped access and parking should be optional, not government enforced.

27) I'm opposed to overly strict laws with optional enforcement by authorities. If out-of-towners who drive through a speed trap are given tickets for speeding, then police officers or the mayor who drive through must be given tickets if they speed, too. This should be enforced by the next level of government up.

28) I'm opposed to capital punishment, but only because I don't trust the American justice system to determine who is guilty. I generally believe in the "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth" approach to measuring the severity of a punishment.

29) I don't believe in the concept of the victimless crime. If there's no victim, then there's no crime.

30) Crimes which affect multiple people should be charged as multiple crimes (one trial will suffice). Thus a stock-trader who swindles a million people should be given a million consecutive sentences, as should a terrorist who kills many.

31) No taxation without representation. Thus, special taxes on non-residents should be prohibited.

32) I believe corporate executive compensation is out of control. Specifically, members of the board of directors of one company should not be employed by another company where somebody employed by the first company is on their board of directors, as they can then give each other raises ad infinitum. Executive compensation should be decided by votes of all stockholders.

33) I oppose conscription in the military, except as a last-ditch effort to save a nation facing defeat and occupation.

And thanks for the replies so far. As for political quizzes, I'm suspicious they might try to steer me into whatever philosophy the authors support. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

26 is a libertarian position.
The second part of 28 ("eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth" approach) is a typical libertarian position. The libertarian concept of justice is based on proportionality of crime and punishment. Libertarians don't believe the state has moral right to determine who is guilty. On the other hand, based on proportionality of crime and punishment, a libertarian would argue capital punishment is justified in case of murder. So absolute opposition to capital punishment, even in case of murder, is not libertarian position.
29 is also a libertarian position. According to libertarianism, only violation of non-aggression axiom is a crime. And aggression can be committed only against an individual, not an abstract collective. Thus the concept of crime against the state is void in libertarian jurisprudence. If a person voluntarily wishes to sell sex for money, or a person voluntarily decides to take drugs for personal use, no crime is committed against any individual.

Being a libertarian myself, I share with you the views mentioned in 26, 28 and 29. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd also be interested in hearing if these opinions match any Canadian party, as I might move there some day. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada it would be very close to the New Democratic Party. They are the official opposition now, but have only governed three provinces, never the federal government.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually shocking how close your views are to the status quo in Canada, specifically:

1) 53% percent of Canadians support cannabis legalization while cannabis is already de facto legal for small amounts in Vancouver.

2) Polygamy was unfortunately shot down earlier this year, but Canada was the fourth country to support same-sex marriage.

5) + 6) The Canadian military is mostly for peace keeping purposes (except for Afghanistan). Some people do argue that Afghanistan is justified since it's UN-sanctioned and that 26 Canadians died in 9/11.

19) Canada's universal health care cover abortions, so this one is half and half.

25) Canadian gun laws are draconian compared to their American counterparts. It's hard, but still possible to own guns as a civilian in Canada.

28) No capital punishment in Canada.

Anonymous.translator (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess I need to learn the words to "Oh, Canada" now. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, considering the Conservative Party of Canada is currently in power, and this incarnation of the Party is unusually conservative, and the Liberal and New Democratic parties aren't a particularly effective opposition at the moment, some of these things might change. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, it might help to divide the list into two, distinguishing (wherever possible) between the moral and the pragmatic: not that I think some of them are not based on moral principles, but I'd bet that you could be argued out of some of them on the grounds that adopting them would in practice have effects that you'd consider bad. I've had some sharp changes in my specific policy positions without changing my fundamental views. — And may I suggest putting the list(s) in User space, inviting comment on the associated Talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I added it to my talk page: User_talk:StuRat#What_is_my_political_philosophy_.3F. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

effects of antibotics

I was wondering if antobotics can cause nausea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.230.39 (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some certain side affectscaused by antibiotics, but you are better off speaking to your Doctor or pharmacist for full information. Also, check the label, maybe there are warnings on there too. Mr little irish 10:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a pretty wide range of side-effects that can be caused by antibiotics. It's also entirely possible to be allergic to certain antibiotics.

Typically a patient would want to talk to a doctor if symptoms like that showed up and if the doctor thinks it's serious they can sometimes switch the patient to a different antibiotic with different (hopefully much weaker) side-effects. APL (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the nausea could be caused by a completely unrelated illness. Which is generally why medical questions of this sort should be answered with nothing more than a "We don't answer medical questions, please go see your doctor instead" type of reply. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was what both answers contained. The question was direct, and an answer was given, and it was advised in both answers to seek medical advice. Mr little irish 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you don't need to run off to a doctor and just want to learn a bit about the topic, you might start with the gut bacteria article, especially the section Gut_bacteria#Effects_of_antibiotic_use. --M @r ē ino 14:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that inactive ingredients in the antibiotic, like preservatives, might also cause a reaction. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any drug can cause any number of side effects. There should have been a detailed-info sheet when you were issued the drug, which should list potential side effects. That's a starting point, but if the info sheet does not square with your experience (or maybe even if it does), a call to your doctor is in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Saints bounty scandal...were LAWS broken?

Aside from being punished by the NFL, are any of the people involved subject to prosecution? Because these games were in many states, could the FBI be involved in investigations? Also, what about lawsuits by players who were injured? Thank you. -Rich Peterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.194.129 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 198.189.194.129 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] [2] [3] [4]. Or do a search for 'New Orleans Saints bounty criminal' which is how I found these links. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks198.189.194.129 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]